ClusterFuck 2004

[YackBag]

i voted for kerry. i don't trust bush.

[d0uche_n0zzle]

Badnarik, Libertarian all the way. Fuck the rest of those ass clowns with Magic Johnson's HIV stick.

[Hoagie]

I voted for Bush.

[Ballbuster1]

I voted for Bush.Really?????? That's a surprise.:icon_wink

[slap happy]

I voted for Bush.
Me too, i wish there was a better choice but Kerry just didnt show me anything during the campaigns.

[Smoke]

Badnarik, Libertarian all the way. Fuck the rest of those ass clowns with Magic Johnson's HIV stick.


I voted for Badnarik too, if only for the memory of Carla Howell's failed Senate run a while back. It's not like voting for Bush would have made a difference, hell this state (MA) voted for that wacko McGovern.

[Sinn Fein]

GWB

[Hoagie]

GWBFuck YEAH!!!

[PrncssNikki]

Bush.

[Darkstar]

W

Kerry just doesn't have a chance. No one believed in him. The people behind him were primarily anti-bush, not pro kerry and its tough to win that way. Soon as it rains or something the people that believe in their candidate are must more likely to stick it out.

Bush is pulling over 50% of the popular vote as well so he won't be a minority pres.

[GravyMaster]

http://www.prenhall.com/phitcareers/chap1/images/fatlady.jpg

I voted for Bush and it looks like he is about to win...

[Spork]

Why am I staying up to watch this, O&A told me Bush won this morning, I should have just listened!

Viva Bush!

America...FUCK YEAH!

(And a BIIIIIIIIG FUCK YOU to Osama and any other towel head that wants to see the end of us - we're the dicks, and you're the asshole, we're not a pussy!)

[Begbie]

I voted for Bush. And it appears he is the winner. I know Fox and NBC has called it. I thought he was the best choice out of the bunch. I'm still baffled about what Kerry's plan was for the next four years. However, I think it would've been fun to hear the wacky things Teresa would have to say as First Lady.

Oh well, 4 more years of Dubya.

p.s. It's kinda fitting that this is my 200th post.

[Guido]

O&A told me Bush won this morning, I should have just listened!
Depends who said it....If Anthony said it it's true...If Op's said it, it could be cursed

[Johnny Utah]

I voted for Bush. And it appears he is the winner. I know Fox and NBC has called it. I thought he was the best choice out of the bunch. I'm still baffled about what Kerry's plan was for the next four years. However, I think it would've been fun to hear the wacky things Teresa would have to say as First Lady.

Oh well, 4 more years of Dubya.

p.s. It's kinda fitting that this is my 200th post.

I think his plan was to not facilitate WW3, lower the 7 something trillion dollar deficit this dumb war and tax breaks have caused, stop B.S. organized religion from totally intertwining itself with government, bring back some ounce of humility and respect back to the U.S., stop the world from laughing at us, and of course continue fighting terrorism...which other people can do besides that turd sandwich bush.

but thats just my opinion.

[Ballbuster1]

It's tough to beat an incumbent. Kerry just didn't have the
charisma and charm to do it. Clinton had it, Lurch didn't.
Every butt hole got re-elected around here in spite of the
fact that most people I talk to hate the way things are
going lately. People are inherantly afraid of change.

[jpc165]

i like bush

[jpc165]

my thoughts and prayers go out to kerry and edwards

[sherwood]

presidents who have been elected (first term) in a year ending in "0" has been assasinated....it is now Bush's turn...

this country fucking sucks. I voted Kerry I like what he had to say I like his ideas about the microchip and the cloning and shit...plus hes a good fucking speaker we need somone in office who when he starts to fumble over his words he doesnt start speaking Spanish to cover up for it...ugh Bush sucks.

[Smoke]

my thoughts and prayers go out to kerry and edwards

Why? They have swimming pools full of cash to swim in off in.

I'm glad to see Tom Dashole from SD is not going back to the Senate, one less Democrat and all the better that he is the Minority Leader. HAHA!

[Smoke]

presidents who have been elected (first term) in a year ending in "0" has been assasinated....it is now Bush's turn...

Reagan broke that curse. You could say that 9/11 was an attempted assassination (4th plane).

this country fucking sucks. I voted Kerry I like what he had to say I like his ideas about the microchip and the cloning and shit...plus hes a good fucking speaker we need somone in office who when he starts to fumble over his words he doesnt start speaking Spanish to cover up for it...ugh Bush sucks.

That quote illustrates the exact mentality that cost Kerry the win, the Democrats were motivated more by "Bush sucks" than "Kerry is great."

[MonstrRainmakr]

That quote illustrates the exact mentality that cost Kerry the win, the Democrats were motivated more by "Bush sucks" than "Kerry is great."

I have to agree, although I did vote for Kerry. I really don't think any of the Dem candidates could have pulled it out. Sucks.

Bush and Cheney have money to swim in too. Cheney has been giving all our money to his Halliburton friends. And Bush has always had money.

The one thing that could have swayed it for me is if Bush wasn't such a passive arrogant ass. If he could just admit he made the mistakes he made, but he'd learned from them, i'd have voted for him. But to make so many mistakes and never admit to one is just arrogant.

Now i can only hope this country totally goes down the shitter, so the entire world hates us and everyone will look back on this and regret it.

GWB is the first president in 72 years to lose jobs, create the highest deficit in US history WHILE CUTTING TAXES, and now to top it off, somehow get re-elected. If this keeps up, i'm moving to Canada. haha.

later guys.

[Taso]

I voted Kerry I like what he had to say I like his ideas about the microchip ...

Are you talking about the verichip here?

[EdC]

Are you talking about the verichip here?
No no. The microchip. When Al Gore was inventing the internet Kerry voted against the microchip before he voted for it.

[MikeyP]

I voted for Badnarik too, if only for the memory of Carla Howell's failed Senate run a while back. It's not like voting for Bush would have made a difference, hell this state (MA) voted for that wacko McGovern.

I guess that makes 3 of us so far. Ah well...
Not like we had a chance, but I guess we voted what we believed in. At least that's what I did.

[sherwood]

That quote illustrates the exact mentality that cost Kerry the win, the Democrats were motivated more by "Bush sucks" than "Kerry is great."
I hate republicans...I really do...this is gonna be interesting to see how much more Bush can fuck this country up even more now that he has another 4 years...its a game and it starts now...READY...SET...GO!!!! ugh

he kisses the pope's fuckin ass...the pope doesnt want stem cell research that means its a bad idea right bush? fuck you...fuck america, fuck gas prices for being 2.15 a gallon and fuck bush and his families oil business...fuck the pope that old son of a bitch should die, i have never believed in god and never will...i swear maybe its just that goofy face that bush makes that "does anyone know what the fuck im talking about?" look he gives...

ugh i just said something bad about Bush in an AOL IM and I got booted off AIM and can't connect...wtf??? does he have the internet monitored?

[Jolie]

I voted for Kerry. That should be obvious.

I fear for a country that enables a man like Bush to have a second term. He has absolutely NO reason to watch what he says or does now, because he doesnt have the threat of losing the presidency in the next election to keep him somewhat in line. Of course, it didn't matter at all in the last term, so it probably won't now.

I fear for my children, who if gay will be treated like second class citizens, or if female will be denied the right to do what she thinks is best for her body. I fear the lack of progress inherent in a conservative agenda.

I can only hope that any of the more liberal supreme court justices decide not to retire in the next 4 years, or end up dying. Because that will have extremely lasting implications for all of us, and none of them are going to be good.

[sherwood]

I voted for Kerry. That should be obvious.

I fear for a country that enables a man like Bush to have a second term. He has absolutely NO reason to watch what he says or does now, because he doesnt have the threat of losing the presidency in the next election to keep him somewhat in line. Of course, it didn't matter at all in the last term, so it probably won't now.

I fear for my children, who if gay will be treated like second class citizens, or if female will be denied the right to do what she thinks is best for her body. I fear the lack of progress inherent in a conservative agenda.

I can only hope that any of the more liberal supreme court justices decide not to retire in the next 4 years, or end up dying. Because that will have extremely lasting implications for all of us, and none of them are going to be good.
i 100% agree with everything u said....good luck to you in this god aweful country who has a man with down syndrom in office...I swear Bush could have played Forest Gump and all he would have had to do was be himself.

[Hoagie]

Ohhh, Maybe we can start bombing Iran now!!!!!

[Sinn Fein]

Kerry gave a decent concession speech and I take my hand off to him for ending it today instead of dragging it out. He showed alot of class.

[EdC]

... and I take my hand off to him ...
Damn nice multi-year old call back.:clap:

[MonstrRainmakr]

The news has been pushing the fact that the number one issue that drove this election was "moral values." Basically church-goers overwhelmingly voted for Bush despite the social, political, and economical degradation over the last four years. I think it's extremely dangerous to have religion drive government policy. This country is about practicing any religion freely, including no religion at all. But to push christian ideology on every American is arrogant and wrong. I can't understand how we're still debating stem cell research, gay marriage, and abortion. It's real simple:

If you're a christian and you don't believe in those 3 issues, don't turn gay and get married, don't have an abortion, and don't clone yourself. Stop telling the rest of America that it's wrong because your bible tells you so. WE DON'T GIVE A SHIT.

ps. i'm not gay, have never cloned myself, or had an abortion, but i think people ought to be able to if THEY CHOOSE.

[EdC]

But morals don't necessarily have to have anything to do with religion. I know lots of people who don't even believe in God who do believe in strong moral values. Yea ... Christians, Muslims, Hindi, agnostics, (insert religion here) and even agnostics can share common morals. I (and apparently the majority of Americans) believe it is far more dangerous to have a society without any morals. The exit polls talked about morals, not Christian morals.

[MonstrRainmakr]

I agree with you totally. I was raised lutheran, but more and more i've seen religion segregate rather than unite people. And i've seen some of the most religious people do terrible things. I don't go to church anymore, and i haven't for quite awhile. And i have to say, in all honestly, i have a higher moral standard than most people. And i think it's because i feel i'm totally responsible for my actions. I know a die-hard catholic girl who smokes, drinks, and does drugs, and she's having her second child, but she rushed to get married before it was born because of her religion. It's that kind of backwards thinking that i've personally been around. That's why my views are the way they are.

But i agree with you... I'm not for "no morals" in the whitehouse, just not over-religious policy makers. You make a good point.

[sherwood]

I dont believe in god...thats not the reason I hate bush and republicans...I dont care what people believe in, its none of my business. I also dont care about gay marrieges, abortions and cloning...there is way to much more to worry about than these 3 subject what pisses me off is that Bush starts this big war then goes on TV and says we shouldnt have gay marreiges...WHO CARES?!?! WORRY ABOUT THE FUCKING WAR THAT YOU STARTED DOUCHE BAG! wheres our fucking rights???

The problem is, I guerentee half of the votes that Bush got he didnt get because people believed in what he says or does, I think he simply got them because the people who voted are Republicans...Republicans are silly like that even if they dont lke him they will still vote for him just because "oh hes a republican and so am i and republicans should be office no matter how big of a douche he is" if I dindt like what Kerry had to say and Bush was doing a good job, even though im a democrat I would have still voted Bush...fuck the voters who did that I hope they die.

Does anyone recall Bush trying to quote the constitution? I thought for sure when he fucked all that up a lightbulb would have went off in all of the American's heads...fuckin country is dumb

[Begbie]

So I guess Kerry now heads home to run the family restaurant and grow a thick beard, eh?? :icon_wink

[d0uche_n0zzle]

Isn't he still in the Senate?

[Sinn Fein]

Yes, he's still in the Senate.

[EdC]

The problem is, I guerentee half of the votes that Bush got he didnt get because people believed in what he says or does, I think he simply got them because the people who voted are Republicans...Republicans are silly like that even if they dont lke him they will still vote for him just because "oh hes a republican and so am i and republicans should be office no matter how big of a douche he is"
Right but Democrats don't do that at all. They also don't try to get blacks to always vote the Democratic ticket just because they are black and they don't try to get union workers to vote Democratic just because they are in unions and don't try to get people to vote Democratic just because they are on welfare, etc. etc. etc.

[abudabit]

Everybody claims they voted for Badnarik. How come the guy didn't even get 1% in most states then?

[MonstrRainmakr]

Right but Democrats don't do that at all. They also don't try to get blacks to always vote the Democratic ticket just because they are black and they don't try to get union workers to vote Democratic just because they are in unions and don't try to get people to vote Democratic just because they are on welfare, etc. etc. etc.


It goes both ways really. Some Dems only vote Dem no matter what, and like sherwood said, some Reps vote only Rep no matter what. He never said anything about other groups. But since you did i guess we can give the Republicans most conservative religious people (based on abortion, gay, stem cell issues), the wealthy, and anyone who owns an arsenal of guns.

If the Republicans developed better policies for blacks and union workers i don't see why they'd ignore that and vote for whoever had the better policies. But like i said each party has a history of looking out for the issues of certain groups. period. People talk about the two parties coming together to work together, but you know what... these issues are so fundamental to each parties beliefs that it's like asking each side to bend a little on their morals. That's a really hard thing to do. I just don't see how people will ever be able to do anything bi-partisan.

[d0uche_n0zzle]

Everybody claims they voted for Badnarik. How come the guy didn't even get 1% in most states then?

Because most people are sheep and voted for "the lesser of two evils".

[EdC]

If the Republicans developed better policies for blacks and union workers i don't see why they'd ignore that and vote for whoever had the better policies. But like i said each party has a history of looking out for the issues of certain groups. period. People talk about the two parties coming together to work together, but you know what... these issues are so fundamental to each parties beliefs that it's like asking each side to bend a little on their morals. That's a really hard thing to do. I just don't see how people will ever be able to do anything bi-partisan.
I completely disagree.

You are ignoring the number of black, hispanic, etc. Republican apointees. Every time a Supreme Court Justice, Secretary of State or anybody else gets appointed or suggested by a Republican all the liberals can say is that they were Uncle Toms or some other ridiculous crap.

Look a little deeper than what the media spoon feeds you and you will find that the Republicans have done a lot but it isn't convenient for the media to talk about it. The media isn't liberal though. I mean the NY Times & Washington Post have a great history of officially endorsing as many Republicans as they do Democrats right?

If you are taking a swipe at the tax cuts being for the rich explain to me how that is because I know that $300 is a higher percentage of a poor TAX PAYER'S income than it is for a rich person. $300 means a hell of a lot more to a poor TAX PAYER than it does a rich TAX PAYER. Are you saying that people who don't pay taxes deserve a larger tax cut?

[drunkturkey]

I love when people talk about the moral high-ground on an O&A message board.... :icon_roll

On a side note - anyone see the Daily Show last night with Shumar (sp?). Good interview by John. Chuck basically said... "Wow. Didn't see that coming. We as Democrats really need to examine our policies and tactics for the next time around."

This whole Dem/Repub thing is starting to kill me. I seriously think we, as a society should invoke anti-trust regulations on the two parties and paint them as political monopolies. The US public no longer has a real choice when choosing an elected official (except maybe on the local level). Fact is, third parties just cannot compete in the race... and the barriers of entry are so high that the system semantically keeps those that might otherwise be good candidates from expressing their voice. Just look at the presidential debates... 2 candidates is all we got??!? I recall seeing 7 or 8 on the ballot in Jersey.

Just like the FCC will not allow conglomerates to control > X% of a particular market, and like the SEC will not allow companies to merge in order to stifle competition, why not force short term legislation on our own government making it so that they are unable to maintain such a huge presence in government. For example, say in the house or senate, 1/3rd of the elected officials must be from a party other than the repub or dems. I know, fking long shot and maybe a bit crazy, but this country I think has gone from a country of checks and balances to fewer checks and balances due to the similarities in the parties, and the fact that there are only two "base opinions" running the place.

Punching out...

[MonstrRainmakr]

I completely disagree.

You are ignoring the number of black, hispanic, etc. Republican apointees. Every time a Supreme Court Justice, Secretary of State or anybody else gets appointed or suggested by a Republican all the liberals can say is that they were Uncle Toms or some other ridiculous crap.

And what exactly is the number? Look at the exit polls (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html) bro, 88% of African American's voted for Kerry. You're "completely disagreeing" with me because of 11%? Congratulations.

Look a little deeper than what the media spoon feeds you and you will find that the Republicans have done a lot but it isn't convenient for the media to talk about it. The media isn't liberal though. I mean the NY Times & Washington Post have a great history of officially endorsing as many Republicans as they do Democrats right?

I'm not a total sheep when it comes to the "media," actually i'm a communications major, so you're not gonna school me on how to watch the news. sorry. I never said the Republican's haven't done a lot. This last election I didn't vote along party lines for every official i voted for. And the media can choose to endorse whoever they want. You obviously don't agree. But there is quite enough air time given to both sides. If you feel your party is being cheated, do something about it.

If you are taking a swipe at the tax cuts being for the rich explain to me how that is because I know that $300 is a higher percentage of a poor TAX PAYER'S income than it is for a rich person. $300 means a hell of a lot more to a poor TAX PAYER than it does a rich TAX PAYER. Are you saying that people who don't pay taxes deserve a larger tax cut?

Well, i'm lucky enough to be in the middle. Not poor enough to give a shit about $300 back, but not wealthy enough to get back anymore. And besides, that $300 is long gone now that gas is $2.15 a gallon. I know, typical Democratic way to think right? That tax cut was meant to "stimulate the economy." If they drive cars, then they've been paying out the ass for gas too. I'm not saying that it wasn't a bigger deal to the poorer people of this country, i'm sure it was. I'm just saying i think it looked good on paper, but in real life, didn't make a difference.

Don't get me started on the fact that we have a record deficit, but our gov. is giving us money back. so if you're taking a swipe at me for taking a swipe, tell me who is gonna pay for the war?

[Smoke]

I voted for Kerry. That should be obvious.

I fear for my children, who if gay will be treated like second class citizens, or if female will be denied the right to do what she thinks is best for her body. I fear the lack of progress inherent in a conservative agenda.

It is not second class citizenship to deny those, who cannot reproduce by their very nature, the right to marriage. Marriage is a contract that the man will care for and protect a woman who will bare his children, and for it he gets hummers.

Abortion is being fought against these days because of partial birth abortion, the descriptions are quite lovely, I won't post them here. Do you recall the Madonna bit about using abortion for birth control? If it is ok to kill a baby inside the mother why not up to a week after birth as well? And why not the elderly next?

Besides, Kerry would have appointed Supreme Court Justices who would eliminate the second amendment de facto, and would allow affermative rascism to continue.

:fight6: Let the flames begin. :fight6:

[EdC]

And what exactly is the number? Look at the exit polls (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html) bro, 88% of African American's voted for Kerry. You're "completely disagreeing" with me because of 11%? Congratulations.No. I'm disagreeing with your assessment that Republicans don't do anything for blacks, minorities.


I'm not a total sheep when it comes to the "media," actually i'm a communications major, so you're not gonna school me on how to watch the news. sorry. I never said the Republican's haven't done a lot. This last election I didn't vote along party lines for every official i voted for. And the media can choose to endorse whoever they want. You obviously don't agree. But there is quite enough air time given to both sides. If you feel your party is being cheated, do something about it.Oooohhhh a communications major. Guess your liberal professors don't push the whole media line that they are neutral or anything right? Yea the media are free to endorse whoever they want. The vast majority of the time they endorse liberals so it is time to stop pretending they are neutral. I do feel like my beliefs are being cheated. What do you suggest I do ... go buy a TV network and fire all the current commentators posing as news people? Tell me something ... I'm sure you've seen many many politicians described as ultra-conservatives. Now ... tell me who has ever been described as an ultra-liberal politician. They have to exist if ultra-conservatives exist right? Kerry's voting record was voted as the most liberal in Congress but your neutral media has never described him as ultra-liberal.


Well, i'm lucky enough to be in the middle. Not poor enough to give a shit about $300 back, but not wealthy enough to get back anymore. And besides, that $300 is long gone now that gas is $2.15 a gallon. I know, typical Democratic way to think right? That tax cut was meant to "stimulate the economy." If they drive cars, then they've been paying out the ass for gas too. I'm not saying that it wasn't a bigger deal to the poorer people of this country, i'm sure it was. I'm just saying i think it looked good on paper, but in real life, didn't make a difference.

Don't get me started on the fact that we have a record deficit, but our gov. is giving us money back. so if you're taking a swipe at me for taking a swipe, tell me who is gonna pay for the war?We all are going to pay for the war that was first waged on us. We didn't attack them first so the pacifist approach has already been proved false. We have a President that unapologetically goes after them. Great! I know liberals and pacifists don't like it but I don't care even a little bit. I started paying for it emotionally and monitarily the second those planes hit. No evidence has been made public that indicates Iraq. Tough. Fact is that Hussein would do anything to hurt our country and that includes providing technology or materials to someone else who might be able to deliver them. I don't give 1/2 a shit if the French, Germans, Russians or the U.N. like it. If they don't then we must be doing the right thing based on the history of those nations and organizations.

You tell me who is going to pay for all the government that never shrinks. Liberals love the idea of providing "free" health care, etc. etc. but can never name a single government agency that runs well. Despite the fact that everyone knows government agencies are wasteful Kerry, Hillary and their buddies continually try to push socialist programs down our throats and vote to cut spending on intelligence and the military, leaving us completely vulnerable to attack. THEN they have the balls to blame the sitting President for making decisions on bad intelligence reports.

Yea we have a record deficit on the shoulders of one of a depression and an attack on our largest city, the two biggest buildings in our country in our defacto financial capital and on the political capital of our country. What a surprise ... the economy tanked.

Wow ... gas prices went up because of a monopoly that controls fuel when liberals won't even consider the possiblity of drilling for oil in our own country. A monopoly that consists of Muslims who hate the fact that our country won't abaondon Isreal. That's a real shocker. They wanted us to elect a President that won't be as likely to keep kicking ass over there and trying to foster Democratic governments when the Princes who control the oil know democracy will kill their gig.

[MonstrRainmakr]

[QUOTE=WBCN_Smoke]It is not second class citizenship to deny those, who cannot reproduce by their very nature, the right to marriage. Marriage is a contract that the man will care for and protect a woman who will bare his children, and for it he gets hummers.QUOTE]

So you're saying that a couple who, for various natural reasons, can't reproduce should also NOT be allowed to marry? Because that's your argument... gays can't reproduce naturally.

Damn, that was almost too easy.

And who might i ask told you marriage is between and man and a woman?

[Hoagie]

This is a pointless argument now. See you in four years. :action-sm

[MonstrRainmakr]

Wow ... gas prices went up because of a monopoly that controls fuel when liberals won't even consider the possiblity of drilling for oil in our own country. A monopoly that consists of Muslims who hate the fact that our country won't abaondon Isreal. That's a real shocker. They wanted us to elect a President that won't be as likely to keep kicking ass over there and trying to foster Democratic governments when the Princes who control the oil know democracy will kill their gig.


I know 2 oil barrons at the top two seats of our government who would love the oil prices to go up.

I'm not trying to start anything here, don't get all pissy. It's been a year of this type of talk and i'm just too tired to give a shit anymore.... you guys won fair and square. (i hope :icon_wink ) so obviously the majority of America thinks the same way.

And i'm not knocking the war.... i'd be the first one to nuke them all. I'm with you on that. But you STILL didn't tell me how will all the money we're spending, Bush goes out and gives some back to us? THAT's all i really wanted to know.

[MonstrRainmakr]

This is a pointless argument now. See you in four years. :action-sm


I was just getting to that point... thanks! :icon_mrgr

[Jolie]

It is not second class citizenship to deny those, who cannot reproduce by their very nature, the right to marriage. Marriage is a contract that the man will care for and protect a woman who will bare his children, and for it he gets hummers.

Abortion is being fought against these days because of partial birth abortion, the descriptions are quite lovely, I won't post them here. Do you recall the Madonna bit about using abortion for birth control? If it is ok to kill a baby inside the mother why not up to a week after birth as well? And why not the elderly next?

Besides, Kerry would have appointed Supreme Court Justices who would eliminate the second amendment de facto, and would allow affermative rascism to continue.

:fight6: Let the flames begin. :fight6:
Marriage is a contract that the man will care for and protect a woman who will bear his children? According to who? So as a married woman, am I supposed to now stay home, because I entered into this contract, and hes supposed to provide for me? If its religion that dictates that marriage is between a man and a woman, then marriage should not be legislated at all. It IS second-class citizenship because you are denying a percentage of the population the right to marry who they want. At one point, blacks and whites were not allowed to marry, because someone thought it was wrong. Thats not the case anymore, and I can only hope one day our country wakes up and realizes discrimination against gays is just the same.

I don't understand why allowing two people who WANT to get married to do so does anything to affect your life or dissolve the sanctity of marriage. There are plenty of things married heterosexuals do every day to dissolve the sanctity of marriage - affairs, abuse, divorce - but out of these, only one is a crime and that one is often unreported. Divorce dissolves 50% of all marriages in our country, and yet, it it still a valid option. But two people who want to be committed to eachother are denied the legal benefits of a marriage because someone is afraid that somehow another couple getting married in another place that they don't know now and likely never will somehow erodes the sanctity of their own marriage. A marriage is what you make it, and if your marriage is going to lose its sanctity it will do so whether Bob gets to marry Jack or not.

You are kidding yourself if you think the conservatives will be happy with nothing more than a ban on partial birth abortions. Thats a start. They want it all. They want Roe v Wade overturned, and they want to make abortion illegal for all. If you don't want to have one, or dont want a family member to have one, then thats great, but don't tell ME what is best for me. I'm going to play the sex card here, because if you are not a woman you will never in your life be faced with that decision, and so you have absolutely no basis for understanding what its like to be faced with that decision, or how traumatic it might be. Making abortion illegal won't prevent the procedure... it will just prevent a number of women from getting safe, adequate care before, during and after an abortion. They will instead be forced to go to back-alley places and risk their lives. And I can guarantee that legitimate health care expenses will rise if this happens, because these women WILL still get abortions and WILL often face complications and will go to their normal doctor after the fact, adding to the drain on health care.

Lastly, what is "affermative rascism" and what does it have to do with the right to bear arms? And did I miss something, because it all my reading I never saw anything about Kerry wanting to deny people the right to bear arms.

[Jolie]

[QUOTE=WBCN_Smoke]It is not second class citizenship to deny those, who cannot reproduce by their very nature, the right to marriage. Marriage is a contract that the man will care for and protect a woman who will bare his children, and for it he gets hummers.QUOTE]

So you're saying that a couple who, for various natural reasons, can't reproduce should also NOT be allowed to marry? Because that's your argument... gays can't reproduce naturally.

Damn, that was almost too easy.

And who might i ask told you marriage is between and man and a woman?
And thanks Rainmakr for making that point... According to some groups (and I am totally serious, there was an interview with one and they said this exactly), because I am not able to bear children naturaly, without the assistance of medical intervention, I should probably not be allowed to get married. Marriage is about procreation and I cant do that naturally, so then I should have that right taken away from me... great.

[Darkstar]

I tend to stay out of the abortion issue, but I have some friends that are very Pro-life and others that are very pro-abortion. The question my 1 of my pro-life friends asks that I have never been able to get a straight answer on was:

If a woman is pregnant and his hit by someone that say runs a stop sign and the baby dies, that is murder. Why isn't it murder when she chooses to have a doctor remove the child?

I used to be very pro-abortion/choice, but once I say the first ultrasounds of my oldest child and then again with myu younger, I really began to question that belief. Felt it was only fair to explain where I stand.

[MonstrRainmakr]

I don't think anyone is pro-abortion. I think pro-choice is a little more accurate. I agree with you... it's absolutely appauling to use abortion as birth control, or to abort a child which was the result of reckless sex. Or some negligent teen ager to take the easy way out. If you're old enough to have sex by choice, then you'll have to face the consequences. But some people take precautions and they somehow fail, and there are extreme cases where qualifying women need to have that option. Like pregnancies that are the result of a ---- or something.

It's just the prospect of these blanket laws that worries me. People have to be all or nothing and that's not how life works. You have to take into account the situation.

[MonstrRainmakr]

Damn, i forgot about the filters guys... the ---- word above is four letters and rhymes with cape.

[Jolie]

I tend to stay out of the abortion issue, but I have some friends that are very Pro-life and others that are very pro-abortion. The question my 1 of my pro-life friends asks that I have never been able to get a straight answer on was:

If a woman is pregnant and his hit by someone that say runs a stop sign and the baby dies, that is murder. Why isn't it murder when she chooses to have a doctor remove the child?

I used to be very pro-abortion/choice, but once I say the first ultrasounds of my oldest child and then again with myu younger, I really began to question that belief. Felt it was only fair to explain where I stand.
Its funny you word it that way... Pro-life and pro-abortion. I tend to refer to them as Pro-Choice and Anti-Choice, because really, that is what it is all about. I would imagine there are VERY few people who are "pro-abortion", as that implies that they are running around recommending abortions for all. However, Anti-Choice has always seemed fitting to me, because its all about removing a persons choice.

BTW, is it a murder charge if a woman is hit, shes fine and the baby dies? I think it is NOW, because the right got the Lacy and Connor Law passed, which gives additional penalties to a person who injures a fetus in the commission of a crime... but i think that is relatively new. And this is another law that worries the pro-choice movement, because of exactly what you said... the fear that it will eventually get twisted into a loophole to deny women the ability to get a safe abortion by makibg abortion illegal.

[EdC]

I was just getting to that point... thanks! :icon_mrgr
Agreed

Jolie, there are without a doubt conservatives, or more pointedtly religious conservatives who would ban all abortions (unless of course THEY needed it). The same group are the ones who take the hard line religious stand on gay issues. There are also those of us who are fiscal conservatives who are much more concerned with the ineffieicent government getting smaller instead of bigger and don't weigh in on those other issues as being pure black & white. Most of the fiscal conservatives are also more interested in capitalism instead of the trend toward socializing everything even though all government agencies have proved to be wasteful and inefficient.

MonstrRainmakr, As far as the 2 oil barons go how did you feel about Gore? His dad was completely in the pocket of Occidental Petrolium and basically owes his career to that company.

I'm totally with you on what is the government giving us something back. We absolutely should be getting oil at reasonable prices from Iraq & Kuwait as a good will gesture for the liberation we have given them both.

To me both parties completely suck and I blame it on lawyers. Most of the career politicians are lawyers and obviously the same holds true for the Supreme Court. If the courts did their jobs the way they are described, their views on abortion, etc. should be irrelevent. Unfortunately it is relevent because the courts try to make the law instead of interpret it. The abortion issue has been interpreted so it should be done. In our supposed balance of power government 2 of the 3 branches are basically controlled by lawyers who have proved over and over that they don't want any type of reform that takes money out of the pockets of lawyers.

I am completely fed up with the trend toward larger and larger government. I am reallly tired of my tax dollars going to fund other countries' problems, etc. etc. I hate the pork barrel politics where every state and interest group gets their funding attached to more popular bills that have nothing to do with the other pork. I agree. We should have a balanced budget. I don't think that the answer is as simple as tax the rich but I also don't understand why the income tax caps out so someone making $100.000 per year has to pay as high a tax % as someone who makes $5,000,000 per year.

I do love this country and wouldn't want to live anywhere else. I just keep wondering when we are going to take it back from the lawyers and independetly rich career politicians.

[CornJob]

People who are pro-life are not pro-life. They tend to be pro-Death Penalty, pro-Gun, pro-War, etc.

People who are pro-choice are not pro-choice. They tend to be against the choice to own a gun, smoke a cigarette, choose the school your children go to, pledge to a flag, pray in school, etc etc.

Both are nonsense terms used to remove the word "abortion" from the discussion.

I'd bet anything the "gay marriage" issue gets a code word soon too...

(please note I said "tend" - everyone is different, but if "pro-Life"=GOP and "pro-Choice"=Democrat [and it almost always does], by and large, my assesment is correct)

[MonstrRainmakr]

Boy Spuds, i was getting worried you might hate me! As far as Gore, i didn't vote for him. I didn't vote for anybody. So I really have no say in what happened in the last four years. It's useless to sit here and argue with people about what's in the past. It's pointless to make enemies because we'll never get anything done that way.

I would feel alot better giving my hard earned money to programs like homeland security and funding for the military. Our troops need it now more than ever. I would feel 100% better about going after Sadam if we had gotten Bin Laden first.

I agree with you as well... both parties suck. It's not that cut and dry. And no third party is ever given a chance because people fear change like the plague.

I also agree with you on socialism. I f-ing hate the fact that my hard earned money goes to funding welfare and these systems that feed the leeches of this land. I hate the fact that people suck us dry purposely. I know someone who made sure his job paid just under a certain amount so he could purposely continue to get medicaid and welfare and all that stuff. You should see the help he gets from the gov. it's ridiculous. And it angers me to no end to know that it's my hard earned money.

Anyway, I'm glad we can end this constructively. Good luck to ya spuds.

[ih8Uboo-boo]

if "pro-Life"=GOP and "pro-Choice"=Democrat [and it almost always does], by and large, my assesment is correct)
Here's an interesting tidbit...

# of Sitting Supreme Court Justices appointed by the GOP? 7

For a party that is so unabashedly anti-abortion they must have reversed the decision of roe v. wade by now right???

Its a joke, the right says "the left want to take the guns..."
and the left says "the right wants to make abortion, illegal..."

and don't give me that "we're 1 vote away from it being overturned..." crap. If it was going to be overturned, it would have happened by now... they keep it that way to scare everyone shitless so that they just vote the party...

[EdC]

Boy Spuds, i was getting worried you might hate me!
.
.
.
Anyway, I'm glad we can end this constructively. Good luck to ya spuds.
No no no, as I said, I am a fiscal conservative for the most part. I get annoyed when the word conservative gets lumped in with the blow hard ass holes like Limbaugh.

I'm not a big Bush fan and really don't know anybody personally who says they are but he isn't ultra-conservative like the media tries to paint him. He isn't very fiscally conservative at all and has compromised on a lot of social issues like prescription drugs. He is definitley more in the center than Regan for example. Both sides have become so ridiculous with the attacks and trying to polarize the country that the middle ground gets ignored on so many issues.

This has been a vigorous discussion but no blood drawn :icon_mrgr. See you around.

[CornJob]

Here's an interesting tidbit...

# of Sitting Supreme Court Justices appointed by the GOP? 7

For a party that is so unabashedly anti-abortion they must have reversed the decision of roe v. wade by now right???

Its a joke, the right says "the left want to take the guns..."
and the left says "the right wants to make abortion, illegal..."

and don't give me that "we're 1 vote away from it being overturned..." crap. If it was going to be overturned, it would have happened by now... they keep it that way to scare everyone shitless so that they just vote the party...

I'm not really sure what' you are trying to say here.. but sometimes the conspiracy is that there isn't one... there's always something new to be scared shitless over, there's no need to invent or perpetuate things.

I don't recall saying anything about votes about making abortion illegal one way or the other.

Republicans have appointed a majority of the SC justices that are currently on the court - and there are two resons why they aren't as conservative as you would expect:

1. They had to get through confirmation in Democrat controlled senates- remember Bork?
2. A judge can do whatever they want once they're appointed - look at Sandra Day O'Connor - would Reagan really have appointed her if he knew what her voting record would end up being like?

Never mind the fact that no one anywhere - including mainstream conservatives - ever expects Roe to be overturned.

How about we do something shockingly novel: Put it to a vote and let the American people decide.

[Darkstar]

Its funny you word it that way... Pro-life and pro-abortion. I tend to refer to them as Pro-Choice and Anti-Choice, because really, that is what it is all about. I would imagine there are VERY few people who are "pro-abortion", as that implies that they are running around recommending abortions for all. However, Anti-Choice has always seemed fitting to me, because its all about removing a persons choice.

BTW, is it a murder charge if a woman is hit, shes fine and the baby dies? I think it is NOW, because the right got the Lacy and Connor Law passed, which gives additional penalties to a person who injures a fetus in the commission of a crime... but i think that is relatively new. And this is another law that worries the pro-choice movement, because of exactly what you said... the fear that it will eventually get twisted into a loophole to deny women the ability to get a safe abortion by makibg abortion illegal.
I actually termed it that way very intentionally for a reaction. The term pro-choice indicates the person is making a choice. Most Pro-life people say that you made a choice to have a child when you had sex as that is the whole purpose of sex. You are now deciding whether or not to end that life.

Pro-Choice people are worried about the new law, but typically will scream that it is murder if the woman is hit by a driver and the baby does not survive. I really am trying to find someone who can say why it is not when the mother walks into a doctor and does the same thing?

I really am just curious as to mind set, not trying to start a war.

[ih8Uboo-boo]

I'm not really sure what' you are trying to say here.. but sometimes the conspiracy is that there isn't one... there's always something new to be scared shitless over, there's no need to invent or perpetuate things.

I don't recall saying anything about votes about making abortion illegal one way or the other.

Since the thread was hijacked from an election thread to an abortion thread I was just throwing out information that I thought was interesting...

The vote thing is a common arguement thrown out there by pro-abortion/choice people to make it appear that the republicans want abortion outlawed, and was not directed at any of your statements...

I was anticipating a response from people who are obviosly anti-GOP.

Never mind the fact that no one anywhere - including mainstream conservatives - ever expects Roe to be overturned. That is basically the point that I was trying to make... Unfortunately, I just stink.

[Jolie]

I actually termed it that way very intentionally for a reaction. The term pro-choice indicates the person is making a choice. Most Pro-life people say that you made a choice to have a child when you had sex as that is the whole purpose of sex. You are now deciding whether or not to end that life.

Pro-Choice people are worried about the new law, but typically will scream that it is murder if the woman is hit by a driver and the baby does not survive. I really am trying to find someone who can say why it is not when the mother walks into a doctor and does the same thing?

I really am just curious as to mind set, not trying to start a war.
Well, for starters, I would say it depends on when the woman gets hit. I, personally, would probably not consider that murder... who knows what caused the death of the fetus at that point? Was it the actual act of being hit, or was it a complication with the woman? Can you blame someone else if the woman's body fails after something like that? Even if she is fine? I dont know, I have trouble with this, because I am very pro-choice and I am not sure I necessarily see that as murder.

Most doctors will not perform an abortion after the 1st trimester, unless the health of the woman is in question. I think there are also exceptions based on things like AFP and CF screening... I believe one of your choices if you find you are going to have a severly malformed/retarded baby is to abort.

Also, where do you put the limit on when life starts? A baby cannot survive outside of the mother until about 24 weeks, and then its touchy at best and they will most likely NOT survive, even with todays medicine. Until its born, essentially, the child is a parasite. Additionally, there are so many natural things that can occur to terminate a pregnancy, so why are miscarriages not murder? The end result is the same... loss of an embryo that wont ever become a child.

[droogie]

I was having this morals discussion with a co-worker today. He's a religious guy, but not one of those obnoxious jesus-freaks that give the impression to be faking it, I really don't doubt the goodness in his convictions. He told me he could never vote for someone who didn't have "good" morals because they were "pro-abortion" and that he knew I wasn't big on morals. Now, I can understand his his reasoning in not voting for someone who doesn't have the same morals as he does, but the part about me not being big on morals really hit as strange, I am big on morals, only that my morals are not the same as his. And I feel the beuty of my morals is that I don't force them on anyone. Like Monstrrainmakr said, don't like abortion? don't get one. Don't like gay marriage? don't get one. Besides religious rethoric I don't see the logic in baning these things, and if I remember correctly one of the foundations of this country was to escape religious prosecussion from the old world.

[droogie]

Hey, who put Jon Steward in my avatar? I'm not saying remove it, it's cool. The only reason I never put an avatar or sig before is because I'm too lazy.

[CornJob]

That is basically the point that I was trying to make...

Solidarity, brother (I need one of those fist icons).

[Smoke]

So you're saying that a couple who, for various natural reasons, can't reproduce should also NOT be allowed to marry? Because that's your argument... gays can't reproduce naturally.

Damn, that was almost too easy.

And who might i ask told you marriage is between and man and a woman?

Science allows those few with broken reproductive systems to go to fertility clinics, assuming the woman's womb hasn't been scarred.

Marriage is between a man and a woman by biological design. I'm not saying we should ban homos from enjoying each other, but to put a purely hedonistic relationship to the level of marriage is an insult to marriage.

[Smoke]

I know 2 oil barons at the top two seats of our government who would love the oil prices to go up.

Bush goes out and gives some back to us? THAT's all i really wanted to know.

Can you show me how they are making money on oil right now other than stock ownership and defered paychecks? If they were successful elseware you'd blame them for that field's problems.

Don't forget Bush isn't yet a dictator and his spending passed Congress. Don't like it, call your reps offices.

[MonstrRainmakr]

Science allows those few with broken reproductive systems to go to fertility clinics, assuming the woman's womb hasn't been scarred.

Marriage is between a man and a woman by biological design. I'm not saying we should ban homos from enjoying each other, but to put a purely hedonistic relationship to the level of marriage is an insult to marriage.

Man, i thought we were done with this. Marriage has NOTHING to do with biology dude. Men and women are built to reproduce with each other. Marriage was an institution developed out of religion. Plain and simple. So you're saying that cave men, or even ancient civilizations understood marriage? Hell, there are religions now who think marriage is between a man and MANY women.

You're just not gonna sell me on the fact that marriage is somehow a natural occurance. Most animals (which we are at our most basic level) mate once a year with a different partner each time. Human beings are the only creatures that observe "marriage." We made it up, and there is no reason we can't change it.

And not everyone would be insulted if gays were allowed to marry.

Just think about what it would be like. It's easy to make the rules when they don't affect you.

[droogie]

Science allows those few with broken reproductive systems to go to fertility clinics, assuming the woman's womb hasn't been scarred.

Marriage is between a man and a woman by biological design. I'm not saying we should ban homos from enjoying each other, but to put a purely hedonistic relationship to the level of marriage is an insult to marriage.
What about all those gay couples that have been showing up of proof of living together in long term relationships? Like those old ladies that had been together for 45 years, are they in a purely hedonistic relationship?

[drunkturkey]

Science allows those few with broken reproductive systems to go to fertility clinics, assuming the woman's womb hasn't been scarred.

Marriage is between a man and a woman by biological design. I'm not saying we should ban homos from enjoying each other, but to put a purely hedonistic relationship to the level of marriage is an insult to marriage.
I know enough people in same sex relationships that have been together longer than 1/2 the hetero-relationship-based-folks I know. These people are in love, some have kids, some dont. The big issue here is legal rights to each other, and to their kids if they have any.

I'm not saying that they necessarily need to be "married" as traditionally the meaning of marriage is as you described. However, they DO need the same rights as a married couple, such as being considered a family for purposes of children (access to children in schools, hospitals, etc.), and access to each other (again, think of medical emergencies where a partner can not visit their partner because they are not "family"). There are also financial hurdles that these folks have to jump through on a regular basis that would be simplified or removed if they were married, or just considered a legal entity of some sort.

I personally don't agree with the whole gay thing (although some temporary lesbian "exploration" at a young age is highly encouraged... as long as I can watch!), and I certainly would not be happy if my son grew up to come home one day and say "Dad... I'm gay." But it's their prerogative, and if they are truly "in love" or consider themselves a "family" more power to them.

[jpc165]

Until its born, essentially, the child is a parasite.:icon_lol:

and it remains one after its born

i know a 26 year old parasite

[DaDaDave]

i know a 26 year old parasite

nice... my parents say the same thing.

[droogie]

I'm not saying that they necessarily need to be "married" as traditionally the meaning of marriage is as you described. However, they DO need the same rights as a married couple, such as being considered a family for purposes of children (access to children in schools, hospitals, etc.), and access to each other (again, think of medical emergencies where a partner can not visit their partner because they are not "family"). There are also financial hurdles that these folks have to jump through on a regular basis that would be simplified or removed if they were married, or just considered a legal entity of some sort.
I say only private organizations like chuches actually "marries" people, which the state shouldn't regognize, the state should only recognize civil unions, hetero or homo not making a difference.