reasons not to re-elect Bush

Captn · Sep 19, 2004, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToshiroOC

Captn, I don't suppose you can try and refute his points instead of calling what he said 'liberalism' and acting as if that was denunciation enough?

Proof is in his posting

BWX · Sep 19, 2004, 04:38 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWX
He (Neon) would make a better president than Kerry. At least Neon isn't a two faced liar that changes his story every 5 seconds.. You know I'm right!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom

No, you're not right, but that's not the point. I was joking with Neon.

What am I not right about? Kerry is a 2 faced flip-flopping liar, everyone knows that.. If you disagree with that, you must be just plain out of touch.. My point is that an honest person who sticks with his beliefs is better than any flip flopping liar. ALL politicians are liars, some much worse than others, that is why people hate them..

Captn · Sep 19, 2004, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWX
He (Neon) would make a better president than Kerry. At least Neon isn't a two faced liar that changes his story every 5 seconds.. You know I'm right!

What am I not right about? Kerry is a 2 faced flip-flopping liar, everyone knows that.. If you disagree with that, you must be just plain out of touch.. My point is that an honest person who sticks with his beliefs is better than any flip flopping liar. ALL politicians are liars, some much worse than others, that is why people hate them..

I have to agree with all of the above......

Dom · Sep 19, 2004, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWX
He (Neon) would make a better president than Kerry. At least Neon isn't a two faced liar that changes his story every 5 seconds.. You know I'm right!

What am I not right about? Kerry is a 2 faced flip-flopping liar, everyone knows that.. If you disagree with that, you must be just plain out of touch.. My point is that an honest person who sticks with his beliefs is better than any flip flopping liar. ALL politicians are liars, some much worse than others, that is why people hate them..

You are wrong in saying Neon would be a better president than Kerry, for one. Which is not the issue.

Bush has changed his story many times, if you disagree with that, you must just be plain out of touch.

Dom · Sep 19, 2004, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captn

According to WHO? The Bible states Adam & Eve NOT Adam & Steve ! Gays should NOT & will NOT be allowed to marry, PERIOD!

LOL, Adam and Eve? This is not about religion. That is an issue of fate, not fact.

If I am a Liberal, you are a homophobe. Let's keep the name calling out of this Forum, shall we?

BTW, please reduce your signature size to no more than 400x100px and no more than 5 lines of text with image. Thanks.

digitalwanderer · Sep 19, 2004, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captn

According to WHO? The Bible states Adam & Eve NOT Adam & Steve ! Gays should NOT & will NOT be allowed to marry, PERIOD!

OMG, since when did an old and innaccurate book-o-fairy tales become the basis for our country's legislation?

Oh wait, that's right....ever since Emperor George stole our country and was appointed President.

Dom · Sep 19, 2004, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitalwanderer

OMG, since when did an old and innaccurate book-o-fairy tales become the basis for our country's legislation?

Oh wait, that's right....ever since Emperor George stole our country and was appointed President.

According to the Bible we shouldn’t say, "Oh, my God!" We must always celebrate the Sabbath and listen to our parents. Don't forget you can't have sex with multiple woman, or steal, or lie.

Unless you repent of course, then all your sins are forgiven! Under his logic I guess if we kill soneone and then say we're sorry to the court, we can go free.

GutterPunk · Sep 19, 2004, 11:47 AM

Dom thats total crap, you dont apologize to the courte and ask to be forgiven you do it to God through prayer silly.

For Gay marriage, holy cow, I think it is wrong and we cannot produce within 1 sex therefore being anatomically wrong. Its just not right, humans cannot live having sex within their own sex. we would die off so i do not support it. It isn't what we were created for.

UN took bribes within the oil for food thing. They were busted... so corrupt, and we used to fund them so heavily yet they are pretty much just another group of turncoats.

Dom · Sep 19, 2004, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GutterPunk

Dom thats total crap, you dont apologize to the courte and ask to be forgiven you do it to God through prayer silly.

For Gay marriage, holy cow, I think it is wrong and we cannot produce within 1 sex therefore being anatomically wrong. Its just not right, humans cannot live having sex within their own sex. we would die off so i do not support it. It isn't what we were created for.

UN took bribes within the oil for food thing. They were busted... so corrupt, and we used to fund them so heavily yet they are pretty much just another group of turncoats.

I know it's no anotomicallly correct and that they can't reprduce within each other, but that's not the point. They are still just as human as everyone else and are equal beings.

We wouldn't die off, we are not all gay, the species would propagate. Homosexuality has been around for I don't know how long, perhaps since early man. Homosexuality has been a part of our world for millennia and the world's population has only grown and will continue to do so.

You could even argue the point that homosexuality could be a part of human evolution. Perhaps if homosexuality continues evolution will turn humans into a-sexual beings, who knows.

Falstaff · Sep 19, 2004, 03:36 PM

In reference to the first post, this is all humour and a farce like Michael Moores movie. If you believe it in the literal and think Michael Moore is a documentary director then you can remain happy in your own private Idaho

Dom · Sep 19, 2004, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fallang_jeff

In reference to the first post, this is all humour and a farce like Michael Moores movie. If you believe it in the literal and think Michael Moore is a documentary director then you can remain happy in your own private Idaho

It may have been posted in a humorous manner but that does not void the validity of some of the points.

Nacht · Sep 19, 2004, 05:36 PM

gay marriage...i just dont know...but i do believe that gay couples shouldnt be allowed to adopt/have children. for me, it's not really an issue of them having the right to...but an issue of taking away that child's right to have a normal life...

Dom · Sep 19, 2004, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nacht

gay marriage...i just dont know...but i do believe that gay couples shouldnt be allowed to adopt/have children. for me, it's not really an issue of them having the right to...but an issue of taking away that child's right to have a normal life...

What is normal? Is normal a man and a woman getting married, having a child, and living happily everafter? You know that rarely happens. Divorce is more common, broken homes are more common.

I think all a child would care about is having two people that love him, period. I also think he would know he would be lucky to have one parent to love him, let alone two. Do you think a child really cares about whether or not he has a straight couple or a gey couple as his parents?

These children whom come from broken homes, homes that their mom and dad made, not a man and man, or woman and woman made. These adopted children may be scared already from abusive parents. They may never be able to have a "normal life". At least they should have the chance to be cared by two people whom love them, gay or straight.

drakesteakn · Sep 19, 2004, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GutterPunk

Dom thats total crap, you dont apologize to the courte and ask to be forgiven you do it to God through prayer silly.

Captn · Sep 19, 2004, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fallang_jeff

In reference to the first post, this is all humour and a farce like Michael Moores movie. If you believe it in the literal and think Michael Moore is a documentary director then you can remain happy in your own private Idaho

LMAO

ToshiroOC · Sep 19, 2004, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captn

LMAO

Captn, this post adds NOTHING to the conversation at all. Your other posts don't either. If you want to prove a point, prove it! If you want to comment on something, comment usefully! If you cannot add to these debates then you have no business being in them at all, if you catch my drift.

digerati · Sep 19, 2004, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom

Marriage between a man and a woman is not different than a marriage between a gay couple. Men and women have equal rights. Men have the right to marry, as do women. Therefore, men can marry men, and women, women. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that gays are second-class citizens.

Not really. A gay man has just as much rights as a straight man. A gay man can marry a woman just as equally as a straight man lol

Dom · Sep 19, 2004, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ^_^

Not really. A gay man has just as much rights as a straight man. A gay man can marry a woman just as equally as a straight man lol

But wouldn't you agree the right to marry is an agreement between two people and not necessarily between a woman and man? If a woman can marry a man why can a man not marry a man, or woman a woman?

To say men may only marry women and vise versa is infringing on a person's right to chose whom they marry.

digerati · Sep 19, 2004, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom

But wouldn't you agree the right to marry is an agreement between two people and not necessarily between a woman and man? If a woman can marry a man why can a man not marry a man, or woman a woman?

To say men may only marry women and vise versa is infringing on a person's right to chose whom they marry.

When you choose to live under a government, you choose to follow their laws, to be governed. Now that's the way the laws are now. They should be allowed to change if the need arises, so a constitutional ban is just stupid. But for now, give them equal rights under a different name, civil union.

Nacht · Sep 19, 2004, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom

What is normal? Is normal a man and a woman getting married, having a child, and living happily everafter? You know that rarely happens. Divorce is more common, broken homes are more common.

I think all a child would care about is having two people that love him, period. I also think he would know he would be lucky to have one parent to love him, let alone two. Do you think a child really cares about whether or not he has a straight couple or a gey couple as his parents?

These children whom come from broken homes, homes that their mom and dad made, not a man and man, or woman and woman made. These adopted children may be scared already from abusive parents. They may never be able to have a "normal life". At least they should have the chance to be cared by two people whom love them, gay or straight.

I believe that such a scenario would be detrimental to the development of a child.

GutterPunk · Sep 19, 2004, 10:24 PM

homosexuality has been recorded back in biblical times so its nothing new... but if we all turn gay its not going to work haha

Dom · Sep 19, 2004, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GutterPunk

homosexuality has been recorded back in biblical times so its nothing new... but if we all turn gay its not going to work haha

Well, if we're all not gay by now I'm sure we'll be fine. The human race is more likely to be wiped out by self-destruction than by everybody being gay and not propagating.

digerati · Sep 19, 2004, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom

Well, if we're all not gay by now I'm sure we'll be fine. The human race is more likely to be wiped out by self-destruction than by everybody being gay and not propagating.

I know I'm going to make my wife birth 8 children minimum, I need to counter-balance the gay population!

^ If I meet someone that extreme I'm going to beat them with a gay stick lol

The_Neon_Cowboy · Sep 20, 2004, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom

Neon, you make less and less sense each time you post. I do not know where you get your numbers and facts from, [color=red](CNN, Fox NEWS, TV News)[/color] but I doubt they're anymore reputable than 9/11 conspiracy theory sites.[color=red]...[/color]

[color=red]you mean were you read ? j/k[/color]

Marriage between a man and a woman is not different than a marriage between a gay couple. Men and women have equal rights. Men have the right to marry, as do women. Therefore, men can marry men, and women, women. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that gays are second-class citizens.

[color=red]Ok then marrage between ,a man and man or worman and woman is fine, now what about the bi [/color][color=red]sexuals[/color][color=red] your not going to deny them to are you? So Now you go man+man+woman or woman + woman +man or man+ man + man or woman +woman + woman... [/color]

[color=#ff0000]Now you've got 3 person marrages!... and no you can't avoid it unless you avoid the man=man or woman +woman marrages.[/color]

[color=#ff0000]Now what about the people that want o marry thier children? or farm animals? got keep them happy to... so it end up in a total mokery of the term marrage.[/color]

[color=#ff0000]Wich is a RELEGOIUS thing, In said religions a marrage is between a man and a woman only and gay ness is a SIN. How odd to use the LAW to twist religion... [/color]

If marriage is a religious thing as you say it is, then no marriage should be performed by a state. Due to separation of church and state.

[color=red]So you have never relised the constutition, the bill of right comair it to the biable wrongs and beleafes the sate was founded on relegoius belifes! [/color][color=red]Marrage is a religious institiution[/color]
[color=red]Marrage came way before the USA even existed. Just becouse it's been adaopted by the state does not make it so... they "legaly recognise marrage" nothing more. And anoy one with much faith doesnt do it before a judge they do it in fount of a priest![/color]

You have almost no basis for augment. If you don't think a judge has the jurisdiction to marry a couple regardless of state law, then you have either no respect or understanding of American law. Furthermore, to suggest that because a judge allows a gay couple to wed, he/she must too be gay is ignorant.

[color=red]jurisdiction given by the state yes , relegiously NO!!! unless the judge is also a PRIEST![/color]

You also obviously don't understand that states can have different laws, such as the death penalty and three strike laws.

[color=red]$%&#& LAW it's religion I don't care how it's been adaopted into law[/color]

The fact is that if you actually did research you would find out that most divorces are between men and women. And that spousal abuse and infidelity are almost completely something that only straight couples do.

[color=red]Again? I don't care! nor did I bring that topic up! The point of my mention in the so called eyes of god there IS NO DEVORSE you are married till one of you DIE! A king added devorse to the religoius table and started his own church becouse he still was fond of his wif but tired of her and wanted another. He didn't what to exerise his other option to have his wife exicuted! Other wise there would be no devorse. Marrage is "TILL DEATH DO YOU PART" Literally.[/color]

If you think we should amend the constitution to ban gay marriage, then perhaps we should amend it to ban certain types of firearms too. And make all laws the same in every state.

[color=red]No, I don't see states making a mockey of firearms or laws nor do I see one state making firearm laws for all 50 states, in many cases the judical brach makes laws! and that was never ment to be! thats for the senates etc to deside and vote on. So like I said in many matters a judge is like a king! one person making law for all 50 states! thats bull![/color]

You cannot have one without the other, Neon.
[color=red]? hmm you lost me[/color]

...

Quote: