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
• 
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].
Bûggër, 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 bìŧçh 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 “dámņáŧìøņ.” 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 bøffìņg 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 ášš. “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, jáçkášš.” 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 hëll 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 bìŧçh 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 bìŧçhìņg 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 bøffìņg 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.
http://www.figures.com/databases/action.cgi?setup_file=fignews2.setup&category=actionfigures&topic=41&show_article=315
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 áššhølëš that what you put in your áššhølë 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 hëll 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 áššëš 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 hëll 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 hëll 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 áššëš 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 hëll 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?
Jim, I’m curious. Do you eat cheeseburgers?
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.