TOPICS:
just voted [3]
NOV 02, 2004 09:50 AM
NOV 02, 2004 09:51 AM
Dejajeva
Syracuse, IN
December 2003
NOV 02, 2004 09:52 AM
NOV 02, 2004 09:56 AM
NOV 02, 2004 10:00 AM
NOV 02, 2004 10:00 AM
NOV 02, 2004 12:23 PM
saucy_son said:
I think he means ". . . inevitability of tax increases . . . "
Good catch, Mr "Saudi America". 
(It was late when I typed that!)
NOV 02, 2004 12:25 PM
lepton said:
lostarchitect said:
lepton said:
I disagree with Bush on his view against Gay Marriage. It isn't because he hates though. It is based, on part, on his, and most Americans, religous ideology that marriage is between a man and a woman. It isn't because he hates gay people at all. The FMA is wrong and I think Bush is using it mostly for stopping the courts from legislating from the bench. All groups have people that hate etc... but the vast majority of conservatives are loving, inclusive people, with Bush being one of them. Generalization of any group is wrong and you generalizing the vast majority of good christian people in this country that way isn't right. By the way I am an atheist.
maybe i can buy that, but if so it means that he's knowingly pandering to a bloc of voters who will vote because they hate. i'm not saying it's all christians; obviously it's not. but it is a substantial group, and he's using this issue as a wedge. it's just as cynical and wrong to use a devisive issue that way as it is to actually do the hating yourself.
by the way, i am not an atheist. interesting, eh? 
You are right, a bloc of voters will vote for Bush because they hate gays. They can go to hell. But Bush isn't pandering to them. Bush is against gay marriage because of the reasons I gave not because he hates gays. What is he supposed to do? Go against his religous principles, and the millions of Americans that have the same principles just because a group of idiots? That isn't being true to his own views and would be letting a bunch of idiots dictate his views.
i don't think you read what i wrote. to repeat: i can believe that he does not personally hate gays, but i am sure that he is intentionally using the hate of others for personal gain. that may be worse than simple hate, because hate usually comes from ignorance. but using and fostering hate knowingly is just evil.
NOV 02, 2004 12:29 PM
NOV 02, 2004 12:32 PM
NOV 02, 2004 12:33 PM
stockula said:
You're so juvenille. Neither Lincoln nor FDR had combat experience, yet they ordered thousands of American men to their deaths to fight in our most crucial wars. It's exactly Kerry's Vietnam service that would cripple him as a commander-in-chief. He's obsessed and haunted by Vietnam. For that generation, that was their defining moment and they cannot let go of it. If Kerry was president when 9/11 happened and he was faced with the prospect of military action against Afghanistan, his Vietnam ghosts would cause him to balk, to take half measures, to always leave an exit door in case things go wrong, an unwillingness to commit, lest there be a quagmire like the Soviets and British suffered.
first of all, i like the new lone wolf/prey on the sick and weak tactic you're using. it suits you.
second, both lincoln and fdr had military experience. look it up.
edit: or just see phoebus' post on the previous page, he did all the legwork already.
[Edited on Nov 02, 2004 by lostarchitect]
NOV 02, 2004 12:45 PM
delusion
Santa Barbara, CA
March 2004
NOV 02, 2004 01:37 PM
NOV 02, 2004 01:48 PM
plaxico80
West Palm Beach, FL
October 2004
NOV 02, 2004 09:45 AM