After some thought, I've decided the Fonz is the ideal presidential Candidate for 2008. Since the country has effectively Jumped the Shark with the election just past, there's no one more appropriate.
I've even got the slogan: "Putting the 'Aaaaay!' in Aaaaay-merica."
PAD
Posted by Peter David at November 4, 2004 03:30 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingPeter, Peter, Peter. While the Fonz would've worked back in the late 50s ala JFK, his womanizing ways would sink his administration today ala Clinton's problems times ten.
Not to mention that that scandal involving the disappearing Chuck Cunningham and the gossip about the Fonz and Mrs. C.
I think there's only one choice for the next President - Homer Simpson.
He goes to church on Sundays, he's sure to appeal to the people frightened of intellectual candidates (as long as he keeps that crayon inserted in his brain) and he believes problems can be solved with violence.
What more could you ask for?
I don't know...the Fonz was awfully prone to using violence to solve his problems.
But America "jumped the shark"? Pshaw. Our best days are ahead of us.
Our best days are ahead of us.
Wake me when it's 2008.
Advice to US Democrats:
Don't sweat it.
Seriously.
Sometimes people have to make their own mistakes before they realise the error of their ways.
Sometimes you need to let something play out to it's natural + logical conclusion.
If the way America used to be, or to be more accurate: the way some people think it used to be, is the way that America should be now then things will change just as they did last time.
You can't roll back the clock and live in some fixed ideal tme that you believe existed in the past. All you're doing is setting in motion the same chain of events that brought about the way things are now.
The people you're aghast at will come to see that for themselves if only at their own pace.
King Canute went down to the shore and sat on his throne and commanded the tide to stay out.
Millions of 'American Canutes' can all shout at the tide (which represents natural progression in case you hadn't already twigged) but, ultimately, the tide pays no attention.
You could change the constitution to essentially ban all 'gayness' if you wanted. But is there anyone here who honestly believes that 10, 50, 100 years from now that gay people won't be getting married and no-one will bat an eyelid.
Liberal is a dirty word in America at the moment. Liberal Reform is seen by many as the root of all evil.
Yes, liberal reform throws up problems and issues but.......for those that don't get it yet........that's the point.
You deal with the issues and problems as best you can and you muddle through and move on.
Conservatism, by it's very name and nature, is a fear of change. But all the fear in the world and all the resistance to change won't stop it from happening anyway.
So ban sex education from schools and replace it with telling kids that sex before marriage = eternal damnation.
Then wait for the backlash and inevitable change.
Attempt to ban abortion, which is illogical, unworkable and unsustainable and.......well, you get the idea I'm sure.
Let Billy Graham and those who think like him have their counterrevolution.
Why?
Well, what do you think will, inevitably, follow it?
We've been here before.
You have History on your side.
Wasn't someone trying to draft Wil Wheaton as President?
Wil in '08!
...I still want Captain America for President. But since we need someone real... Jason David Frank. Terrorists come after us? He can step on them with his seemingly endless array of Power Rangers Zords...
Apparently Chicken Little has already replaced Tom Daschle as the Democrat leader. Hysterical blind panic seems to be setting in...."Run to the cave! We'll be safe in the cave!"
Capt. America? I guess Superman is out since he wasn't born in the US......
And you're worried about real with "Fonzie" as a suggestion?
Let's go back to the old standby: "Kirk for President"
Mark L? Uhm...actuaally, Superman WAS born in the U.S.A., according to the latest continuity. So, as long as you're building castles in the air and planning to move in by the end of the week, dream BIG!
(the preceeding has been a presentation of the Nerd Continuity Network. Any resemblance to reality as you know it is sheer coincidence. Sort of like the NeoCons.)
But is there anyone here who honestly believes that 10, 50, 100 years from now that gay people won't be getting married and no-one will bat an eyelid.
No doubt. Somewhere. However in the impending Saudi Arabian election no women will be running. Or voting.
We look back now with shame at the people who were killed and harassed 50 years ago because of their color. Well, most of us do I hope. I'd just as soon not have much of my life spent in a time that future Americans will look back at with similar shame.
Mark P,
Thanks for the continuity update. I haven't read comics in a few years, so I'm more of a "traditionalist".
Londo Mollari in '08! "We all have our Keepers"
Bush even has one of those weird little creatures that no one ever sees controlling him,
that would be Dick Cheney.
[quote]I'd just as soon not have much of my life spent in a time that future Americans will look back at with similar shame.[/quote]
Don't worry. Those of us who understand that gays are people and there is no Constitutional basis for banning intra-gender marriage will be viewed in 50 years as this day's aboltionists.
Also, in Europe, I'm told, gays [i]are[/i] getting married and people aren't batting an eye.
My favorite so far is the Power Ranger, but does it have to be Tommy? If we're going the Power Ranger route, let's go with Amy Jo Johnson, the original Pink Ranger. Now HER I'd vote for....
Although Homer would make a good president too because his wife and daughter wouldn't let him make TOO many stupid mistakes. He'd be an "everyman President."
In the Star Trek universe, Kirk would be as bad as Clinton, charming stupid helpless interns and then having his way with them. Now Mackenzie Calhoun....there's a president for you. He served his country (his whole world actually), fought for freedom, he knows the price. Anyone gets in his way, he bowls them over. I'd feel safe with Calhoun as president. Janeway'd be just as good too.
If we look at actors who have portrayed the president:
Harrison Ford: "We will never negotiate. We will no longer tolerate (terrorism) and we will no longer be afraid. It's your turn to be afraid. "
Oh hell yea, he's got my vote.
Morgan Freeman: He portrayed a very humanizing president.
Jack Nicholson: C'mon....really....who WOULDN'T vote for Jack.
Bill Pullman: He kicked Alien asses. What's a terrorist to him?
Michael Douglas: Another good "Everyman" president.
Gene Hackman's out, so is Donald Moffat and Cliff Robertson, (although I would vote for Snake Pliskin.)
"Mark L? Uhm...actuaally, Superman WAS born in the U.S.A., according to the latest continuity."
Actually re-revised continuity seems to have cast doubts on this. Byrne-continuity has been replaced by Waid-continuity, which has re-introduced an extra terrerstial birth for Kal-El.
> Mark L? Uhm...actuaally, Superman WAS born in the U.S.A., according to the latest continuity. So, as long as you're building castles in the air and planning to move in by the end of the week, dream BIG!
Actually, according to the LATEST continuity, he's back to being born on Krypton. Waid's attempt to wind back the clock'n'all.
Well... maybe it's my desire to try to find something good in any situation, but the "silver lining" in the cloud of Bush being elected is that we know *exactly* how long it'll be before he's out, right?
Still going to be a loooooooooooong four years, though.
Don't forget "My Fellow Americans"
Jack Lemmon, James Garner, Dan Aykroyd
I think I could handle Maverick as President :)
"...I still want Captain America for President. But since we need someone real... Jason David Frank. Terrorists come after us? He can step on them with his seemingly endless array of Power Rangers Zords..."
He has had a few, hasn't he?
Dragonzord (one of the original Dinozords),
White Tiger Thunderzord (not to be cofused with the later White Tiger Wild Zord),
White Ninja Falconzord,
Zeo Zord V,
Red Battlezord,
Super Zeo Zord V,
Red Lightning Turbo Zord
Brachio DinoThunder Zord (which is basically a glorified Carrier, but the Brachio Staff compestates very nicely. Just ask what's left of Golden Boy...)
What about Wes Collins (with Eric Meyers as Vice-President?)
So ban sex education from schools and replace it with telling kids that sex before marriage = eternal damnation.
Then wait for the backlash and inevitable change.
Attempt to ban abortion, which is illogical, unworkable and unsustainable and.......well, you get the idea I'm sure.
Let Billy Graham and those who think like him have their counterrevolution.
You clearly do not know what conservative Christians believe and actually want to do. If you are afraid of Billy Graham, then you are really out of touch. He has worked fairly with Dem & Rep. He has avoided most, if not all, political issues and has focued on preaching the Good News of salvation in Jesus Christ. So what exactly are you afraid of with Billy Graham?
On the issues you mention, abstinence programs don't teach a fear of "damnation." They teach, based on documented evidence, that teen sex can be very destructive right now. Using "protection" does not avoid all forms of sexual disease. Condoms can fail, allowing pregnancy. An opinion they teach, and which I agree, is that teens are not emotionally ready for the emotional entanglements of sex. There are a lot of emotional issues going on already as a teen. Sex just further complicates things in a way that is not necessary.
You don't have to agree with all of these reasons. But your portral of abstinence teaching ignores what is really being taught. Very few people think it is a good thing for TEENS to be highly sexually active. There are too many potential ramifications that can last a life time. (For example, a teen pregnancy. Even if you choose an abortion, that is still an emotional issue you carry with you for the rest of your life.)
I won't even get into the abortion issue. That would take too long to go into here and has been debated many times already on this site.
Jim in Iowa
Its funny when Kirk is mentioned. I think back to the Next Generation episodes to have Spock and he mentions Kirk's 'cowboy diplomacy' and I think its a bit like Bush. I looked at this election as a sort of Kirk V. Picard disput amongst the fans.
I think we, the ones that supported Kerry, should remain vocal as to what we think this administration should be doing. Ecenomy, jobs, health care are things that are overall important. Even if the war ends tomorrow, these are things that must be getting worked on no matter what. The country needs to prosper, have healthy and educated kids, and it should have the best job market in the world. That's what we want.
"I don't know...the Fonz was awfully prone to using violence to solve his problems."
Yeah because, y'know, Bush never does that...
"But America "jumped the shark"? Pshaw. Our best days are ahead of us."
No. No, they're really not.
I don't think people have quite wrapped themselves around what's happening. I don't think they really understand why Jews always say, "Never again." That philosophy causes one to possess a...I don't know...a sense of eternal vigilance.
Let's see what we've got:
Declaring war on countries that haven't attacked us, going in and trying to conquer them. Check.
Restriction of civil rights. Check.
Formalizing bias against gays. Check.
Saber-rattling in the name of God. Check.
People rounded up and held indefinitely. Check.
People in foreign lands rounded up and tortured. Check.
Taking actions that cause the world to see us as a rogue nation with a fanatic in charge. Check.
Don't you see? Don't you get it?
These things don't happen overnight. They happen bit by bit, one step at a time, and the circumstances aren't going to be identical, and every step along the way there will be people to deny it's happening. There are ALWAYS people to deny it's happening. Hell, there are people who sixty years later continue to deny it EVER happened.
But it did and it can again. One step at a time, one drop of water on the rock of liberty to erode it at a time.
That's how it always starts. And we've seen where it goes.
PAD
You guys on the left have officialy gone off the deep end. The last day or so has proven that to me. Good luck with ever winning another major political race.
Hmmmmmm, the people honestly made their choice and "jumped the shark"? So, I guess that means America should be cancelled and soon? Hmmmm, if you are going to pick an Italian icon and a good one for America it should be Tony Soprano, you know, the one the neocommie Clooney compared GWB to? Bada-boom-bada-bing, them terrorist f*cks are no longer part of da scene, fugeddaboutit...
Oh no... Eric's the Secretary of Defense... Someone gets on America's case, we end up with Q-Rex and Silver Guardian action in the middle east. And lest we forget, Tommy's also got those Auxillary Zords... Warrior Wheel... And he'll probably be back in another seven years with yet ANOTHER set of powers.
Nice to know I'm not the only Rangers fan on the blog commentary. But I'm not voting for Kimberly... I like her music too much to pull her away from it. Wes WOULD be nice... But too much risk that his EEEEEEVIL twin from the future Alex (come on. We saw how he was. HAS to be evil) might take his place.
Hmmm... Lord Zedd for President? Mesogog would be nice... if only because both are OPEN about wanting to annihilate us all. Unlike the current administration.
Now a big question... is Bush dumber than Zeo era Rocky?
And apologies to PAD for "morphing" this entire debate. May the power protect you... until Bush takes it away.
I've decided the Fonz is the ideal presidential Candidate for 2008.
A short Jewish guy from Hollywood? Good luck selling that to the red states.
I don't know. I can't find any humor in any of this.
I feel so distraught and powerless that I can't even imagine how I can cope with another 4 more years of this. I was pretty much bedridden yesturday.
All the campaigns against Bush didn't do squat in the long run and now I can only withness while this country further takes the path of the Neo-con philosophy. All I can pretty much do is vent and that still doesn't solve anything.
I don't know how I'll be able to handle myself when history starts to repeat itself.
You guys on the left have officialy gone off the deep end.
Here's a post from a fellow on another forum I read:
-----
What do you think of newly elected GOP Senators?
Specifically, what do you think of Jim DeMin (R-SC) and Tom Coburn (R-OK)?
If you're not familiar with these two guys, here's a snapshot of their views:
Coburn voted against disaster relief for his own state. He advocated the death penalty for abortionists and warned that "the gay agenda" poses a big national threat/
DeMint easily defeated Democratic challenger Inez Tenenbaum despite saying he backed a national sales tax and said unwed mothers and homosexuals should not be teachers.
Is it my imagination or is the Republican Party moving to the very fringes of the right? Do the conservatives on this board feel these newly elected Senators represent your views? I realize they may not represent your state of residence, but they will play a role in policy making that will affect all of us.
-----
Yeah, it's really those on the left that have gone off the deep end. Uhoh. Ok. Sure.
Here's my take, from same forum, on the next 4 years:
-----
Bush's agenda
Iraq
He got us into this mess, and I can't see him getting us out of it since he fails to grasp the fact that he royally @#%$ this up.
Some privitization of Social Security
Agree with it in principle, but the last place I would want to put my money atm is the stock market - I would prefer a personal 401k that is valid whereever I take it for employment, along with other options.
Gay Marriage Ban Amendment
Coming soon to a Constitution near you.
Moving "this goodhearted nation toward a culture of life"
A direct challenge on Rowe vs Wade. Again, coming to a Constitution near you.
Halving the deficit
How the hell is Bush going to do this after he already told us we didn't have to pay for the war in Iraq? When the national debt ceiling had to be raised? It just isn't going to happen, and we and our children and our children's children are going to pay for it.
"Vote Cthulu - for when you're tired of the lesser of two evils."
"Londo Mollari in '08! "We all have our Keepers"
Bush even has one of those weird little creatures that no one ever sees controlling him,"
Hunh. So THAT'S what that little thing in the back of his jacket was during the debate.
PAD
Hunh. So THAT'S what that little thing in the back of his jacket was during the debate.
Considering his first debate performance with all of the stammering and stuttering, he must have been doing a good job of fighting its influence.
Hunh. So THAT'S what that little thing in the back of his jacket was during the debate.
Either that or one of those strange mind controlling insects from Star Trek: the Next Generation... No, not the Trill. The other one.
Craig, I was speaking about..well...YOU guys. If the liberals here represent a good cross section of liberal thought..then I can honestly see why you lost almost all of the elections on Tuesday. One party doesn't control most state legislatures, governers, congressmen, senators, and the presidency because they are stupid, wrong, or out of touch with America. That goes to the losers.
Well, it's certainly possible, James, to be stupid and wrong and be IN touch with America. As was sung on the Daily show a couple weeks ago... "I'd rather be right... than President..."
Well, I find it interesting that you guys agree with Europe and believe that the majority in this country is stupid. Kerry spoke of unity yesterday and all I can find here are people who claim to have been bedridden all day because they were so sad about Bush winning. YOU guys are the fear and hate-mongers, not conservatives. You try to scare the American people into voting against Bush and then when he wins you scare yourselves into believing the world is over. During the 90's I couldn't complain about Clinton without someone jumping down my throat, yet the left has treated our president worse than I thought any American could ever do. Fine. You guys continue to live fright-filled, jumping at shadows world.
4 years from now there will be new elections. None of the people on this board will have been rounded up and placed in camps for their beliefs (I can't promise that they won't be in jail for other offenses. Some of y'all have potential for all kinds of stuff.). Despiet claims of oppression it will still be easy to produce films, comics, books etc that protray the government in a negative way (to say the least). It won't be nazi germany or anything like it (unless you think it's already like nazi germany in which case there's no point in arguing).
Let's revisit all this in 4 years and see who's right.
During the 90's I couldn't complain about Clinton without someone jumping down my throat, yet the left has treated our president worse than I thought any American could ever do.
I am amused by this grand statement of blindness. Obviously what's good for the goose is not good for the gander.
Whoa! reports are coming in that Yasser Arafat has been declared clinically brain dead. The mind reels at possible responses; Cruel--"how could they tell?' Sarcastic-"Why is always the good who die young?" Wistfull--"Gee, I was really hoping they were going to drag him out into the streets and shoot him like a dog."
I'll just settle for..."Good."
Kerry spoke of unity yesterday
And Bush talks of unity as well.
It won't happen.
The entire campaign is spent on trying to put a wedge into the minds of the people, and then, with a snap of the finger, we're to forget about it once a winner is declared.
Sure, only if you're living in a delusional world.
If Bush wants to unite this country, he'll step down and let somebody WORTHY of the job in.
Dude, there are times where you are the cheesiest mutha alive. ie. This post and most of Young Justice.
With these election results, President and GOP Senators, I am ashamed to be American. The conservatives on this board just don't get it.
Bush is not going to attempt to unify the country. He did not really attempt to do it the first time around.
Thank God, I am not of draft age.
Posted by Carl: Hmmmmmm, the people honestly made their choice and "jumped the shark"? So, I guess that means America should be cancelled and soon?
But Carl, the best thing about this is...if America is cancelled, it'll come back soon in expanded DVD form with multiple-disc seasonal sets (228 of them) plenty of extras: commentary, bloopers, documentaries, letterboxing! And it'll be 25% off at Amazon.
Thank God, I am not of draft age.
More evidence of liberals believing their own scare tactics.
"It won't be nazi germany or anything like it"
You're still not getting it.
The people in Nazi Germany likewise didn't think it was Nazi Germany, if you know what I mean...until it was too late.
My grandfather saw the rising tide of hatred. Of discrimination. Of religious fanaticism. All this when he was in Berlin, and when he packed up my father and grandmother and got the hell out, all the neighbors told him he was nuts. That things would become better. That he was overreacting.
And all the neighbors died.
PAD
god, the bitterness of the election results when will it stop, get over it already!!!
bush tried to make amends post election (during his speech) and you're still doing this crap?
the discussion is old, why do i even bookmark this site anymore? it's the same old shit all the time and hardly anything to do about comics or writing in general, it's like notes on a fridge for your wife to read.
if liberals and conservatives can't get along why would we with other nations? ask yourself that if you're one of the liberals crying boo-hoo about how the world hates us, who gives a frick?!? go gloom and doom yourself in a closet, pal. you give bush no slack and as a jew you ought to be ashamed because how we've kept relations with israel stronger and opposed the palastin regime.
the president is only one person. a friggin figure head. 4 years is nothing to weep over, and 4 more isn't going to bring the end of the world like ya think. kerry and his i got a plan BS. just answer some simple questions instead of being a dodgy, slimy lawyer. kerry wouldn't save the world. one guy is NOT going to do ALL the things he said he would have.
finally, accept a president who got the job done and kicked sadaam's ass when everyone before him bombed and bombed him again ultimately failing his demise.
2 of my 4 neighbors are a$$holes do i care what they think about me? NO.
that's why the democrats lost! you guys want to relate to the public at large at least present a plan of hope and stop talking like you're standing on hell's doorstep. either that or go there and stay.
had Kerry won, where we conservatives are better people, we wouldn't be mooping around and being stupid, we'd have faced facts and tried to work together.
Peter David: After some thought, I've decided the Fonz is the ideal presidential Candidate for 2008. Since the country has effectively Jumped the Shark with the election just past, there's no one more appropriate. I've even got the slogan: "Putting the 'Aaaaay!' in Aaaaay-merica."
Luigi Novi: Great idea. I hope he pledges no more tax cuts for the rich-amundo.
Tom Galloway: While the Fonz would've worked back in the late 50s ala JFK, his womanizing ways would sink his administration today ala Clinton's problems times ten.
Luigi Novi: Ah, but toward the end of the series, he was going steady with that single mother, wasn’t he?
[b]Well, I find it interesting that you guys agree with Europe and believe that the majority in this country is stupid.[/b]
I find it interesting that I, and Europe, are right. I also find it mind-numbingly depressing.
[b]Kerry spoke of unity yesterday and all I can find here are people who claim to have been bedridden all day because they were so sad about Bush winning.[/b]
That's because Kerry is trying to be somewhat graceful. I, an anonymous poster in a forum I don't usually post on, feel no such compunction, nor do I feel I should. After four years of bullying and having my opinions declared "unAmerican" -- as scurrilous an accusation as can be made, as [i]all[/i] ideas and opinions should have been [i]welcome[/i] in the former land of the free -- I fail to see any reason that reasonable, thinking people whose federally protected disagreement with the government was repeatedly dismissed by the increasingly cocksure right without any kind of critical analysis (which would have shown that [i]we were right all along, moron[/i]) should be nice about learning that the majority of the country really are as stupid and ignorant as we feared.
[b]YOU guys are the fear and hate-mongers, not conservatives. You try to scare the American people into voting against Bush and then when he wins you scare yourselves into believing the world is over.[/b]
Bullshit. Bush's campaign drew all of its strength from fear. Fear of terrorism (which, thanks to his ineptitude, is now only threatening our military in a hostile country and is unlikely to happen stateside in any significant measure again for some time), fear of losing the "culture war" (read: dudes getting it on with other dudes), which is in reality a complete non-issue, since it doesn't have the slightest thing to do with nearly anybody who believes that gay marriage is actually a threat to them -- in other words, everybody who's afraid of gay marriage is completely and objectively wrong, legally speaking -- and even stupid shit that they wouldn't have thought of if not for Karl Rove -- such as liberals (the people who are in favor of [i]expanding[/i] civil rights, mind you) wanting to ban the Bible.
So, yes; we're scared, as we have every right to be. Our civil rights have been gradually eroding as Fundamentalist Evangelicals have established an increasingly steady foothold in American politics. With the Republican sweep, they're about to erode as fast as those same Fundamentalists think the Grand Canyon did.
Fortunately for us heathen liberals, there exists a slight majority that knows better for us, and managed to elect the right man to be the first resident of the United States of Jesus Christ In Our Father's Name We Pray Amen.
[b]During the 90's I couldn't complain about Clinton without someone jumping down my throat, yet the left has treated our president worse than I thought any American could ever do.[/b]
I don't know what '90s YOU lived through, but as I recall, the '90s were rife with people badmouthing Bill Clinton with far more nonsensical crap than Bush has had to deal with. Plus, Clinton didn't have a compliant media willing to objectively report the White House's spin without any significant criticism or analysis.
I give you an example from Al Franken's [i]Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them[/i] (Paraphrased):
Sean Hannity, on the war in Iraq last year:
People shouldn't question the president! It only lessens the morale of our troops!
Sean Hannity, six years ago on Bosnia-Herzagovina[sp?]:
Frankly, I don't think Bill Clinton has the moral capacity to lead this war.
For the record, Clinton's military endeavor was accomplished with no US casualties and the Chechs regard him as the hero who saved them from genocide to this day.
I don't think I need to compare that to Iraq -- I'm sure you know all the numbers.
So if people were jumping down your throat for criticizing Clinton, are you sure it wasn't because you were saying stupid things? There were legitimate criticisms of Clinton -- I even have a few. No president is perfect. However, Bill Clinton was far closer to a perfect president than George Bush has the moral or intellectual capacity to be, and because of his administrations tactic of bullying dissenters, every criticism, however legitimate -- and you must have been saying stupid things about Clinton if you don't think [i]that's[/i] true -- is dismissed as "liberal whining" or any number of other crude brushoffs.
No, we've got every reason to fear that the hostility of the right will only grow -- after all, they are backed by Fundamentalist Evangelicals, who are decidedly rude people to a man -- and our rights will be trampled as they set G-Dub up as the new God-King of the AmeriChristian Empire.
Oh, and before you say anything, I know I'm being melodramatic. That's because realism is far too easily brushed off by the self-righteous.
OK, it says I can use HTML tags, but it must be referring to these and not [b]these[/b].
[BOLD]had Kerry won, where we conservatives are better people, we wouldn't be mooping around and being stupid, we'd have faced facts and tried to work together.[/BOLD]
you mean like you did both times that Clinton won?
My grandfather saw the rising tide of hatred. Of discrimination. Of religious fanaticism.
What happend to Germany was terrible, but it isn't happening here. To say "Well, your just not seeing it" is plain foolish.
Rise of hatred? There is no rise of hate in this president or his adminstration. The only hate I am seeing is coming from the wacko-left.
Rise of discrimination? Who? Blacks? Gays? They are not being discriminated against. Secretary of State, Secretary of Education, and the National Security Advisor are held by blacks for the first time in history. Protecting the rights of states to not be forced to do something they do not want to do by courts is not discrimination.
Rise of religioius fanaticism? I don't see a rise at all, but rather a real and ernest attempt to hold on to the religious beliefs and freedoms that have always been here.
You guys are trying to change the majority. Not the other way around.
nekouken said...
OK, it says I can use HTML tags, but it must be referring to these and not [b]these[/b].
That's not HTML. Use (no spaces) instead of [b].
Bugger, that didn't work. Use the greater-than/less than signs.
bush tried to make amends post election (during his speech) and you're still doing this crap?
THAT is trying to make amends? Calling for unity during a speech?
In his speech after he was made president in the 2000 election, Bush made a similar call for unity, claiming he would find seek the best interest of all his consituents.
Instead, he found tax breaks for rich white guys.
Gloat about victory if you'd like. Call Democrats stupid and Republicans "Wile E. Coyote, sooooper geeeenyus." Please, revel in it.
But do not for one minute pretend that Bush saying he will be a uniter means he has any intention of doing it.
4 more isn't going to bring the end of the world like ya think
Spoken like someone with no cognizance of environmental issues. As Bush continues to push legislation that allows business to grow without any concern for how much CO2 they pump into the air (as that is a missing provision of what is so delightfully called the "clear skies" initiative), the environment continues to suffer wounds we, the smartest monkeys on the planet, may be wholly unable to fix when the drastic need arises.
So please spare everyone the "four more years don't mean nothin'" babble. Every day that we ignore the health of our planet counts. Four more years can be a time of untold self-inflicted disaster.
Not to mention the use of science the majority of the scientific community feels is junk science.
The Neo Conservatives and the far right just don't get it. All you do is place everyone into little groups and assume that everyone in them has the same ideas. Not all Jews oppose the Palestinians, not all jews beleive Isreal should exist now. Some of us think we didn't have a right to go in there like we did. Not all Liberals beleive the same thing as well. You can't group peoples beleifs that way. Well maybe you can with conservatives, i don't really see how its possible but you all seem to do it anyway.
Thats why their won't be amends. Thats why Bush's silly little speech means nothing to us. It doesn't speak to us in any terms other than "I won. Get over it." Yes we know you won. We didn't like you. We aren't going to like you now. This country won't come together till everyones issues are addressed. I don't foresee Bush doing that. He didn't do it before, and i doubt he will at all these four years. So we will continue to bitch and moan and squabble between ourselves just as we did before. Just like the conservatives and many liberals did under Clinton and every other president before hand.
From DailyKos:
Bush has spent the last year blaming all his ills on 9/11 and Bill Clinton. Well, those boogeymen are now done. Bush is now inheriting his own presidency, and he has a serious mess on his hands.
Who is he going to blame now?
He goes on to say that the one silver lining for Kerry is he does not have to worry about cleaning up Bush's mess, now.
"So what exactly are you afraid of with Billy Graham?"
Judging from my post, obviously nothing.
"On the issues you mention, abstinence programs don't teach a fear of "damnation." They teach, based on documented evidence, that teen sex can be very destructive right now. Using "protection" does not avoid all forms of sexual disease. Condoms can fail, allowing pregnancy. An opinion they teach, and which I agree, is that teens are not emotionally ready for the emotional entanglements of sex. There are a lot of emotional issues going on already as a teen. Sex just further complicates things in a way that is not necessary.
You don't have to agree with all of these reasons. "
What reasons?
And reasons for what?
Jim, re-read what you typed.
You basically said "kids aren't ready for sex".
Everyone agrees on that.
But religious faith isn't going to overpower the sexual desires of a horny teen any more than it will those of a fully ordained priest boffing the local soccer mom.
UNLESS you've been taught that sex and sexual desire are wrong or something to be ashamed of.
Which is a despicable and unforgivable thing to do to a young mind.
"There are too many potential ramifications that can last a life time."
The only way to avoid potential ramifications in life is to stay in bed or live in a shoebox.
"I won't even get into the abortion issue"
There is no issue.
Everyone agrees that we should all be working to reduce abortion.
But no true anti-abortionist or genuine pro-lifer would ever call for an outright ban on abortion as there is no logic to it.
If anything, this election has shown me precisely how easily persuaded people are. A few pretty words about glorious ideals and people forget all about "Ahboo Gahreff." People favor the ideology to the reality. They don't realize that ideology isn't real. It's a culturally created and abstract phenomenon. What this election really tells us is that people (with some exceptions) completely fall prey to ideologically based rhetoric. Sure, Bush's actions and decisions over the past four years sucked, but he's got such great ideas.
If you don't believe Bush sold himself on his ideologies, go listen to his RNC speech again. You can find it at http://www.americanrhetoric.com. At the very beginning of his speech, watch how he mythologizes 9/11 by conjuring certain images and setting the mood, all without even referring to the event by name. Very effective and very ideological. Through ideology, he's put people in a frame of mind that has made them forget the atrocities that happened under his watch post-9/11. Seems to me like a pretty cheap way to earn people's favor. And yet it works.
And, of course, my favorite part of the debates was when Bush repeatedly told us not to "fall for his [Kerry's] rhetoric." Meanwhile, Bush is the one who is constantly assigning benevolent or catchy labels onto things in order to convince us that these things are good. "Leave no child behind" my ass. "Patriot Act." It's all persuasion through ideology. How many people know the specifics of what either of those things actually do? We don't have to know! Obviously, "Leave no child behind" must be good, and should not be looked into further. And the Patriot Act must be good, because being a patriot is also good!
I hardly see the point of ranting on about this stuff. People are just gonna disagree with me and accuse me of not knowing what I talk about anyway. As if they're any better.
Scott,
George Orwell; Did he predict the future, or cause it by planting the seed?
John Stewart is right. Our media do us no favors by not rooting out the facts. He said/She said journalism stinks. I want to know if what they say is true, not just that they say it.
"had Kerry won, where we conservatives are better people, we wouldn't be mooping around and being stupid, we'd have faced facts and tried to work together."
BWAAAHAHA...ha. Oh. Oh, my God. You're serious.
Dude, in the past ten years, the only "working together" done by Conservatives vis a vis liberals is to find ways to drive them out of office. Clinton had the shortest "honeymoon" on record, i.e., none: the GOP was on him from day one.
And this isn't "mooping" or even moping. Coming here and posting about the election is the electronic equivalent of paying a shiva call.
"What happend to Germany was terrible, but it isn't happening here. To say "Well, your just not seeing it" is plain foolish."
No, to say "Well, your just not seeing it" is plain illiterate. Saying "you're not just seeing it" is accurate.
"Rise of hatred? There is no rise of hate in this president or his adminstration. The only hate I am seeing is coming from the wacko-left."
Well, the obvious response is, "Wacko-left? You can just bite me, jackass." The secondary response is that the left is only letting its hatred of stupidity, intolerance, and bigotry become less and less hidden. The third response is, hey, howzabout reading what I said? I didn't say hatred from the administration. I said hatred, period. It wasn't Hitler who threw rocks through my grandfather's window and shouted, "Dirty Jew!" It was civilians.
What the administration is suffused with is religious fanaticism. The hatred comes from the mouthpieces of the administrations, the Limbaughs and his ilk, who spew poison and invective and villification. It's the gits who show up here to throw racist or sexually abusive names at my wife and me . It's the grass roots hatred that is building, and can and will spread because, let's face it, more atrocities have been committed in the name of God than in anyone else's name in the history of mankind.
"Rise of discrimination? Who? Blacks? Gays? They are not being discriminated against."
Gays, and yes, they are, and if you're really claiming that you're not blind and yet can claim gays aren't being discriminated against, you're nuts.
" Secretary of State, Secretary of Education, and the National Security Advisor are held by blacks for the first time in history."
Well, first of all, the Bush Administration distantly trails the Clinton administration in appointing minorities to jobs that are not high profile. And second, of course the conservatives can pat themselves on the back for being the foremost advocates of civil rights and integration. Oh...wait. Not so much. Guess integration was some of that pesky "judicial activism" that Bush is always complaining about.
"Protecting the rights of states to not be forced to do something they do not want to do by courts is not discrimination."
Introducing amendments to ban gays from marriage is discrimination. Supporting such amendments is discrimination. And those who claim otherwise are full of it. The notion that marriage is somehow threatened by allowing gays to marry is not based on reality, on any fragment of evidence, on anything except bias. The only threat to marriage in existence in this country is the ease of divorce. If people really want to protect the sanctity of marriage, let them lobby for an amendment banning divorce. If they're not willing to do so, then they should shut the hell up.
"Rise of religioius fanaticism? I don't see a rise at all, but rather a real and ernest attempt to hold on to the religious beliefs and freedoms that have always been here."
Religion brings out the best in people, but it also brings out the worst. And that's what is happening now. Kerry was able to distinguish between his personal beliefs and imposing those beliefs on the country. Bush is not. And people supported Bush because they likewise cannot. They think that their religious beliefs should form the basis upon which all aspects of everyone's lives are conducted.
I know it's always been that way. Take it from someone whose parents never got an invitation to any parties in their Catholic-heavy neighborhood...until the Vatican declared that modern Jews should no longer be held to blame for the death of Jesus. That year they got four New Years Eve party invites.
I'm saying that deciding on someone holding an office based upon how much he believes God is speaking to him is a basis for deciding on everything from the Pope to Grand Wizard of the KKK...but not President. And yet that's the criteria being used, and I think that's screwed up.
"You guys are trying to change the majority. Not the other way around."
Well, yes. That's because the definition of liberal is someone who questions, who pushes and prods and considers. Whereas the definition of conservative is someone who explicitly doesn't do those things, and wants nothing to change. Conservatives didn't push for the creation of the U.S. Conservatives didn't push for the women's vote or civil rights and didn't challenge the country to get to the moon. Liberals did all that. The main accomplishment of conservatives was to say "Liberals are evil" so hard and so long that the lie has become, to far too many, the truth.
And really, if you want to convince me you're not blind, you might want to say "I don't see" a few times less in your postings.
PAD
The Neo Conservatives and the far right just don't get it. All you do is place everyone into little groups and assume that everyone in them has the same ideas.
SNIP
It doesn't speak to us in any terms other than "I won. Get over it." Yes we know you won. We didn't like you. We aren't going to like you now. This country won't come together till everyones issues are addressed. So we will continue to bitch and moan and squabble between ourselves just as we did before. Just like the conservatives and many liberals did under Clinton and every other president before hand.
Wow, you don't like being put into a group yet you start speaking like a hive mind, no one needs to place you in a group when you do it yourself....classic.
Is the Democratic Party going to re-name itself the Chichen Little Party now?
Not to mention the use of science the majority of the scientific community feels is junk science.
Yeah, you're right. I'm sorry. It's junk science. The environment is just swell. The planet is plain old healthy. Plenty of water to go around as well. The complaints you've heard are all a lunatic fringe trying to convince us of the right insane idea that we're slowly but surely committing suicide as a species. Yessiree, this world, and particularly the good ol' U.S. of A., would never push the health of its planet off to the sidelines in favor of short term, shortsighted capital gains. We couldn't possibly be that stupid.
And, of course, if you're wrong, what's the big deal? Reining in problems on a planetary scale couldn't be THAT difficult, could it?
Enjoy the search for high ground, ma'am.
Gays, and yes, they are, and if you're really claiming that you're not blind and yet can claim gays aren't being discriminated against, you're nuts.
Well, gays can marry anyone I can marry and I can't marry anyone they can't.
Barrett Esposito said...
Yeah, you're right. I'm sorry. It's junk science...
Perhaps you should re-read Karen's post, and her other posts. I'd say you grossly misinterpreted her, and that you're on the same side. I believe she was saying that the administration relies on "junk science" to continue its environmental abuse.
Now I don't have a big beef with a moderate conservative, their concerns are, by and large, easy to understand, and in some cases even agree with.
But here is the sort of ultra-conservative hate propaganda that we fear. And when you're presented with stuff like this, it can be difficult not to paint you all with the same brush.
Eric! said...
Well, gays can marry anyone I can marry and I can't marry anyone they can't.
Lesbians can't marry anyone you can.
Yes, what I just said was stupid, but it's no less stupid than the crap coming out of your mouth (well, fingers).
"Gays, and yes, they are, and if you're really claiming that you're not blind and yet can claim gays aren't being discriminated against, you're nuts.
Well, gays can marry anyone I can marry and I can't marry anyone they can't."
But no one is telling you (presuming you're not gay) there's someone you can't marry that you want to marry. You obviously can't distinguish the concept of free will from the concept of restricted choice.
You have convinced me, though, that someone doesn't have to be nuts to think gays aren't being discriminated against. "Cluelessness" would also explain it.
PAD
Why would you want Alphonse D'Amato to be president? He just wasn't that good a Senator, and he's a Re-- oh. Never mind.
Perhaps you should re-read Karen's post, and her other posts. I'd say you grossly misinterpreted her, and that you're on the same side. I believe she was saying that the administration relies on "junk science" to continue its environmental abuse.
If that is indeed the case, I hereby offer my public apology in her direction. Many thanks for the intercession.
Additionally, my wish that she "enjoy the search for high ground" can now be read as sincere, whereas before it was quite possibly sarcastic.
Declaring war on countries that haven't attacked us, going in and trying to conquer them. Check.
This distortion of the truth is getting old. If you are referring to Afganistan, Osama Bin Laden has now admitted he attacked us.
If you are referring to Iraq, then you are at best inconsistent. It is not necessary for someone to attack us for us to have reason to go to war. Iraq invaded a neighbor, and we chose to go to the defense of Kuwait. I believe that was a valid reason to go to war.
It could be technically argued that this last war is a continuation of the first Gulf War, because we attacked, in part, due to a failure of Sadaam to comply with the terms of his surrender to the first war.
But leave that aside for the moment. I would consider any country that sponsored and supported an assasination of a former president as a country that at least attempted to attack us. I would consider a country that DAILY shot at our planes as an attack on our country. To say they did not (and yes, could not) successfully mount an attack on our soil is irrelevant.
I am amazed at the fear being expressed by some of you about Bush's reelection. It is way out of line with reality. I don't agree with PAD's argument that we have begun the slide into becoming Nazi Germany. Not even close. Are there some policies that we both may not agree with? Yes. But to suggest there is a plan in motion is beyond ridiculous, as others have already stated.
Saber-rattling in the name of God. Check.
This particular charge is especially frustrating. The fact is, Christians were NOT behind the Nazi movement, not as is being portrayed. Yes, things were done in the "name of God," but go read history. See how many Christians there DID protest -- and lost their lives for it. I agree that many stayed silent for too long. But Hitler was no more close to being a practicing Christian than Saddam was a practicing Muslim.
Frankly, I am surprised, PAD, by your saying all this. I believe you are being honest and not just trying to be delilberately provocative. But your fears are way out of proportion with reality.
Jim in Iowa
Some privitization of Social Security
Agree with it in principle, but the last place I would want to put my money atm is the stock market - I would prefer a personal 401k that is valid whereever I take it for employment, along with other options.
Most 401k's I know of ARE money in the stock market. They may not be in all one stock, but as I understand it, you are asking for the same thing Bush is proposing.
A key point the liberal media and the Dem's leave out is that Bush's proposed plan would GUARANTEE that you would AT LEAST get as much from the privatized part as you would if it stayed in SS as we know it. In other words, if you would have gotten $50 a month on the old system, your deposit is guaranteed to give you at least $50 a month, but with the potential to do even more since you now can make adjustments based on what stocks are doing well.
Jim in Iowa
Yes I placed myself in a group. I'm aloud to do that. I did not place anyone else in any group other than "those who do not like bush and are bitching that their guy lost" and "Stop complaining and shut up." Both of which were pretty much established by people already in this thread. But yes you caught me on a logical point during an illogical argument that was more about passion than logic. A response to what "Americana" wrote. Congrats to you. Now that doesn't change my argument, only the wording. "Us" becomes "me" or "I."
And Bush talks of unity as well.
It won't happen.
The entire campaign is spent on trying to put a wedge into the minds of the people, and then, with a snap of the finger, we're to forget about it once a winner is declared.
At best, BOTH campaigns drove wedges into the minds of people.
Sure, only if you're living in a delusional world.
If Bush wants to unite this country, he'll step down and let somebody WORTHY of the job in.
How would that bring unity when over 50% of the country voted for him?
Jim in Iowa
You basically said "kids aren't ready for sex".
Everyone agrees on that.
But religious faith isn't going to overpower the sexual desires of a horny teen any more than it will those of a fully ordained priest boffing the local soccer mom.
I respectfully, and strongly, disagree. There are a number of teens -- and religious priests -- who DO exercise this little thing called self discipline. Some do it based on faith. I did. Many of my friends did. Others do it based on logic and common sense.
We are not slaves to our bodies or hormones. I know (as any healthy male knows) the power of the male sex drive. But to say it is impossible to control it is wrong.
The fact that some will not control it does not mean it is invalid to ask them to. If I teach an abstinence course to 10 kids, and as a result 8 out of 10 decide to wait till they are at least adults and can deal with the ramifications of sex, that is better than teaching "sex education" where only 4 out of 10 wait until they are adults.
Abstinence teaching DOES work. It is not perfect. It does not guarantee that kids won't have sex. But it can make a significant difference. (I believe it is Uganda which is the only country in Africa where the rate of AIDS has been reduced, and it has been done with a program that relies heavily on teaching abstinence.)
UNLESS you've been taught that sex and sexual desire are wrong or something to be ashamed of.
No, I was not taught it was wrong (in and of itself). I was taught that it is a special gift for marriage. And I am glad that I waited until I was married (which was not until I was 35).
Is this a wrong value to hold? Why does our society treat with disdain the concept that it is better to wait until marriage to have sex?
Which is a despicable and unforgivable thing to do to a young mind.
I agree. I think it is also a despicable and unforgivable thing to not teach a young mind that sex is very different from other normal, healthy physical acts such as eating. It is a powerful act that has deep ramifications. Sex should not be entered into lightly.
Jim in Iowa
Is this a wrong value to hold? Why does our society treat with disdain the concept that it is better to wait until marriage to have sex?
Would you buy a car without taking it for a test drive first? :)
Barrett,
Jim was absolutely right. The junk science I referred to was the administrations. They have discontinued so many protections that were in place before their first administration, all in the name of more money for the corporations who do not want to clean up the messes they made and do not want to equip their factories with expensive parts to keep from spewing environmental hazards into our atmosphere, water, and the earth. But, hey, who needs air, water, and dirt? They only provide life, notmoney to the already wealthy. Not to mention that they also want to deforest America in the name of logging. But, who needs a healthy ecosystem when there are dollars at stake? I trust I've mad my position more clear? And thanks for the apology. All is forgiven. Next time I will be sure to put who I think is responsible in my posts. I forget that not everyone here has read some of my prior rants, so I assume you all know what I mean. :)
Jim in Iowa:
I agree. I think it is also a despicable and unforgivable thing to not teach a young mind that sex is very different from other normal, healthy physical acts such as eating. It is a powerful act that has deep ramifications. Sex should not be entered into lightly.
Nobody diagrees with this. We simply think sex education should cover all the information. When kids are informed they make better choices. When kids are told there is only one way to think, they rebel. I don't blame them. If my sex ed teacher had told me that abstinance was the only way, when there are obviously other forms of birth control, I would have decided she did not know what she was talking about and had no authority on the subject. Why should kids listen ot only part of the story?
Unrelated, PAD, but I thought you and your's might wanna see this.
Angel "Smile Time" Puppet on sale in March! Brings back memories of the project your wife was working on.
Ummm... Now can we please get back to nominating old comedy show characters, Power Rangers, and adult cartoons for President?
Eric, I get so tired of hearing this response. Here it is, simply. You can meet your beloved, your chosen life partner and you can marry that person. A gay person in this country cannot do that now.
This distortion of the truth is getting old. If you are referring to Afganistan, Osama Bin Laden has now admitted he attacked us.
That's true, but I assume that's not who PAD was referring to. It's not who I read into it. Fortunately, you took that into account.
If you are referring to Iraq, then you are at best inconsistent. It is not necessary for someone to attack us for us to have reason to go to war. Iraq invaded a neighbor, and we chose to go to the defense of Kuwait. I believe that was a valid reason to go to war.
It was. However, this time around, there was no such reason. Saddam was sitting there on apparently nothing but a nuclear physicist and a warehouse full of explosives, and Bush took intelligence the CIA was trying to tell him was faulty and ran with it. Yes, the CIA, Tenet aside, was against the Iraq war because they actually knew there was no truth to the intelligence Bush had. Bush took a reason to investigate whether we should go to war as a reason to go to war. If a guy goes to Wal-Mart and buys a shovel and some dark clothes, is that a reason to arrest him for burying a body in his backyard? No, but it is a reason for an observant cop to get a warrant to determine whether he does, in fact, have a body to bury. However, since the possibility remains that he may have some gardening to do and have decided to go clothes shopping while he was at the store, an arrest would be unfounded. The war is the same way: things were observed that warranted investigation, but Bush stormed in and made the arrest, only to discover after the fact (which I believe he was trying to cover up by opposing the 9/11 Commission in a very Hank Quinlan-esque manner) that the basis for the war was entirely false. There were no weapons, there was no active weapons program and hadn't been one for years, and there was absolutely no al-Quaeda link. Suspecting any or all of those things was a good reason to investigate whether war was called for, but that's all he ever had. That, and "He's the guy that went after my dad," which was also untrue.
It could be technically argued that this last war is a continuation of the first Gulf War, because we attacked, in part, due to a failure of Sadaam to comply with the terms of his surrender to the first war.
That's just it -- he did comply. We have found no weapons save for some explosives that are useless without the weapons program we've already determined was long inactive.
But leave that aside for the moment. I would consider any country that sponsored and supported an assasination of a former president as a country that at least attempted to attack us. I would consider a country that DAILY shot at our planes as an attack on our country. To say they did not (and yes, could not) successfully mount an attack on our soil is irrelevant.
I assume you're referring to firing at planes in the established no-fly zone, in which case, no. You're talking entirely about ancient history. We went ten years without resolving this stuff, that means we let it go, not that it's just waiting for us to pick it back up again. That crap doesn't fly in any situation. Their being unable to attack us is not irrelevant, because the underlying statement in all the reasons we had for going into war (all of which have proven false) was that Saddam Hussein was a threat to national and world security. If he couldn't attack us, he wasn't a threat.
I am amazed at the fear being expressed by some of you about Bush's reelection. It is way out of line with reality. I don't agree with PAD's argument that we have begun the slide into becoming Nazi Germany. Not even close. Are there some policies that we both may not agree with? Yes. But to suggest there is a plan in motion is beyond ridiculous, as others have already stated.
I agree with you there -- Hitler's reign was pretty well anti-religion, establishing itself as religion and Hitler as God. So it's true, Christians didn't fare all that well with Nazi Germany. Christian Americans, however, supported it for a while -- I seem to recall reading Charles Lindbergh, a national hero, publicly endorsing the Third Reich.
That said, the fanaticism extant in Nazi Germany is most definitely alive and well here, in the form of Fundamental Evangelicals.
Personally, I think Christianity is a sign of brain damage, but I don't have problems with Christians if they don't try to force their beliefs on the rest of the world. It seems, however, that people that have convinced themselves that the Earth is 6000 years old don't know how not to do just that, and those people have been gaining power for decades. It's because of them that "secular" is a four-letter word right alongside "liberal" -- hardly surprising that a word synonymous with reason and independant thought would be a dirty word to the group responsible for a wave of anti-intellectualism. It's because of these assholes that what you put in your asshole is the government's business. It's because of them that we propogate immoral conduct among the populace by legislating the moral high ground -- the War on Drugs, for example (which is and always was a bad idea).
These people have the same fervor as the Nazis did, their numbers are growing, and they are able to use the G-word and the J-word to sway moderate and even liberal Christians to their side -- after all, they're doing it for God! -- to further their blatantly unConstitutional agenda and restrict the personal freedoms of everybody who doesn't look to a badly-written fairy tale to help them make their decisions.
It may not be from the same source, but it's every bit as evil.
Introducing amendments to ban gays from marriage is discrimination. Supporting such amendments is discrimination. And those who claim otherwise are full of it. The notion that marriage is somehow threatened by allowing gays to marry is not based on reality, on any fragment of evidence, on anything except bias. The only threat to marriage in existence in this country is the ease of divorce. If people really want to protect the sanctity of marriage, let them lobby for an amendment banning divorce. If they're not willing to do so, then they should shut the hell up.
PAD,
Virtually all conservative Christian leaders who oppose gay marriage would agree with you that divorce is presntly the #1 threat to marriage. (James Dobson is just one of many examples.) Except for divorce due to infidelity or abuse, I am all for making divorce much more difficult to obtain.
Yes, banning gay marriage is discrimination. But so is banning marriage between a father and daughter. So is banning marriage between a brother and sister. So is banning marriage between an adult and a 13 year old. We legitimately discriminate all of the time. The question is NOT whether it is discrimination, it is WHY we choose to discriminate.
I won't repeat what I already posted on another thread (Feel free to discuss the ongoing election results here). My point there is this: Marriage as an institution has never been solely about marrying someone you love. Marriage as a functional entity in virtually any recorded culture you can find has been about providing the place where kids can be born and raised for the propogation of the family, tribe, and ultimately, the human race. Having kids is not a requirement to being married, but I would argue that it is at least ideal that kids are raised in the context of a marriage of a man and a woman.
I am NOT denying a gay person the right to be married as it has been practiced for centuries. The gay community is asking me to fundamentally change the very meaning of marriage (see my other post for my reasoning).
Although my religious beliefs are a factor, this view is not based in just one religious faith. Many people who hold to no religion also come to the same conclusion. When an ammendment wins as overwhelmingly as it did this week in 11 states, and wins in what is clearly one of the most liberal states in America, this is clearly NOT just the view of the radical right. Quite frankly, we are not that powerful or Bush would have won by a far higher percentage!
Jim in Iowa
Conservatives: What steps do you think Bush should do unify this country? What olive branch should he extend?
Ralph and Potsie in 2008.
"Talk To The Malph and Sit On It!"
We are told here that the nation need not be divided. Then we are told that the blame for division lies with "you liberals". And the posters continue blithely on, unaware of the cognitive dissonance.
I'd laugh, if I could stop weeping long enough.
Jim in Iowa says:
Homosexuality is the same as incest and child molestation.
Since he won't come out and say it (coming out is a problem for folks like him) I'll do it for him.
Jim in Iowa says:
"How would that bring unity when over 50% of the country voted for him? "
So are you misguided or are you lying. Either way, you are wrong.
Ammend your statement (and I know you folks like your Ammendments) to say that over 50% of the 58% percent who were registered, could be bothered to vote, voted for him. The rest couldn't get off their worthless asses to particpate in what's supposedly the greatest right we have.
By the way, as I just did two slams at Jim in Iowa, I'd like to mention that I bare him no ill will or malice. I've always appreciated that he'll pretty much speak his mind and give well thought out reasons behind his beliefs.
If more people on both sides would approach things as he does, we'd all be in better shape.
Most 401k's I know of ARE money in the stock market. They may not be in all one stock, but as I understand it, you are asking for the same thing Bush is proposing.
Yes, I realized this on the other forum as well after I posted it.
What I would prefer is something less dependent upon the stock market - where a crash takes everything away, and on the company I work for - where some greedy execs take everything away.
A personal savings account that I cannot access would be one option. This way, it is in my name, and nobody can take anything out of it, or deny it to me, later.
How would that bring unity when over 50% of the country voted for him?
For starters, if you want to argue about who voted for him, then he never would have been president in the first place.
I would have to think that many Republicans are disappointed by his getting the nomination in 2000 to begin with. If they are not, then they seriously need to reevaluate what they want out of this country.
Everybody complains that Kerry and Gore were poor candidates, but Bush sure as hell wasn't a winner either.
"Marriage as an institution has never been solely about marrying someone you love. Marriage as a functional entity in virtually any recorded culture you can find has been about providing the place where kids can be born and raised for the propogation of the family, tribe, and ultimately, the human race"
Back when the brou-hah hah on gay mariage began, I was curious as to a Jewish perspective on this. Afterall, OUR law says homosexuality is wrong....but then OUR law was meant to change over time and wasn't written in stone (well, except for those 10 that, you know...were). And I found a very good study from some serious level Rabbi's on this. And the point Jim makes is one of them. And that Leveticus says homosexuality is wrong was mentioned. But it boils down to while on the one hand the ancient books say something is wrong, on the other hand being against it puts you on the same side as those who'd oppress you. ie..you don't side with the Nazi's.
If you're side of the field has people wearing white sheets and brown shirts...you just may be playing for the wrong team.
Marriage as an institution has never been solely about marrying someone you love.
Maybe it's time you wake up and welcome yourself to the Real World, Jim.
People marry for a variety of reasons, and marrying simply out of love is sure as hell one of them.
This isn't 1200. It's the year 2004. Live in it.
Homosexuality is the same as incest and child molestation.
Since he won't come out and say it (coming out is a problem for folks like him) I'll do it for him.
Gee, thanks. I was really struggling to come out and say exactly that.
Let's also say that someone who speeds is the same as someone who drives drunk and kills someone. Let's also say that someone who steals a car should be executed along with a murderer and be done with it.
Glad I said it. Now I feel better.
Jim in Iowa
Eric!:
>>Gays, and yes, they are, and if you're really claiming that you're not blind and yet can claim gays aren't being discriminated against, you're nuts.
>Well, gays can marry anyone I can marry and I can't marry anyone they can't.
Not true. You can potentially marry anyone you are physically and emotionally attracted to. They can't.
Ammend your statement (and I know you folks like your Ammendments) to say that over 50% of the 58% percent who were registered, could be bothered to vote, voted for him. The rest couldn't get off their worthless asses to particpate in what's supposedly the greatest right we have.
Consider it ammended. On second thought, let me ammend your ammendment and just say I agree with the first sentence and leave out the slam on those who spared us their voting without knowing what was going on in the first place (which IS a responsibility that they are wrong to avoid).
Jim in Iowa
Marriage as an institution has never been solely about marrying someone you love.
Maybe it's time you wake up and welcome yourself to the Real World, Jim.
People marry for a variety of reasons, and marrying simply out of love is sure as hell one of them.
I said, as an instituion, it has never been SOLELY out of love. There are numeous political or arranged marriages over the years. Just as there are many marriages out of love.
I am arguing that marriage came into existence for a greater purpose than just making a commitment to each other out of love. It came into existence for the purpose of having children and providing them a place to grow and be nurtured in love. Bearing children has been a fundamental part of marriage in virtually every society. Marrying for love has not.
Jim in Iowa
"Yes, banning gay marriage is discrimination. But so is banning marriage between a father and daughter. So is banning marriage between a brother and sister. So is banning marriage between an adult and a 13 year old. We legitimately discriminate all of the time. The question is NOT whether it is discrimination, it is WHY we choose to discriminate."
Putting aside that you equate homosexuality with incest...
No, actually, I don't think I'll put that aside. That actually underscores my point: That people have not been able to pull their heads out of their...bibles...and comprehend the simple reality that being gay is not sinful behavior, and also not a choice (whereas deciding to commit incest pretty much is a choice.)
Not to mention the fact that the bible portrays a father having sex with his daughters to be acceptable under certain circumstances, so...
That said, at its most basic, incest and, for that matter, first cousins marrying, is historically frowned upon/discouraged because of the higher chance of birth defects (inbreeding causes everything from mental retardation to hemophelia, which is why the latter wasn't uncommon in royal families where such behavior was encouraged.) Discrimination isn't discrimination when it's based on reasonable health concerns, if nothing else.
Gay marriage, on the other hand, and the discouraging thereof, has no basis other than bigotry, mostly steeped in the teachings of a book that also teaches that it's acceptable to put a misbehaving child to death.
PAD
This isn't 1200. It's the year 2004. Live in it.
I am discussing how marriage has always been understood up and until the last 50 years. I am arguing that gay marriage is a radical and fundamental change in how marriage is understood and defined.
Jim in Iowa
ANGRY said: We didn't like you. We aren't going to like you now. This country won't come together till everyones issues are addressed.
Guess that means never. Not possible to address everyone's issues, some stances (ie, beliefs) are in diametric opposition to others, mutually exclusive.
Barrett Esposito said: Instead, he found tax breaks for rich white guys.
This is one of those arguments that I just don't understand. Taxes were lowered for everyone that PAYS taxes, those that don't pay taxes (lowest income levels) don't have anything to lower. The richest in the country pay the most, so the lowering of tax rates shows up for them the most. It's just math. I'm sure that the IRS would be happy to take any extra money that you have that you believe should be payed in taxes. Personally I don't make enough to be in that category.
jeff
Did you not type this?
"Yes, banning gay marriage is discrimination. But so is banning marriage between a father and daughter. So is banning marriage between a brother and sister. So is banning marriage between an adult and a 13 year old."
So if you're not equating them...then why make the comparisons?
Jeff is right!
I'm paying far less taxes now then I was pre-Bush.
Of course, I'm making $50,000 a year less than I was then too.
"I am arguing that marriage came into existence for a greater purpose than just making a commitment to each other out of love. It came into existence for the purpose of having children and providing them a place to grow and be nurtured in love. Bearing children has been a fundamental part of marriage in virtually every society. Marrying for love has not."
And thus do you, once and for all, blow your own argument to hell and gone. Instead you have just proven the point of every advocate for gay marriage.
Marriage does indeed have its roots in creating a binding and protective situation in which children can be produced to propogate the species.
But over the years, it has also been for the purpose of a man possessing a woman in the same way that he possesses a cow or chickens. Or men have been able to marry multiple wives. It has been a means of creating unions between powerful families. It has been done as a convenience, loveless, while husband and wife share their beds with various paramours to the full knowledge and acceptance of the other. And in some societies, when the husband dies, the wife is expected to throw herself on the funeral pyre. Or it is expected that if the husband dies, the husband's oldest surviving brother must marry the wife.
Do any of those describe the state of marriage in America today?
No. Because whatever the original intent was, it is a constantly changing and evolving institution. And any rational person would have to concede that having it a mutual union based purely on love is a vast improvement over a man acquiring a wife solely because he needs someone to help plow the field, pump out some offspring, and live her life as a second class citizen with no rights.
So to say now that it must cease to evolve, that--as Picard would say--the line must be drawn here, here and no further, defies recognizing the simple truth that marriage has changed, is changing, and will continue to change. And just as there were husbands raging over the notion of their wives becoming equal citizens because they were just women and not smart enough to vote, and just as there were KKK members howling over blacks marrying whites because it was going to poison the gene pool of America, there will be bigots who will spew reasons for why gays shouldn't be able to marry, and the reasons will be just as valid and invalid as their spiritual precursors, whether they admit it or no.
And once again, unless you're ready to argue that post-menopausal women shouldn't be allowed to marry or men who had vasectomies shouldn't be allowed to marry, your comment about "greater purpose" has no underpinning. Either people should be allowed to marry or they shouldn't.
PAD
Discrimination isn't discrimination when it's based on reasonable health concerns, if nothing else.
Um, actually it is. But then, I'm unusual in that I consider discrimination and its cousin prejudice to be both good things and frankly necessary for cognitive function and human survival. You're basically making a distinction between good discrimination and bad discrimination, but it's still discrimination.
Yeah, I'm serious. Did a paper for a graduate course in human cognitive development (over history, rather than individual development from birth) on this a while back. You have to have discrimination and prejudice since you both can't and don't have time to work out everything from first principles. Our ancestors were very prejudiced against large predators; if they weren't, they'd get eaten. And you discriminate between and among things constantly.
The catch is that it's very easy to misuse prejudice and discrimination. The most obvious way is by choosing wrong, inappropriate, and irrevelant criteria to base your prejudice and discrimination on. The next major way is not distinguishing between "All A are B" valid criteria and "Many/Most A are B, for valid criteria C, but this particular A is not B, since C is not intrinsic to being A". Next major way is not to realize or account for changes in individuals or the criteria.
Oh, and Jim...one other question:
I seem to recall that it should be theoretically possible to take a woman's egg and combine it with another woman's egg in some manner to produce a child. Naturally said offspring could only be female because there's no Y chromosone involved. But still...
If two women wanted to marry and, with scientific aid, could produce a child that was gentically their own, would that satisfy your criteria? And, on that basis, would you then say that lesbians, at least, should be allowed to marry?
PAD
No, actually, I don't think I'll put that aside. That actually underscores my point: That people have not been able to pull their heads out of their...bibles...and comprehend the simple reality that being gay is not sinful behavior, and also not a choice (whereas deciding to commit incest pretty much is a choice.)
PAD,
If I do pull my head out of my ... Bible ... then yes, I can see your point. Sinful behavior, almost by definition in this context, is a religious belief. So if the Bible is wrong/invalid/irrelevant, then gay ACTIONS are not sinful.
But a gay lifestyle has been rejected by a very large number of religions and philosophies (including communism, which was aethistic). For whatever reason you want to give, there is an almost instinctive rejection of homosexuality throughout history. If nothing else, if you don't want to bring religion into it, perhaps it is an evolutionary bias to keep us from going extinct.
You did not address my point. This country is NOT a Christian country. It is perhaps more pluralistic than at any other time in its history. Yet over 70% of those polled reject gay marriage. Why?
Let me also say I do not equate gay "desires" with gay "actions." I have counseled people who have sexual attraction to kids. Just because you feel an attraction or desire does not, by definition, make it right.
"Being" gay in orientation is not a sin. Acting out in gay behavior IS a choice. I believe that choice is sinful and that it is emotionally, physically, and spiritually damaging to the individual who engages in such actions. You do not agree. That is fine. It does not change the fact that any sexual act a person chooses to engage in is by definition a choice. The question is not whether it is a choice, the question is whether or not such actions are right.
Why is this such an obvious big deal to me? Because I do share a fear you have. I don't see the religious right leading us down a path like the Nazi's did to Germany. I see the potential for the liberal left to do so. How? On things like this very issue. The first step is an insistence that we make gay marriage legal. The next step is to then tell those, like myself, that to even suggest that a gay lifestyle is sinful is hate speech and wrong. I am not talking about standing in the streets shouting cruel things at gays. I am talking about my right to say that homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of God, and harmful to the person who engages in such activities.
Gay marriage, on the other hand, and the discouraging thereof, has no basis other than bigotry, mostly steeped in the teachings of a book that also teaches that it's acceptable to put a misbehaving child to death.
I answered the first part above. Let me reference the second. Yes, the Bible does teach under some circumstances it was permissible to execute a disobedient child. However, there is a greater context in which that law must be understood. You do NOT find this law being practiced in the Bible. It is not because it was understood to show the severity of the crime. Other than for what we consider "first degree murder," you don't find the executions based on the mosaic code for most of the things in the list, which also includes homosexuality. Both Jewish and Christian traditions suggest that a "ransom" (or "fine) was allowed as a way to pay for the crime.
Jewish law, as you well know, is quite complex. It contains a mixture of civil, ceremonial, and moral laws. We don't have the equivalent today. Some people then suggest the OT Law is irrelevant. I would suggest that instead, you must use the context. Let me give you an example.
PAD, you have a daughter. Imagine that at age 5 you gave her these 3 rules:
1.) Go to be at 7 PM.
2.) Don't play in the street.
3.) Don't touch the hot burner on the stove.
As she gets older, you would let her to go bed at a later time, and eventually would not tell her when to go to bed.
In the second, as she got older, the rule would depend on where you live. If you live on a busy New York Avenue, it might never be appropriate to play on the street. If you live in a quiet suburb, it may be fine to play on the street as long as she watches for cars.
Whatever age she is, it is always wrong (harmful) to touch a burner with her bare hands.
The Bible is not a book you blindly read. You read it with common sense as you would any other writing. Some laws (such as not eating pork) are not followed by Christians today, but are by practicing Jews. Others (such as killing man woman and child in the city of Jericho) were a specific judgment on a specific people at a specific time and was never meant to be used as an example for warfare today. Some (I would suggest homosexual actions and any sex with another person outside of marriage) are by their very nature, harmful to ourselves according to the very one who created us.
Jim in Iowa
"Discrimination isn't discrimination when it's based on reasonable health concerns, if nothing else."
"Um, actually it is. But then, I'm unusual in that I consider discrimination and its cousin prejudice to be both good things and frankly necessary for cognitive function and human survival. You're basically making a distinction between good discrimination and bad discrimination, but it's still discrimination."
Cut me a break, Tom. You know perfectly well that I was centering on the following definition:
": prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment "
I wasn't trying to incorporate all the various definitions of "discrimination" in one comment. I mean, you might as well say claim I was saying that there's no such thing as an art fancier having discriminating tastes, or when I'm talking about bias, you ask what race relations has to do with a line diagonal to the grain of a fabric.
Although might I point out that your supposed exception pretty much goes with my original comment. I talked about discrimination not existing when there are genuine health concerns, and you counter with ancestors discriminating against larger animals that could kill them. Dude, if getting eaten by a sabretooth isn't a health concern, I don't know what is.
PAD
So Jim, you pick and choose which of G-d's laws to follow? That's very progressive of you. I'm glad though that you let yourself eat bacon, but follow the ones that lead you to hate another.
You know, Jesus was real big on the hate thing, I hear.
Gay marriage, on the other hand, and the discouraging thereof, has no basis other than bigotry, mostly steeped in the teachings of a book that also teaches that it's acceptable to put a misbehaving child to death.
The relationship between a gay couple and a heterosexual are different, plain and simple. No matter how hard the majority of Gay couples try they are not going to produce a child, the majority heterosexual couples can. This is were the government has an interest in supporting this union (more customers). I'm all for Gay couples having commitments and all the leagal rights needed for health and finacial support, but not the same as a heterosexual couple that can produce a child. Anyone who can not see these relationships as being different is willfully blind.
If two women wanted to marry and, with scientific aid, could produce a child that was gentically their own, would that satisfy your criteria? And, on that basis, would you then say that lesbians, at least, should be allowed to marry?
Short answer, no. It required scientific intervention. I am arguing for "traditional" marriage. Such an option was not even possible before. More importantly, I am arguing that having a parent from each gender is better than having two parents of the same gender. (Not to be funny about it, but why is diversity in this situation not to be preferred? If everyone has a masculine and femine side, is it not at least ideal for a child to grow up with a close and clear model of each?)
If two women choose to do so at their own expense, I would not stop them. But I would not change the definition of marriage to accomodate them.
Let me make a side comment. I do not hate gays. If such a couple lived next door to me, I would probably bring over some baby clothes for them and babysit for them if needed. I worked for 4 years in the Oak Lawn area of Dallas, which has a high population of homosexuals, and none of them would ever say I was mean or hateful to them. On the contrary, we got along fine. But I believe changing the definition of marriage will lead to consequences just as no fault divorce has done. Since it does not yet exist here, I cannot prove it. But I think the evidence points that way.
Furthermore, I believe for personal and theological reasons that a gay lifestyle is not the best choice. I know of people who have left the gay lifestyle and who are very happily married. Does that mean all must do so? Of course not. But it is wrong to say that for at least some people, change is possible. It is not a false hope.
Jim in Iowa
So Jim, you pick and choose which of G-d's laws to follow? That's very progressive of you. I'm glad though that you let yourself eat bacon, but follow the ones that lead you to hate another.
Of course I pick and choose. Everyone does, even with laws here in America. That is called using your head. If a truck is coming up on my tail on the freeway at 80 miles per hour and I can't change lanes, you better believe I will speed up rather than be rear ended.
I don't recall ever saying that I hated anyone. Is it hateful to tell someone who is having an affair that he is destroying his marriage? Is it hateful to tell someone who is hooked on crack that she is killing herself? Unless you say it is hate to warn someone that what they are doing is harmful, I am not hating anyone.
Jim in Iowa
If two women wanted to marry and, with scientific aid, could produce a child that was gentically their own, would that satisfy your criteria? And, on that basis, would you then say that lesbians, at least, should be allowed to marry?
Nope, unless the government is offering it to every Lesbian couple gratis. Man and woman who flip burgers can have child (no aid needed, well maybe a back seat and some Barry White) therefore Gov't wants to support this, woman and woman who flip burgers can't (even with Barry and back seat). These relationships are different.
But it is wrong to say that for at least some people, change is possible.
Let me restate this the way I meant it:
Change IS possible, at least for some people, and it is wrong to deny them the opportunity to try to change if they so choose. It is not a false hope. A significant number of people have actually done so.
Jim in Iowa
Everyone's prejudiced about something. Most have some bigotry in them.
I personaly have developed a nasty prejudiced against foreigners who work in this country, yet don't speak the language well and then call me up for tech support and want me to help them. Now granted that's a pretty specific bigotry, but there it is.
But you know what? I recognize that it's there, and furthermore, like any right thinking person, I'm ashamed of myself for it.
Now for you holy rollers out there...where is your shame?
Oh I get it now! It's out of love! You're trying to HELP gay people! How white of you.
And how is Mary Cheney being gay hurting her? I'm serious, now. I incredibly want to understand your viewpoint. Reading and studying the bible hasn't done it, but explain it to me.
"you better believe I will speed up rather than be rear ended."
I think that's been clearly established.
"If two women wanted to marry and, with scientific aid, could produce a child that was gentically their own, would that satisfy your criteria? And, on that basis, would you then say that lesbians, at least, should be allowed to marry?"
"Short answer, no. It required scientific intervention. I am arguing for "traditional" marriage."
Ah, okay.
John? John Ordover, you out there?
If he is, I'd like you to meet John Ordover. He and his wife required several years and tons of medical assistance before they were able to have a child. But according to you, since scientific intervention was required, you're not in favor of their marriage. For that matter, if the doctor had finally said, "Sorry, kids, it's just not happening; you'll never have children," then they should be divorced.
"But a gay lifestyle has been rejected by a very large number of religions and philosophies (including communism, which was aethistic). For whatever reason you want to give, there is an almost instinctive rejection of homosexuality throughout history. If nothing else, if you don't want to bring religion into it, perhaps it is an evolutionary bias to keep us from going extinct."
Well, hell, Jim, y'know what? The Jewish lifestyle has been rejected by a large number of religions and philosophies, so let's kill all the Jews while we're at it.
"You did not address my point. This country is NOT a Christian country. It is perhaps more pluralistic than at any other time in its history. Yet over 70% of those polled reject gay marriage. Why?"
Because they're idiots, Jim. Because people are idiots, and just because there's 70% of them, that doesn't make them more right than the 30% who aren't idiots. A lot more than 70% thought the sun went around the earth, and religious types banned them or killed them, but y'know what? They were right and the majority was wrong.
"Why is this such an obvious big deal to me? Because I do share a fear you have. I don't see the religious right leading us down a path like the Nazi's did to Germany. I see the potential for the liberal left to do so. How?"
Beats me, considering the conservatives are the ones with all the guns.
"I am talking about my right to say that homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of God, and harmful to the person who engages in such activities."
Say it all you want.
The bottom line (your rather inane comparison to child raising aside) is that no one is asking that gay marriage be made legal. It's being asked that it not be made ILLEGAL. As it stands now, the vast majority of states and the US government do NOT have laws forbidding it. And what they're doing now is trying to change that.
There is one reason and one reason only to make something illegal: Someone's going to be hurt by it.
No one is being hurt by gay marriage. No one.
PAD
Eric!: Well, gays can marry anyone I can marry and I can't marry anyone they can't.
Luigi Novi: Where do you get this repetitive gibberish from? Gays cannot marry those they fall in love with, period. A gay woman can marry anyone you can marry? How so? Assuming from your name that you’re a woman, that means that you can marry a woman, and a gay woman cannot. Hence, gays do not have the right to marry has heterosexuals do.
Jim in Iowa: If you are referring to Iraq, then you are at best inconsistent. It is not necessary for someone to attack us for us to have reason to go to war. Iraq invaded a neighbor, and we chose to go to the defense of Kuwait. I believe that was a valid reason to go to war.
Luigi Novi: Apples and oranges, Jim. Iraq did invade another country then, and we had the support of the international community. Neither was the case here.
Jim in Iowa: But leave that aside for the moment. I would consider any country that sponsored and supported an assasination of a former president as a country that at least attempted to attack us. I would consider a country that DAILY shot at our planes as an attack on our country. To say they did not (and yes, could not) successfully mount an attack on our soil is irrelevant.
Luigi Novi: Bush did not convince Congress and the American people to go war because Saddam shot at planes. He did so based on the notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
Jim in Iowa: Is this a wrong value to hold? Why does our society treat with disdain the concept that it is better to wait until marriage to have sex?
Den W.: Would you buy a car without taking it for a test drive first?
Luigi Novi: Yeah, I mean, when you go buy a car, you ask the salesman lots of questions, like:
“Does it have a nice chassis?”
“Does it get many miles to the gallon?”
“Does it go too fast?”
“Is it hard to turn on in the morning?”
“How many people have ridden it before me?”
“How many people do you think I could fit in there?”
These are important questions regarding both buying cars and sex, after all.
Jim in Iowa: Yes, banning gay marriage is discrimination. But so is banning marriage between a father and daughter. So is banning marriage between a brother and sister. So is banning marriage between an adult and a 13 year old. We legitimately discriminate all of the time. The question is NOT whether it is discrimination, it is WHY we choose to discriminate.
Luigi Novi: There are valid harm to the people involved and to society if parents married children, or siblings each other, or adults and minors. There is no such harm if two consenting, non-related, human ADULTS of the same gender do so. Incest and child molestation are already crimes because the two participants are not both consenting, and not both adults. This does not hold true for adult gays.
Jim in Iowa: I won't repeat what I already posted on another thread (Feel free to discuss the ongoing election results here). My point there is this: Marriage as an institution has never been solely about marrying someone you love.
Luigi Novi: But love is the primary reason people do so today, and is pretty much the reason gays wish to do so.
Jim in Iowa: Marriage as a functional entity in virtually any recorded culture you can find has been about providing the place where kids can be born and raised for the propogation of the family, tribe, and ultimately, the human race.
Luigi Novi: According to wikipedia’s entry for Same-sex marriage, same-gender romantic love or sexual desire has been recorded from ancient times in the east. Such desire often took the form of same-sex unions, usually between men, and often included some difference in age (there is far less information available on relationships among women in ancient times. There are a number of possible reasons for this: an attitude that women were not important enough to write about; or that same-sex attraction between women was not valued as it was between men; or that women were not afforded equal status with men, so that, while men were free to pursue sexual and romantic pleasure both within and without marriage, women often were not).
There is a long history of same-sex unions in the western world. That many early western societies tolerated, and even celebrated, same sex relationships is well-known. Evidence of same-sex marriage, however, is less clear, but there exists some evidence, often controversial, of same-sex marriages in ancient Rome and Greece, and even in medieval Europe. Same-sex unions have also been recorded among Native Americans and Africans.
In ancient Rome, for example, the Emperor Nero is reported to have married, at different times, two other men in wedding ceremonies. Other Roman Emperors are reported to have done the same thing. The increasing influence of Christianity, which promoted marriage for procreative purposes, is linked with the increasing intolerance of homosexuality in Rome.
Same-sex marriage has been documented in many societies that were not subject to Christian influence. In North America, among the Native American societies, it has taken the form of two-spirit-type relationships, in which some members of the tribe, from an early age, heed a calling to take on female gender with all its responsibilities. They are prized as wives by the other men in the tribe, who enter into formal marriages with these two-spirit men. They are also respected as being especially powerful shamans.
In Africa, among the Azande of the Congo, men would marry youths for whom they had to pay a bride-price to the father. These marriages likewise were understood to be of a temporary nature.
Finally, in Europe during Hellenic times, pederastic relationships between Greek men (erastes) and youths (eromenos) who had come of age were analogous to marriage in several aspects. The age of the youth was similar to the age at which women married (the mid-teens), and the relationship could only be undertaken with the consent of the father. This consent, just as in the case of a daughter's marriage, was contingent on the suitor's social standing. The relationship, just like a marriage, consisted of very specific social and religious responsibilities, and also had an erotic component.
As Peter asked, does this describe the state of marriage today?
And who cares even if it were a place for kids to be born? If there are heterosexuals who get married but don’t want kids, why can’t gays?
Jim in Iowa: I am NOT denying a gay person the right to be married as it has been practiced for centuries. The gay community is asking me to fundamentally change the very meaning of marriage
Luigi Novi: Right, because all of a sudden, anti-gay conservatives have become vocabulary freaks.
Jim in Iowa: Let's also say that someone who speeds is the same as someone who drives drunk and kills someone.
Luigi Novi: Here, you’re comparing dangerous illegal behavior that might kill someone with behavior that has killed someone. Your point? What does this have to do with comparing incest and child molestation to gay marriage?
Jim in Iowa: Let's also say that someone who steals a car should be executed along with a murderer and be done with it.
Luigi Novi: Another false analogy. One is theft, and deprives one of their property, and one deprives one of their LIFE. Both are illegal, because both involve immoral, criminal behavior against non-consenting victims. Not so with gay marriage.
Peter David: Gay marriage, on the other hand, and the discouraging thereof, has no basis other than bigotry, mostly steeped in the teachings of a book that also teaches that it's acceptable to put a misbehaving child to death.
Luigi Novi: Careful, there, Peter. You might have Avi Green on your case for insulting yourself. :-)
Jim in Iowa: I am discussing how marriage has always been understood up and until the last 50 years. I am arguing that gay marriage is a radical and fundamental change in how marriage is understood and defined.
Luigi Novi: And the problem with that is…?
Jim in Iowa: For whatever reason you want to give, there is an almost instinctive rejection of homosexuality throughout history.
Luigi Novi: As Peter and I illustrated above, this is a statement made only by people who haven’t researched their history. Me, I did a bizarre thing and actually looked it up. You, on the other hand, just asserted what you assumed was historically true.
Jim in Iowa: Why is this such an obvious big deal to me? Because I do share a fear you have. I don't see the religious right leading us down a path like the Nazi's did to Germany. I see the potential for the liberal left to do so. How? On things like this very issue. The first step is an insistence that we make gay marriage legal. The next step is to then tell those, like myself, that to even suggest that a gay lifestyle is sinful is hate speech and wrong. I am not talking about standing in the streets shouting cruel things at gays. I am talking about my right to say that homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of God, and harmful to the person who engages in such activities.
Luigi Novi: Conservatives who are against gay marriage want to restrict a right, which is certainly more in line with Nazism then some imagined instance of taking away your “right to say” it’s wrong, which, in view of the 1st Amendment, will never happen. It makes no sense to argue that liberals want to expand rights by allowing gay marriage, but want to get rid of that pesky 1st Amendment. Either you think liberals want to expand rights, or restrict them, Jim. Can’t have it both ways.
Jim in Iowa: Other than for what we consider "first degree murder," you don't find the executions based on the mosaic code for most of the things in the list, which also includes homosexuality.
Luigi Novi: Again, you show your ignorance. AT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_which_permit_or_outlaw_homosexual_behavior, it indicates that in Mauritania, Nigeria, Sudan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen, you most certainly DO.
Eric!: The relationship between a gay couple and a heterosexual are different, plain and simple. No matter how hard the majority of Gay couples try they are not going to produce a child, the majority heterosexual couples can.
Luigi Novi: This has nothing to do with the members of the couple’s relationship” to each other, which most certainly is the same as a hetero one: They’re in love, and want to codify their pair bond.
Eric!: Anyone who can not see these relationships as being different is willfully blind.
Luigi Novi: And anyone who doesn’t see that such differences are superficial with respect to the legitimacy of marriage is willfully bigoted.
Jim in Iowa: Short answer, no. It required scientific intervention.
Luigi Novi: So then you’re against granting marriage to couples with fertility problems who resort to in vitro fertilization, test tube babies, fertility drugs, etc.?
Jim in Iowa: I am arguing for "traditional" marriage.
Luigi Novi: We don’t base laws on “tradition.” We base laws on right and wrong, and we do not outlaw things that do not hurt anyone.
Jim in Iowa: Such an option was not even possible before. More importantly, I am arguing that having a parent from each gender is better than having two parents of the same gender. (Not to be funny about it, but why is diversity in this situation not to be preferred? If everyone has a masculine and femine side, is it not at least ideal for a child to grow up with a close and clear model of each?)
Luigi Novi: Sure. That doesn’t mean we don’t allow gays to marry just because they can’t produce a child.
Jim in Iowa: I know of people who have left the gay lifestyle and who are very happily married. Does that mean all must do so? Of course not. But it is wrong to say that for at least some people, change is possible.
Luigi Novi: No, change is not (im)possible. But whether they do so is a matter of their choice. So in other words, you think this choice is to convert to heterosexuality is okay, but the choice not to, and marry the same-gender person you’re in love with isn’t.
Jim in Iowa: Is it hateful to tell someone who is having an affair that he is destroying his marriage? Is it hateful to tell someone who is hooked on crack that she is killing herself? Unless you say it is hate to warn someone that what they are doing is harmful, I am not hating anyone.
Luigi Novi: You are, given that you have not illustrated that gays marrying hurts anyone.
Peter said "No one is being hurt by gay marriage. No one."
This is where you are wrong. The Democratic party was harmed by this. For an example, see this years election results.
Novafan
Bill Mulligan wrote:
> 4 years from now there will be new
> elections. None of the people on this board
> will have been rounded up and placed in
> camps for their beliefs
>
> Despiet [sic] claims of oppression it will still
> be easy to produce films, comics, books etc
> that protray the government in a negative
> way (to say the least). It won't be nazi
> germany or anything like it
You don't know that. As PAD has already mentioned, Nazi Germany didn't look like Nazi Germany until it was too late. And Hitler didn't seize power, he was appointed Chancellor by a properly elected President.
> (I can't promise that they won't be in jail for
> other offenses. Some of y'all have potential
> for all kinds of stuff.)
How lovely. When you can't argue fairly, libel those who disagree with you.
Barrett Esposito said: Instead, he found tax breaks for rich white guys.
This is one of those arguments that I just don't understand. Taxes were lowered for everyone that PAYS taxes, those that don't pay taxes (lowest income levels) don't have anything to lower. The richest in the country pay the most, so the lowering of tax rates shows up for them the most. It's just math. I'm sure that the IRS would be happy to take any extra money that you have that you believe should be payed in taxes. Personally I don't make enough to be in that category.
It is not "just math." Income tax is a progressive tax. If you would like to debate the fundamentals of cutting everyone's tax rate by the same amount in a progressive tax system, I would be happy to go on at excessive length about why tax breaks for the 2% of this country that controls 40% of its wealth (not to mention insane tax breaks for corporations) are not sensible fiscal policy. Additionally, for the government to lower anyone's taxes at a time when it is running up unprecedented deficits is bad form, to say the very least. Lastly, the idea that cutting the tax on dividends makes sense (the argument most often cited is that as of 1998, 70% of all taxpayers who received dividends were making $55K or less, but you will notice that doesn't break things out by HOW MUCH they received in dividends) because that money gets plowed back into the economy is stupid. Anyone who gets significant dividend income is not living paycheck to paycheck, so the idea that those people will get their checks and say, "Oh boy, I can get me that new VCR now!" is ludicrous. That is the simplified (but not OVERsimplified) version of it.
Bearing children has been a fundamental part of marriage in virtually every society.
Yet, who the hell needs to be married to have kids in the first place?
People all over the world are, as Bill Maher put it so wonderfully, "spawning" with or without marriage.
No matter how you want to say it, your argument is flawed.
Luigi Novi: And anyone who doesn’t see that such differences are superficial with respect to the legitimacy of marriage is willfully bigoted.
Bearing children is a superficial difference? That's your response?! Knowing that difference isn't superficial makes one a bigot?
They’re in love, and want to codify their pair bond.
Fine, codify away, just don't demand the gov't to support it.
Aw, let's talk about Fonzie s'more.
Budget is broken? Hit it with your fist just right.
Diplomatic disagreements? Set the Ambassador up on a date with Laverne.
Terrorism? "Sit on it!"
David,
Obviously I don't "Know" any of this. I have no gift for prophesy. Neither do any of the people who are insisting that all kinds of bad things will happen during the next 4 years. I suppose I could post a message to each and every one of them saying "You can't know that." but it would look pretty silly.
You neglected to reprint the part about revisting all this in 4 years and seeing who's right, thus indicating that I certainly am not "sure" about it. But whatever.
ME- "I can't promise that they won't be in jail for there offenses. Some of y'all have potential
for all kinds of stuff."
See, that's what we call a joke.
YOU- "How lovely. When you can't argue fairly, libel those who disagree with you."
See, that's what we call clueless.
Among other obvious points, please point out where I was talking about only those who disagree with me. I could have been talking about Jerome's habit of throwing anthrax spores in the face of orphans (see, that's also a joke. Jerome doesn't actually do that. As far as I know)
PAD says-- "you don't get it....My grandfather saw the rising tide of hatred. Of discrimination. Of religious fanaticism. All this when he was in Berlin, and when he packed up my father and grandmother and got the hell out, all the neighbors told him he was nuts. That things would become better. That he was overreacting."
I DO get it. I just disagree that the same thing is happening here. Isn't it possible for someone to actually "get" what's happening and just not come to the same conclusions you do or do you really believe that the truth is so obvious that any rational thinking person MUST come to believe as you do? (which is a mindset that is all too common these days).
Nekouken-
"Bush's campaign drew all of its strength from fear. Fear of terrorism (which, thanks to his ineptitude, is now only threatening our military in a hostile country and is unlikely to happen stateside in any significant measure again for some time)"
Um...many would consider that a major positive achievement. The military can shoot back and do so quite well. Not so true for civilians. (I have to say, you are more optimistic about the unlikelihood of another steside attack than I am).
"Not all Liberals beleive the same thing as well. You can't group peoples beleifs that way. Well maybe you can with conservatives, i don't really see how its possible but you all seem to do it anyway."
Yeah, because ALL conservatives are pro-gay rights, pro-choice, pro-drug reform guys like me. Yep. We walk in lockstep.
"But here is the sort of ultra-conservative hate propaganda that we fear. And when you're presented with stuff like this, it can be difficult not to paint you all with the same brush."
Sure it is. To not do so would be as foolish as someone going to a far left nutjob website and chooseing to deliberately tar ALL liberals with the same brush, or allowing a bad experience with a member of a race or creed to be the reason to become a bigot. You can certainly do that but you can't pretend it makes the bigotry any more platable.
"Personally, I think Christianity is a sign of brain damage..."
Wow, talk about junk science.
"Conservatives: What steps do you think Bush should do unify this country? What olive branch should he extend? "
Judging from this site, there would be little point in trying...I'd hope that he might try to modify his anti-gay marraige views by also linking it to some kind of official recognition of civil ceremonies. This would please neither side but would be at least a step un the right direction.
I would hope that he would be as generous to liberals as many of the liberals here would be to conservatives, were they in the same position. Except for the parts about rounding us all up and burying our bodies in the forest (Note to David: Again, a joke).
Craig said "If Bush wants to unite this country, he'll step down and let somebody WORTHY of the job in."
Like Kerry was worthy of the job. Give me a break. The only consistent position he ever had was on voting against the ban on Partial birth abortions six times. And he betrayed all Veterans by his lies he told to Congress. Yeah, like he was worthy to be Commander in Chief. Sheesh!!!
Like Kerry was worthy of the job.
I never said he was, but very simply put: Bush is as pathetic a candidate as Gore. Probably more so.
It's entirely disgusting that this is the best that we can do. Yet, conservatives are proud of themselves over this.
Sorry Craig, I assumed you meant Kerry should have won instead of Bush.
Nekouken: Personally, I think Christianity is a sign of brain damage...
Luigi Novi: As opposed to all the other religions, which are somehow different?
Eric: Bearing children is a superficial difference? That's your response?! Knowing that difference isn't superficial makes one a bigot?
Luigi Novi: Gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with children. Gays want to get married because they’re in love, just as heterosexuals do, and there is nothing different between th0se reasons. Gays do not want to get married because of children.
Eric: Fine, codify away, just don't demand the gov't to support it.
Luigi Novi: No one’s asking the government to support anything. What we don’t want is the government to INTERFERE with the right of two consenting adults to get married simply because they’re of the same gender.
Novafan: And he betrayed all Veterans by his lies he told to Congress.
Luigi Novi: Such as?
It's all a matter of public record. Do you want me to post the entire spiel he gave Congress? Which part of it wasn't lies?
"Peter said "No one is being hurt by gay marriage. No one."
This is where you are wrong. The Democratic party was harmed by this. For an example, see this years election results."
Okay, that's a fair point. If there's one thing the Democrats didn't foresee, it was that conservatives would spend the last couple months of the election shoving gay marriage which, let's face it, should be a complete non-issue when it comes to the presidency, to the front and center. Democrats were just blindsided which, in retrospect, I guess should have been predictable.
After all, in the first months of the Clinton administration, the GOP shoved gays in the military straight into the limelight where it hadn't been before, instantly putting Clinton on the defensive and causing him no end of headaches and wasting of political capital. It is really remarkably hypocritical that the GOP starts shrieking when Kerry mentions (in a positive manner, mind you) Cheney's daughter, when they have not hesitated to throw the hand grenade of (gasp!) equal rights for gays into the fray at key moments in history. It's pretty repulsive when you think about it: This malicious, manipulative, cynical using of ten percent of the American population as boogey man and scare tactic, all in order to gain political points and offices.
Oh...and for those of you who don't understand the concern liberals have and keep saying that we'll survive another four years of Bush easily...
Tell that to the eleven hundred young men and women who haven't survived the last year of Bush.
PAD
"It is really remarkably hypocritical that the GOP starts shrieking when Kerry mentions (in a positive manner, mind you) Cheney's daughter, when they have not hesitated to throw the hand grenade of (gasp!) equal rights for gays into the fray at key moments in history."
What kills me is that right around Halloween, Lynne Cheney paraded one of her granddaughters on stage dressed as the Grim Reaper and called her, "John Kerry's health plan." Yet just a few weeks before Mrs. Cheney was telling the world how she was disgusted with Jon Kerry for involving her family and mentioning that her daughter was a lesbian, as if it's something to be ahsamed of.
Jeez...talk about a hypocrite.
JAB
If he is, I'd like you to meet John Ordover. He and his wife required several years and tons of medical assistance before they were able to have a child. But according to you, since scientific intervention was required, you're not in favor of their marriage. For that matter, if the doctor had finally said, "Sorry, kids, it's just not happening; you'll never have children," then they should be divorced.
Sorry, but you just changed the parameters of your own example. Nice bait and switch, but it doesn't work. I have been quite clear that having kids is not a requirement for marriage. But to raise kids, I do want a father and a mother as the parents.
The bottom line (your rather inane comparison to child raising aside) is that no one is asking that gay marriage be made legal. It's being asked that it not be made ILLEGAL. As it stands now, the vast majority of states and the US government do NOT have laws forbidding it. And what they're doing now is trying to change that.
If what you suggest is true, then why have federal courts struck down the marriages in San Francisco? It is NOT currently a legal option. Up until the last few years (50?), this wasn't even a serious suggestion. There may not be a law making it a illegal, but the law as written implicitly assumed it would be a man and a woman.
You ARE asking for a change in the understanding of marriage for 2,000 years. Whether it was one man who had 100 wives, or one woman who had 100 husbands, the core marriage has always been between a man and a woman. You can argue that we are more enlightened now and should change the definition to also include between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, but the definition (legal or otherwise) is clearly being redefined.
Jim in Iowa
"Sorry, but you just changed the parameters of your own example. Nice bait and switch, but it doesn't work. I have been quite clear that having kids is not a requirement for marriage. But to raise kids, I do want a father and a mother as the parents."
Nope, I've been consistent. You're the one who's trying to do a fast tap dance around your own untenable arguments. You say that marriage is designed mainly for procreation. I ask whether two women procreating with one another should then be entitled to marriage, and you say no, ONLY because it requires scientific help. Therefore, by your own logic, a couple requiring scientific help to have a child should not be allowed to marry. But you say no, that's not the case, even though you offer not one shred of reasoning to explain why it should be different.
See, this is the problem when you have a position based not on logic, but on bias and prejudice. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
"The bottom line (your rather inane comparison to child raising aside) is that no one is asking that gay marriage be made legal. It's being asked that it not be made ILLEGAL. As it stands now, the vast majority of states and the US government do NOT have laws forbidding it. And what they're doing now is trying to change that."
"If what you suggest is true, then why have federal courts struck down the marriages in San Francisco?"
Political pressure. Idiots making a fuss. Violation of state rights. Take your pick.
"It is NOT currently a legal option. Up until the last few years (50?), this wasn't even a serious suggestion. There may not be a law making it a illegal, but the law as written implicitly assumed it would be a man and a woman."
Ohhh, it was "implicity assumed!" Ah, of course. And all legalities naturally must toe the line of implicit assumption. "There may not be a law making it illegal, but..." You don't get to have a "but" in there. When it comes to rights in this country (at least, once upon a time) the desire is to provide as much freedom as possible. Not look for reasons to curtail them. And certainly not look for reasons based in intolerance and religious dogma rather than anything remotely resembling a threat to the commonweal.
"You ARE asking for a change in the understanding of marriage for 2,000 years. Whether it was one man who had 100 wives, or one woman who had 100 husbands, the core marriage has always been between a man and a woman. You can argue that we are more enlightened now and should change the definition to also include between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, but the definition (legal or otherwise) is clearly being redefined."
So there's Jim of the not-yet-existent state of Iowa, in the Continental Congress in 1776. And what's being discussed is the notion of breaking away from England to form a country.
Monstrous, quoth Jim. Unthinkable! A vile notion! Why? Because no colony has broken away from its parent country in the history of the world. He is shocked--shocked!--that these so-called liberals could even entertain the notion of completely redefining the relationship between colony and mother country. What a terrible idea! Why it's as unthinkable as...as freeing slaves! Or suggesting that bleeding someone in order to free evil humours from their bodies is improper medicine! Because as we all know, when something is traditionally done one way, that is the ONLY way. We must remain in eternal lockstep, never think beyond that which we know, never shake up the status quo, never change, never grow, and by all means, never forget to thump that bible in righteous indignation when all else fails.
I would never argue that WE are more enlightened now, Jim. You know why?
Pronoun trouble. The whole WE thing. I would argue that SOME of US are more enlightened. And then...there's the others...
PAD
Novafan: It's all a matter of public record. Do you want me to post the entire spiel he gave Congress? Which part of it wasn't lies?
Luigi Novi: I am unaware of any lies on his part before Congress, and would find it odd that none of this was brought out in the campaign by Bush or Cheney. But if you can list some of them succinctly, please do so.
Jim in Iowa: Sorry, but you just changed the parameters of your own example. Nice bait and switch, but it doesn't work. I have been quite clear that having kids is not a requirement for marriage.
Luigi Novi: It seems that you’re the one who keeps changing parameters, because you keep responding to the “gays want to marry because they’re in love” argument by saying that marriage is also for children, and then, when it’s pointed out to you that many hetero couples do not procreate, or need help doing so, replying by saying that oh, kids are not a requirement for it. Pick a point of view and stick with it, Jim. Either you insist that children are a part of the argument, or you don’t.
You also didn’t respond to the information Peter and I provided regarding historical precedents for gay unions and gay marriage.
Jim in Iowa: If what you suggest is true, then why have federal courts struck down the marriages in San Francisco?
Luigi Novi: Because they were wrong.
Jim in Iowa: It is NOT currently a legal option. Up until the last few years (50?), this wasn't even a serious suggestion. There may not be a law making it a illegal, but the law as written implicitly assumed it would be a man and a woman.
Luigi Novi: Many things have been “implicitly assumed” by law. And in many of those cases, the assumption was wrong.
Jim in Iowa: You ARE asking for a change in the understanding of marriage for 2,000 years.
Luigi Novi: Thanks for stonewalling again on the information I provided above that indicated that this is not true. Great way to retreat from a counterargument that you can’t refute.
Jim in Iowa: Whether it was one man who had 100 wives, or one woman who had 100 husbands, the core marriage has always been between a man and a woman. You can argue that we are more enlightened now and should change the definition to also include between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, but the definition (legal or otherwise) is clearly being redefined.
Luigi Novi: Good. Since it doesn’t affect me one way or the other, but would serve to expand rights in order to allow gays the pursuit of happiness in a fundamental area of life that is being denied them, I say, let’s redefine it.
Jim in Iowa: Let's also say that someone who speeds is the same as someone who drives drunk and kills someone.
Luigi Novi: Here, you’re comparing dangerous illegal behavior that might kill someone with behavior that has killed someone. Your point? What does this have to do with comparing incest and child molestation to gay marriage?
Jim in Iowa: Let's also say that someone who steals a car should be executed along with a murderer and be done with it.
Luigi Novi: Another false analogy. One is theft, and deprives one of their property, and one deprives one of their LIFE. Both are illegal, because both involve immoral, criminal behavior against non-consenting victims. Not so with gay marriage.
Um, Luigi, did you not discern that my comments were sarcastic and not meant with any seriousness? Guess I was not as over the top extreme as I was trying.
Jim in Iowa: Other than for what we consider "first degree murder," you don't find the executions based on the mosaic code for most of the things in the list, which also includes homosexuality.
Luigi Novi: Again, you show your ignorance. AT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_which_permit_or_outlaw_homosexual_behavior, it indicates that in Mauritania, Nigeria, Sudan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen, you most certainly DO.
Luigi, I was referring to in the history recorded in the Bible. Your examples have nothing to do with that.
Jim in Iowa: For whatever reason you want to give, there is an almost instinctive rejection of homosexuality throughout history.
Luigi Novi: As Peter and I illustrated above, this is a statement made only by people who haven’t researched their history. Me, I did a bizarre thing and actually looked it up. You, on the other hand, just asserted what you assumed was historically true.
I did look it up. I did not say it has never occured, but that it was very rare. Your examples only prove my point. And some of your examples are by no means accepted by all historians. There are gay writers who also have an agenda (as the one site I found yesterday that suggested Abraham Lincoln was gay).
Luigi Novi: Conservatives who are against gay marriage want to restrict a right, which is certainly more in line with Nazism then some imagined instance of taking away your “right to say” it’s wrong, which, in view of the 1st Amendment, will never happen. It makes no sense to argue that liberals want to expand rights by allowing gay marriage, but want to get rid of that pesky 1st Amendment. Either you think liberals want to expand rights, or restrict them, Jim. Can’t have it both ways.
When exactly was gay marriage a right given by the constitution? Give me a break. The Founding Fathers would never have even considered such a possibility. Gay marriage is not a "right." This false assumption of rights is half of the problem in this debate.
Luigi Novi: You are, given that you have not illustrated that gays marrying hurts anyone.
I have done so, but you have rejected it. Gay marriage will cause harm to children because it WILL cause the decay of the family just as no fault divorce has done. Gay actions hurt a person physically (at least in the case of men) because the male body was not designed for gay sex (this is well documented). You may say it is their choice, but the consequences are real. I also would argue that there is emotional damage, but that gets into a host of psychological issues.
Okay, that's a fair point. If there's one thing the Democrats didn't foresee, it was that conservatives would spend the last couple months of the election shoving gay marriage which, let's face it, should be a complete non-issue when it comes to the presidency, to the front and center. Democrats were just blindsided which, in retrospect, I guess should have been predictable.
After all, in the first months of the Clinton administration, the GOP shoved gays in the military straight into the limelight where it hadn't been before, instantly putting Clinton on the defensive and causing him no end of headaches and wasting of political capital. It is really remarkably hypocritical that the GOP starts shrieking when Kerry mentions (in a positive manner, mind you) Cheney's daughter, when they have not hesitated to throw the hand grenade of (gasp!) equal rights for gays into the fray at key moments in history. It's pretty repulsive when you think about it: This malicious, manipulative, cynical using of ten percent of the American population as boogey man and scare tactic, all in order to gain political points and offices.
PAD, give me a break! Clinton is the one who instituted the don't ask, don't tell policy. Officials in 3 states tried to enact gay marriages in the last year. The conservatives did NOT bring up a non issue. They reacted to what liberals were actively trying to do through judicial means. You want gay marriage to be legal, or as you would say, not hindered by the law? Then try winning over the public rather than forcing it down their throats. If they are such idiots, surely you can find a way to convince them.
Jim in Iowa
"If they are such idiots, surely you can find a way to convince them."
Wow. I mean...wow. I mean, you've said some ridiculous things until now, but that is just the most...
Jim, it is BECAUSE people are idiots that they CAN'T be convinced.
The thing that really fractures me about all this? On the one hand conservatives bash gays, claiming that homosexuality is a choice, even though it's not. But when gays DO want to make a choice about something, conservatives want to take that choice out of their hands.
The whole thing is just so...so choice.
Lewis Black summed it up beautifully: In America, all people everywhere can fulfill their greatest dreams...unless people in the Midwest find those dreams icky.
You're bigoted against gays, Jim. Deal with it, don't deal with it, admit it, don't admit it. It's up to you. Because you get to have a choice. Good thing you're not gay: You'd find your choices in life far more limited.
PAD
Jim, it is BECAUSE people are idiots that they CAN'T be convinced.
People are idiots because they can't be convinced, or because they don't agree with you? I am not trying to be harsh about you, but I have a hard time agreeing that 70% of the population are idiots.
I don't think you are an idiot. I think you are wrong. I think, from a theological/spiritual standpoint, you are deceived. But that is very different from being an idiot.
Which leads to the question: WHY do so many people think gay marriage is a bad thing? It is not enough to just say they are idiots. Even idiots have a reason for thinking something. I have said multiple times that there are actually very few things this "controversial" that 70% of the country agrees upon. Furthermore, the vast majority of people throughout history are "idiots" by your definition. Sure, you can use examples like "people used to think the world was flat," but there was still a reason why they believed so, and for most examples you can give, why we no longer believe it is true.
Why do 70% of Americans think gay marriage is wrong?
The thing that really fractures me about all this? On the one hand conservatives bash gays, claiming that homosexuality is a choice, even though it's not. But when gays DO want to make a choice about something, conservatives want to take that choice out of their hands.
First, I know some conservatives say it is a choice, but on the other thread, I stated my belief. I think it is not genetically determined, that there are enviromental and nurture factors that play a role, but for probably 95% of the gay population, they do not just wake up one day and decide to be gay. So I agree that it is not a concious choice (which is all the evidence can actually say right now).
Your point, however, does not follow. Conservatives do not say homosexuality is wrong because gay people are immoral and do not marry (or live in long term relationships). They say it is a wrong action in the first place. Making the choice to be married does not change the fact that a man is having sex with a man, or a woman with a woman. They are two very different issues.
If someone steals, but decides to pay taxes on it, does that make it right? I am not using the analogy to prove gay actions are wrong, but to illustrate the consistency of the conservative Christian view. A wrong action in the first place is what is the problem. Getting married does not fix the problem.
You're bigoted against gays, Jim. Deal with it, don't deal with it, admit it, don't admit it. It's up to you. Because you get to have a choice. Good thing you're not gay: You'd find your choices in life far more limited.
How do you know I am not "gay"? What if I do have a gay orientation but have chosen another path and am now happily married to a wonderful woman? I find my choices quite satisfactory and am very much enjoying my life.
Jim in Iowa
PAD. I thought I caught a little negative energy from you on folks with Midwest values. Please, I'm from Iowa, and there are a whole lot of people here that don't think like Jim (meaning, there are those that on the far, far right).
The funny thing is, I used to think like Jim a little bit. That, in nature, only males and females together can reproduce (expect earthworms and those dinosaurs in Jurassic Park). So, why should gays be allowed to be parents? I suppose there was also a small fear that gays with children would program their children with the spooky "gay agenda" and end the world for hetrosexuals. (Just imagine being a hetrosexual in a homosexual world. "What's the matter with you? Why can't you like boys like everybody else!!!" "I don't know dad, I'm just attracted to girls. I try to like boys, but it just doesn't feel right.")
Luckily, I got older and wiser and I ran into a whole lot of hetrosexuals who were terrible parents. Why not give a few homosexuals a shot? They certainly couldn't do any worse job than parents who beat or rape or abuse their children in any way. And there are plenty of children out there that would take any kind of parent they could get, gay or straight.
Anyway, PAD, one thing I thought was interesting on the days leading up to the election, the RNC had some great ads running in Iowa, which was a swiiiiiiing state (the votes are STILL out). I can't remember them word for word, but they basically said: "You can't trust Kerry. He's a flip-flopper. He's weak and American isn't safe with him at the helm." I was flabbergasted they would run anything like this.
But, let's face it, I was an educated voter and I still couldn't come up with a lot of reasons to vote for Kerry besides, "he's not Bush." That was enough for a lot of people, but ultimately was the reason why he didn't win. He had to sell himself and never did.
Sigh.
'Fraid this is arguing by anecdote and appeal to authority, but I'm pretty sure I recall reading research results that showed that the percentage of people favoring gay marriage/civil unions increased a very large amount if those people actually knew and regularly interacted with someone who was gay.
I have done so, but you have rejected it. Gay marriage will cause harm to children because it WILL cause the decay of the family just as no fault divorce has done.
Actually studies have shown just the opposite. Children raised by a gay couple show the same tendencies toward homosexuality, crime, or a happy healthy life, as the traditionally defined heterosexual couple. I read of the studies recently, but have forgotten where at the moment. I will do a little research and let you know where to find them.
Gay actions hurt a person physically (at least in the case of men) because the male body was not designed for gay sex (this is well documented). You may say it is their choice, but the consequences are real. I also would argue that there is emotional damage, but that gets into a host of psychological issues.
People like to go mountain climbing and sky diving, too. These actions often hurt people physically, but I don't see anyone trying to stop people from doing them. And I believe most of the psychological damage would be in trying to live a lie, if you are homosexual, or from how you are treated by people who think you are living in sin.
Here's an interesting article about a Boston archbishop who is supporting gay couples FOR the children. From Catholic News:
http://www.cathnews.com/news/310/141.php
And I found a summary of the studies about the affects of a gay couple on children here (see section B):
http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
No different from other children, except for the prejudice directed their way.
"'Fraid this is arguing by anecdote and appeal to authority, but I'm pretty sure I recall reading research results that showed that the percentage of people favoring gay marriage/civil unions increased a very large amount if those people actually knew and regularly interacted with someone who was gay.'
Which is probably how this whole thing will eventually end. As more and more people interact with gays and come to sympathize and empathize with thier struggles I think that you will see opposition begin to fade. Hopefully the media will focus on better spokeman than they have thus far--Ellen Degenerous will do a lot more good than Rosie O'Donnell.
Of course, having gay-friendly folks on the sidelines screaming "You're all stupid bigots!" will probably set back the cause a bit but what can you do? The urge to feel superior is greater than the desire to get things accomplished, at least for some.
Luigi Novi: Gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with children. Gays want to get married because they’re in love, just as heterosexuals do, and there is nothing different between th0se reasons. Gays do not want to get married because of children.
What does the Gov't get out of the relationship of Gay marriage? Gov't wants to invest in heterosexual marriage because of the possibility of that relationship to have children. You're right Gay marriage has nothing to do with children and the Gov't has no interest in this. Marriage has breaks/benifits to encourage couples to HAVE children.
Luigi Novi: No one’s asking the government to support anything. What we don’t want is the government to INTERFERE with the right of two consenting adults to get married simply because they’re of the same gender.
Well, you're asking that the Gov't accept that a Gay relationship is the same as a heterosexual one and it is not. The Gov't gives certain breaks to married heterosexual couples because the possibility to naturally produce children. Gay couples are wanting to INTERFERE in what a married relationship is in the eye's of Gov't and taxpayers. CLearly this isn't going to be solved here as PAD stated Jim, it is BECAUSE people are idiots that they CAN'T be convinced.. There is no way you are going to convince me that a Gay relationship can produce children naturally and that the relationship is the same on that level.
On a side note:
PAD, welcome back to HULK on a full time basis looking forward to it. I noticed in an interview you compared HULK to political climate, PLEASE don't make the book a soapbox I'd really like to see "HULK SMASH", not "HULK PREACH". I have faith that it'll be a great read. A question also you mentioned in an interview or BiD that you write books for a specific audience (Young Justice if you had a son and Hulk for your ex) could you re-visit that again and explain what books you are writing for who in your head? It was interesting to see your take on it.
Eric! BZZZZTTTTTTTTT!!!!
Wrong answer!
It's not the government's job to promote couples that MIGHT produce children. Besides, what about all the children that grow up to be criminals, how much money does the government spend on them, between police forces, prosecutors and prisons!
The government has; and I'll put this in terms simple enough for people like you and Iowa Jim can understand; NO FUCKING BUSINESS telling anyone "You can't get married becuase you can't/might not produce children!" It's not the government's job or their RIGHT. Pursuit of happiness, in's in the Declaration, and gays aren't hurting anyone. Excpet maybe those catholic priests of your who love to fuck little boys....
Sorry Craig, I assumed you meant Kerry should have won instead of Bush.
Kerry should have won. He's not a great candidate by any means, but he's better than Bush.
Please, I'm from Iowa, and there are a whole lot of people here that don't think like Jim
I grew up in Iowa and Illinois and, from experience, I can say there are just as many people in Iowa that think like Jim too.
Maybe it was because I lived too close to Missouri; I dunno. But I saw plenty of ring-wing philosophies and all that fun stuff.
Bill Milligan wrote:
> David,
>
> Obviously I don't "Know" any of this. I have
> no gift for prophesy. Neither do any of the
> people who are insisting that all kinds of
> bad things will happen during the next 4
> years. I suppose I could post a message to
> each and every one of them saying "You
> can't know that." but it would look pretty silly.
[ shrugs ] If you think I singled you out, it wasn't deliberate. I don't read all of the comments directed to what Mr. David writes, and it happened that yours caught my eye and moved me to comment in turn.
> You neglected to reprint the part about
> revisting all this in 4 years and seeing who's
> right, thus indicating that I certainly am not
> "sure" about it. But whatever.
In context it appeared to be a reinforcement of the certainty of your main point rather than a statement of uncertainty. If I misinterpreted, my bad.
>>> I can't promise that they won't be in jail for
>>> there offenses. Some of y'all have
>>> potential for all kinds of stuff.
> See, that's what we call a joke.
>> How lovely. When you can't argue fairly,
>> libel those who disagree with you."
> See, that's what we call clueless.
No, that what we call tone not coming through in print.
Libelling one's opponent unfortunately is such a common tactic in these sorts of discussions that I've grown quite tired of it. If I mistook a joke (or "joke") for this common tactic, again, my bad.
> PAD says -- "...you don't get it..... My
> grandfather saw the rising tide of hatred. Of
> discrimination. Of religious fanaticism. All
> this when he was in Berlin, and when he
> packed up my father and grandmother and
> got the hell out, all the neighbors told him he
> was nuts. That things would become better.
> That he was overreacting."
And then he wrote:
>>>> And all the neighbors died.
> I DO get it. I just disagree that the same
> thing is happening here. Isn't it possible for
> someone to actually "get" what's happening
> and just not come to the same conclusions
> you do...
Yes.
> ...or do you really believe that the truth is so
> obvious that any rational thinking person
> MUST come to believe as you do?
No.
"After all, in the first months of the Clinton administration, the GOP shoved gays in the military straight into the limelight where it hadn't been before, instantly putting Clinton on the defensive and causing him no end of headaches and wasting of political capital. It is really remarkably hypocritical that the GOP starts shrieking when Kerry mentions (in a positive manner, mind you) Cheney's daughter, when they have not hesitated to throw the hand grenade of (gasp!) equal rights for gays into the fray at key moments in history. It's pretty repulsive when you think about it: This malicious, manipulative, cynical using of ten percent of the American population as boogey man and scare tactic, all in order to gain political points and offices."
"PAD, give me a break! Clinton is the one who instituted the don't ask, don't tell policy. Officials in 3 states tried to enact gay marriages in the last year. The conservatives did NOT bring up a non issue."
Bullshit.
It's a favorite ongoing conservative tactic, and if you don't think the flood of anti-gay marriage initiatives was a carefully orchestrated maneuver on the part of the GOP to put that front-and-center in the 2004 campaign, then you are, quite simply, wrong.
After all, your dismissal of my comment about the GOP and Clinton proves your wrongheadedness. Clinton instituted "Don't ask, don't tell," but it was a far cry from what he wanted to do, and he was forced into it by the GOP instead of simply lifting the ban on gays in the military (this would be the same military that predicted the end of discipline years ago when the ban was lifted on blacks). Let's check out Clinton's autobiography, shall we, in which he writes:
"The Joint Chief's early request for a meeting created a problem. I was more than willing to hear them out, but I didn't want the issue to get any more publicity than it already was receiving, not because I was trying to hide my position, but because I didn't want the public to think I was paying more attention to it than to the economy. That's exactly what the congressional Republicans wanted the American people to think. Senator Dole was already talking about passing a resolution removing my authority to lift the ban; he clearly wnated this to be the defining issue of my first weeks in office."
And after he finally settled on the compromise position of the utterly unworkable "Don't ask, don't tell," he goes on to write:
"In the short run, I got the worst of both worlds--I lost the fight, and the gay community was highly critical of me for the compromise, simply refusing to acknowledge the consequences of having so little support in Congress, and giving me little credit for lifting another ban on gays, the ban against serving in critical national security positions, or for the substantial number of gays and lesbians who were working throughout the administration. By contrast, Senator Dole won big. By raising the issue early, and repeatedly, he guaranteed it so much publicity that it appeared I was working on little else, which caused a lot of Americans who had elected me to fix the economy to wonder what on earth I was doing and whether they'd made a mistake."
Gee, I wonder whose recollection I should trust. Some guy named Jim in Iowa, whose arguments make no sense and are laced in bias? Or the guy who was there? Tough call.
Jim, the GOP played Americans like a two dollar banjo. They plaed on fear. That's what they do. They played on fear of terrorists. They played on fear of gays, which is a flat out, in your face insult to one out of ten people in this country. This wasn't an election. It was an eighteen month episode of "Fear Factor."
PAD
Jim in Iowa: Um, Luigi, did you not discern that my comments were sarcastic and not meant with any seriousness?
Luigi Novi: No. Sorry about that.
Jim in Iowa: I did look it up. I did not say it has never occured, but that it was very rare.
Luigi Novi: You did not say that. Stop backpedaling.
Jim in Iowa: Your examples only prove my point. And some of your examples are by no means accepted by all historians.
Luigi Novi: You said that there has been an almost instinctive rejection of gay unions and gay marriages throughout history. This is untrue, and I provided evidence for it.
Jim in Iowa: There are gay writers who also have an agenda (as the one site I found yesterday that suggested Abraham Lincoln was gay).
Luigi Novi: I’ve never heard of that, but in Lies Across America, James W. Loewen shows how apparent it is that James Buchanan was.
Jim in Iowa: When exactly was gay marriage a right given by the constitution? Give me a break.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say it was. Please give me a break. You argue that gay marriage advocates want to expand rights on the one hand by allowing gay marriage, but will somehow get rid of the First Amendment allowing people to publicly disagree with it, which is preposterous. No one liberal-minded enough to want gay marriage will want to get rid of Freedom of Speech. The First Amendment isn’t going anywhere, because airing one’s opinions is the one thing that even conservatives don’t want to get rid of (the stance on adult material on the part of some of them being a different matter). Attempting a Straw Man argument by saying that I argued that the FF wanted gay marriage is irrelevant.
Jim in Iowa: Gay marriage is not a "right."
Luigi Novi: It is as much as right as hetero marriage.
Jim in Iowa: This false assumption of rights is half of the problem in this debate.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, wanting to pursue that whole “pursuit of happiness” thing is so unreasonable on the part of gays, ain’t it? I mean, where do they get off wanting to be happy like the rest of us?
Jim in Iowa: I have done so, but you have rejected it. Gay marriage will cause harm to children because it WILL cause the decay of the family just as no fault divorce has done.
Luigi Novi: Gay marriage will not have any effect ON children, since gays can’t reproduce, and many gay couples already HAVE RAISED children who have grown up to be well-adjusted members of society. Your premise is not only a lie, it has been demonstrated thus by precedent.
Jim in Iowa: Gay actions hurt a person physically (at least in the case of men)
Luigi Novi: First, not all gay men engage in anal sex. Second, there are plenty of hetero couples who do, but I don’t think anyone wants to outlaw what consenting straights do in their bedrooms. Third, we’re talking about gay marriage, not gay sex. Outlawing gay marriage will not end gay sex, especially now that the Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws last year. Lastly, and most importantly, it is not your place or mine to impose our beliefs on others simply because we think some activity someone freely choose to engage in may cause some physical discomfort or irritation. We don’t outlaw Extreme Sports, after all.
Jim in Iowa: because the male body was not designed for gay sex (this is well documented).
Luigi Novi: The male body was not necessarily designed for masturbation, eating hot fudge off your partner, or 69. Wanna outlaw those things too?
Jim in Iowa: People are idiots because they can't be convinced, or because they don't agree with you?
Luigi Novi: While I prefer not to use a pejorative term like “idiot,” I would say that a person’s inability to be convinced stems from their inability to form coherent logic objectively, and therefore their tendency to argue a priori from their biases, rejecting logic and evidence when it’s provided to them, using specious reasoning, ignoring inconsistencies in their own arguments, etc.
Jim in Iowa: Why do 70% of Americans think gay marriage is wrong?
Luigi Novi: I dunno, lots of reasons I guess. Maybe because they’re brainwashed by their religion and don’t understand that U.S. laws should pass the Lemon Test? Maybe because they just find all things gay “icky”? Maybe they’re just not that enlightened regarding tolerating things that they don’t like in a free society. I dunno. You tell me.
Jim in Iowa: First, I know some conservatives say it is a choice, but on the other thread, I stated my belief. I think it is not genetically determined, that there are enviromental and nurture factors that play a role, but for probably 95% of the gay population, they do not just wake up one day and decide to be gay. So I agree that it is not a concious choice (which is all the evidence can actually say right now).
Luigi Novi: The evidence says right now that homosexuality is perfectly natural.
Jim in Iowa: How do you know I am not "gay"? What if I do have a gay orientation but have chosen another path and am now happily married to a wonderful woman?
Luigi Novi: If you’re gay, and married a woman instead, then you’re just fooling yourself, suppressing your true nature, and denying yourself happiness. And for wanting to deny it to others is like a Jew joining the Nazi party.
Eric!: What does the Gov't get out of the relationship of Gay marriage? Gov't wants to invest in heterosexual marriage because of the possibility of that relationship to have children.
Luigi Novi: Government isn’t supposed to “get anything” out of it. Government should be in the business of protecting the country from its enemies, collecting taxes, maintaining a postal service, running the courts, and printing money, which for about the first 150 years in this country, was about all they did.
The government does not “invest” anything. It’s a government. Not a bank. It has absolutely no business entangling itself in the personal lives on its citizens, and it they who should determine whether they have children. Not Big Brother.
Eric: You're right Gay marriage has nothing to do with children and the Gov't has no interest in this. Marriage has breaks/benifits to encourage couples to HAVE children.
Luigi Novi: LOL!!!!!!! You think couples have children because of they’re encouraged to by government benefits???? C’mon, Eric. People procreate because of the powerful innate instinct to do so, and because they want kids. The sexual instinct is so strong that they have kids even when they don’t want to, out of marriage, when they’re too young, when they can’t afford them, etc., so government hardly needs to “encourage” it. If anything, having kids is extremely expensive, sometimes prohibitively so, and is not so offset by these “benefits” you mention that couples who would otherwise choose not to have them would change their minds simply because of these “benefits.”
But there’s also something additionally dishonest in these types of arguments the anti-gay advocates use. You’re using some obscure permutation of gay marriage as a slippery slope argument, as if government benefits are somehow the salient fulcrum on which such a thing would hinge. This is like being anti-Internet because it would cause libraries to close down, being anti-automobile because it would hurt the train industry, being anti-telephone because it would hurt telegraphs, and so forth. Arguing against such a basic fundamental right as the right to marry who you want, because of the effect it might have on “benefits,” is to have a woefully screwed up sense of priorities, and is indicative of a bigot desperately looking for a reasonable-sounding justification for his viewpoint, regardless of how threadbare it is.
Eric: Well, you're asking that the Gov't accept that a Gay relationship is the same as a heterosexual one and it is not. The Gov't gives certain breaks to married heterosexual couples because the possibility to naturally produce children.
Luigi Novi: Which means you have nothing to worry about, since gay couples cannot reproduce.
"PAD. I thought I caught a little negative energy from you on folks with Midwest values. Please, I'm from Iowa, and there are a whole lot of people here that don't think like Jim (meaning, there are those that on the far, far right)."
Well, I was just quoting Lewis Black, and the joke is based on the solid red of that area and the overwhelming support for banning gay marriage. But don't worry, I know plenty of people in the midwest who are...how best to put it...not assholes. As I said earlier, religion and faith can also bring out the best in people. Sadly, the GOP aggressively makes it a point to appeal to the worst.
"But, let's face it, I was an educated voter and I still couldn't come up with a lot of reasons to vote for Kerry besides, "he's not Bush." That was enough for a lot of people, but ultimately was the reason why he didn't win. He had to sell himself and never did."
He needed to do two things. First, he needed to hit hard on the notion that we should never have invaded Iraq. The moment he said that, if he knew then what he knew now, he still would have voted the same way, I knew he was sunk. I mean, I knew what he MEANT. He meant that he still would have supported the notion of not curtailing the authority of a sitting President in terms of dealing with the global community. But that was far too nuanced a position for Hank Hill or whomever to wrap themselves around. Instead, on the surface, it meant he took the exact same position as Bush and felt the war wasn't a mistake, and since the majority of Americans don't look below the surface, that made him indistinguishable from Bush. And if it's the Bush they know versus the Bush they don't, they'll stick with the former.
His second mistake was failing, in the debates, to hit home the fact that Bush spent nine months ignoring the call to create a Department of Homeland Security until it was too late, and then flip-flopped and created it after 3000 people already died. And now eleven hundred more have died in an initiative to find WMDs that weren't there. And that Bush, who stated in 2000 that we shouldn't be nation bulding, has sent eleven hundred young Americans to their deaths in yet another flipflip. You know how Boston Red Sox fans seized the "Who's your daddy?" chant and turned it into their own rallying cry? That's what Kerry should have done. "How many more people must die from the President's flipflops" is what he should have said, and "How many more people must die?" should have been the clarion call of the last six months of his campaign. A mantra of "I never should have supported Bush, and you shouldn't either" and "How many more people must die?" might well have managed to trump the gay marriage non-issue.
But he didn't.
The way he presented himself during the debates--his steadfastness, his presence, his consistency--as opposed to Bush's smirking, grimacing, painful performance and his subsequent horrifically transparent endeavors to rebuild himself, left no doubt who was more presidential. But because he didn't go all the way in presenting himself as the anti-Bush, it wasn't enough to stir the support he needed.
PAD
The government has; and I'll put this in terms simple enough for people like you and Iowa Jim can understand; NO FUCKING BUSINESS telling anyone "You can't get married becuase you can't/might not produce children!" It's not the government's job or their RIGHT. Pursuit of happiness, in's in the Declaration, and gays aren't hurting anyone.
Wow, talking about going out of your way to miss a point. So the Gov't gives breaks to married couples to make them happy?? C'mon, the Gov't makes an investment via breaks to married couples for the possibility to produce more taxpayers down the road. Gay couples can have commitment celebrations, and all the power of attorney etc. to mirror a heterosexual couple, just don't expect the breaks that are offered for the couple that can produce children naturally. As far as the criminal argument, some investments payoff, some don't, but the overwhelming majority DO. A Gay couple can't, physically, not possible naturally. You have to see that difference in the realtionship which is were the gov't interest differs in how it treats that relationship. You do know there is a difference in a man and woman physically, right?
Eric!:
>Wow, talking about going out of your way to miss a point. So the Gov't gives breaks to married couples to make them happy?? C'mon, the Gov't makes an investment via breaks to married couples for the possibility to produce more taxpayers down the road. Gay couples can have commitment celebrations, and all the power of attorney etc. to mirror a heterosexual couple, just don't expect the breaks that are offered for the couple that can produce children naturally. As far as the criminal argument, some investments payoff, some don't, but the overwhelming majority DO. A Gay couple can't, physically, not possible naturally. You have to see that difference in the realtionship which is were the gov't interest differs in how it treats that relationship. You do know there is a difference in a man and woman physically, right?
You do know that the fact that many gay couples utilize a surrogate and artificial insemination to produce offspring renders your argument moot, right?
You do know that the fact that many gay couples utilize a surrogate and artificial insemination to produce offspring renders your argument moot, right?
Um, wrong. Many? No, few actually. Is this free? No. Then there's that whole artificial thing, once again, a man and woman have a natural potential to have children. No test tubes, extra cash or scientist need for that basic relationship to potentially have children. If you do not see this difference in a relationship with a man and a woman than a man and a man or woman and woman, you need more help than you're going to get here.
I like the suggestions for Power Rangers as presidents. Though Tommy and Kimberly are interesting choices, I'd have to go with David Yost, also known as Billy. It has to be the later Billy, though. The early Billy doesn't have enough confidence, plus no one would understand a word he was saying in his speeches (which isn't that different from some politicians, I suppose).
The problem with electing a Power Ranger president is that whenever a PR leader makes a command, the people around him have this tendency of shouting "Right!" in unison. That gives off this weird cult mentality vibe that could make the American people uneasy.
However, the most important question is this: if a Power Ranger were president, would he wear a red, white and blue ranger suit?
David,
Sorry if I was unduly harsh in my reply to you. The negativity here was bringing me down. You seem like a good enough guy.
Stick around for when we get back to talking about TV shows and comics and stuff. Lots more fun.
You do know that the fact that many gay couples utilize a surrogate and artificial insemination to produce offspring renders your argument moot, right?
Um, wrong.
No, right.
You REALLY ought to get off your duff and get to know some people who are homosexual.
He meant that he still would have supported the notion of not curtailing the authority of a sitting President in terms of dealing with the global community. But that was far too nuanced a position for Hank Hill or whomever to wrap themselves around.
Now I'm going to call bullshit. Kerry has talked about the UN and the need for a "global community" for most of his career since Vietnam. But, if Kerry were so pricipled about the global community then why did he vote against Presidential authority in the Gulf War in the 1990s? It met every criteria for his "global test" except one: the war was opposed by his base.
THAT was the reason Kerry couldn't sell the "support the President's authority" with the moderates. Anyone with even half a brain could see that his war votes had more to do with political expediency than principle.
PAD, Thanks for giving a couple reasons why you think Kerry lost the election. I've been trying to wrap my mind around it the last couple of days and just can't figure out why so many Americans gave the thumbs-up to four more years.
A few of mine own:
One, I don't think Kerry attacked Bush enough. I've listened to a lot of liberal voices during the debates (Al Franken and Bill Maher come to mind) literally begging for Kerry to get after it. If Kerry could've said, "The next time Al-Queda attacks us, maybe we should invade (cover your eyes and point to a spot on the map) France! They didn't have anything to do with 9/11 either, but at least we KNOW they have WMDs!" Or, "It is well-documented that in his first nine months on the job, George W. Bush spent more time on vacation than any other newly-elected President. So it should come as no surprise when there was a real crisis, in the form of 9/11, he didn't know how to do anything but sit on his ass for nine minutes."
Two, despite the fact that Kerry served in the military while Bush "played around" with the national guard, the GOP got a lot of people to questions Kerry's war record, while every attempt to expose Bush's record fizzled. How much time was wasted during an important stretch of the campaign discussing the swiftboat crap? Too much, my friends.
In the end, I think Democrats thought this election could be won without getting their hands dirty, because Bush's terrible record in his first four years should've spoke for itself. A few potshots about the record spending and tax cuts for the rich weren't enough to get the blood pumping.
I also think there was a backlash by what was perceived as anti-American sentiment (you know, the whole attacking a president in a time of war ... even if it was a war he started). I also think that Bush's handlers have done a great job of painting W. as a John Wayne-type cowboy, shit-kicking the rest of the world into submission because America IS THE BEST!! Some people want to ride that bandwagon forever instead of maybe looking at the facts and discovering that maybe America isn't the best, anymore. It's like Yankee fans who puff up their chests and talk about all the World Series titles in their trophy case, just after they were spanked hard in 2004.
That's enough for now. Hulkeye out.
THAT was the reason Kerry couldn't sell the "support the President's authority" with the moderates. Anyone with even half a brain could see that his war votes had more to do with political expediency than principle.
I'm afraid that I completely disagree with this. Kerry's vote against the first Gulf War had to do with his deep reluctance to send send Americans into the type of Hellhole that he endured when he was in Viet Nam. It's also evident from speeches that he gave at the time that he didn't realize just how completely we would own the Iraqi armed forces in any type of stand-up fight. Since we didn't try to set up shop, we didn't have to deal with the horrible insurgencies problems that we're dealing with now.
You REALLY ought to get off your duff and get to know some people who are homosexual.
Still wrong, and I had a gay roommate for two years. What, knowing a homosexual couple is going to make them produce children naturally? Go back and read the post again...slowly, they aren't the same relationships saying they are isn't going to make it so.
Eric!:
>>You REALLY ought to get off your duff and get to know some people who are homosexual.
Still wrong, and I had a gay roommate for two years. What, knowing a homosexual couple is going to make them produce children naturally? Go back and read the post again...slowly, they aren't the same relationships saying they are isn't going to make it so.
True. Much in the same way that attempting to justify banning gay marriage by stating that the government wants a couple to produce children together naturally, which was the original point of the post, as a truth isn't going to make it so.
I'm afraid that I completely disagree with this. Kerry's vote against the first Gulf War had to do with his deep reluctance to send send Americans into the type of Hellhole that he endured when he was in Viet Nam.
So, when we had a coalition and passed his global test, he didn't authorize it because of the troops? Sorry, that doesn't cut it when you look at his SECOND vote. He knew we were going in to oust Saddam the second time and likely would have to occupy. Yet he still voted for "Presidential authority" rather than "the troops" or the "global test". What changed that Presidential authority somehow became his paramount concern - over that of the troops you say he was most concerned about before or the global community which he had always espoused generally?
You can tap dance all you want, but from my seat Kerry looks like he only wanted to appease his critics, not take a fundamental stand.
Eric!:
>>You do know that the fact that many gay couples utilize a surrogate and artificial insemination to produce offspring renders your argument moot, right?
>Um, wrong. Many? No, few actually. Is this free? No.
Actually, it is many. As far as cost, it doesn't cost the government a thing for gay couples to do this. If it were few, that would only weaken your argument against allowing it, since gay couple would adopt and take a financial burden off of public programs with every unwated child that they take in.
>Then there's that whole artificial thing, once again, a man and woman have a natural potential to have children. No test tubes, extra cash or scientist need for that basic relationship to potentially have children. If you do not see this difference in a relationship with a man and a woman than a man and a man or woman and woman, you need more help than you're going to get here.
Since when does the government concern itself with artificial vs natural events made by private citizens that don't negatively affect others?
No help needed, but thanks.
True. Much in the same way that attempting to justify banning gay marriage by stating that the government wants a couple to produce children together naturally, which was the original point of the post, as a truth isn't going to make it so.
What is Gov't interest in a Gay relationship? Why would Gov't want to support this?
Eric!:
>True. Much in the same way that attempting to justify banning gay marriage by stating that the government wants a couple to produce children together naturally, which was the original point of the post, as a truth isn't going to make it so.
>What is Gov't interest in a Gay relationship? Why would Gov't want to support this?
See, I think that this is where the discussion divides. Allowing gay marriage isn't supporting it in any way, while amending the Constitution to ban it is limiting an individual's freedom of choice, expression, etc.
Actually, it is many. As far as cost, it doesn't cost the government a thing for gay couples to do this. If it were few, that would only weaken your argument against allowing it, since gay couple would adopt and take a financial burden off of public programs with every unwated child that they take in.
Since many is subjective, how about majority? Do the majority of Gay couples adopt? Artificial insemination? These still cost money (not from the Gov't, but the couples). Heterosexual couples produce children at no cost to Gov't or be concerned that the couple has funds for adoption or insemination. Children are possible to the majority of heterosexual couples the same can't be said of gay couples.
Since when does the government concern itself with artificial vs natural events made by private citizens that don't negatively affect others?
When those artificial events aren't available to everyone. The majority of men and women can have children with no outside help. See you did need help.
Eric!:
>>Actually, it is many. As far as cost, it doesn't cost the government a thing for gay couples to do this. If it were few, that would only weaken your argument against allowing it, since gay couple would adopt and take a financial burden off of public programs with every unwated child that they take in.
>Since many is subjective, how about majority? Do the majority of Gay couples adopt? Artificial insemination? These still cost money (not from the Gov't, but the couples).
Comics cost me money. If my desire to have comics cost the government money, it would be a governmental issue. Cost to couples is a private matter and to use it as a rationale for banning gay marriage is a straw argument at best.
>>Since when does the government concern itself with artificial vs natural events made by private citizens that don't negatively affect others?
>When those artificial events aren't available to everyone. The majority of men and women can have children with no outside help. See you did need help.
Artificial means are available to everyone. A man and woman who have intimacy issues, arousal dysfunction, etc can utilize this method of producing a child. Not everyone needs to utilize them.
Nope, no help needed here. ;)
Again, I understand human anatomy. I also understand your point. I love the former, but disagree with the basis of the latter.
Fred
Interesting that Saskatchewan has just become the seventh Canadian province to make gay marriage legal (well, technically the sixth, since Yukon is a territory).
In a five-page ruling, Justice Donna Wilson sided with courts in five other provinces and one territory, saying existing marriage laws discriminate against gay couples.
"The common-law definition of marriage for civil purposes is declared to be 'the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others,' " Wilson wrote.
Courts in Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario, the Yukon, Manitoba and Nova Scotia have already ruled in the same way Justice Wilson did. In fact, every recent challenge of marriage laws made has ended up winning, either at the introductory or appeal court level.
I guess the midwest can just chalk it up to one of our crazy ideas like universal health care and gun control.
Posted by AdamYJ at November 5, 2004 11:04 AM
I like the suggestions for Power Rangers as presidents. Though Tommy and Kimberly are interesting choices, I'd have to go with David Yost, also known as Billy. It has to be the later Billy, though. The early Billy doesn't have enough confidence, plus no one would understand a word he was saying in his speeches (which isn't that different from some politicians, I suppose).
The problem with electing a Power Ranger president is that whenever a PR leader makes a command, the people around him have this tendency of shouting "Right!" in unison. That gives off this weird cult mentality vibe that could make the American people uneasy.
However, the most important question is this: if a Power Ranger were president, would he wear a red, white and blue ranger suit?
***
Billy's not elligible. He moved to Aquitar.
And as for a Red, white, and blue Ranger... Well, it would be a tad hard on the eyes if not done right. And what would be the morph call? "Freedom Strike, Power Spike"?
Luigi, I tried reading Kerry's testimony before Congress again so I could cut/paste the blatant lies he told for your benefit and it made me so upset I almost puked. Please read his testimony if you haven't. Thank God that man is not our Commander in Chief.
Suffice it to say, what he did to our POWs that were still in the concentration camps and veterans of all wars by his treasonous testminoy was a disgrace. He and the rest of his cohorts who gave him that testimony should have been prosecuted for war crimes. Instead, he gets elected to Congress. I can't believe that Massachusetts elected him.
See now Craig, you said "Kerry should have won."
I appoligized for nothing. Why did you say you didn't say what I thought you said when you felt that way anyways. Sheesh!!
A lot of this reminds me of a few things. First and foremost, with all the talk about gays, it reminds me of the fact that several good friends of mine are MISERABLE because they don't have anyone to share their life with like I do. Some are gay, some are not (I won't use straight because I don't really think gays are bent) And all this talk about liberals and conservatives and who's right and who's not--conservative wisdom has been around a loooooooong time. Some of it is pretty good--don't kick a bee's nest, that kinda thing. But conservative wisdom also held that the planet was flat and that we are the center of the universe. To quote a wise man, D'oh! As I see it, liberals think they're right about everything. So do conservatives. Trouble is that when conservatives are shown evidence of the opposite, they STILL don't buy it. And comparing homosexuality with incest...HOOO-boy. For everyone that's hitched their post to that bandwagon, come out to Philly some time, I'll getcha a cheesesteak, and talk to my wife about incest. She was molested by her grandfather and raped by her father. And lastly, as for homosexuality being a choice, with the possible exception of a few friends who dabbled in bisexual stuff in college, it ain't a choice. You are what you are. Plain and simple. Gays are this generation's blacks, jut like the last generations women or Irish or Jews or whatever. Whatever scapegoat is convenient. Everyone should just pray that whatever group they're in isn't next week's villain-of-choice.
Originally posted by Aaron Thall:
"Billy's not elligible. He moved to Aquitar.
And as for a Red, white, and blue Ranger... Well, it would be a tad hard on the eyes if not done right. And what would be the morph call? "Freedom Strike, Power Spike"?"
Hmm, I just got this weird feeling that people were talking about serious political views in-between all the Power Ranger president stuff. Oh well, it'll pass.
I know Billy moved to Aquitar, but I never liked that development for him. By the time Zeo came around, Billy was probably as capable a leader as Tommy. Compared to how he started out, it was really something. He probably underwent one of the most complete character arcs of any Power Ranger. Unfortunately, that was around the same time that he started living in Zordon's basement or something.
You're right about a red, white and blue ranger being a bit hard on the eyes. Also, he'd probably have to fly around in some sort of star-spangled eagle zord or something. As for morph calls: DinoThunder has proven that it doesn't have to be clever in order to work. Freedom Strike sounds like a Megazord attack or something, though.
For fun, let's run down some of the other possible candidates from the early days:
Zach Taylor: Charismatic, but maybe just a little too free spirited for politics
Jason Lee: A good field leader, but possibly too hotheaded sometimes.
Trini Kwan: This character would be good, but the actress who played her is dead. Don't know how that would work out.
Bulk: Already has a running mate picked out in the form of Eugene Skulivitch, but he probably would run things into the ground. Also, I doubt his personality would appeal to voters.
He and the rest of his cohorts who gave him that testimony should have been prosecuted for war crimes.
So, which higher-ups in our military should be tried for war crimes surrounding all that prison abuse stuff in Iraq?
Personally, it should go all the way to the source: our Commander in Chief.
He's the one that put our military there, and yet that smegging wanker won't take any responsibility for what has happened.
PAD,
RE: The Election, Gay Marriage and Future of the Nation. You don't usually respond to anything I have to say, but I really hope you respond to this, because I'm really concerned.
I can understand your being upset about the election, but to have such a pessimistic view of this nation and it's future and to be so angry.
Well, it saddens me.
Why? Because i grew up in a family and a small town that discouraged people from having expectations. It's always easy to find reasons you can't do something than to actually believe in and achieve things.
In short, I have always been an optimist. Because you really do have to believe it before you can achieve it.
Because it's easy to find fault with lawyers, politicians, pro athletes or any other group of people. It is harder to view them as people and see the good they do.
I grew up with a ridiculously conservative point of view. In college, I was eager to soak up knowledge and became a bit liberal. I am still the only person I know you was President of his College Republican and Founded an Environmental Group at the same time.
Every day, I feel I grow. Every day, I feel I learn. And what I have learned the most are two things:
1.) You Tend To View Groups Of People Differently When You Interact With People From That Group
To be frank, most of the people in my hometown think like Jim regarding gays. I do not. I do not feel marriage is about procreation. If you find somebody you love, great. Children are not a necessary outcome of marriage. Regarding sodomy, I agree with conservatives like Bill Kristol, who basically feel that if they are not hurting anyone then we don't care what they do in their bedrooms.
A huge part of the reason I feel this way is that I have gotten to know many gays and lesbians. Interaction with others breaks down barriers. Of course, living in a city like Philadelphia for 7 years tends to help in that regard.
But, and here's the big one, I think there is a big reason why there was SUCH a backlash against gay marriage this year. It's because there was a sense that THE COURTS WERE SHOVING THIS DOWN PEOPLE"S THROATS whether they liked it or not.
Which brings up
2.) IT"S IMPORTANT TO HAVE A DIALOGUE ABOUT THESE THINGS
See, what really pisses people off is the idea that they are being told what's best for them and if they don't agree they are a bunch of uneducated, Hank Hill hick types.
That does not enlighten or inspire anyone.
But instead of allowing the country to have a debate on this and work through the democratic process, the Massachusetts Supreme Court and certain mayors basically told people who don't believe in gay marriage to go screw themselves. They were going to do what they wanted. You may say they were protecting a minority group's rights, but the message when you do that is, "We know what's best for you, and since you won't do the right thing on your own, we're going to do it for you." It really is an elitist, arrogant and condescending attitude, which you only reinforce by calling those who don't agree with you on this or other issues idiots. How is that constructive?
Many people, when engaged in a true discussion, tend to modify their positions. I feel if you and others insist on being so strident and unyielding in what is basically an issue of semantics, there WILL continue to be a backlash and you will lose ground.
Even a lot of those who oppose gay marriage have no problem with civil unions, granting same-sex partner benefits, etc. Think about that. Even a growing people around here - you know, those you feel are a bunch of idiot hicks - are increasingly open to gay rights.
It is the word MARRIAGE, which is both a cultural and a RELIGIOUS institution that people are not going to change their views on overnight.
They may or may not eventually. If they do, and eventually, as you say, we look back on this the way we look at views on interracial marriage as recently as 40 years ago and say, "Boy, what were we thinking."
But that won't happen if people see gays as the "We're here, we're queer, we're in your face crowd" instead of the "Will and Grace" crowd.
It won't happen if the courts decide things and make a true national dialogue on the issue irrelevant.
It won't happen if creative, passionate people like yourself continue to see those who hold an opposing viewpoints as "bigots" or "idiots".
As a great man once said, "True victory can only be achieved when you convince your opponent how wrong he was to oppose you in the first place."
Martin Luther King, Jr. and others have done this, even if the fruits of their labors did not fully blossom until years after their seeds of hope were planted.
Think about it.
I had a lot more to say, but that's enough for now.
Craig said "So, which higher-ups in our military should be tried for war crimes surrounding all that prison abuse stuff in Iraq?"
You know what? You'll try and find anythin whatsoever you can find and try to peg it on Bush. Get over it already. He's not responsible for what happened there. It's the commander on the ground who couldn't keep his troops in line. You obviously know nothing about the military.
I wouldn't doubt it if you and Peter had a dart board with Bush's picture on it that you use every day to make you feel better.
Eric: Wow, talking about going out of your way to miss a point. So the Gov't gives breaks to married couples to make them happy?? C'mon, the Gov't makes an investment via breaks to married couples for the possibility to produce more taxpayers down the road.
Luigi Novi: The government should not be in the business of investing in anything. It should stick to its designated purpose. It should not be trying to make “more taxpayers.”
Eric: Gay couples can have commitment celebrations, and all the power of attorney etc. to mirror a heterosexual couple, just don't expect the breaks that are offered for the couple that can produce children naturally.
Luigi Novi: Gay couples do not have other legal rights that straight ones do. Hospital visitation and protection against court incrimination among them.
Eric: As far as the criminal argument, some investments payoff, some don't, but the overwhelming majority DO. A Gay couple can't, physically, not possible naturally. You have to see that difference in the realtionship which is were the gov't interest differs in how it treats that relationship. You do know there is a difference in a man and woman physically, right?
Luigi Novi: None of this justifies denying gays the right to marry. It’s weak rationalization.
Eric: What is Gov't interest in a Gay relationship? Why would Gov't want to support this?
Luigi Novi: Why would government have any opinion on it at all? The government has no business sticking its nose into the matter.
Eric: When those artificial events aren't available to everyone. The majority of men and women can have children with no outside help.
Luigi Novi: And why does the fact that they don’t need outside mean that the government would interfere with those who do? Again, what do you say to the couple who uses artificial insemination? The fact remains that the government’ s purpose is to protect the people from enemies, print money, run courts and have a postal service. It is not, nor has it ever been, its purpose to encourage population growth or the creation of new taxpayers. This is a false idea, that even if true, would not justify disallowing two adults of the same gender to married, unless you think non sequiturs make good reasoning, and that such arguments against a basic part of someone’s pursuit of happiness are made based on some insignificant permutation of it.
Novafan: Luigi, I tried reading Kerry's testimony before Congress again so I could cut/paste the blatant lies he told for your benefit and it made me so upset I almost puked. Please read his testimony if you haven't. Thank God that man is not our Commander in Chief.
Luigi Novi: Hmm……how convenient. You have the opportunity to present arguments to someone actually asking for them, and rathr than mentioning even some examples, you balk because of some gastrointestinal queasiness that you only mention metaphorically at best.
Thanks for chickening out of answering the question. And for the laughable excuse as to why you did so.
Novafan: Suffice it to say, what he did to our POWs that were still in the concentration camps and veterans of all wars by his treasonous testminoy was a disgrace.
Luigi Novi: Thank you for showing yourself to be as rhetorical as Ann Coulter in your arguments. Treason means deliberately trying to overthrow one’s government. Kerry and his friends had no such visible intent, nor could it be reasonably argued that testifying before a government body as to atrocities that he and his friends witnessed is “treason.” What he did was to merely tell the truth. You would argue that he would remain silent, as if being silent about wrongdoings you witnessed being committed by your side is somehow a good thing, and arguing that the alternative somehow hurts POWs who are already being imprisoned. This argument is entirely fallacious.
Novafan: He and the rest of his cohorts who gave him that testimony should have been prosecuted for war crimes. Instead, he gets elected to Congress. I can't believe that Massachusetts elected him.
Luigi Novi: Try looking up what words like “war crimes” and “treason” actually mean, instead of inventing your own arbitrary definitions for them.
Novafan: You know what? You'll try and find anythin whatsoever you can find and try to peg it on Bush. Get over it already. He's not responsible for what happened there. It's the commander on the ground who couldn't keep his troops in line. You obviously know nothing about the military.
Luigi Novi: So says the expert who thinks that speaking out against a war or against atrocities is somehow a “war crime” or “treason,” and not the atrocities themselves. Funny how telling the truth to Congress about what you witnessed is treason or a war crime, but what happened in Abu Gharib wasn’t.
Luigi Novi: The government should not be in the business of investing in anything. It should stick to its designated purpose. It should not be trying to make “more taxpayers.”
Well where does the Gov't get money to run? Why do they build parks, stadiums, make cities safe? This is an"investment" to attract taxpayers and promote growth.
Luigi Novi: Gay couples do not have other legal rights that straight ones do. Hospital visitation and protection against court incrimination among them.
I'm not against any of that, go back and read the other posts.
Luigi Novi: None of this justifies denying gays the right to marry.
Sure does if the benifits from marriage are to promote growth and families.
Luigi Novi: Why would government have any opinion on it at all? The government has no business sticking its nose into the matter.
Gov't has opinion because Gov't offers breaks for married couples. If it affects the Gov't shouldn't they have an opinion? That's specifically what it is, business, promote growth increase income for more Gov't programs.
Luigi Novi: And why does the fact that they don’t need outside mean that the government would interfere with those who do? Again, what do you say to the couple who uses artificial insemination?
The fact that they need outside help changes the relationship. The majority of men and a women making minimum wage can produce a child, can the same be said of gay couples? This outside help requires resources which are not available to the majority of that relationship. The majority of heterosexual couples do not need artificial insemination.
The fact remains that the government’ s purpose is to protect the people from enemies, print money, run courts and have a postal service. It is not, nor has it ever been, its purpose to encourage population growth or the creation of new taxpayers.
Where does the Gov't get money to protect the people from enemies, print money, run courts and have a postal service?
Luigi, you said "Funny how telling the truth to Congress about what you witnessed is treason or a war crime, but what happened in Abu Gharib wasn’t"
Kerry didn't witness the things he mentioned. He said he participated in them. That makes him just as guilty as the people he was condeming doesn't it? If you believe Kerry's lies, then aren't you just as responsible for providing reparation to the Communist regime he was defending? When are you going to send your check?
Eric: Well where does the Gov't get money to run? Why do they build parks, stadiums, make cities safe?
Luigi Novi: It gets money from taxpayers. What does this have to do with anything? If the government doesn’t encourage people to have kids, they’re not going to have any? Where do you get this idea from?
Eric: I'm not against any of that, go back and read the other posts.
Luigi Novi: You said that gay couples can have commitment celebrations, and all the power of attorney etc. to mirror a heterosexual couple. In fact, they do not have all the rights that mirror heterosexual couples.
Eric: Sure does if the benifits from marriage are to promote growth and families.
Luigi Novi: The primary purpose of marriage has nothing to do with children. It is to formalize the pair bond between two people in love. Period. I provided historical examples above of gay marriages, even in ancient times.
Luigi Novi: Why would government have any opinion on it at all? The government has no business sticking its nose into the matter.
Gov't has opinion because Gov't offers breaks for married couples. If it affects the Gov't shouldn't they have an opinion?
Luigi Novi: The permutation or point on which gay marriage hinges should not be one as esoteric as something as “government benefits.” To deny a basic fundamental aspect of the pursuit of happiness as marriage to 10% of the population by arguing that something as low-priority as “government benefits” is actually a salient point on which to adjudicate the issue is an obvious case of a bigot desperately trying to rationalize their position, no matter how threadbare it is.
Guess what? It doesn’t work.
Eric: The fact that they need outside help changes the relationship.
Luigi Novi: No it doesn’t. The primary relationship in a marriage is between the two people married. Not between hypothetical children that even hetero couples do not necessarily have, and which gay c0uples cannot have biologically amongst themselves.
Eric: The majority of men and a women making minimum wage can produce a child, can the same be said of gay couples? This outside help requires resources which are not available to the majority of that relationship.
Luigi Novi: So what? It’s not like they’re asking you or I to pay for it, are they? What does this have to do with marriage? By contrast, what did those two McCaughey idiots do when they decided they wanted to give birth to a litter? They took fertility drugs, put the litter at medical risk, and then asked the public for donations, when you shouldn’t be having something you can’t afford anyway. By contrast, do gays ask others to foot their bills?
Novafan: Kerry didn't witness the things he mentioned. He said he participated in them. That makes him just as guilty as the people he was condeming doesn't it?
Luigi Novi: You certainly don’t think so. If you did, you wouldn’t have said asserted that responsibility for Abu Gharib fell the “commander” for not keeping his troops in line.
Novafan: If you believe Kerry's lies, then aren't you just as responsible for providing reparation to the Communist regime he was defending?
Luigi Novi: First, you have not demonstrated that Kerry’s statements were lies. You were given the opportunity to provide examples, and you blatantly chickened out of it, because you knew you could not illustrate that accusation.
Second, in what does believing an assertion, even one later proven to be untrue, equate with reparation? Because I believe Kerry means I owe something to the commies? How do you come with this non sequitur?
Lastly, I do not put much credence in someone who accuses one candidate of lying, then fails to prove it, but somehow manages to gloss over the fact that the other candidate is just as much a liar, if not more so, as when he flat-out says that he doesn’t think about bin Laden any more, and then claims during a debate that he never said that. Unlike you, you see, I can actually provide an example of a lie to illustrate the accusation.
Again, I tell you to read his speech to Congress and tell me which part of it wasn't lies? Our POW's were tortured by his statements for years. That to me means he was a traitor.
He also met with the Communist regime before meeting with Congress and gave Congress their promise to release POW's after America pulled out of Vietnam.
Hmmm, that doesn't sound like treason does it? Yeah, let's go and have a secret meeting with the enemy and then accuse our troops of things that he couldn't prove. Yeah, that's a great idea. I'm glad you agree with him.
I think Jay Leno said it best when he said Kerry conferred with France, Germany, and Russia before deciding to concede the election. It was really funny and untrue, but you know what, it made a lot of sense based on past performance of Kerry.
I wonder which enemy Kerry would have conferred with and promised to pull out of Iraq if their concessions were met. Thank goodness, we don't have to find out.
Now, Kerry can go back to Congress and 'report for duty' for a change.
Jerome,
After days now of reading people's reactions to the election it is obvious that there are those who would rather have terrible things happen in the next four years just so they can have the dubious comfort of having been proven right--or perhaps, more importantly, having the other guy proven wrong. I'm reminded of a cartoon by that old right winger Feiffer where a character says something tot he effect of "I don't mind being wrong. I mind that the other guy was right."
Amateur psychoanalysis doesn't interest me much so I have no idea how people get this way but given the fact that one will see about as many defeats as victories in one's life, it seems to me to be a guarantee of a great deal of unhappiness.
As regards the accusation of "treason" tossed out so casually above:
One of the definitions of "treason" is "providing aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war".
War was never, in fact, declared in Vietnam.
Merely being in a state of armed hostility doesn't qualify. If it did, Hollywood would have to be arrested en masse today.
(I'm not even going to touch the [rather silly] assertion that the words of one retired lesser officer could have somehow prolonged or worsened the conflict, especially in the pre-CNN era...)
Novafan: Again, I tell you to read his speech to Congress and tell me which part of it wasn't lies?
Luigi Novi: And again, I tell you to provide examples, because it is you who are making the accusation, and therefore it is you who has the burden of proving it. Why do you refuse to provide examples? I don’t have his speech to Congress. If you have it, quote from the sections and explain to me how they’re lies.
Novafan: Our POW's were tortured by his statements for years.
Luigi Novi: Why do you keep bringing up our POWs being tortured for his testimony? What does that have to do with a lie? Some moral armpit of a society tortures its POW’s, and rather than blame them for not recognizing basic human rights, you instead blame the guy
Novafan: That to me means he was a traitor.
Luigi Novi: There is no such thing here as “to me” when you’re talking about something like treason. People like you who cannot argue coherently that they can make a false idea by assuming a different definition for a word, so they make up their own definitions, and unfortunately, that’s not the way it works. Treason is intentional attempt to bring down one’s own government. Period. That’s it. That’s the end of it. No if’s, and’s, or but’s about it. Treason does not mean “doing something I disagree with that outraged me.”
In the first place, Kerry is not responsible if some dictatorial regime decided to torture innocent people. If do time in prison, and after I’m released, I testify as to abuses in the prison on the part of the prison staff, and the staff retaliate by torturing those other prisoners that I was friends with, is that my fault? If someone tortures someone, culpability for that falls on the torturer. Not someone who in good faith, wanted to alert his people to the atrocities he has knowledge of on the part of his country’s military. If someone has knowledge of atrocities committed by his military, are you seriously arguing that he should not try to stop them by alerting his people to them? Please, tell me, because I’d like to know what alternative you would prescribe here to testifying before Congress, since you never seem to touch upon this point.
Second, even if it were true that his testimony angered the Viet Cong into torturing our POW’s, this could hardly be Kerry’s intent. Treason requires deliberate intent.
Lastly, testifying before Congress did not have the effect of toppling the U.S. government.
Novafan: He also met with the Communist regime before meeting with Congress and gave Congress their promise to release POW's after America pulled out of Vietnam. Hmmm, that doesn't sound like treason does it?
Luigi Novi: No. I provided the correct definition of treason to you. You are simply making up your own, one that doesn’t exist.
Novafan: Yeah, let's go and have a secret meeting with the enemy and then accuse our troops of things that he couldn't prove.
Luigi Novi: Seems a lot like your tactics.
Novafan: Yeah, that's a great idea. I'm glad you agree with him.
Luigi Novi: Straw Man. I never said I agreed with him.
Try again.
Bill Mulligan: After days now of reading people's reactions to the election it is obvious that there are those who would rather have terrible things happen in the next four years just so they can have the dubious comfort of having been proven right--or perhaps, more importantly, having the other guy proven wrong.
Luigi Novi: No one has said that.
Sorry, my response to the second quote above should read, "you instead blame the guy who spoke out about abuses on the part of his country's military.
Bill Mulligan: After days now of reading people's reactions to the election it is obvious that there are those who would rather have terrible things happen in the next four years just so they can have the dubious comfort of having been proven right--or perhaps, more importantly, having the other guy proven wrong.
Luigi Novi: No one has said that.
I wasn't talking about here (though "God curse Amaerica!" comes close). Lurk around Democratunderground and you'll see plenty of what I'm talking about. like this posting; "I really don't care what happens anymore. From here on out, we get exactly what we deserve whether it's a fiscal depression,increased poverty, return to witchhunts, terror attacks, whatever. I don't blame the rest of the world for hating us. I hate us too."
Even at a more sane site like Salon.com you might run across the following; "But like many liberals I'm betting on the Armageddon theory of politics. Bush and the GOP majorities in the House and Senate will make things so bad in the next four years that the country will never elect a Republican ever again. So here's hoping things get much, much worse!"
Note that I never said that this was the opinion of MOST or even MANY liberals. Just "there are those". Pretty hard to deny. You could argue that they are a tiny minority within a minority and I'd tend to agree, though if sane democrats don't speak up soon they will begin to be perceived as the voice of the party.
I just want to make it clear that, should I ever decide to move overseas, it won't be just because of Bush.
It will also be because of the 58 million, and the comments of those like Novafan, as well.
This country is just reveling in ignorance right now.
Bill Mulligan wrote...
You could argue that they are a tiny minority within a minority and I'd tend to agree, though if sane democrats don't speak up soon they will begin to be perceived as the voice of the party.
Understandable. By the same token, it's easy to start thinking of Republicans as the hate-spewing jackasses so commonly found on public radio.
Kooks are the minority on both sides, but they also tend to be the loudest.
To address the "we deserve it" comments, I could see that applying to any economic or political consequences of the election. After all, the majority of the population endorsed these policies. However, while the Administration's policies could well lead to another terrorist attack (or not), it would be very unfair to say that any victims of such an attack "deserved it."
Craig said, "I just want to make it clear that, should I ever decide to move overseas, it won't be just because of Bush. It will also be because of the 58 million, and the comments of those like Novafan, as well.This country is just reveling in ignorance right now."
Wow, I must be pretty important. I'm actually causing someone to want to move out of the country. Thanks for hanging that one on me partner. You might as well ask me to come and help you pack your bags while you're at it.
Ok, so maybe treason isn't a word liked by you. How about Kerry betrayed his country by going and talking to the enemy and then giving Congress the enemies requirements in order for them to return POWs. Does that sound better?
Ok, you asked for some evidence that Kerry lied Luigi, here it is (taken from factcheck.org ~ maybe you'll say it's not a lie, would you agree to an exageration especially considering that some of the people were discredited who fed him the information):
"And earlier this year, Kerry was again pressed on his 1971 antiwar views, and responded to some of the same points now being raised anew in the Swift Boat Veterans ad. He said his 1971 words were "honest" but "a little bit over the top."
Q: You committed atrocities?
Kerry (Meet the Press Apr. 18, 2004:) Where did all that dark hair go, Tim? That's a big question for me. You know, I thought a lot, for a long time, about that period of time, the things we said, and I think the word is a bad word. I think it's an inappropriate word. I mean, if you wanted to ask me have you ever made mistakes in your life, sure. I think some of the language that I used was a language that reflected an anger. It was honest, but it was in anger, it was a little bit excessive.
Q:You used the word "war criminals."
Kerry: Well, let me just finish. Let me must finish. It was, I think, a reflection of the kind of times we found ourselves in and I don't like it when I hear it today. I don't like it, but I want you to notice that at the end, I wasn't talking about the soldiers and the soldiers' blame, and my great regret is, I hope no soldier--I mean, I think some soldiers were angry at me for that, and I understand that and I regret that, because I love them. But the words were honest but on the other hand, they were a little bit over the top. And I think that there were breaches of the Geneva Conventions. There were policies in place that were not acceptable according to the laws of warfare, and everybody knows that. I mean, books have chronicled that, so I'm not going to walk away from that. But I wish I had found a way to say it in a less abrasive way.
Q: But, Senator, when you testified before the Senate, you talked about some of the hearings you had observed at the winter soldiers meeting and you said that people had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and on and on. A lot of those stories have been discredited, and in hindsight was your testimony...
Kerry: Actually, a lot of them have been documented.
Q: So you stand by that?
Kerry: A lot of those stories have been documented. Have some been discredited? Sure, they have, Tim. The problem is that's not where the focus should have been. And, you know, when you're angry about something and you're young, you know, you're perfectly capable of not--I mean, if I had the kind of experience and time behind me that I have today, I'd have framed some of that differently. Needless to say, I'm proud that I stood up. I don't want anybody to think twice about it. I'm proud that I took the position that I took to oppose it. I think we saved lives, and I'm proud that I stood up at a time when it was important to stand up, but I'm not going to quibble, you know, 35 years later that I might not have phrased things more artfully at times."
The following research was conducted by another Blogger Luigi (since he was a member of the Armed forces when he met with the enemy, he should have been prosecuted ~ so the question should be why wasn't he):
"COMPLETE TESTIMONY OF LT. JOHN KERRY TO SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE 1 of 40 From the Congressional Record (92nd Congress, 1st Session) for Thursday, April 22, 1971, pages 179-210.
Mr. KERRY. My feeling, Senator, is undoubtedly this Congress, and I don t mean to sound pessimistic, but I do not believe that this Congress will, in fact, end the war as we would like to, which is immediately and unilaterally and, therefore, if I were to speak I would say we would set a date and the date obviously would be the earliest possible date. But I would like to say, in answering that, that I do not believe it is necessary to stall any longer. I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh s points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.
Here is where the UCMJ falls into place, there is no denying that at the time Kerry went to Paris he was still a member of the Armed forces.
Kerry discharge
Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 104; part 904
904. ART. 104. AIDING THE ENEMY
Any person who--
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or [protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct."
Luigi said, "Luigi Novi: Why do you keep bringing up our POWs being tortured for his testimony? What does that have to do with a lie? Some moral armpit of a society tortures its POW’s, and rather than blame them for not recognizing basic human rights, you instead blame the guy"
You darned right I blame the guy. Our military men were languishing in the enemies prisons and were tortured repeatedly while they were trying to get them to say what they wanted them to say and/or write down, which they refused to do as long as they could stand the torture.
Then, add to the torture them telling the prisoners that their own countrymen, specifically a decorated person in John Kerry who testified before Congress, were saying the prisoners and their fellow milatary men were 'war criminals'.
I still can't believe it. It's a disgrace what Kerry did and he has never appoligized for it. As a former vet myself, I'm flabergasted that any veteran would even conceive of saying that other veterans were war criminals. I feel John was either directly or indirectly responsible for the citizens in the streets spitting on returning veterans.
Oh, btw, I stumbled upon this today (they wanted to stop the war at any cost huh?):
"November 7, 1971 -- John Kerry tells the Sunday Oklahoman that the political power structure within the United States can and must change if the nation is to avoid violent efforts to seize power, saying, "If it (the government) doesn't change we are asking for trouble. If it is not done, those who are talking about seizing it will have every right to go after it." [see page 251 of Section 10 of the VVAW FBI files] November 12 - 15, 1971 -- the VVAW leadership meets in Kansas City. Fearing surveillance by authorities, the group relocates the meeting to another building. They debate, then vote down a plan to assassinate several pro-war U.S. Senators. Despite John Kerry's claim to have left the VVAW before this event, several witnesses, meeting minutes and FBI records eventually place Kerry at the Kansas City meeting.
"
Kerry even said himself that he committed war crimes. This doesn't bother you at all?
"MR. KERRY: Thank you. Yes, we did participate in war crimes in Coastal Division 11 because as I said earlier, we took part in free fire zones, harassment, interdiction fire, and search-and-destroy missions. The concept of operations, I gather, changed somewhat from the time when I was there and the time when you were there later on. And I believe that we moved into operations called Silver Mace II and some others in which we were not quite involved in as"
Wow, I must be pretty important. I'm actually causing someone to want to move out of the country. Thanks for hanging that one on me partner. You might as well ask me to come and help you pack your bags while you're at it.
No. Thankfully, you're a nobody.
Instead of helping me move, you can dig your own grave, because that's what you'll get with Bush.
But, hey, 58 million stupid nobodies can't be wrong, right?
This country isn't worth the bullshit.
And when Bush's agenda is to make "liberal" one of those dirty words you can't say on television, why should anybody bother to put up with it?
Novafan: Wow, I must be pretty important. I'm actually causing someone to want to move out of the country.
Luigi Novi: Craig never said he was moving out of the country. Reading comprehension must not be your strong suit. Try reading what he actually said.
Novafan: Ok, so maybe treason isn't a word liked by you.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say anything about “liking” the word. Stop using Straw Man arguments, because they’re not working.
Novafan: How about Kerry betrayed his country by going and talking to the enemy and then giving Congress the enemies requirements in order for them to return POWs. Does that sound better?
Luigi Novi: It is properly phrased as an opinion, which unlike your previous statement, cannot be factually true or untrue.
Novafan: maybe you'll say it's not a lie, would you agree to an exageration especially considering that some of the people were discredited who fed him the information)…
Luigi Novi: If Kerry used a word that he later thought was not as accurate, and later clarified it, then no, I would not call that a lie. A lie requires knowing and deliberate falsehood, which the text you provided does not illustrate.
Novafan: Here is where the UCMJ falls into place, there is no denying that at the time Kerry went to Paris he was still a member of the Armed forces.
Luigi Novi: Kerry’s active duty was from August 19, 1966 until March 1970.
The meeting in Paris was in or around May 1970 with leaders of the communist delegation that was negotiating with U.S. representatives at the Paris peace talks, and was not a secret, as Kerry openly mentioned it in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22 of 1971. Senator Fulbright asked Kerry during that hearing if he supported any of the proposals before the committee, and Kerry responded that based on his conversations in Paris with both Communist delegations to the peace talks (North Vietnamese and Viet Cong), he agreed with Senator Vance Hartke that, if the United States set a date for its withdrawal, it could then obtain the release of its prisoners of war.
In September 2004, Vice Admiral Ronald A. Route, the Navy Inspector General, completed a review of Kerry's combat medals, initiated at the request of Judicial Watch, a watchdog group that has been accused of right-wing leanings. In addition to stating that the medals were legitimate, Route stated, in a memo to the Secretary of the Navy, Gordon England, that in regards to his post-active duty actives:
Our review also considered the fact that Senator Kerry's post-active duty activities were public and that military and civilian officials were aware of his actions at the time.
No one has ever seriously entertained the notion of prosecuting Kerry for treason merely for trying to secure the release of POW’s, and John McCain, who was a POW in Vietnam, has stated that John Kerry is his friend, has never stated that he’s a traitor, and even worked with Kerry in the 1990s to investigate the possibility that there were still POWs in Vietnam.
I supposed you could argue that such things tend to be overlooked, but then again that seems to help out your guy too, unless you think there’s something admirable about George W. Bush refusing to take physicals and going AWOL when he was on active duty. Yet you never seem to ask why he was never prosecuted. And he got more than just elected to Congress. He got the Oval Office.
Novafan: You darned right I blame the guy.
Luigi Novi: Rather than the people who actually conducted the torture? Well, to each his own. But who you choose to arbitrarily blame based solely on your emotionalism does not have anything to do with “treason” or “lies.” The fact remains that Kerry is not responsible for the torture of POW’s, and no amount of saying otherwise is going to change that.
Novafan: Then, add to the torture them telling the prisoners that their own countrymen, specifically a decorated person in John Kerry who testified before Congress, were saying the prisoners and their fellow milatary men were 'war criminals'.
Luigi Novi: Kerry never said that POW’s were war criminals. He said that those who committed war crimes were. This is the blatant Straw Man of extremist Kerry critics, who can’t seem to distinguish between saying that some soldiers committed crimes, and that all did. There is no lie, because the only ones saying that Kerry accused “all” Vietnam veterans of war crimes are people such as yourself.
Novafan: "November 7, 1971 -- John Kerry tells the Sunday Oklahoman that the political power structure within the United States can and must change if the nation is to avoid violent efforts to seize power, saying, "If it (the government) doesn't change we are asking for trouble. If it is not done, those who are talking about seizing it will have every right to go after it." [see page 251 of Section 10 of the VVAW FBI files] November 12 - 15, 1971 -- the VVAW leadership meets in Kansas City. Fearing surveillance by authorities, the group relocates the meeting to another building. They debate, then vote down a plan to assassinate several pro-war U.S. Senators. Despite John Kerry's claim to have left the VVAW before this event, several witnesses, meeting minutes and FBI records eventually place Kerry at the Kansas City meeting."
Luigi Novi: And? So what? Kerry isn’t responsible for what others say, and indeed, such extremist rhetoric may be why he did eventually leave the group.
Novafan: Kerry even said himself that he committed war crimes. This doesn't bother you at all?
Luigi Novi: The fact that he admitted that he came to realize, as result of his participation of certain activities, that such policies as “free-fire” zones were wrong, were not consistent with the rules of war, and should be changed, was admirable. Speaking out against the commanders in the war, who were responsible for initiating those policies, and not the soldiers, bothers me far more than the testimony of a soldier who admitted that it was wrong and tried to get it changed.
Craig J. Ries: This country isn't worth the bullshit.
Luigi Novi: I think it’s worth fighting for.
Luigi Novi: I think it’s worth fighting for.
And for that, Bush is more than happy to ship you over to Iraq to die for his crusade.
Since I'm not the prime military age, and have publicly criticized him, I doubt he'd want me. And that's just fine with me.
Luigi, I can read very well. "Craig said, "I just want to make it clear that, should I ever decide to move overseas, it won't be just because of Bush. It will also be because of the 58 million, and the comments of those like Novafan, as well."
Luigi, you sound pretty intelligent. It's sad you have to result to insults to get your point across. Luigi Novi: Craig never said he was moving out of the country. Reading comprehension must not be your strong suit. Try reading what he actually said.
He said if he moved, he would blame it on the 58 million and me, not just Bush. I never said he was moving, I said he was trying to hang it on me. Maybe reading comprehension isn't your strong point either.
Oh, btw. Active duty isn't over after 4 years. You're still obligated to 8 years of total service, 4 of those years being inactive reserve. And, you are still bound by the UCMJ during those 4 years. If you don't believe me, look it up.
Craig said, No. Thankfully, you're a nobody.Instead of helping me move, you can dig your own grave, because that's what you'll get with Bush.But, hey, 58 million stupid nobodies can't be wrong, right?This country isn't worth the bullshit.
Thanks for calling me and 58 million other voters a nobody and telling me to dig my own grave. I appreciate your warm comments.
Maybe you should leave the country if you have such a negative opinion of it. Nobody's telling you you have to stay here are they?
Maybe you should leave the country if you have such a negative opinion of it. Nobody's telling you you have to stay here are they?
Well, if you want to write me a check so I can leave, by all means, do so.
I'd rather force Bush to leave the county. But, we don't always get what we want, do we?
Bush's idea of being president is to create a large of a mess as possible, leave office, and not give a damn that somebody has gets to clean it up.
Why 58 million people prefer that, I have no damn idea. But it sickens me.
Read carefully all of you people who think Kerry's testimony before Congress caused our POW's to be tortured more horribly or kept longer. Do you seriously think that the Vietnamese DID NOT know of the atrocities already? Do you think Kerry's testimony told them anything about what was happening in their own country? Were they living under rocks? Find another argument. Also, there have been atrocities that were documented at the time. Mai Lai and Lr Calley? So stop demonizing Kerry for telling the American people what had been going on without their knowledge. The Vietnamese did not torture GI's any worse after his testimony, because they were aware that the atrocities were happening to their OWN people. It makes me sick that people on this board are so eager to believe these Swift Boaters for lies, they are trying to rewrite history.
Karen said It makes me sick that people on this board are so eager to believe these Swift Boaters for lies, they are trying to rewrite history.
Yes, lets blame the swift boat vets now. They had nothing to lose by coming forth did they? Why didn't they stay silent? You think maybe they believed in thier hearts that they couldn't allow a man like Kerry to be our Commander in Chief? Nah,that couldn't be the case.
I would like you to cite any lies they presented please. This might be interesting.
Craig said Well, if you want to write me a check so I can leave, by all means, do so.
OIC, now I'm not only responsible for you wanting to leave as you've stated, but I have to pay you for it too. Good grief. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
To those who still want to toss around this reported meeting in Paris in the early '70s -
The operant word, in both the discussion of treason and the UCMJ, is "enemy". "Enemy", legally speaking, has a very specific meaning. It would require that what was going on in Vietnam was, in fact, a war.
It was not.
War was never declared in Vietnam - nto by the US, and not against the US by North Vietnam (the Viet Cong were terrorists, not a governmental force, and therefore had no standing to declare war nor have it declared against them).
John Kerry was no more guilty of high treason than, say, Jane Fonda, or than Nixon was for going to Communist China.
Can we please stop throwing around false charges, and/or reacting automatically as if such charges were true?
I don't remember seeing anywhere in the UCMJ, under which Kerry was required to adhere to, where an Enemy is only defined if we are in a declared War. Can you point that out to me?
OIC, now I'm not only responsible for you wanting to leave as you've stated, but I have to pay you for it too. Good grief. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Well, you're Canadian, something I didn't realize before. So, now I know that your opinion means next to nothing.
So, you don't even have any cake to begin with.
I don't remember seeing anywhere in the UCMJ, under which Kerry was required to adhere to, where an Enemy is only defined if we are in a declared War.
By my own definition, Bush is an "enemy". Arrest him.
Because, you know, if that sort of personal definition bs works for some of you, I guess it can work for me. I win.
"War was never declared in Vietnam - nto by the US, and not against the US by North Vietnam (the Viet Cong were terrorists, not a governmental force, and therefore had no standing to declare war nor have it declared against them)."
"John Kerry was no more guilty of high treason than, say, Jane Fonda, or than Nixon was for going to Communist China."
For the record. I don't think that KErry was in any way guilty of treason.
That said, there seems to be a problem with the way you define treason. It can't only be treason if you collaborate with people with whom we are at war--we never declared war on the Soviet Union, yet I believe that most who were charged with treason were guilty of working for the Russians.
Yes, lets blame the swift boat vets now. They had nothing to lose by coming forth did they? Why didn't they stay silent? You think maybe they believed in thier hearts that they couldn't allow a man like Kerry to be our Commander in Chief?
I'd have less problems with them if they had the integrity that they claimed Kerry didn't have.
I would like you to cite any lies they presented please. This might be interesting.
Not really. They, by their own admission, weren't there; they were at some distance. The people involved, including people under Kerry's command WERE at hand; they've backed up Kerry's version of events (even the one person who didn't like him). (And if you want to go that far, some of the surviving Vietnamese villagers supported the Kerry version of events).
Frankly, that there's a controversy about this simply astonishes me. That there are differing accounts about this isn;t surprising (different locations and all), but if we're going to be relying on eyewitness testimony, I'd sure as hell trust the folks where at the scene over folks who were even a little distance away.
Bush's idea of being president is to create a large of a mess as possible, leave office, and not give a damn that somebody has gets to clean it up.
In 4 years when Democrats lose again all eyes should be on those who make statements like this to blame. I have a few left leanings, but when extreme comments come out like this, I don't want to align myself with those who think like this.
In 4 years when Democrats lose again all eyes should be on those who make statements like this to blame. I have a few left leanings, but when extreme comments come out like this, I don't want to align myself with those who think like this.
Fine, don't. I just shows me that people really don't care enough about what the hell is going on in this country then.
Which should explain why Kerry lost in the first place.
I expect the national deficit to be a mess in 4 years, and I expect Iraq to still be a mess in 4 years. And it will no longer be Bush's problem.
Well Craig, as mentioned somewhere else on PAD's blog.
The Republicans control the executive branch, the presidency.
The Republicans control the legislative branch, with majorities in the house and senate.
The Republicans will probably end up "controlling" the Supreme Court soon too.
Then in 4 years when this country is more fucked-up and fucked-over than a porn star at a gang bang, the American people have only the Republican party to blame....
Not that they'll have the free speech to say so at that point....
"I expect the national deficit to be a mess in 4 years, and I expect Iraq to still be a mess in 4 years. And it will no longer be Bush's problem."
Well, hey, y'never know. With checks and balances out of whack, why rule out a possible repealing of the Presidential term limit amendment? If bin Laden is ever actually caught, they can make enough political hay out of it to take a serious run at it.
PAD
PAD posted: "Well, hey, y'never know. With checks and balances out of whack, why rule out a possible repealing of the Presidential term limit amendment? If bin Laden is ever actually caught, they can make enough political hay out of it to take a serious run at it."
Here's why I wish to heck they'd try it:
They do that, and the '08 race becomes Dubya versus Bill Clinton, I guarantee it. And there's no way Bill doesn't clean Dubya's clock.
Best,
Julio
PAD,
"why rule out a possible repealing of the Presidential term limit amendment"
You know I thought of that, but it would be a double edged sword for them. Clinton would also be allowed to run again!
Clinton in '08!
Craig said Well, you're Canadian, something I didn't realize before. So, now I know that your opinion means next to nothing. So, you don't even have any cake to begin with.
First you call me a nobody, then you say my opinion means next to nothing because you believe I'm a Canadian. I'm sure that Canadians want to know their opinion means nothing to you since they are Canadians. That's an insult to the few Canadian's who do post here. Good job Craig, not only do you try to insult me, you insult other people at the same time.
It's funny, I went to bed last night as an American and woke up as a Canadian. You really work magic Craig. I state in another thread that I liked Canada and you jump to conclusions. Sounds a lot like Kerry jumping to conclusions based on what he reads in the paper.
I'm American 100% proof, have already defended my country before and would support and defend America regardless of who our President is. Isn't it ironic that I helped support and defend our country so you have the right to call me a nobody and continuously whine about how bad our country is without doing anything about it except for saying 'Woe is me'.
What's your excuse?
Novafan said...
I'm sure that Canadians want to know their opinion means nothing to you since they are Canadians. That's an insult to the few Canadian's who do post here.
An observation:
I've read a few times around here that upset Democrats should essentially shut up about the election, because a clear majority of Americans wanted Bush.
I think it's safe to say that a clear majority of the rest of the world wanted Kerry.
Now, I'm not saying that foreigners should elect your president, because (of course) that's absurd.
But you'd think such an overwhelming amount of worldwide opposition would cause certain individuals to think, "hey, maybe these people have a point. What are we doing to our international reputation?" This might be a particularly useful thought to have these days, since international terrorism tends to spring from foreigners hating Americans.
Isn't it a good idea to assess (a) why some of these people are upset with you, and (b) whether the current administration is helping the situation, or hurting it?
Just to clarify, the above wasn't intended to go after Novafan. I realize he was supporting the rights of foreigners to express their opinions here, and was supporting him.
Jeff said Just to clarify, the above wasn't intended to go after Novafan. I realize he was supporting the rights of foreigners to express their opinions here, and was supporting him.
Man, I didn't defend your rights just so you could go and take a jab at the President. Sheesh, lol. I can't win for losing. I guess that's another take on irony isn't it?
Jeff, we don't elect our President based on World opinion. We elect a president that will protect our nation's best interests. That's probably one of the Reasons Kerry lost, because American's don't want a President that goes to the United Nations or other Countries for decisions he has to make to protect our country. Kerry might not have meant his global test would mean other countries would define our countries policies, but he did open his mouth and insert his foot (actually, he inserted many feet with that comment). Of all the mistakes he made, that one was probably the fatal one.
I care what other countries think about us, but I care more that we do what it takes to stop injustices in the world and protect the weak who can't protect themselves. We're making good progress, but there's so much more to do. If other countries hate us because we do the right thing, then so be it.
The fact is, the Taliban had to be removed. Check.
The fact is, Saddam was a tyrant/killer/murderer of millions of innocents during his reign and had to be removed. Check. (It wasn't a question of who removed him from power, but when he was removed. Kerry himself said over and over that Saddam had to be removed from power).
The fact is, Libya crapped their pants and gave up their nuclear ambitions. Check.
The fact is, we have a tremendous loss of life both for citizens and military of several nations in Iraq. Check.
Does the loss of lives compare with what would have happened if Saddam had stayed in power and acquired Nuclear weapons. No check. If Saddam had acquired Nuclear weapons, which he had the money and resources to do so, the world would be a much different place right now. Israel would have gone first because Saddam showed the capability of using weapons of that magnitude and then the rest of the world would have followed suit.
Novafan wrote...
Jeff, we don't elect our President based on World opinion.
Of course not, and I don't expect that you should. What I'm saying is that world opinion should at least be valued and considered. If you do that and still decide to do your own thing, then fine. But I get the impression that too many (not all) Republican voters have an attitude that amounts to "fuck the world."
Sure, Kerry's "global test" didn't go over well. That doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't a good idea, and I get the impression that you know what he meant rather than what was interpreted.
After all, that's what the United Nations is for. What was the point in the U.S. helping to write international law when it holds only others, and not itself to those laws?
But yeah, like I said, of course you guys get to elect your own president.
Fine, don't. I just shows me that people really don't care enough about what the hell is going on in this country then.
Which should explain why Kerry lost in the first place.
Yeah, they didn't care so much they had record turn out at the polls. Try to spin it again.
It's funny, I went to bed last night as an American and woke up as a Canadian. You really work magic Craig. I state in another thread that I liked Canada and you jump to conclusions. Sounds a lot like Kerry jumping to conclusions based on what he reads in the paper.
Ok, maybe I jumped to a conclusion on this one. Too many posts to keep track of, and your handle here didn't help the situation any.
It's funny you bring up who reads the paper - Bush said he doesn't read the newspaper. Frankly, I wonder if he knows how to read at all.
What was the point in the U.S. helping to write international law when it holds only others, and not itself to those laws?
Because the UN doesn't bend over for the US ever time the US wants to blow something up.
The UN is a great idea that the US continually makes a mockery of. I've said in the past that the UN is nothing more than a world debate club.
Yet, it is the US that has made it nothing but that.
Craig J. Ries: And for that, Bush is more than happy to ship you over to Iraq to die for his crusade.
Luigi Novi: I’m not talking about fighting in a war. I’m talking about not giving up simply because of Bush’s election.
Novafan: He said if he moved, he would blame it on the 58 million and me, not just Bush. I never said he was moving, I said he was trying to hang it on me.
Luigi Novi: What you said was that you caused someone to want to move out of the country. He never said he wanted to move out of the country. He only made a remark about who he’d blame IF he did. I do not agree with the sentiment, mind you, but please get the quote accurate, and do not backpedal by saying that you said something other than what you did.
However, I apologize for the insult. :-)
Novafan: Oh, btw. Active duty isn't over after 4 years. You're still obligated to 8 years of total service, 4 of those years being inactive reserve. And, you are still bound by the UCMJ during those 4 years. If you don't believe me, look it up.
Luigi Novi: So then why didn’t anyone care about Kerry going to Paris to try and help secure the release of POW’s? Why doesn’t John McCain, who served time in a Vietnamese as a POW himself, consider Kerry a traitor, but instead a friend? Could it be that McCain, despite being on the opposing political side, knows Kerry better than you or I, and sincerely believes that Kerry was just trying to get POW’s released? Is it possible that this sort of thing, unless egregious, tends to be overlooked by the military brass? If not, then why wasn’t Bush held accountable for refusing to take physical exams (and why did he refuse, btw—was it because he was afraid something would show up in his blood and urine), and for going AWOL? Why do you ask me if Kerry’s Congressional testimony bothered me, when he, at least, rather than use familial connections to get into the “champagne unit” of the Texas National Guard flying an obsolete plane that would never see combat as Bush did, actually REQUESTED to be sent to Vietnam, participated in things like free-fire zones only because he was trained and ordered to by a military that emphasizes obedience to authority rather than individuality, eventually came to understand that these things were not in keeping with the rules of war, and admitted before Congress that it was wrong to do these things? I asked you this above, but you didn’t answer.
I do not wish to veer toward flaming again, but indeed it seems I have to ask a question several times before getting an answer from you. If you could explain to me how and why you view Bush’s war record vis a vis what you think of Kerry and how you think Bush is a stronger war leader, please do so.
Novafan: Yes, lets blame the swift boat vets now. They had nothing to lose by coming forth did they? Why didn't they stay silent? You think maybe they believed in thier hearts that they couldn't allow a man like Kerry to be our Commander in Chief? Nah,that couldn't be the case.
Luigi Novi: In theory it could be. In actuality, I don’t believe that to be the case. I think they did what they did to ensure that their guy won the election. For one thing, we have to wonder why they chose to come forward only when Kerry became the Democrat frontrunner in the presidential campaign, and never before.
There’s also the fact that many current SBVT members are officers who had previously praised Kerry's conduct during the Vietnam War. These include Division Commander Grant Hibbard, who wrote positive evaluations of Kerry, and Commander George Elliott, who submitted Kerry for a Silver Star. So what happened? Why did they flip-flop?
Then there’s their ties to the Republican party and the Bush campaign. SBVT's chief financiers, according to the group's last quarterly IRS filing, are Houston builder Bob J. Perry and the Crow family, both major Republican donors from Texas. Perry is a long time Bush supporter who has donated $200,000 to fund the SBVT ads. (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2747923) (http://www.tpj.org/page_view.jsp?pageid=667&pubid=422) SBVT's media representative, Merrie Spaeth, was a Reagan administration press officer and an advisor to Ken Starr in the Clinton impeachment. Spaeth's late husband, Tex Lezar, ran for Texas lieutenant governor on George W. Bush's ticket in 1994. John E. O'Neill — the primary author of Unfit for Command and a key player in the formation of SBVT — donated over $14,000 to Republican candidates, was a partner in Lezar's law firm, and co-operated with the Nixon White House in opposing Kerry in 1971. (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4534274/) Retired Admiral William Schachte, the principal source for the SBVT allegations about Kerry's first Purple Heart, has donated to both of Bush’s presidential campaigns. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47542-2004Aug30.html) Chris LaCivita, director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2002, works as a private contractor providing media advice for SBVT. (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/25/politics/campaign/25CND-SWIF.html?hp=&pagewanted=all&position) The SBVT postal address was registered to Susan Arceneaux, treasurer of the Majority Leader's Fund, a PAC closely tied to the archconservative former Congressional leader Dick Armey. (http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/08/28/swift_bush/index.html)
The Kerry campaign asserted that Bush campaign headquarters in Florida distributed fliers promoting SBVT events, a charge the Bush campaign denied. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-20-swift-boat-flier_x.htm) Kenneth Cordier, former vice-chair of Veterans for Bush/Cheney in 2000 and volunteer member of the Bush campaign veterans steering committee, appeared in the second SBVT advertisement. The Bush campaign asked him to resign and stated that it had been unaware of his SBVT involvement. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040822/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_ads&cid=694&ncid=716) On August 25, 2004, Benjamin Ginsberg, lead counsel to the Bush campaign on campaign finance law, also resigned after it was learned that the SBVT was one of his clients. Ginsberg stated that he was withdrawing to avoid being a distraction to the campaign. He declared that he had acted "in a manner that is fully appropriate and legal," (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20040825/ap_on_el_pr/veterans_group_bush), arguing that it was not uncommon or illegal for lawyers to represent campaigns or political parties while also representing 527 groups. He also maintained that he did not disclose to the Bush campaign that he was simultaneously representing the SBVT group. After leaving the Bush campaign, Ginsberg retained his status as counsel to the SBVT.
On August 20, 2004, the Kerry campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), alleging that the activities of the SBVT were illegally coordinated with Republicans and the Bush-Cheney campaign. Under federal election law, the SBVT, as a nonpartisan 527 group, was barred from coordinating with any political campaign. The complaint, citing the aforementioned ties, claimed a "web of connections to the Bush family, high-profile Texas political figures, and President Bush's chief political aide, Karl Rove", and added that the SBVT's claims (on television and on its website) were inaccurate. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/20/kerry.swiftboat/index.html) (http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/08/19/politics/campaign/20040820swift_graph.gif) (Editorial opinion on the evidence for co-ordination varied.)
On August 10, 2004, three campaign finance watchdog groups — Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center, and the Center for Responsive Politics — jointly filed an independent complaint with the FEC. The complaint alleges that SBVT's sources of funding are in violation of federal election law. (http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/press-1254.html) The same groups later filed a complaint about Texans for Truth, another 527 organization that has run advertisements criticizing Bush's military service record.
So yeah, Novafan, I’m sure they believed in thier hearts that they couldn't allow a man like Kerry to be our Commander in Chief. No way there could’ve been any political bias involved it all. Nosireebob. :-)
Novafan: I would like you to cite any lies they presented please. This might be interesting.
Luigi Novi: Very.
Names of some 250 swift boat sailors appeared on the group's statement against Kerry. Are we to believe that ALL these sailors were witnesses to Kerry’s activities, and therefore had knowledge that supported the group’s accusations? Apparently not, because later, at least two of the veterans whose names appeared on the letter denied giving permission for their names to appear and alleged that SBVT would not remove their names when requested by them to do so. (Real stand-up guys, those SBVT’s, aren’t they?) (http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&tts=1&display=rednews/2004/09/01/build/state/25-swift-boat.inc) Afterwards, SBVT removed the contested names. (http://www2.swiftvets.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=52483#5248)
Of those who served in Kerry's boat crew, only one—Stephen Gardner—belongs to SBVT. All other living members of Kerry's crew support his presidential bid, and some frequently campaign with him. Kerry crewmembers have disputed some of SBVT's various allegations. Jim Rassmann has called them "pure fabrication,” Drew Whitlow called them "totally false", Gene Thorson called them "garbage", and Del Sandusky called them "a pack of lies.”
(http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-6/1089817512150830.xml) (http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=19101&format=text) (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/politics/9327026.htm?1c)
(http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/06/ltm.03.html) No members of SBVT were aboard Kerry's boat during any of the incidents for which he was decorated.
None of the thirteen SBVT members in the SBVT’s "Any Questions?" TV ad who stated they "served with John Kerry" or had direct contact with Kerry during his service in Vietnam and said that he was dishonest, unreliable, unfit to lead, and had dishonored his country and fellow veterans had actually served on the same Swift boat as John Kerry, which makes it clear to me that they were talking more about their personal reaction to his later anti-war activities, and not his swift boat performance. That their second TV ad attacks that testimony makes the true source of their animus even more clear. Among the first to question SBVT's veracity was Republican Senator John McCain, a Bush supporter and a Vietnam veteran, who stated "I condemn the [SBVT] ad, it is dishonest and dishonorable, I think it is very, very wrong." (http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote_Aug0604.html)
SBVT founder and spokesman John O'Neill, who, together with Jerome Corsi, wrote Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry failed to interview several members of Kerry’s crew. Others who were interviewed assert that O'Neill edited their statements to strip out material favorable to Kerry. (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html?pagewanted=3&hp) Neither author claims any firsthand knowledge of Kerry's service. O'Neill served on the Swift boats only after Kerry left, and Corsi never served in Vietnam.
And then, of course, there’s the medals, which is possibly the most egregious examples of SBVT’s lies.
First Purple Heart
Kerry received his first Purple Heart after sustaining shrapnel in his left arm above the elbow as he and two crewmates on a skimmer destroyed small sampan boats being unloaded by a group of men on the night of December 2-3 1968. The shrapnel was removed and the wound was treated with antibiotic and bandaged, and Kerry returned to duty the next day on Swift boat patrol. Grant Hibbard, Kerry's former commander, and other SBVT members assert that the injury was much too minor to merit a citation since the only treatment Kerry received after the removal of a piece of shrapnel from his arm was antibiotic and a bandage, and that he returned to service immediately. SBVT also claims that the wound was not from enemy fire but was from shrapnel of a grenade he fired himself. But the criteria for the Purple Heart call for its award for any injury received during combat requiring treatment by a medical officer. Under military regulations, the Purple Heart is awarded for "friendly fire" wounds in the "heat of battle", so long as the fire is targeted "under full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment." According to George Elliott, Kerry's commanding officer, in a Boston Globe article: “There were an awful lot of Purple Hearts — from shrapnel; some of those might have been M-40 grenades. The Purple Hearts were coming down in boxes. Kerry, he had three Purple Hearts. None of them took him off duty. Not to belittle it, that was more the rule than the exception.” (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/04/14/kerry_faces_questions_over_purple_heart/) So what is the SBVT talking about? SBVT's version of the incident are primarily based on an account by retired Rear Admiral William Schachte, then a Lieutenant, who stated that he had participated in all previous skimmer missions up to and including the night Kerry was injured, and who is the source of the grenade launcher assertion. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5840657/) Schachte alleged he was the senior officer on Kerry's skimmer that night, with one enlisted man also on board. His account is that after detected movement on shore, he popped a flare, and based on what he saw, he opened fire, and Kerry fired in the same direction. In an interview in 2003, Schachte Kerry “got hit” during this firefight (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/08/28/retired_rear_admiral_contends_kerry_wound_not_from_enemy_fire?pg=2), but in August 2004, however, he stated was no hostile return fire, and that Kerry was "nicked" by a fragment from an M-79 grenade launcher he fired himself. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5840657/) So why did he change his story? Moreover, Kerry crewmates Bill Zaladonis and Patrick Runyon dispute Schachte’s very presence on that mission, Zaladonis stating that "Myself, Pat Runyon, and John Kerry, we were the only ones in the skimmer." (http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/08/con04356.html) Runyon added, "Me and Bill aren't the smartest, but we can count to three." Zaladonis has noted that Schachte went on other skimmer missions and speculated that She might have mixed up his dates. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5843180/) Runyon also stated that he is "100 percent certain" that no one on the boat fired a grenade launcher. (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/08/20/kerry_comrades_have_credibility_on_their_side/)
In the SBVT TV ad, Dr. Lewis Letson asserted "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury," but did not specify what the alleged lie was. Kerry's medical records list a medic, J. C. Carreon, as the "person administering treatment" for this wound. Dr. Letson's name does not appear on the record, but he claims that it was common for medics to sign the paperwork even though Letson would treat the patient. However, the claim cannot be verified as Carreon died in 1992. So what exactly was the “lie” on Kerry’s part? Why did Letson never come out and say what it was?
Third Purple Heart and Bronze Star
On March 13, two mines detonated directly beneath and near two of the five Swift boats returning to base from the Bay Hap river. James Rassmann, who was sitting on the deck of the pilothouse of the second boat, was knocked overboard, unbeknownst to the others on board. The boat then came under attack from both sides of the bank. Rassmann dived to the bottom of the river, and when he came back up for air, the enemy repeatedly fired at him. Rassmann was heading to the north bank, expecting to be taken prisoner, when Kerry realized he was gone and came back for him. The Navy's account of Kerry's actions is presented in his medal citation:
Lt. Kerry directed his gunners to provide suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain, with disregard for his personal safety, he pulled the man aboard. Lt. Kerry then directed his boat to return and assist the other damaged craft and towed the boat to safety. Lt. Kerry's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the US Naval Service.
For assisting the more damaged Swift boat, and for saving Rassmann, Kerry’s boat received special recognition from Captain Roy Hoffmann, the commander of Task Force 115 (which included Coastal Division 11), for this. (http://homepage.mac.com/chinesemac/kerry_medals/#bronze_star) Kerry was wounded twice that day, and he would receive his third Purple Heart and the Bronze Star. His injuries included shrapnel wounds in his left upper buttock, which were treated with antiseptic lotion and bandaged. He also suffered contusions on his right forearm from hitting the bulkhead when the mine exploded near his boat, which was treated with warm soaking.
Former Swift boat commander Larry Thurlow, who was in overall tactical command of five boats, including Kerry's, alleges that Kerry's citation for bravery under fire is false because neither Kerry's boat nor any of the others was under hostile fire. Of the five boat commanders present, besides Kerry and Thurlow, two others are SBVT members who now claim that there was no hostile fire during the incident. But one of them was seriously wounded with a concussion and the other left the scene early on to accompany the wounded to safety. Only Kerry and Thurlow remained behind to work on damage control. (http://homepage.mac.com/chinesemac/kerry_medals/part1.html#bronze) The fifth, Don Droz, was later killed in action; however, his widow recalls Droz's account as being consistent with Kerry's. (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/articles/2004/08/27/kerrys_medals_were_deserved_says_widow_of_slain_comrade/). Jim Rassmann, the Special Forces captain Kerry rescued, wrote, "Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river...When I surfaced, all the Swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water." Del Sandusky, the driver on Kerry's boat, PCF-94, stated, "I saw the gun flashes in the jungle, and I saw the bullets skipping across the water." Wayne Langhofer, who manned the machine gun on Don Droz's PCF-43, stated, "There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21239-2004Aug21.html) Michael Medeiros, aboard PCF-94, recalled "a massive ambush. There were rockets and light machine gun fire plus small arms." Jim Russell, the Psychological Operations Officer of the unit, who was on PCF-43, wrote "All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach... Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river." (http://www.telluridegateway.com/articles/2004/08/20/news/opinion/opinion01.txt) So why are they now saying there was no hostile fire? Are they alleging that Jim Rassmann did not face enemy fire when he swam up to the surface? Is he and all the others who remember an attack lying too? Why did the government award Kerry a Bronze Star? What is their explanation for this?
In addition, if there was no attack, why was Thurlow himself awarded a Bronze Star HIMSELF for his actions during the SAME incident? Thurlow's citation includes several phrases indicating hostile fire such as "despite enemy bullets flying about him" and "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire", and speaks of fire directed at "all units" of the five-boat fleet. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html) Thurlow's medal recommendation, signed by Elliott, used the phrasing "under constant enemy small arms fire." Robert Lambert, Thurlow's chief petty officer, won his own Bronze Star for "courage under fire" for pulling Thurlow out of the water. Lambert still insists that the boats were receiving fire from the enemy. (http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2004/0826/local/stories/01local.htm)
Thurlow claims that his Bronze Star citation (given to him after he had left the military) is in error. He now states that he noticed some errors when he received the citation in 1969 but saw no reason to try to correct the record. (Gee, how honest of him!) He and others in SBVT claim that Kerry wrote the after-action report upon which all the citations were based. However, Lambert's medal citation contains considerable detail about the incident which would not have been visible to Kerry given his position across the river at the time. (http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=1692) The after-action report is initialed "KJW", who SBVT claims is Kerry. However, Kerry's initials are "JFK", and SBVT cites no reason why Kerry would have included a "W". These same initials "KJW" appear on other reports about events in which Kerry did not participate. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21239-2004Aug21.html) A Navy official stated to the New York Times that the initials referred, not to the author of the report, but to the headquarters staffer who received it. (http://nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html?pagewanted=4&hp)
The boat had three blown-out windows and other damage that had to be repaired before it could resume patrols. (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/2004/08/22/news/9462873.htm?1c) Also, later intelligence reports confirm the presence of hostile forces, with six Viet Cong casualties from the incident. (http://nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html?pagewanted=5&hp)
Silver Star
On February 28, the three Swift boats Kerry was in charge of were ambushed on the Bay Hap River. Kerry directed the boats to turn to charge the Viet Cong positions, directed his boat's fire and coordinated the deployment of the South Vietnamese troops, according to Admiral Zumwalt's original medal citation. After one of the boats disembarked at the ambush site, Kerry's boat and another headed up river to look for the fleeing enemy, and came under fire from an RPG, shattering the crew cabin windows of one of them. Kerry ordered the boats to turn and charge the second ambush site. As they did so, a VC soldier jumped out of the brush, carrying a loaded B-40 launcher, only a short distance away from the boat and crew. Tommy Belodeau shot him in the leg with the boat's machine gun. According to Fred Short, "Tommy in the pit tank winged him in the side of the legs as he was coming across, but the guy didn't miss a stride. I mean, he did not break stride." Belodeau's machine gun jammed after he fired, and while fellow crewmate Michael Medeiros attempted to fire, he was unable to do so. Kerry leaped ashore and, followed by Medeiros, pursued the man and killed him. The medal citation notes that Kerry "then led an assault party and conducted a sweep of the area" until the enemy had "been completely routed." The mission was judged highly successful for having destroyed numerous targets and confiscated substantial combat supplies while sustaining no casualties. Kerry's commanding officer, Lieutenant George Elliott, recommended Kerry for the Silver Star, and Zumwalt flew into An Thoi to personally award medals to Kerry and the rest of the sailors involved in the mission.
George Elliott, Kerry's former commanding officer, called the Silver Star into question, but his stated position on the award during the course of the 2004 Presidential campaign is quite different from what he had said beforehand. In his 1969 performance evaluation, Elliot wrote "In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, LTJG [Lieutenant Junior Grade] Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every opportunity. On one occasion, while in tactical command of a three boat operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush. This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several KIA [Killed in Action]. LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61087-2004Aug12_2.html) When during Kerry's 1996 re-election campaign, there was criticism of his Silver Star, Elliott responded: "The fact that he chased armed enemies down is not something to be looked down on." (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=120367&page=1) In June 2003, Elliott was quoted as saying the award was "well deserved" and that he had "no regrets or second thoughts at all about that." (http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml)
More recently, however, Elliott has signed two affidavits that criticize the award. The first, in July 2004, stated in part, "When Kerry came back to the United States, he lied about what occurred in Vietnam..." After the release of this first affidavit, Michael Kranish of the Boston Globe quoted Elliott saying, "It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here...I knew it was wrong...In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake." (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry/) Elliott contended that Kranish had substantially misquoted him, but the Globe stood by its account, calling the disputed quotes "absolutely accurate". (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/08/07/veteran_claims_misquote_on_kerry_globe_stands_by_its_story/)
The story prompted Elliott to release a second affidavit, in August 2004, in which he stated, "Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single wounded, fleeing Viet Cong." (http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_aff.html). The second affidavit made what Elliott called an "immaterial clarification", in that he admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the circumstances of the shooting. Rather, his initial statement that Kerry had been dishonest was based on unspecified sources and a passage contributed by Kranish to a biography of Kerry.
Kerry’s crew members who were there that day do not agree with Elliott’s characterization of the event. They contend that the enemy soldier, although wounded, was still a threat. For example, one of them, Fred Short said, "The guy was getting ready to stand up with a rocket on his shoulder, coming up. And Mr. Kerry took him out ... he would have been about a 30-yard shot. ... [T]here's no way he could miss us." Del Sandusky, Kerry’s second in command, described the consequences to the lightly armored Swift boat: "Charlie would have lit us up like a Roman candle because we're full of fuel, we're full of ammunition." (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Nightline/Politics/kerry_medal_040624-3.html)
Another eyewitness, William Rood, now a Chicago Tribune editor, recently gave an account that supports Kerry's version of the events of that day. Rood was commander of PCF-23, which was one of the two Swift boats that accompanied Kerry's PCF-94. Rood discounted several specific charges made by SBVT about the incident. In his (second-hand) book account, O'Neill implied that Kerry chased down a lone "teenager in a loincloth clutching a grenade launcher which may or may not have been loaded," without coming under enemy fire himself. In contrast, Rood stated that there were multiple attackers, there was heavy hostile fire, and the guerrilla Kerry shot was "a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the Viet Cong usually wore" armed with a "loaded B-40 rocket launcher". (Ba Thanh, the guerrilla killed while carrying the B-40 rocket launcher, was "big and strong" and in his late 20's.) Also, O'Neill called Kerry's tactic of charging the beach "stupidity, not courage." Similarly, Hoffman characterized Kerry's actions as reckless and impulsive. However, Rood stated that Kerry's tactic of charging the beach was discussed and mutually agreed with the other Swift boat commanders beforehand. He also notes that, at the time, Hoffman praised all three Swift boat commanders and called the tactics developed "a shining example of completely overwhelming the enemy" and that they "may be the most efficacious method of dealing with small numbers of ambushers." (http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/observer/news/9465037.htm) (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-040821rood,1,2328121.story?coll=chi-news-hed) O'Neill's account in the book is in fact substantially different from Rood's and all of the U.S. Navy documentation for the mission and the medals produced in Vietnam at the time. (http://homepage.mac.com/chinesemac/kerry_medals/part1.html#silver) (http://homepage.mac.com/chinesemac/kerry_medals/index.html#silver_star)
Commenting on the Silver Star issue, Republican Sen. John Warner, who was Under Secretary of the Navy at the time, stated "We did extraordinary, careful checking on that type of medal, a very high one, when it goes through the secretary...I'd stand by the process that awarded that medal, and I think we best acknowledge that his heroism did gain that recognition." (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/222504p-191185c.html) Elmo Zumwalt, Commander of the United States Naval Forces in Vietnam at that time, signed Kerry's original Silver Star citation and defended the award in 1996, having been quoted in the October 28, 1996 Boston Herald as saying, "It is a disgrace to the United States Navy that there's any inference that the [medal] process was anything other than totally honest."
And, as aforementioned, Vice Admiral Ronald A. Route reviewed Kerry’s medals in September 2004, and stated that the medals were legitimate.
For the SBVT to smear Kerry’s actions in Vietnam, and to degrade the courage he showed in dangerous situations in which put his life at risk to save others, after many of them had previously praised him, having changed their previously-held positions only when it conflicted with their political interests, raises pettiness and classlessness to operatic levels, and it is they, not Kerry, who have denigrated the service of a fellow Vietnam Vet. Kerry, at least, testified before Congress because he sincerely believed it was the right thing to do. SBVT did what they did just to get their guy elected.
Craig J. Ries: Well, you're Canadian, something I didn't realize before. So, now I know that your opinion means next to nothing.
Luigi Novi: As do ad hominem arguments like that.
Novafan The fact is, Saddam was a tyrant/killer/murderer of millions of innocents during his reign and had to be removed.
Luigi Novi: The fact is, that wasn’t the reason Bush used to convince the country and Congress to go to war.
Um, is there some reason why when I tried to post here the other night, I got a page telling me that posts are held when someone posts "for the first time," and even now, the post has not appeared?
Craig J. Ries: And for that, Bush is more than happy to ship you over to Iraq to die for his crusade.
Luigi Novi: I’m not talking about fighting in a war. I’m talking about not giving up simply because of Bush’s election.
Novafan: He said if he moved, he would blame it on the 58 million and me, not just Bush. I never said he was moving, I said he was trying to hang it on me.
Luigi Novi: What you said was that you caused someone to want to move out of the country. He never said he wanted to move out of the country. He only made a remark about who he’d blame IF he did. I do not agree with the sentiment, mind you, but please get the quote accurate, and do not backpedal by saying that you said something other than what you did.
However, I apologize for the insult. :-)
Novafan: Oh, btw. Active duty isn't over after 4 years. You're still obligated to 8 years of total service, 4 of those years being inactive reserve. And, you are still bound by the UCMJ during those 4 years. If you don't believe me, look it up.
Luigi Novi: So then why didn’t anyone care about Kerry going to Paris to try and help secure the release of POW’s? Why doesn’t John McCain, who served time in a Vietnamese as a POW himself, consider Kerry a traitor, but instead a friend? Could it be that McCain, despite being on the opposing political side, knows Kerry better than you or I, and sincerely believes that Kerry was just trying to get POW’s released? Is it possible that this sort of thing, unless egregious, tends to be overlooked by the military brass? If not, then why wasn’t Bush held accountable for refusing to take physical exams (and why did he refuse, btw—was it because he was afraid something would show up in his blood and urine), and for going AWOL? Why do you ask me if Kerry’s Congressional testimony bothered me, when he, at least, rather than use familial connections to get into the “champagne unit” of the Texas National Guard flying an obsolete plane that would never see combat as Bush did, actually REQUESTED to be sent to Vietnam, participated in things like free-fire zones only because he was trained and ordered to by a military that emphasizes obedience to authority rather than individuality, eventually came to understand that these things were not in keeping with the rules of war, and admitted before Congress that it was wrong to do these things? I asked you this above, but you didn’t answer.
I do not wish to veer toward flaming again, but indeed it seems I have to ask a question several times before getting an answer from you. If you could explain to me how and why you view Bush’s war record vis a vis what you think of Kerry and how you think Bush is a stronger war leader, please do so.
Novafan: Yes, lets blame the swift boat vets now. They had nothing to lose by coming forth did they? Why didn't they stay silent? You think maybe they believed in thier hearts that they couldn't allow a man like Kerry to be our Commander in Chief? Nah,that couldn't be the case.
Luigi Novi: In theory it could be. In actuality, I don’t believe that to be the case. I think they did what they did to ensure that their guy won the election. For one thing, we have to wonder why they chose to come forward only when Kerry became the Democrat frontrunner in the presidential campaign, and never before.
There’s also the fact that many current SBVT members are officers who had previously praised Kerry's conduct during the Vietnam War. These include Division Commander Grant Hibbard, who wrote positive evaluations of Kerry, and Commander George Elliott, who submitted Kerry for a Silver Star. So what happened? Why did they flip-flop?
Then there’s their ties to the Republican party and the Bush campaign. SBVT's chief financiers, according to the group's last quarterly IRS filing, are Houston builder Bob J. Perry and the Crow family, both major Republican donors from Texas. Perry is a long time Bush supporter who has donated $200,000 to fund the SBVT ads. (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2747923) (http://www.tpj.org/page_view.jsp?pageid=667&pubid=422) SBVT's media representative, Merrie Spaeth, was a Reagan administration press officer and an advisor to Ken Starr in the Clinton impeachment. Spaeth's late husband, Tex Lezar, ran for Texas lieutenant governor on George W. Bush's ticket in 1994. John E. O'Neill — the primary author of Unfit for Command and a key player in the formation of SBVT — donated over $14,000 to Republican candidates, was a partner in Lezar's law firm, and co-operated with the Nixon White House in opposing Kerry in 1971. (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4534274/) Retired Admiral William Schachte, the principal source for the SBVT allegations about Kerry's first Purple Heart, has donated to both of Bush’s presidential campaigns. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47542-2004Aug30.html) Chris LaCivita, director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2002, works as a private contractor providing media advice for SBVT. (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/25/politics/campaign/25CND-SWIF.html?hp=&pagewanted=all&position) The SBVT postal address was registered to Susan Arceneaux, treasurer of the Majority Leader's Fund, a PAC closely tied to the archconservative former Congressional leader Dick Armey. (http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/08/28/swift_bush/index.html)
The Kerry campaign asserted that Bush campaign headquarters in Florida distributed fliers promoting SBVT events, a charge the Bush campaign denied. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-20-swift-boat-flier_x.htm) Kenneth Cordier, former vice-chair of Veterans for Bush/Cheney in 2000 and volunteer member of the Bush campaign veterans steering committee, appeared in the second SBVT advertisement. The Bush campaign asked him to resign and stated that it had been unaware of his SBVT involvement. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040822/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_ads&cid=694&ncid=716) On August 25, 2004, Benjamin Ginsberg, lead counsel to the Bush campaign on campaign finance law, also resigned after it was learned that the SBVT was one of his clients. Ginsberg stated that he was withdrawing to avoid being a distraction to the campaign. He declared that he had acted "in a manner that is fully appropriate and legal," (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20040825/ap_on_el_pr/veterans_group_bush), arguing that it was not uncommon or illegal for lawyers to represent campaigns or political parties while also representing 527 groups. He also maintained that he did not disclose to the Bush campaign that he was simultaneously representing the SBVT group. After leaving the Bush campaign, Ginsberg retained his status as counsel to the SBVT.
On August 20, 2004, the Kerry campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), alleging that the activities of the SBVT were illegally coordinated with Republicans and the Bush-Cheney campaign. Under federal election law, the SBVT, as a nonpartisan 527 group, was barred from coordinating with any political campaign. The complaint, citing the aforementioned ties, claimed a "web of connections to the Bush family, high-profile Texas political figures, and President Bush's chief political aide, Karl Rove", and added that the SBVT's claims (on television and on its website) were inaccurate. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/20/kerry.swiftboat/index.html) (http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/08/19/politics/campaign/20040820swift_graph.gif) (Editorial opinion on the evidence for co-ordination varied.)
On August 10, 2004, three campaign finance watchdog groups — Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center, and the Center for Responsive Politics — jointly filed an independent complaint with the FEC. The complaint alleges that SBVT's sources of funding are in violation of federal election law. (http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/press-1254.html) The same groups later filed a complaint about Texans for Truth, another 527 organization that has run advertisements criticizing Bush's military service record.
So yeah, Novafan, I’m sure they believed in thier hearts that they couldn't allow a man like Kerry to be our Commander in Chief. No way there could’ve been any political bias involved it all. Nosireebob. :-)
Novafan: I would like you to cite any lies they presented please. This might be interesting.
Luigi Novi: Very.
Names of some 250 swift boat sailors appeared on the group's statement against Kerry. Are we to believe that ALL these sailors were witnesses to Kerry’s activities, and therefore had knowledge that supported the group’s accusations? Apparently not, because later, at least two of the veterans whose names appeared on the letter denied giving permission for their names to appear and alleged that SBVT would not remove their names when requested by them to do so. (Real stand-up guys, those SBVT’s, aren’t they?) (http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&tts=1&display=rednews/2004/09/01/build/state/25-swift-boat.inc) Afterwards, SBVT removed the contested names. (http://www2.swiftvets.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=52483#5248)
Of those who served in Kerry's boat crew, only one—Stephen Gardner—belongs to SBVT. All other living members of Kerry's crew support his presidential bid, and some frequently campaign with him. Kerry crewmembers have disputed some of SBVT's various allegations. Jim Rassmann has called them "pure fabrication,” Drew Whitlow called them "totally false", Gene Thorson called them "garbage", and Del Sandusky called them "a pack of lies.”
(http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-6/1089817512150830.xml) (http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=19101&format=text) (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/politics/9327026.htm?1c)
(http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/06/ltm.03.html) No members of SBVT were aboard Kerry's boat during any of the incidents for which he was decorated.
None of the thirteen SBVT members in the SBVT’s "Any Questions?" TV ad who stated they "served with John Kerry" or had direct contact with Kerry during his service in Vietnam and said that he was dishonest, unreliable, unfit to lead, and had dishonored his country and fellow veterans had actually served on the same Swift boat as John Kerry, which makes it clear to me that they were talking more about their personal reaction to his later anti-war activities, and not his swift boat performance. That their second TV ad attacks that testimony makes the true source of their animus even more clear. Among the first to question SBVT's veracity was Republican Senator John McCain, a Bush supporter and a Vietnam veteran, who stated "I condemn the [SBVT] ad, it is dishonest and dishonorable, I think it is very, very wrong." (http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote_Aug0604.html)
SBVT founder and spokesman John O'Neill, who, together with Jerome Corsi, wrote Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry failed to interview several members of Kerry’s crew. Others who were interviewed assert that O'Neill edited their statements to strip out material favorable to Kerry. (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html?pagewanted=3&hp) Neither author claims any firsthand knowledge of Kerry's service. O'Neill served on the Swift boats only after Kerry left, and Corsi never served in Vietnam.
And then, of course, there’s the medals, which is possibly the most egregious examples of SBVT’s lies.
First Purple Heart
Kerry received his first Purple Heart after sustaining shrapnel in his left arm above the elbow as he and two crewmates on a skimmer destroyed small sampan boats being unloaded by a group of men on the night of December 2-3 1968. The shrapnel was removed and the wound was treated with antibiotic and bandaged, and Kerry returned to duty the next day on Swift boat patrol. Grant Hibbard, Kerry's former commander, and other SBVT members assert that the injury was much too minor to merit a citation since the only treatment Kerry received after the removal of a piece of shrapnel from his arm was antibiotic and a bandage, and that he returned to service immediately. SBVT also claims that the wound was not from enemy fire but was from shrapnel of a grenade he fired himself. But the criteria for the Purple Heart call for its award for any injury received during combat requiring treatment by a medical officer. Under military regulations, the Purple Heart is awarded for "friendly fire" wounds in the "heat of battle", so long as the fire is targeted "under full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment." According to George Elliott, Kerry's commanding officer, in a Boston Globe article: “There were an awful lot of Purple Hearts — from shrapnel; some of those might have been M-40 grenades. The Purple Hearts were coming down in boxes. Kerry, he had three Purple Hearts. None of them took him off duty. Not to belittle it, that was more the rule than the exception.” (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/04/14/kerry_faces_questions_over_purple_heart/) So what is the SBVT talking about? SBVT's version of the incident are primarily based on an account by retired Rear Admiral William Schachte, then a Lieutenant, who stated that he had participated in all previous skimmer missions up to and including the night Kerry was injured, and who is the source of the grenade launcher assertion. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5840657/) Schachte alleged he was the senior officer on Kerry's skimmer that night, with one enlisted man also on board. His account is that after detected movement on shore, he popped a flare, and based on what he saw, he opened fire, and Kerry fired in the same direction. In an interview in 2003, Schachte Kerry “got hit” during this firefight (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/08/28/retired_rear_admiral_contends_kerry_wound_not_from_enemy_fire?pg=2), but in August 2004, however, he stated was no hostile return fire, and that Kerry was "nicked" by a fragment from an M-79 grenade launcher he fired himself. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5840657/) So why did he change his story? Moreover, Kerry crewmates Bill Zaladonis and Patrick Runyon dispute Schachte’s very presence on that mission, Zaladonis stating that "Myself, Pat Runyon, and John Kerry, we were the only ones in the skimmer." (http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/08/con04356.html) Runyon added, "Me and Bill aren't the smartest, but we can count to three." Zaladonis has noted that Schachte went on other skimmer missions and speculated that She might have mixed up his dates. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5843180/) Runyon also stated that he is "100 percent certain" that no one on the boat fired a grenade launcher. (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/08/20/kerry_comrades_have_credibility_on_their_side/)
In the SBVT TV ad, Dr. Lewis Letson asserted "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury," but did not specify what the alleged lie was. Kerry's medical records list a medic, J. C. Carreon, as the "person administering treatment" for this wound. Dr. Letson's name does not appear on the record, but he claims that it was common for medics to sign the paperwork even though Letson would treat the patient. However, the claim cannot be verified as Carreon died in 1992. So what exactly was the “lie” on Kerry’s part? Why did Letson never come out and say what it was?
Luigi:
>Um, is there some reason why when I tried to post here the other night, I got a page telling me that posts are held when someone posts "for the first time," and even now, the post has not appeared?
Bush's fault. ;)
I am desperate to find an "Angel Smile Time Puppet" for my little eleven-year-old angel, Rachael Reeves. I just hope I can get a quick response to give her some hope of finding an "affordable" puppet out there somewhere. Thank you for your time on this matter, Lesli Reeves
Please, oh, please help me to find an affordable "Angel Smile Time" Puppet. The only one I have found was about a hundred dollars. My precious eleven-year-old daughter, Rachael Reeves is very discouraged. I am on a limited income (disabled), so I need to find the cheapest one possible. Any help or assistance would be greatly appreceiated.
Thank you for your time. Leslie Reeves
e-mail: buffy069@comcast.net
phone: (865)876-237-39