reasons not to re-elect Bush

BWX

You disputed all of his claims right there..

And you misspelled reference above ---> for ^_^'s comment about Neon's spelling.

BWX

[COLOR=DarkOrange] n.
1 Something normal; the standard:
2 The usual or expected state,


Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities

Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern[/COLOR]





Why 2 people? Why not 4 or 5? I could argue that 7 wives and 3 husbands is better, because more parents is better.

Normal is what "most" people accept in society.. Most people do not accept 2 gay guys (or more than 2 parents) raising a child, that's just the way it is. It is not "Normal."

Dom

Nope, I was disputing his above post about gays, which contained nothing about the UN food scandal.

In his post in which he did mention the UN I asked him where he got his information from, he didn't provide a verifiable source.

digerati

In many places other than Western culture, a child is raised by the entire village, or sent to a different family to learn a skill at 14, and many other different forms of raising children and families. Get the ideology of a standard world-wide nuclear family out of your head.

Dom

America was not founded on the premise of everyone doing everything the same way, was it? I thought America was about not conforming to the norm.

If America did what the British did there would be no America. America was founded on the belief that freedom is absolute and eveyone is born with it. And as long as it does not break the law you can do what you want.

There's no law against being gay, nor straight. Why should a straight couple be entiled to marry each other and a gay couple not?

Since when did not being normal or socially acceptable become a crime?

Al_Vampyre

Neon,

I just want to raise a couple (no pun intended) of points with regards to this and its clarification rather than argument ...

Concerning divorce....

1 - Divorce was NOT 'invented' by Henry VIII - he was divorced twice, the first time with the blessing of the pope (his first wife) and on the second occasion (his 4th wife) the pope's blessing was not forthcoming so he made himself the head of the Anglican church (the Church of England) which the reigning monarch has been the head of since his time.

2 - The laws for divorce are clearly stated in The Old Testament

Deuteronomy 24:1
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give [it] in her hand, and send her out of his house.

Deuteronomy 24:2
And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's [wife].

Deuteronomy 24:3
And [if] the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth [it] in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her [to be] his wife;

Deuteronomy 24:4
Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that [is] abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance.

and then clarified by Jesus in the New Tesatament

Matthew 5:32
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

(Both quotations from the authorised King James Version)

On the subject of gay marriage, I understand your position (I disagree with it but I still understand it) you have every right to accept the bible's teachings as the way you wish to live your life...but no right to expect everyone else to accept your beliefs as law. The two are, or at least should be, two seperate issues. According to the Jesus you are expected to follow the laws of your country unless those laws directly contravene your religious beliefs.

Mark 12:13 And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.
14 And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute [NKJV: pay taxes] to Caesar, or not?
15 Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it.
16 And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's.
17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

and according to Peter...

1 Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

If the two were the same then no such exhoratation would be necessary. To suggest that your (or anyone else's) religious beliefs should be used as the arbitrater of the law of the land is I'm afraid both nonsensical and unbiblical.

Danhill

I agree.

digerati

It's not against the law to be gay. There was no law stopping gay marriage, there was just no law for it. Leave it at that, but don't make a law against it.

BWX

"It's too bad you refuse to substantiate any of your claims, Neon. "

You said "ANY" of his claims, that means all of them, not just some of them-
Also, it isn't any different than the original post- none of those are substantiated with any proof, why not say the same thing to drakesteakn About all this crap? It is called bias...

[COLOR=Green]
>Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:

>

>Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's

>daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him

>and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden"

>diversion.

>

>Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade

>with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international

>harmony.

>

>The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our

>highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against

>Iraq.

>

>A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but

>multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind

>without regulation.

>

>Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals

>and Hillary Clinton.

>

>The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in

>speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

>

>If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't

>have sex.

>

>A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our

>long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and

>money.

>

>Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy.

>Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

>

>HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests

>of the public at heart.

>

>Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk

>science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

>

>A president lying about an extramarital affair is an

>impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist

>support for a war in which thousands die is solid

>defense policy.

>

>Government should limit itself to the powers named in

>the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages

>and censoring the Internet.

>

>The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle

>trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of

>our business.

>

>Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime,

>unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an

>illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.

>

>You support states' rights, which means Attorney

>General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter

>initiatives they have the right to adopt.

>

>What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital

>national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is

>irrelevant.[/COLOR]

Nacht

lol...and the powder keg has exploded.

i would HATE growing up with two dads. you would be ridiculed for it, and probably have a very skewed viewpoint on everything. it is unnatural, and wrong. it shouldnt exist.

Dom

If that's how you want to interpret what I said, then okay. I said "any" and at the time he didn't provide any proof to his claims. I think you are taking what I said far too literally.

The reason why I didn't ask Drakesteakn for proof is becuase, yes I am biased towards Kerry, but no more than you are to Bush. As I said previously in response to Fallang's reply, although what Drakesteakn posted was in a joking manner, some of what he orignially posted is based off what I know is factual (like Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam and then later discussing the best way to bomb his former ally), so I personally did not require proof for what which I already knew. I asked Neon for proof becuase much of what he said I had never heard of.

BWX

Just reading what you wrote, then pointing out the contradiction. Are people supposed to only take what you say seriously when it suits you? Then when you say something that contradict yourselfs we should not take one of the two things you said "literally"? Come on now...




Couldn't have said it better myself... lol

Just stating the obvious here ......

digerati

Neither should plastic surgery, but that doesn't stop people. I'm sorry but that's some bad logic there. And it only seems unnatural because of the society we live in. Take a sociology class lol

Nexus7even

He's a Bible thumping neo-con. Taking things literally is their job.

BWX, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The man said "any." OH NO!! Stop the presses! He wasn't specific enough to say which post he didn't back anything up in!! Is there a rule about specificity in the Bible as well?

The fact is this little list is funny. It's not backed with sources because it's target audience already believes the things that it's stating.

As for gays, what do you care what other people do? As long as no one is anally raping your child should you really have ANY say in what they are doing? Don't give me any of that slippery slope bullshit about polygamy. I know that is just as threatening to your belief structure as homosexuality, but come on... It's a lame excuse not to give human beings the same rights as other human beings.

Dom

At least I admit it. Why don't you admit your bias towards Bush?

And by the way, you are completely taking what I said out of context, I also said; "but no more than you are to Bush. As I said previously in response to Fallang's reply, although what Drakesteakn posted was in a joking manner, some of what he orignially posted is based off what I know is factual (like Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam and then later discussing the best way to bomb his former ally), so I personally did not require proof for what which I already knew. I asked Neon for proof becuase much of what he said I had never heard of."

Don't misquote me.

BWX

I didn't, I quoted word for word. Oh, and about the gay marriage thing? It doesn't matter how much we argue here, it won't happen.. Maybe a "civil union", but there won't be any "Gay marriage". Just the way it is.


WTF are you talking about? Who's a Bible thumping "Neo-whatever"? Give some examples or step off.

Dom

You did so misquote me. I said: "The reason why I didn't ask Drakesteakn for proof is becuase, yes I am biased towards Kerry, but no more than you are to Bush."

You said I said: "The reason why I didn't ask Drakesteakn for proof is becuase, yes I am biased towards Kerry".

You took what I said out of context. That's like quoting someone as saying they said "I am gay" when in actuallity they said "I am gay, but I mean that as in happy not homosexual."

Now who's contradicting themselves?

BWX

Ya lost me there kid I Thought you said you were bias toward Kerry?? Thats all I said.
I think they are both Jack-asses in their own way -but Kerry is the bigger and more dishonest one IMO. Actually I think he wants to destroy the US as we know it. I think Bush at least wants the US to survive intact. I don't trust kerry or his fugly wife!!