Main Restorations Software Audio/Jukebox/MP3 Everything Else Buy/Sell/Trade
Project Announcements Monitor/Video GroovyMAME Merit/JVL Touchscreen Meet Up Retail Vendors
Driving & Racing Woodworking Software Support Forums Consoles Project Arcade Reviews
Automated Projects Artwork Frontend Support Forums Pinball Forum Discussion Old Boards
Raspberry Pi & Dev Board controls.dat Linux Miscellaneous Arcade Wiki Discussion Old Archives
Lightguns Arcade1Up --- Bug Reports --- Site News

Unread posts | New Replies | Recent posts | Rules | Chatroom | Wiki | File Repository | RSS | Submit news

  

Author Topic: 1 reason not to vote for John Kerry  (Read 9302 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ChadTower

  • Chief Kicker - Nobody's perfect, including me. Fantastic body.
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38216
  • Last login:January 20, 2020, 10:27:05 am
1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« on: August 27, 2004, 04:44:40 pm »
If you do, I will kick you in the genitals.

I am taking off the entire month of November and touring the country in a MaddenCruiser to accomplish this.

Dartful Dodger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3488
  • Last login:July 23, 2012, 11:21:39 pm
  • Newer isn't always better.
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #1 on: August 27, 2004, 04:56:02 pm »
In ChadTower's defense, "Everything Else", was starting to look a little bare with only one American President post in it.

ChadTower

  • Chief Kicker - Nobody's perfect, including me. Fantastic body.
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38216
  • Last login:January 20, 2020, 10:27:05 am
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #2 on: August 27, 2004, 04:57:05 pm »
Actually, it's a statement on the onesidedness of the presidential posts... and about the level of useful debate within them. :P

shmokes

  • Just think of all the suffering in this world that could have been avoided had I just been a little better informed. :)
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10471
  • Last login:September 24, 2016, 06:50:42 pm
  • Don't tread on me.
    • Jake Moses
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #3 on: August 27, 2004, 07:45:57 pm »
Are you planning to kick me in the genitals?

I ask because, while I will be voting for John Kerry, I live in Utah, so he won't actually receive any meaningful (read: electoral) vote from me.  I'm still going to vote on principal, but I'd like to avoid the kick in the nuts if at all possible.  All things being equal it seems like my genitals, in this particular case, aren't worth the trip.

Thank you in advance.
Check out my website for in-depth reviews of children's books, games, and educational apps for the iPad:

Best Kid iPad Apps

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 03, 2020, 07:25:29 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2004, 12:34:19 am »
Chad, you warned him.  I think it's your responsibility to now follow through with your promise.  Kick him.  Hard.  Right in the eggs.  If necessary, repeat until the problem goes away (Sometime in November oughta do it, can you kick that long, or do you want me to line up volunteers to spell you?)

He's got a commie-sympathizer friend named danny_galaga too, should I bring him around for a few whacks?  It's no problem, really  ;D ;D
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

MasTequila

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 68
  • Last login:November 13, 2004, 12:07:53 pm
  • I'm a llama! Here me roar!
    • GameTruth
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2004, 01:23:20 am »
I will be voting for John Kerry, come to the Boston area and you are welcome to try to kick me in my large hard-as-steel genitals and while your at it start yelling about dubya and see how you are recieved oh and also why don't you say  you love the Yankees and hate the Red Sox.  Then we see who gets kicked in the genitals. ;)

~Mas

gap

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 48
  • Last login:November 02, 2004, 09:06:12 pm
  • Howdy!
    • MAMEGAP
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2004, 05:48:29 am »
Are you kidding?  Of *course* we should all vote for Kerry.

He's promised to cut taxes for 99% of Americans while cutting the deficit in half.  Anyone that can do that deserves our vote.

hulkster

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2382
  • Last login:June 05, 2019, 09:42:51 am
  • HulkaMAMEia is runnin' wild!
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2004, 07:54:19 am »
hmmm....its a good thought, but i have a better one.  how about instead of kicking the voters in the nuts, you go kick john kerry in the nuts (if they havent already shriveled away) so that way while he is the hospital, he wont be able to make his rounds of the nation....and only retards will vote for him then.  

fredster

  • Grand Prophet of Arcadeology
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2311
  • Last login:February 16, 2019, 04:28:53 pm
  • It's all good!
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #8 on: August 28, 2004, 09:06:08 am »
Instead of kicking them in the nuts, you could just have a small child throw a baseball at their nuts and film it.

That way you could put it on America's Funniest Videos and make money while you do it.

It's a win win situation.
King of the Flying Monkeys from the Dark Side

DarkKobold

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1040
  • Last login:June 18, 2013, 11:31:23 pm
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #9 on: August 28, 2004, 01:07:18 pm »
It's time that we all invested in a John Kerry innagural Jock strap.

I'll be ready Chad, I'll be ready....
-------------------------------------
My games: Tapper, Asteroids, Cocktail-MAME, Tron, ROTJ, Tempest, Star Wars (not working)
My wants: Warlords Cocktail

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 03, 2020, 07:25:29 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #10 on: August 29, 2004, 11:38:13 am »
Instead of kicking them in the nuts, you could just have a small child throw a baseball at their nuts and film it.

That way you could put it on America's Funniest Videos and make money while you do it.

It's a win win situation.
OOOORRRRR, Mike Moore could use it in his next movie about how Kerry voters were disenfranchised and couldn't get to the polls to vote because after they fell to the ground from the egg-kicking, their left (voting) arm was twisted until they cried Bush.  ;) ;D
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

ChadTower

  • Chief Kicker - Nobody's perfect, including me. Fantastic body.
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38216
  • Last login:January 20, 2020, 10:27:05 am
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #11 on: August 29, 2004, 12:08:13 pm »
I will be voting for John Kerry, come to the Boston area and you are welcome to try to kick me in my large hard-as-steel genitals and while your at it start yelling about dubya and see how you are recieved oh and also why don't you say  you love the Yankees and hate the Red Sox.  Then we see who gets kicked in the genitals. ;)

~Mas

Okay, here's recipient #1!  I already live in the Boston area so this could just be an afternoon trip.  

BTW, I'm not ---smurfing--- dumb enough to start yelling that I love the Yankees around here.  I like living.

MrBond

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 390
  • Last login:March 10, 2012, 03:50:37 pm
  • ...The name's Do......Mr. Do!...
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #12 on: August 31, 2004, 04:28:52 pm »
Kerry is so far liberal and has flipped flopped on almost everything relative to the job, that the only valid reason for voting for the man would be to get Bush out.  Kind of like "I'd vote for anyone just to get the incumbent out".  That's fairly scary in my mind.  What if the second candidate turns out to be the same or worse in one's eyes.  And I really fail to see how he would have "done it differently".  I read something a while back that stated Kerry's position on going to war (pre Iraq), and Bush could have been following it to the letter.  Too bad those who actually represent the Democratic party (or the majority of its ideals) don't have a real candidate with integrity and balls to follow through with their decisions.  

No kicking required.  8)

Opinions will always very, and quite often collide.  Vote for who you think will do the better job.  (Then if you're Kerry, change your vote for the other guy because you changed your mind)...(Then after the election, say you would have kept your original position given the current circumstances)  ;D

<edit spelling>
« Last Edit: August 31, 2004, 04:33:56 pm by MrBond »
...they only live twice!...
(>")>----MAME----<("<)

ChadTower

  • Chief Kicker - Nobody's perfect, including me. Fantastic body.
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38216
  • Last login:January 20, 2020, 10:27:05 am
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #13 on: September 27, 2004, 03:05:11 pm »
With the election approaching, I just thought I'd remind people.  If you plan to vote for Kerry, become accustomed to wearing a cup.

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #14 on: September 27, 2004, 06:52:43 pm »
Quote
If you plan to vote for Kerry, become accustomed to wearing a cup.


And if you plan to vote for Bush, become accustomed to wearing a swastika and goosestepping down to the reeducation center.  :-*

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #15 on: September 27, 2004, 07:16:43 pm »
And if you plan to vote for Bush, become accustomed to wearing a swastika and goosestepping down to the reeducation center.

I love posts like these.


The NSDAP (thats the acronym for the Nazi party) had a platform of 25 points.

Todays liberals soundly embrace 18 of them.




mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #16 on: September 27, 2004, 07:47:38 pm »
Funny. I bet you could rattle off all 25 of them. Not me. Guess I didn't get the memo from lefty headquarters.

Btw, I cleaned up your sig picture from you...
« Last Edit: September 27, 2004, 08:26:46 pm by mr.Curmudgeon »

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #17 on: September 27, 2004, 09:42:53 pm »
Funny. I bet you could rattle off all 25 of them. Not me. Guess I didn't get the memo from lefty headquarters.

Actually, its that you didnt get a quality education, and I did.  Let me help you out:

http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/ASLevel_History/25pointnsdapprogramme.htm



Btw, I cleaned up your sig picture from you...

Hey, now -thats- cool.

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #18 on: September 28, 2004, 12:02:26 am »
Quote
Actually, its that you didnt get a quality education, and I did.

Yeah, definitely. Your indoctrination really shines through!!

fredster

  • Grand Prophet of Arcadeology
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2311
  • Last login:February 16, 2019, 04:28:53 pm
  • It's all good!
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #19 on: September 28, 2004, 12:07:05 am »
MrC,

Re-education and goose stepping is way old hat.

Now you just wake up and find a pod under your bed.
King of the Flying Monkeys from the Dark Side

Mameotron

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #20 on: September 28, 2004, 04:29:34 am »
MrC,

Re-education and goose stepping is way old hat.

Now you just wake up and find a pod under your bed.

A free ipod?!?  And I've been wasting so much time on the conga line thing...

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #21 on: September 28, 2004, 04:40:08 am »
Seems like Godwin's Law claim yet another thread.
This signature is intentionally left blank

abrannan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
  • Last login:July 25, 2012, 11:32:14 am
  • Building a cabinet in perpetuity since 2002
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #22 on: September 28, 2004, 08:40:08 am »
Okay, I'll bite on this troll.


The NSDAP (thats the acronym for the Nazi party) had a platform of 25 points.

Todays liberals soundly embrace 18 of them.


Which 18?

I count a few that NeoCons soundly embrace as well.  

5. Non-citizens may live in Germany only as guests and must be subject to laws for aliens.


18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.

Look at the differences in the frequency of use of the death penalty between Texas and Vermont, arguably the most conservative and most liberal states, respectively

25. To put the whole of this programme into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich; the unconditional authority of the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and its organizations; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the Reich in the various German states.

Favoring strong central government over state's rights.  (i.e. creating an amendment forbidding gay marriage vs. letting each state decide for itself)


If you want to twist meanings a little bit you could expand this list to a few more.

If no one feeds the trolls, we're just going to keep eating your goats.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #23 on: September 28, 2004, 10:03:39 am »
Which 18?

16 are certain:
7,9,10-17, 19-23, 25
2 are arguable:
6, 24


I count a few that NeoCons soundly embrace as well.

Ah - the "Neoconservative".
Can you compare and contrast 'neo-conservativism' with 'archaeo-conservativism'?



5. Non-citizens may live in Germany only as guests and must be subject to laws for aliens.

Interesting, given that one of the valid neoconservative criticisms against Bush is his apparent willingness to allow non-citizens to work here as much as possible.



18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.

I think you'll be hard pressed to show that any "neoconservative" wants 'common criminals' punished with the death penalty.



Favoring strong central government over state's rights.  (i.e. creating an amendment forbidding gay marriage vs. letting each state decide for itself)

The gay marriage amendment is all about states rights- that is, the right of a state to not have its laws imposed upon by other states.   It is the liberal that looks to strengthern the central government over that of the states.


mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #24 on: September 28, 2004, 11:18:34 am »
Quote
The gay marriage amendment is all about states rights- that is, the right of a state to not have its laws imposed upon by other states.

At a federal level. So, in other words, you're wrong.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #25 on: September 28, 2004, 11:26:46 am »
At a federal level. So, in other words, you're wrong.

No.  I'm not.

All amendments to the Constitution are at the federal level.
That doesnt preclude them from protecting states' rights.  
See Amemdnemt X.

The proposed amendment will protect a state from having to recognize a gay marriage from another state.  As it stands now, a gay marriage in State A has to be regocnized in state Z because of the FF&C clause of the Constitution.  the amendment will change this.

This means states will retain the right to define marriage, through legislation or Constitutional specification, as they see fit and no state will have to recognize a marriage that doesnt fall under that definition

That's very clearly a states' rights position.

abrannan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
  • Last login:July 25, 2012, 11:32:14 am
  • Building a cabinet in perpetuity since 2002
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #26 on: September 28, 2004, 11:52:21 am »
At a federal level. So, in other words, you're wrong.

No.  I'm not.

All amendments to the Constitution are at the federal level.
That doesnt preclude them from protecting states' rights.  
See Amemdnemt X.

The proposed amendment will protect a state from having to recognize a gay marriage from another state.  As it stands now, a gay marriage in State A has to be regocnized in state Z because of the FF&C clause of the Constitution.  the amendment will change this.

This means states will retain the right to define marriage, through legislation or Constitutional specification, as they see fit and no state will have to recognize a marriage that doesnt fall under that definition

That's very clearly a states' rights position.

It's also the Republicans fall-back position to prevent gay marriage, since the Federal Marriage Amendment (which would have outright outlawed gay marriage) was defeated by a vote for cloture.  
If no one feeds the trolls, we're just going to keep eating your goats.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #27 on: September 28, 2004, 11:58:07 am »
It's also the Republicans fall-back position to prevent gay marriage, since the Federal Marriage Amendment (which would have outright outlawed gay marriage) was defeated by a vote for cloture.  

You mean the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law in 1996?   That defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman, and said that states didnt have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states?

Its been federal law for 8 years.

The problem is that due to developments in the state of MA, it will be challenged in Federal court, and possibly struck by the USSC.  This is why there is a push for the Amendment.


abrannan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
  • Last login:July 25, 2012, 11:32:14 am
  • Building a cabinet in perpetuity since 2002
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #28 on: September 28, 2004, 12:09:33 pm »

I count a few that NeoCons soundly embrace as well.

Ah - the "Neoconservative".
Can you compare and contrast 'neo-conservativism' with 'archaeo-conservativism'?


Certainly, Neoconservatism is the name given to the platform of the Republican party from the mid 1980s onward, which sought to depart from the traditional conservatism that suffered large political defeats during the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War.  Neoconservatism seeks to gain the approval of the large popluation of Religious fundamentalists in the south and midwest, by seeking to impose the morals and values of these religions on the popluace as a whole.  It also features prominently the Machiavellian/Orwellian concept of the outside enemy, that the populace must continue to be afraid of and must be defeated at all costs.  Most often at the costs of the federal defecit, as military production must be ramped up to defeat this outside enemy.  It also abandons the traditional conservative approach of responsible and sensible spending, a position the Liberals are happy to *try* to claim (though arguably, without the internet financial boom and the increased tax revenues from Capital Gains, they would have failed miserably, not having sufficient funds to support their social service programs).  The three Neoconservative presidents also ran for office on a platform of reducing the size of the federal government, and all three have succeeded in increasing the number of federal workers during their tenure.


That's what I think of when I say Neoconservative, anyway.
If no one feeds the trolls, we're just going to keep eating your goats.

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 03, 2020, 07:25:29 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #29 on: September 28, 2004, 12:29:41 pm »
now, I re-read your reply three times, stopped....re-read it a third time, looking this time for the phrase "archaeo-conservative", and only found your diatribe re:"neocons".  Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm not) but when replying to "Can you compare and contrast 'neo-conservativism' with 'archaeo-conservativism'?" and not contrasting it with "archaeo-conservativsm", you are choosing to skip over that for a reason.

Disingenuousness, thy name is abrannan.  

Is it the fear that he's going to make a point, if you EVER contrast the two, that disagrees with your skewed viewpoint?
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #30 on: September 28, 2004, 12:44:53 pm »
Wow.   This is easily among the most thoughful post I've seen here.


Certainly, Neoconservatism is the name given to the platform of the Republican party from the mid 1980s onward, which sought to depart from the traditional conservatism that suffered large political defeats during the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War.

OK, I'll agree to the when, but not the why.  Its not a matter of 'normal' conservatives changing tack.



Neoconservatism seeks to gain the approval of the large popluation of Religious fundamentalists in the south and midwest, by seeking to impose the morals and values of these religions on the popluace as a whole.

I think you'll find a problem here, in that this conflicts with your original statement - conservativim changed tack because it suffered defeats because of conservativism, and so is still engaged in same?


It also features prominently the Machiavellian/Orwellian concept of the outside enemy, that the populace must continue to be afraid of and must be defeated at all costs.

Again - another conflict with your original statement.   The above is a large part of the argument made for Vietnam.



It also abandons the traditional conservative approach of responsible and sensible spending

The question here, of course, is:
Was the current strings of deficits created by ideologically based policy or extragovernmental forces?  

And you can answer that question by asnwering this one:
If there had not been a war and a recession, would there still be deficts?

 

The three Neoconservative presidents...

If "neoconservative" is propoerly applied to Bush, then there's been a lot more than three of them...


mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #31 on: September 28, 2004, 01:27:39 pm »
The problem is that due to developments in the state of MA, it will be challenged in Federal court, and possibly struck by the USSC.  This is why there is a push for the Amendment.

This doesn't justify an Amendment to the frickin' Constitution. It may warrant more sensible revisions to the benefits granted to gays in the DoMA. The DoMA is about 'States Rights', the Marriage Ban/Hate Amendment is all about pudgy old white men (including Alan Keyes who is whiter than Gumble) afraid of their own sexuality and who think it a fabulous idea to impose their latent homosexuality at a federal level.

Example:
Cheney (R) - Has offered support for amendment - Often appears to have rouge on cheeks. Gay daughter

Bush (R) - Created Hate Amendment - Possibly gay himself.

Alan Keyes (R) - Rampant homophobe - Sings show tunes (Video), possibly gay himself. Gay Daughter.

Rep. David Dreier (R) - Raises money for Hate Amendment - GAY!!!!

Congressman Ed Schrock (R) - Co-sponsor of Hate Amendment - GAY!!!!



These hypocrites are being outed, and I can't wait to see who's next.


TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #32 on: September 28, 2004, 01:36:41 pm »
This doesn't justify an Amendment to the frickin' Constitution.

It does, because the only way to get around the FF&C clause is to amend it.  The FF&C clause cause the DoMA to be overturned.



It may warrant more sensible revisions to the benefits granted to gays in the DoMA. The DoMA is about 'States Rights', the Marriage Ban/Hate Amendment is all about pudgy old white men (including Alan Keyes who is whiter than Gumble) afraid of their own sexuality and who think it a fabulous idea to impose their latent homosexuality at a federal level.

Thats amazingly funny
-The DoMA and the amendment affect marriage and the states in the same way
-The DoMA and the amendment are both at the federal level.

The only difference is that one will fall before the FF&C clause and one wont.   If you agree with the DoMA then there isnt any rational way you can disagree with the amendment.



abrannan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
  • Last login:July 25, 2012, 11:32:14 am
  • Building a cabinet in perpetuity since 2002
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #33 on: September 28, 2004, 01:44:38 pm »
now, I re-read your reply three times, stopped....re-read it a third time, looking this time for the phrase "archaeo-conservative", and only found your diatribe re:"neocons".  Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm not) but when replying to "Can you compare and contrast 'neo-conservativism' with 'archaeo-conservativism'?" and not contrasting it with "archaeo-conservativsm", you are choosing to skip over that for a reason.

Disingenuousness, thy name is abrannan.  

Is it the fear that he's going to make a point, if you EVER contrast the two, that disagrees with your skewed viewpoint?

So I used the term traditional conservatives rather than the term archaeo-conservatives, whoop-dee-freakin-doo.  Now, perhaps I misunderstood the original compare and contrast challenge, and TA Pilot's use of the term achaeo-conservative.  If so, I apologize, and would be happy to repeat the assignment if provided a definition of archaeo-conservative with which to contrast my definition of neoconservative, provided teacher will still allow me to earn proper credit for the assignment.
If no one feeds the trolls, we're just going to keep eating your goats.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #34 on: September 28, 2004, 01:47:52 pm »
Now, perhaps I misunderstood the original compare and contrast challenge, and TA Pilot's use of the term achaeo-conservative.

Well, if Neo-conservatives are "new" conservatives, then archaeo-conservatives are "old" - that is, 'normal' - conservatives.

In other words:  What's "new" about Neoconservatives?

abrannan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
  • Last login:July 25, 2012, 11:32:14 am
  • Building a cabinet in perpetuity since 2002
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #35 on: September 28, 2004, 02:17:38 pm »
Wow.   This is easily among the most thoughful post I've seen here.


I see you've been studying my habits, and you have discovered the easiest way to get me to stick my foot in my mouth is to compliment me.  Thank you.

Quote

OK, I'll agree to the when, but not the why.  Its not a matter of 'normal' conservatives changing tack.


I'm a little unsure what you're saying here, but if I understand you correctly, you're saying it's not that the people changed tack, but that the people themselves changed (it's a whole new group of people).  Am I reading that right?


Quote

I think you'll find a problem here, in that this conflicts with your original statement - conservativim changed tack because it suffered defeats because of conservativism, and so is still engaged in same?


Again, I may be misreading you here (it's my mid-afternoon mental slowdown kicking in), so forgive and correct me if I'm not seeing your point.  Conservatism is still conservatism, yes, but rather than trying to draw the line along (for example) racist boundaries, it is seeking instead to draw them along religious boundaries.  It's seeking a larger exclusionary group to appeal to.


Quote

Again - another conflict with your original statement.   The above is a large part of the argument made for Vietnam.

Yeah, I'll admit that one was too much of a stretch.  The concept/use of a foreign enemy predates what I'm calling the neoconservative era.  I do feel that Liberals have tried to use that tactic less since Kennedy/Communism, though.

Quote

The question here, of course, is:
Was the current strings of deficits created by ideologically based policy or extragovernmental forces?  


I'd say ideology, but that leads to a whole discussion on whether the war in Iraq was ideologically motivated, or necessary for national defense, and I doubt either one of us is going to change our opinions on that.  

Quote
And you can answer that question by asnwering this one:
If there had not been a war and a recession, would there still be deficts?

IMO, the recession was already underway, even if the economic indicators weren't there, and was unavoidable by either Bush or Gore (if he had won).  But that wasn't your question.  Your  questino is very difficult for me to answer, because I haven't seen much of what Bush's presidency would have been like had 19 hikackers not gotten on four planes.  I do think his $300 tax credit would still have occurred, recession or no, which leads me to believe he would have been fiscally irresponsible regardless of world political climate.  So, to finally answer your question, yes, I do believe we'd have deficits, though they wouldn't be as large.  And I don't think they had to be as large as they are even with the recession and war in Afghanistan.

 

Quote

If "neoconservative" is propoerly applied to Bush, then there's been a lot more than three of them...



I guess I was looking at it strictly from a timeline perspective, though you're right, there have been a lot more presidents that would meet the definition I put forward for neoconservative.
If no one feeds the trolls, we're just going to keep eating your goats.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #36 on: September 28, 2004, 02:30:31 pm »
I see you've been studying my habits, and you have discovered the easiest way to get me to stick my foot in my mouth is to compliment me.  Thank you.

LOL
No, I mean it.  you plainly though about your response.


I'm a little unsure what you're saying here,

I agree that neoconservativiem was born in the 80s...but it isnt as you describe.



Conservatism is still conservatism, yes, but rather thantrying to draw the line along (for example) racist boundaries, it is seeking instead to draw them along religious boundaries.  It's seeking a larger exclusionary group to appeal to.

But this is part of 'old' conservativism as well.  As such, its cant be a defining tenet of 'new' conservativism.



I'd say ideology, but that leads to a whole discussion on whether the war in Iraq was ideologically motivated, or necessary for national defense, and I doubt either one of us is going to change our opinions on that.  

You're not looking at a large enough picture.  The deficits were caused by a LOT of things, with the war being only a small part of it, and there's a lot more to 'ideology' than just the war.



So, to finally answer your question, yes, I do believe we'd have deficits, though they wouldn't be as large.

And so the conclusion must be:
The deficit, or at least a latge part of it, comes from extragovernmental forces.  

See, spending didnt climb any more, year to year, than in previous years - revenue fell becauseof the recession.   Clearly, this didnt result from 'neoconservative' ideology...

So then, what validity is there to the argument that neoconservatisim has deficit spending as a tenet?

 



abrannan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
  • Last login:July 25, 2012, 11:32:14 am
  • Building a cabinet in perpetuity since 2002
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #37 on: September 28, 2004, 02:34:03 pm »
It's also the Republicans fall-back position to prevent gay marriage, since the Federal Marriage Amendment (which would have outright outlawed gay marriage) was defeated by a vote for cloture.  

You mean the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law in 1996?   That defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman, and said that states didnt have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states?

Its been federal law for 8 years.

The problem is that due to developments in the state of MA, it will be challenged in Federal court, and possibly struck by the USSC.  This is why there is a push for the Amendment.



No, I was referring to the Marriage Protection Act, which snuck through the House while the fervor over the FMA's failure was still in the news.  It's the one that would strip the Federal courts' power to rule on challenges to the DoMA.  

It's really interesting to me how the gay marriage issue has really parallelled the desegregation issue, from the legal tactics to the arguments made on both sides.  Today we look back on those who opposed desegregation as ignorant and racist.  How will we look back on those who opposed gay marriage?
If no one feeds the trolls, we're just going to keep eating your goats.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #38 on: September 28, 2004, 02:40:18 pm »
No, I was referring to the Marriage Protection Act, which snuck through the House while the fervor over the FMA's failure was still in the news.  

You mean this year?   Never heard of it.
Did it pass the Senate?  Bush sign it?



It's the one that would strip the Federal courts' power to rule on challenges to the DoMA.  

Yes, thats another possible move that can be made - makre sure its never challenged.  Not as good as an amendment.


abrannan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
  • Last login:July 25, 2012, 11:32:14 am
  • Building a cabinet in perpetuity since 2002
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #39 on: September 28, 2004, 02:57:10 pm »
I see you've been studying my habits, and you have discovered the easiest way to get me to stick my foot in my mouth is to compliment me.  Thank you.

LOL
No, I mean it.  you plainly though about your response.


I find thinking about my response is a lot better than calling our president a repressed homosexual, or threatening to kick people who disagree with me in the beanbag.




Quote
I'm a little unsure what you're saying here,

I agree that neoconservativiem was born in the 80s...but it isnt as you describe.

Okay.  How would you describe it, out of curiousity?


Quote
Conservatism is still conservatism, yes, but rather thantrying to draw the line along (for example) racist boundaries, it is seeking instead to draw them along religious boundaries.  It's seeking a larger exclusionary group to appeal to.

But this is part of 'old' conservativism as well.  As such, its cant be a defining tenet of 'new' conservativism.

I disagree.  It's the new emphasis on religion, and the corresponding de-emphasis on the other boundaries that make the definition.  


Quote
I'd say ideology, but that leads to a whole discussion on whether the war in Iraq was ideologically motivated, or necessary for national defense, and I doubt either one of us is going to change our opinions on that.  

You're not looking at a large enough picture.  The deficits were caused by a LOT of things, with the war being only a small part of it, and there's a lot more to 'ideology' than just the war.

I disagree that the war is only a small part of it.  The cost of rebuilding Iraq (estimated at between $80 and $500 billion), Military payrolls (including hazard pay), supplies, medical expenses for the wounded, fuel, etc are all part of the costs incurred.  Yes, there is a lot more to ideology than the war, but Iraq is the most obvious example of the ideology.



Quote
So, to finally answer your question, yes, I do believe we'd have deficits, though they wouldn't be as large.

And so the conclusion must be:
The deficit, or at least a latge part of it, comes from extragovernmental forces.  

See, spending didnt climb any more, year to year, than in previous years - revenue fell becauseof the recession.   Clearly, this didnt result from 'neoconservative' ideology...

So then, what validity is there to the argument that neoconservatisim has deficit spending as a tenet?


If spending does not decrease when revenue decreases, that's due to ideology, IMO.  And in actuality, spending increased while revenue decreased http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pdf/hist.pdf
Page 26, columns 1 & 2 years 2000-2004, which includes record deficits in 2003 and 2004.

Other record deficits: 1991 (Bush Sr.), 1986, 1985, 1983(Reagan)
That's what I offer up as validity.
 


 



Quote
If no one feeds the trolls, we're just going to keep eating your goats.

abrannan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
  • Last login:July 25, 2012, 11:32:14 am
  • Building a cabinet in perpetuity since 2002
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #40 on: September 28, 2004, 02:59:26 pm »
No, I was referring to the Marriage Protection Act, which snuck through the House while the fervor over the FMA's failure was still in the news.  

You mean this year?   Never heard of it.
Did it pass the Senate?  Bush sign it?

This year, passed House in July.  You never heard of it because it was snuck in while everybody was focused on the FMA.  It's in the Senate now.

If no one feeds the trolls, we're just going to keep eating your goats.

Dartful Dodger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3488
  • Last login:July 23, 2012, 11:21:39 pm
  • Newer isn't always better.
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #41 on: September 28, 2004, 03:22:03 pm »
It doesn't matter, either way, Bush is going to win.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #42 on: September 28, 2004, 03:25:04 pm »
Okay.  How would you describe it, out of curiousity?

"Neo" conservativism is activist conervativism.   Its the usual conservative principles, bit firward leaning in its approach.  



I disagree.  It's the new emphasis on religion, and the corresponding de-emphasis on the other boundaries that make the definition.  

Hmm.   The religious right has been said to be disappointed with the administration, and its been claimed that the gay marriage amendment was a bone thrown to them to keep them happy.



I disagree that the war is only a small part of it.  The cost of rebuilding Iraq (estimated at between $80 and $500 billion), Military payrolls (including hazard pay), supplies, medical expenses for the wounded, fuel, etc are all part of the costs incurred.

Yes...   but compared to the growth of the rest of government and the large losses of revenue from the recession, the cost of the war is small.

Just the growth of entitlement spending FY2001-2002 is 1/3 the entire defense budget; just the growth of entitlement spending during the war ($184B) has exceeded the cost of the war.





Yes, there is a lot more to ideology than the war, but Iraq is the most obvious example of the ideology.

OK...  but the war is a product of policies from the 2 previous administrations.  Unless you want to argue that both Bush41 and Clinton were neoconervatives, you wont get anywhere with that.



If spending does not decrease when revenue decreases, that's due to ideology, IMO.

Really.
And what ideology do you suppose would have cut the budget sufficiently to keep the budget balanced over tht e last three years?  You'd have to cut almost $500B from FY2004 to balance the budget - who would do this?  Where woud it be cut from?

You would have had to cut ~$1T in spending since FY2001 to keep the budget in balance through the recession.

Had there been no war, and the defense spending did not go up, you'd still have to cut ~$800B from the budget to kill the deficit through the recession.



And in actuality, spending increased while revenue decreased

Yes.  But spending always increases.  It didnt increase much more than it had over any other year - and the difference in the ioncrease in speding was FAR less than the difference in the increase in revenue (as the increase in revenue was negative).

Had revenue increased modestly - just 5%/yr, less than the avgerage through the 90s - there would have been a ~185B surplus at the end of FY2003.



That's what I offer up as validity.

And its invalid.
 


 

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #43 on: September 28, 2004, 03:41:36 pm »
Thats amazingly funny
-The DoMA and the amendment affect marriage and the states in the same way

Wrong. The proposed amendment would define marriage throughout the United States, at every level: national, state and local. It completely eliminates individual states' alternative solutions, like civil unions or domestic partnership. It's an amendment to take away civil rights. Completely. It's a morally repugnant and people should be ashamed of themselves for supporting it. There are more than likely other, more ethical loopholes that states could use to avoid the FF&C clause, such as "a state may not have to give full faith and credit to a law that violates its "public policy." I'm not a lawyer, so I can't get into it much further.

The bottom-line is that the amendment is wrong-headed and hateful. History will look back on those who supported it as unkindly as it looks back on slave owners and civil rights (women/blacks) opponents. Only those blinded by their won hatred fail to see this.

I don't support either the DoMA or the proposed Amendment. Gay people don't frighten me and their marriages don't affect me. It's just that when dealing with bigotted fear-mongers, it's always good to explore options that could involve compromise.

abrannan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
  • Last login:July 25, 2012, 11:32:14 am
  • Building a cabinet in perpetuity since 2002
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #44 on: September 28, 2004, 03:51:46 pm »
Okay.  How would you describe it, out of curiousity?

"Neo" conservativism is activist conervativism.   Its the usual conservative principles, bit firward leaning in its approach.  

Firward?  Toward a tree?  Sorry, bad spelling joke, and cheap shot.

Quote
I disagree.  It's the new emphasis on religion, and the corresponding de-emphasis on the other boundaries that make the definition.  

Hmm.   The religious right has been said to be disappointed with the administration, and its been claimed that the gay marriage amendment was a bone thrown to them to keep them happy.
Just 'cause they're not happy does not mean that the administration isn't trying to woo them.  

Quote
And in actuality, spending increased while revenue decreased

Yes.  But spending always increases.  It didnt increase much more than it had over any other year


Really?  Let's look at the numbers (percentage increase over previous year's budget)

1993: 1.2%
1994: 3.46%
1995: 3.77%
1996: 2.64%
1997: 2.46%
1998: 3.51%
1999: 3.37%
2000: 5.56%  
2001: 4.04%
2002: 9.12%
2003: 8.41%
2004: 8.03%


If you want I'll run the numbers for revenue increase as well.


Quote
That's what I offer up as validity.

And its invalid.

As are your arguments.
If no one feeds the trolls, we're just going to keep eating your goats.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #45 on: September 28, 2004, 03:56:12 pm »
Wrong. The proposed amendment would define marriage throughout the United States, at every level: national, state and local.

Federal law already does this.



It completely eliminates individual states' alternative solutions, like civil unions or domestic partnership. It's an amendment to take away civil rights. Completely. It's a morally repugnant and people should be ashamed of themselves for supporting it.

And so you'd support it if it only allowed states to make the determination for themselves and not have to recognize marriages that they themselves do not allow?


I'm not a lawyer, so I can't get into it much further.

I can.

Marriage is a social contract between 2 people, a contract that imposed certain legal rights and obligations on its participants. It has a number of historic justifications, many of which have been rendered obselete by other changes in the law.

For instance, one of the key rights it confers is that of inheritance. This was important because way back when, only married women could OWN PROPERTY. It also imposed a duty on the husband to support his wife (keeping in mind that way back when, women couldn't work and were wards of their fathers until they married). Obviously, these restrictions on women no longer apply, so these justifications ceased to be relevant.

THe other major justification for marriage was the promotion of children. Remember, way back when a women's body belonged to her husband (e.g., under common law it was impossible for a man to rape his wife). And a marriage was not "legal" unless the woman was a virgin (in fact, the man would have a civil claim for damages against the woman's father if she wasn't, on a "fraud" theory). THus, in a society where a woman was expected to be a virgin until marriage, marriage became basically a condition precedent to children). This promotion of children was one of the reasons why congress first permitted the concept of joint tax returns, the thinking being the married couple should pay less money in order to have more money to have and raise children).

Under constitutional law, the right to marry is a "fundamental right", up there with freedom of speech, religion, right to bear arms, etc.

Now, in order for a gay couple to demonstrate that the law is discriminatory, they would need to demonstrate that they are being denied access to that fundamental right on the basis of their sexual orientation, and that the state has no compelling/rational reason for denying them that right.

The real question is which standard, if its "compelling" then gay marriage will likely prevail, if its "rational" then gay marriage will likely fail.

The reason is that the government can clearly meet the "rational reason" test. To wit, the only tangible benefits denied to gay by virtue of their being unable to marry are (1) inheritance, (2) right to make medical decisions and (3) right to certain tax benefits.

With respect to inheritance, they can simply execute a will. With respect to medical decisions, they can get a power of attorney. These may be additional hoops to jump through, but neither is "so oppressive or onerous" to convince a court in my opinion.

So that leaves us with tax benefits. Its undeniable that me and my wife get certain tax benefits that my gay neighbors do not. However, if the government can demonstrate that it has a "rational" reason for making this distinction, its consitutional. And, in my opinion, that rational reason is the promotion and rearing of children. Fair or not, me and my wife CAN POSSIBLY have a child of our own, whereas my gay neighbors cannot. Yes, they can adopt, but thats not the issue, the issue is the CREATION of children. Certainly the promotion of children comes within the general police powers of the state, hence it has the right to regulate, and if it has the right to regulate, the policy of offering these tax benefits to heterosexual, married couples is rational. It may be UNFAIR, but that is not the same thing as unconstitutional (take affirmative action...its clearly unfair to someone, but its currently considered constitutional in most forms).

If, however, the court decides that the tax benefits are "fundamental" to the institution of marriage, it will likely apply the "compelling" standard, in which case, the current policy most likely fails, since its not narrowly tailored to the promotion of children since its offered to ALL married couples (even those that are medically infertile).



History will look back on those who supported it as unkindly as it looks back on slave owners and civil rights (women/blacks) opponents. Only those blinded by their won hatred fail to see this.

But the fact remains:
The state has the right to define marriage as it pleases.
You dont like it.  Talk to your state rep/senator.


TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #46 on: September 28, 2004, 04:08:39 pm »
Just 'cause they're not happy does not mean that the administration isn't trying to woo them.  

If the administration is "neoconservative" and part of "neoconservativism" is religious fundamentalism, then there'd be no nee for 'wooing'


Really?  Let's look at the numbers (percentage increase over previous year's budget)

Your numbers are wrong.  
 FY     $ in billiosn  % increase
1991 1,324.40   5.68
1992 1,381.70   4.33
1993 1,409.50   2.01
1994 1,461.90   3.72
1995 1,515.80   3.69
1996 1,560.50   2.95
1997 1,601.30   2.61
1998 1,652.60   3.20
1999 1,701.90   2.98
2000 1,788.80   5.11
2001 1,863.80   4.19
2002 2,011.00   7.90
2003 2,157.60   7.29

So, while spending did go up, it wasnt by a lot.

And even if FY2003/2003 was limited to the 4% growth in FY2001, you'd still only cut ~210B from the ~1T total deficit.

Adding in the cuts from defense spending, you;re STILL looking at a ~$600B deficit.




As are your arguments.

But, you see, I demonstrated yours to be invalid.
Youhaven't

abrannan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
  • Last login:July 25, 2012, 11:32:14 am
  • Building a cabinet in perpetuity since 2002
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #47 on: September 28, 2004, 04:12:51 pm »

The reason is that the government can clearly meet the "rational reason" test. To wit, the only tangible benefits denied to gay by virtue of their being unable to marry are (1) inheritance, (2) right to make medical decisions and (3) right to certain tax benefits.


---That which is odiferous and causeth plants to grow---.  There are 1049 FEDERAL laws in which martial status grants certain rights to an individual.  That does not even address state laws:

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

If no one feeds the trolls, we're just going to keep eating your goats.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #48 on: September 28, 2004, 04:17:12 pm »


There are 1049 FEDERAL laws in which martial status grants certain rights to an individual.  That does not even address state laws:

Perhaps.
But that doesnt change the argument.

abrannan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
  • Last login:July 25, 2012, 11:32:14 am
  • Building a cabinet in perpetuity since 2002
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #49 on: September 28, 2004, 04:20:06 pm »

Your numbers are wrong.  
 FY     $ in billiosn  % increase
1991 1,324.40   5.68
1992 1,381.70   4.33
1993 1,409.50   2.01
1994 1,461.90   3.72
1995 1,515.80   3.69
1996 1,560.50   2.95
1997 1,601.30   2.61
1998 1,652.60   3.20
1999 1,701.90   2.98
2000 1,788.80   5.11
2001 1,863.80   4.19
2002 2,011.00   7.90
2003 2,157.60   7.29

So, while spending did go up, it wasnt by a lot.

I pulled my numbers from the document I posted the link to earlier, published by the White House and the OMB.  Where did you get your numbers?

And an increase of 7.9% year to year *is* a lot.  It's way out of line with inflation or revenue.


Quote
But, you see, I demonstrated yours to be invalid.
Youhaven't

You proved my point, you didn't invalidate it.  


If no one feeds the trolls, we're just going to keep eating your goats.

abrannan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
  • Last login:July 25, 2012, 11:32:14 am
  • Building a cabinet in perpetuity since 2002
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #50 on: September 28, 2004, 04:21:52 pm »


There are 1049 FEDERAL laws in which martial status grants certain rights to an individual.  That does not even address state laws:

Perhaps.
But that doesnt change the argument.


It changes the argument that it's not onerous or burdensome to obtain the same rights.  Two legal forms versus 1000+ is one heck of a burden, provided there is even the ability to get those rights outside of marriage.

« Last Edit: September 28, 2004, 04:22:53 pm by abrannan »
If no one feeds the trolls, we're just going to keep eating your goats.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #51 on: September 28, 2004, 04:27:00 pm »
Where did you get your numbers?

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0&from=7#t5
Table 1.



And an increase of 7.9% year to year *is* a lot.  It's way out of line with inflation or revenue.

But it adds a mere $200B to the total.
That means $600B of a $1T total deficit that didnt come from spending increases above the levels of the prior administration.

Given that, its impossible to argue that 'neoconservativism' holds deficit spending for any reason as part of its ideology - unless you want to argue that the prior administration was neoconservative as well.



You proved my point, you didn't invalidate it.

Only if your point was that the deficits didnt have anything to do  'neoconservative ideology'.





TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #52 on: September 28, 2004, 04:31:36 pm »
It changes the argument that it's not onerous or burdensome to obtain the same rights.  Two legal forms versus 1000+ is one heck of a burden, provided there is even the ability to get those rights outside of marriage.

Read the rest of my post:

"It may be UNFAIR, but that is not the same thing as unconstitutional (take affirmative action...its clearly unfair to someone, but its currently considered constitutional in most forms)...If, however, the court decides that the tax benefits are "fundamental" to the institution of marriage, it will likely apply the "compelling" standard, in which case, the current policy most likely fails..."

Now, tell me how those 1049 things are "fundamental" to the institution of marriage.

Mameotron

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #53 on: September 29, 2004, 03:26:42 am »
It amazes me that in all these discussions and dissections of marriage that noboby ever brings up religion.  Clearly marriage is an instution of religion, and the state and federal governments have chosen to incorporate this "religious ideology" into our laws.

Now, before you start ranting about separation of church and state, let me challenge you.  Try and prove that the laws we have in effect today (no killing, stealing, etc.) are not founded on religion.  Why did the pilgrims leave Europe in the first place?  Religious freedom.  When the continental congress closed for a "day of fasting and prayer" what do you think they were doing?

You can't separate religion from marriage.  Gay marriages go against the religious part of what defines a marriage.  Why are people so insistent on gay "marriages"?  TA Pilot defines a civil union, but it does not constitute a marriage because there is no basis in any religion.

saint

  • turned to the Dark Side
  • Supreme Chancellor
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6068
  • Last login:March 27, 2020, 04:12:21 pm
  • I only work in cyberspace...
    • Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #54 on: September 29, 2004, 08:42:29 am »
Wow, I don't know where to begin picking this apart. Yes, religious freedom was one of the motivating forces that led people to America. Freedom from a state defined, state enforced religion. Freedom to worship as you choose. Freedom to not have a king tell you how to think and feel.

Your argument here appears to be predicated on a Judeo-Christian theology.  It is presumptious at best to assume that all religions forbid homosexual marriages. Gay marriage may go against the Judeo-Christian part of what defines a marriage, but what about Wicca, Buddism, insert-religion-of-choice-here?

Yes, thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not steal are fine religious principles to have influenced the laws in our country... I am fairly certain however that they pre-date Christianity and likely Judaism as well.

Yes, there was a tremendous Christian influence amongst the founding fathers of our country - thank God they had the wisdom and compassion to outline a set of guiding principles for our country designed to protect the rights of all American citizens to worship as they choose and to prevent the state from dictating that worship. America is not a Christian government. America is a government where citizens are allowed choice. Do not confuse a common set of shared morals (that Christianity/Judaism share with our Constitution, Declaration, and laws) with being a mandate from our founding fathers that we be a Judaic/Christian state. They very cleary made great efforts to ensure that would not be so.

--- saint




It amazes me that in all these discussions and dissections of marriage that noboby ever brings up religion.  Clearly marriage is an instution of religion, and the state and federal governments have chosen to incorporate this "religious ideology" into our laws.

Now, before you start ranting about separation of church and state, let me challenge you.  Try and prove that the laws we have in effect today (no killing, stealing, etc.) are not founded on religion.  Why did the pilgrims leave Europe in the first place?  Religious freedom.  When the continental congress closed for a "day of fasting and prayer" what do you think they were doing?

You can't separate religion from marriage.  Gay marriages go against the religious part of what defines a marriage.  Why are people so insistent on gay "marriages"?  TA Pilot defines a civil union, but it does not constitute a marriage because there is no basis in any religion.
--- John St.Clair
     Build Your Own Arcade Controls FAQ
     http://www.arcadecontrols.com/
     Project Arcade 2!
     http://www.projectarcade2.com/
     saint@arcadecontrols.com

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #55 on: September 29, 2004, 08:52:31 am »
TA Pilot defines a civil union, but it does not constitute a marriage because there is no basis in any religion.  

You'll find that I rarely base an argument on morality or religion, because these things are subjective.

Under our form of government, the states have the right to defnine marriage as a legal entity.  Such a definition is necessary because of the all of other things in society - kids, property, gvmnt benefits, etc.

My argument is based on this idea - that each state has the right to define marriage as it chooses, and its defnition isnt affected by that of other states.  Unfortunately, recent developments threaten to change this, which is unacceptable.

I dont care how state X defines marriage.  That said definition will be imposed on state Y against its will, I care about.

saint

  • turned to the Dark Side
  • Supreme Chancellor
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6068
  • Last login:March 27, 2020, 04:12:21 pm
  • I only work in cyberspace...
    • Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #56 on: September 29, 2004, 09:24:16 am »
How could our country possibly function without this? Say California goes off the deep end and defines marriage as being between two same-sexed people only (as a ludicrous example), or that another state declares that marriage is only valid between consenting adults aged 21 and over, or another state declares that marriage is legal at 16 while another state declares that marriage is only possible at 18+.  Say one state declares first cousins can marry while other states say they cannot.  Here's a web site (whose validity I cannot vouch for, but suitable for the sake of argument since I am speaking of "what if's" here) who says that Alabama and South Carolina allow a female to marry at age 12(!) with parental consent (insert own jokes here). In Nebraska the legal marriage age is 19, and in Mississippi it's 21. What if Utah declared bigamy was legal again? (Bigamy should be legal. Who the hell am I to declare that 3 people can't form a loving and stable union as well as 2? -- But that's another argument and isn't a torch I bear, just an idle thought...)

Here's a good one for you. What about proxy marriages? I believe Gov. Schwartzenegger (spelling?) signed a law allowing marriage by proxy (ex: A soldier in Iraq can marry his sweetheart in California by having a stand-in groom. I don't know the full details but that's the gist). In Utah, that appears to be illegal.

Pick any plausible variation in marriage laws that makes two different states interpretation of marriage incompatible.

Now take a legally married couple from state A, and have them take a vacation in state B. Have some tragic accident where one partner ends up in the hospital, and the life-support or no-life-support questions comes up. If state B doesn't accept the validity of the couple's marriage, then the unharmed partner has no legal say in the medical care decisions made despite both partners' wishes. Organ donation questions. Child custody questions. Scary.

Should you have to get re-married any time you move to another state?

For our country to be a collection of united states, you have to honor certain laws from other states. My driver's license is good when I travel to another state (yes, after a period of time if I've moved I need to get a new license, but the state will honor my out-of-state license if I'm visiting, or for a period of time if I'm moving).

Some things are not critical - gun permits, medical licenses. Certainly important to the people who hold them, but life does not stop functioning if one state does not honor another state's laws in those regards. I can apply for a gun license in another state - I can apply for a medical license in another state.

How scary of a society, however, if I can't travel from one state to another because of fear that my family unit will not be valid and the wishes of 2 consenting adults will be ignored if I cross the state border.

--- saint


I dont care how state X defines marriage.  That said definition will be imposed on state Y against its will, I care about.

« Last Edit: September 29, 2004, 09:38:49 am by saint »
--- John St.Clair
     Build Your Own Arcade Controls FAQ
     http://www.arcadecontrols.com/
     Project Arcade 2!
     http://www.projectarcade2.com/
     saint@arcadecontrols.com

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #57 on: September 29, 2004, 09:34:48 am »
Pick any plausible variation in marriage laws that makes two different states interpretation of marriage incompatible.

No.   Its FAR more than 'incompatability'.
Its a matter of something being legal in state X and then being unconstitution in state Y - state Y is forced, by the FF&C clause, to honor the marriage from state X.

That is, state Xs laws carry more weight in state Y than state Ys constitution.  How can that be?

Note that while your driver's license is valid in other states, you are obliged to follow the traffic laws of the state you;re in, not the state you;re licensed from.  


[b/]For our country to be a collection of united states, you have to honor certain laws from other states[/b]

I agree.  And thats why there is a FF&C clause.  And thats the problem.
And that's why there's and amendment brewing - states do not want their constitutions to be overridden by a MA state court decision.





saint

  • turned to the Dark Side
  • Supreme Chancellor
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6068
  • Last login:March 27, 2020, 04:12:21 pm
  • I only work in cyberspace...
    • Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #58 on: September 29, 2004, 09:43:42 am »
I understand the objection, but you haven't answered my question.  How can we possibly function as a set of united states if we don't have it this way? If I move from state A to state B, and they have incompatible marriage laws/state constitutional definitions of marriage, should my marriage become nullified?

Pick any plausible variation in marriage laws that makes two different states interpretation of marriage incompatible.

No.   Its FAR more than 'incompatability'.
Its a matter of something being legal in state X and then being unconstitution in state Y - state Y is forced, by the FF&C clause, to honor the marriage from state X.

That is, state Xs laws carry more weight in state Y than state Ys constitution.  How can that be?

Note that while your driver's license is valid in other states, you are obliged to follow the traffic laws of the state you;re in, not the state you;re licensed from.  


[b/]For our country to be a collection of united states, you have to honor certain laws from other states[/b]

I agree.  And thats why there is a FF&C clause.  And thats the problem.
And that's why there's and amendment brewing - states do not want their constitutions to be overridden by a MA state court decision.





--- John St.Clair
     Build Your Own Arcade Controls FAQ
     http://www.arcadecontrols.com/
     Project Arcade 2!
     http://www.projectarcade2.com/
     saint@arcadecontrols.com

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #59 on: September 29, 2004, 09:59:59 am »
I understand the objection, but you haven't answered my question.  How can we possibly function as a set of united states if we don't have it this way? If I move from state A to state B, and they have incompatible marriage laws/state constitutional definitions of marriage, should my marriage become nullified?

Nullified within that state, yes.   If the laws of a state do not allow for the existence of a legal construct (marriage, etc) within that state, then it cannot matter what the laws of other states say - it cannot exist.  

How can MA law have more power in Ohio than the Ohio Constitution?


As for 'how can we function as a set of United States'...

Remember that the problem here comes from an extreme minority applying pressure to a set well-established laws.  They might not like the way the laws interact, but thats because they're trying to change the law into something it was never intended to be.




ChadTower

  • Chief Kicker - Nobody's perfect, including me. Fantastic body.
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38216
  • Last login:January 20, 2020, 10:27:05 am
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #60 on: September 29, 2004, 10:33:16 am »
Just to put this back on topic:

VOTE FOR KERRY -> KICK TO GENITALS

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #61 on: September 29, 2004, 10:44:30 am »
Genitals is such a gross word.

saint

  • turned to the Dark Side
  • Supreme Chancellor
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6068
  • Last login:March 27, 2020, 04:12:21 pm
  • I only work in cyberspace...
    • Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #62 on: September 29, 2004, 11:38:00 am »
Wow. What a frightening response. You did not directly answer my questions of "how can we function as a set of united states" but it seems clear to me that we simply cannot function as a set of united states under the course of events you advocate. Homosexual marriage aside, although it is acknowledged as the catalyst for this debate, we have on the books conflicting laws on what defines a marriage in this country per state.  Based on your thoughts here these marriages become questionable at best.



I understand the objection, but you haven't answered my question.  How can we possibly function as a set of united states if we don't have it this way? If I move from state A to state B, and they have incompatible marriage laws/state constitutional definitions of marriage, should my marriage become nullified?

Nullified within that state, yes.   If the laws of a state do not allow for the existence of a legal construct (marriage, etc) within that state, then it cannot matter what the laws of other states say - it cannot exist.  

How can MA law have more power in Ohio than the Ohio Constitution?


As for 'how can we function as a set of United States'...

Remember that the problem here comes from an extreme minority applying pressure to a set well-established laws.  They might not like the way the laws interact, but thats because they're trying to change the law into something it was never intended to be.




--- John St.Clair
     Build Your Own Arcade Controls FAQ
     http://www.arcadecontrols.com/
     Project Arcade 2!
     http://www.projectarcade2.com/
     saint@arcadecontrols.com

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #63 on: September 29, 2004, 11:54:50 am »
You did not directly answer my questions of "how can we function as a set of united states"

And you didnt explain to me how, under our form of government, a court decision in MA has more legal force in OH than the OH constitution.



but it seems clear to me that we simply cannot function as a set of united states under the course of events you advocate

Thats entirely possible.  Nothing says the United States, as a concept, is invoilable.

Dont forget that the states are sovereign entities, not administrative subdivisions of the centra government.   Should the states be forced to accept laws contrary to their constitution by a clause in the federal constitution, its is well within their power to amend the constitution - and given the support the defitnion of traditional marriage carries, I would not in any way expect such an amendment to fail, should the states be pushed.



Based on your thoughts here these marriages become questionable at best.

Yes - and I suppose the marriages, like for minors, would not be valid until they meet the requireents of the state in question.



« Last Edit: September 29, 2004, 02:51:58 pm by TA Pilot »

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 03, 2020, 07:25:29 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #64 on: September 29, 2004, 08:53:04 pm »
Genitals is such a gross word.
how about....Vote for Kerry = Kick to the Gentiles...less gross?
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

shmokes

  • Just think of all the suffering in this world that could have been avoided had I just been a little better informed. :)
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10471
  • Last login:September 24, 2016, 06:50:42 pm
  • Don't tread on me.
    • Jake Moses
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #65 on: September 29, 2004, 10:46:24 pm »
TA,  the States are not sovereign.  A state can't be kind of sovereign.  It either is or is not sovereign.  Even if the sovereignty question wasn't decided by court rulings such as McCulloch v. Maryland and Cohens v. Virginia (it really was, though) it certainly WAS definitively decided by the Civil War.  Step out of fantasy land.  Countries don't fight civil wars over nothing.  I'm sure you are aware that our civil war was not fought over slavery, per se.  It was fought over the question of state sovereignty.  Winning/losing a war matters.  It means the winners get their way.

Consider the definition of sovereignty as it applies to nations:

1- Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
2- Complete independence and self-government
3- A territory existing as an independent state.
Check out my website for in-depth reviews of children's books, games, and educational apps for the iPad:

Best Kid iPad Apps

Mameotron

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #66 on: September 30, 2004, 12:46:28 am »
Wow, I don't know where to begin picking this apart. Yes, religious freedom was one of the motivating forces that led people to America. Freedom from a state defined, state enforced religion. Freedom to worship as you choose. Freedom to not have a king tell you how to think and feel.

Your argument here appears to be predicated on a Judeo-Christian theology.  It is presumptious at best to assume that all religions forbid homosexual marriages. Gay marriage may go against the Judeo-Christian part of what defines a marriage, but what about Wicca, Buddism, insert-religion-of-choice-here?

Yes, thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not steal are fine religious principles to have influenced the laws in our country... I am fairly certain however that they pre-date Christianity and likely Judaism as well.

Yes, there was a tremendous Christian influence amongst the founding fathers of our country - thank God they had the wisdom and compassion to outline a set of guiding principles for our country designed to protect the rights of all American citizens to worship as they choose and to prevent the state from dictating that worship. America is not a Christian government. America is a government where citizens are allowed choice. Do not confuse a common set of shared morals (that Christianity/Judaism share with our Constitution, Declaration, and laws) with being a mandate from our founding fathers that we be a Judaic/Christian state. They very cleary made great efforts to ensure that would not be so.

--- saint


WOW!! Didn't expect you to reply, Saint!!

I was really stretching things with my post, but the idea was to open up some discussion into the moral aspects of "marriage".  Oh, Well.

Mameotron

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #67 on: September 30, 2004, 12:47:33 am »
Genitals is such a gross word.
how about....Vote for Kerry = Kick to the Gentiles...less gross?

Or...Vote for Kerry = Kick to the Genitals...tastes great!!

danny_galaga

  • Grand high prophet of the holy noodle.
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8492
  • Last login:March 23, 2020, 04:25:58 pm
  • because the mail never stops
    • dans cocktail lounge
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #68 on: September 30, 2004, 01:09:38 am »
"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever HE shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, WHENEVER HE MAY CHOOSE TO SAY he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix ANY LIMIT to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us" but he will say to you "be silent; I see it, if you don't."  

"The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that NO ONE MAN should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood."

the world needs you, honest Abe.


ROUGHING UP THE SUSPECT SINCE 1981

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #69 on: September 30, 2004, 06:42:45 am »
TA,  the States are not sovereign.  A state can't be kind of sovereign.  

Sure they are.

The states, at any time, through the amendment process, can dissolve the federal government.  The federal government cannot stop them, and the federal government cannot dissolve the states.

The federal government exists at the whim of the states.
Therefore, the states are sovereign; the 'sovereignty' of the federal government exists because thet states allow it.

At present, the states give up some of their sovereignty to work in league with one another, but they can get this sovereignty back at any time.




saint

  • turned to the Dark Side
  • Supreme Chancellor
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6068
  • Last login:March 27, 2020, 04:12:21 pm
  • I only work in cyberspace...
    • Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #70 on: September 30, 2004, 09:00:54 am »
Heh, occasionally I emerge from my shell...  As host of this site I try to stay out of religious/political/philisophical debates but occasionally I can't help myself!

--- saint

Wow, I don't know where to begin picking this apart. Yes, religious freedom was one of the motivating forces that led people to America. Freedom from a state defined, state enforced religion. Freedom to worship as you choose. Freedom to not have a king tell you how to think and feel.

Your argument here appears to be predicated on a Judeo-Christian theology.  It is presumptious at best to assume that all religions forbid homosexual marriages. Gay marriage may go against the Judeo-Christian part of what defines a marriage, but what about Wicca, Buddism, insert-religion-of-choice-here?

Yes, thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not steal are fine religious principles to have influenced the laws in our country... I am fairly certain however that they pre-date Christianity and likely Judaism as well.

Yes, there was a tremendous Christian influence amongst the founding fathers of our country - thank God they had the wisdom and compassion to outline a set of guiding principles for our country designed to protect the rights of all American citizens to worship as they choose and to prevent the state from dictating that worship. America is not a Christian government. America is a government where citizens are allowed choice. Do not confuse a common set of shared morals (that Christianity/Judaism share with our Constitution, Declaration, and laws) with being a mandate from our founding fathers that we be a Judaic/Christian state. They very cleary made great efforts to ensure that would not be so.

--- saint


WOW!! Didn't expect you to reply, Saint!!

I was really stretching things with my post, but the idea was to open up some discussion into the moral aspects of "marriage".  Oh, Well.
--- John St.Clair
     Build Your Own Arcade Controls FAQ
     http://www.arcadecontrols.com/
     Project Arcade 2!
     http://www.projectarcade2.com/
     saint@arcadecontrols.com

shmokes

  • Just think of all the suffering in this world that could have been avoided had I just been a little better informed. :)
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10471
  • Last login:September 24, 2016, 06:50:42 pm
  • Don't tread on me.
    • Jake Moses
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #71 on: September 30, 2004, 11:39:46 am »
The states, at any time, through the amendment process, can dissolve the federal government.  

That's absurd.  Look more closely at your statement, TA Pilot.  I'd say that, "through the amendment process," is a pretty damn big qualification to "at any time".  The amendment process is a federal process.  How can you suggest that Texas has the sovereign right to "disolve" it's association with the federal government if that "sovereign" right is dependant upon whether 3/4 of the rest of the states are willing to allow Texas to make that decision.  

On the contrary, the states may only dissolve their federal arrangement at the whim of the federal government and the only time this has been tested the question was answered with the Civil War.  Therefore, the states are not sovereign.
Check out my website for in-depth reviews of children's books, games, and educational apps for the iPad:

Best Kid iPad Apps

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 03, 2020, 07:25:29 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #72 on: September 30, 2004, 12:01:03 pm »
"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever HE shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, WHENEVER HE MAY CHOOSE TO SAY he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix ANY LIMIT to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us" but he will say to you "be silent; I see it, if you don't."  

"The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that NO ONE MAN should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood."

the world needs you, honest Abe.
danny, I think we all see where you're angling with this post.  The problem is, Ol' Abe's process is the way we went about it.  So if you feel the world needs him back, then you are saying you agree with the process and where it's led us to currently, right?
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #73 on: September 30, 2004, 12:12:34 pm »
Look more closely at your statement, TA Pilot.  I'd say that, "through the amendment process," is a pretty damn big qualification to "at any time".

The states can pass an amendment at any time.  Right?



The amendment process is a federal process.

In as much as the procedure is specified in the Constitution, yes - but the process requires no action by the fed Gvmnt and canoot be stopped by the Fed gvmnt.



How can you suggest that Texas has the sovereign right to "disolve" it's association with the federal government if that "sovereign" right is dependant upon whether 3/4 of the rest of the states are willing to allow Texas to make that decision.

The argument here is that the -states- have sovereign power over the fed gvmnt.  That the states can dissolve the fed gvmnt makes this case very strong.

One individual state making a decision to seceede is another argument entirely.  If I were to make this argument, I'd say that the right to seceede is guaranteed by the 10th amendment, as secession isnt prohibited in the Constitution.

 

On the contrary, the states may only dissolve their federal arrangement at the whim of the federal government

Except that the states -can- dissolve the union w/o any sort of consent whatesoever from the fed Gvmnt, and the fed gvmnt cannot (legally) do anything to stop them.

Thus: Sovereign.


DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 03, 2020, 07:25:29 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #74 on: September 30, 2004, 12:36:18 pm »
"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever HE shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, WHENEVER HE MAY CHOOSE TO SAY he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix ANY LIMIT to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us" but he will say to you "be silent; I see it, if you don't."  

"The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that NO ONE MAN should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood."

the world needs you, honest Abe.
danny, I think we all see where you're angling with this post.  The problem is, Ol' Abe's process is the way we went about it.  So if you feel the world needs him back, then you are saying you agree with the process and where it's led us to currently, right?


(danny, this cut and paste stuff is getting hard!  ;))
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

ChadTower

  • Chief Kicker - Nobody's perfect, including me. Fantastic body.
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38216
  • Last login:January 20, 2020, 10:27:05 am
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #75 on: September 30, 2004, 12:41:45 pm »
A repetition of the key message:

Vote for Kerry -> Kick to Genitals

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 03, 2020, 07:25:29 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #76 on: September 30, 2004, 01:25:25 pm »
I like your platform Chad....any chance of you running for office on this forum?  Perhaps "Chief Kicker"?  Dunno if Saint has a need for it, but I'd think it hilarious to see that under your name!

I'd run for the "Pompous Windbag" position...don't see anyone stealing that away from me  ;D

TA could be "Gun Control Czar"

DD could be "Where can I buy a folding stock for this Undersecretary"

Floyd could be "Dis-Information Minister"

Shmokes could be "The Hulk" (but only if he smears that green stuff over more of his scrawny body ;D )

MrC could be "Sandwich Admiral"

fredster could be....crap, I'm all outta ideas....fredster can be Republican Committee Head
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

fredster

  • Grand Prophet of Arcadeology
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2311
  • Last login:February 16, 2019, 04:28:53 pm
  • It's all good!
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #77 on: September 30, 2004, 01:51:45 pm »
Drew,

I wanna be Secretary of State.

I want to talk to the UN!!!  
King of the Flying Monkeys from the Dark Side

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #78 on: September 30, 2004, 01:53:26 pm »
I want to be SECDEF.

Right arm of the Free World.

fogman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 100
  • Last login:June 09, 2007, 03:56:32 pm
  • A Tale of Nocturnal Terror!!!
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #79 on: September 30, 2004, 01:54:41 pm »
This is actually a very interesting thread with a lot of well written points on all sides of the many issues.  Having said that, let me ruin it with this:

One of the big problems that I think exists in a lot of politicians minds is the impact on Social Security and of course, on pensions and every other survivor benefit.  The survivor benefits would cost billions that were not taken into account when these systems were introduced.

As far as my stand on the issue (not that anyone cares) is that I don't think it is the government's business if the Hooper triplets and I want to settle down to a blissful 4 way marriage.  The problem is that if I work and they don't,  what happens when I die?  Is my company going to have to pay each one 1/2 of my pension?  What about social security?  What if one of them divorces the rest of us?  How do we split everything up?  If I die, are they still legally in a three way same sex marriage?  hhhhmmmmm....Triplets....... Oh sorry, what was I saying?

fredster

  • Grand Prophet of Arcadeology
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2311
  • Last login:February 16, 2019, 04:28:53 pm
  • It's all good!
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #80 on: September 30, 2004, 02:16:26 pm »
It really doesn't matter as long as you have a detailed video of the whole thing.
King of the Flying Monkeys from the Dark Side

GGKoul

  • Cheesecake Apprentice
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4723
  • Last login:July 23, 2019, 05:47:30 pm
  • I was once a big man!! -4700 posts later...
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #81 on: September 30, 2004, 02:32:32 pm »
Genitals is such a gross word.
how about....Vote for Kerry = Kick to the Gentiles...less gross?

Genitals...tastes great!!

Dude, you need help

fredster

  • Grand Prophet of Arcadeology
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2311
  • Last login:February 16, 2019, 04:28:53 pm
  • It's all good!
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #82 on: September 30, 2004, 03:36:15 pm »
Less Filling !!!!
King of the Flying Monkeys from the Dark Side

shmokes

  • Just think of all the suffering in this world that could have been avoided had I just been a little better informed. :)
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10471
  • Last login:September 24, 2016, 06:50:42 pm
  • Don't tread on me.
    • Jake Moses
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #83 on: September 30, 2004, 05:11:38 pm »
The states can pass an amendment at any time.  Right?

The operative word here, of course, is states.  That's states with an S at the end of the word.  I'm not arguing that the states, collectively, do not enjoy sovereignty.  They do, in fact.  They're called the United States of America.  When they act collectively to amend the constitution they aren't acting as individual sovereign states.  They're just participating in a republican democracy.  The fact that they get a single vote certainly does not meet the threshold for sovereignty.  A state that cannot unilaterally govern itself is not sovereign.  And if you think that the constitution is silent on the issue of sovereignty I recommend that you take a look at Article I Section 10, Article 4 Section 3, Article 6 and the 14th Amendment.  And, once again, there's that whole civil war thing.

Consider applying your definition of sovereignty to the United Nations.  Would it be a violation of U.S. sovereignty if we could not withdraw from the U.N. without the consent of 3/4 of its members?  Would it be a violation of U.S. sovereignty if the U.N. banned the death penalty or forced us to remove the words, "under god" from the pledge of allegiance?  Of course it would, yet these are just a couple of powers the feds have over states.  State laws are subordinate to the U.S. constitution.  That alone defeats sovereignty.  You can't be a sovereign state and subordinate to another state simultaneously.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2004, 06:13:40 pm by shmokes »
Check out my website for in-depth reviews of children's books, games, and educational apps for the iPad:

Best Kid iPad Apps

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #84 on: September 30, 2004, 06:46:02 pm »
A state that cannot unilaterally govern itself is not sovereign.

And the pont here is that the states can decide that they -want- to govern themselves, individually, and take back the sovereignty they loaned to the Federal gvmnt.  

Remember that the Constitution is an agreement between states, and nothing more.  



And if you think that the constitution is silent on the issue of sovereignty I recommend that you take a look at Article I Section 10, Article 4 Section 3, Article 6 and the 14th Amendment.  

These are rights that the states loaned to the Fed gvmnt - and they are rights that the fed gvmnt cannot keep them from taking back.



And, once again, there's that whole civil war thing

Which is a seperate issue, though secession isnt prohibited by the Constitution and is therefore protected under the 10th amendment.   State membership into the US is not specified as in perpetuity.



Consider applying your definition of sovereignty to the United Nations.  Would it be a violation of U.S. sovereignty if we could not withdraw from the U.N. without the consent of 3/4 of its members?

And if the UN can have alll of its power removed w/o any way to stop it, how can it be sovereign?  Its power is dependent on the consent of its members, not any rights inherent unto itself.  

No one considers the UN to be sovereign in any way shape or form; binding membership would not change this.



 Would it be a violation of U.S. sovereignty if the U.N. banned the death penalty or forced us to remove the words, "under god" from the pledge of allegiance?  Of course it would, yet these are just a couple of powers the feds have over states.

Because the states LET the fed Gvmnt have that power, and can take that power back w/o the consent of the Fed Gvmnt or the Fed Gvmnt being able to stop it.  The Fed Gvmnt doesnt have any power that the states dont let it have.




State laws are subordinate to the U.S. constitution.  That alone defeats sovereignty.  You can't be a sovereign state and subordinate to another state simultaneously.

See above.

Can the states dissolve the Fed Gvmnt?  Yes.
Can the Fed Gvmnt dissolve the states?  No.

Therefore, the states, though they currently choose to subordinate themselves to a central gvmnt, are sovereign.  They, not the fed Gvmnt hold the ultimate power.


The fed Gvmnt is a child of the states, put in charge to run the house.   The parents still own the house, and can remove the child from power at any time.  The parents - the states - are sovereign.
 

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #85 on: October 01, 2004, 01:50:35 am »
1 reason not to vote, plenty of reasons he'll win...

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #86 on: October 01, 2004, 07:53:36 am »
CNN Poll - the rest of the story:

Before the debate, 52 percent of those interviewed said they planned to vote for Bush, 44 percent for Kerry and 2 percent for Ralph Nader.

By contrast, the last CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, taken September 24-26, had 53 percent of all registered voters choosing Bush, 42 percent preferring Kerry and 3 percent favoring Nader.

Overall, 53 percent of Thursday's debate watchers interviewed said Kerry did the better job, compared with 37 percent who favored Bush.

Kerry's chief strength: 60 percent said he expressed himself more clearly than Bush did.

But 54 percent said Bush would be tougher as president, compared with 37 percent listed Kerry as tougher. And by a 48 percent to 41 percent margin, debate watchers said Bush was more likable.

Of those polled, 50 percent said Bush was more believable and 45 percent said they were more likely to believe Kerry.

More than six in 10 said that both candidates' criticisms of their opponents were fair.

On Iraq, 54 percent of debate watchers polled before Thursday's night's matchup said Bush would handle Iraq better than Kerry.

Did the debate change many minds? Not according to the poll.

After the debate, the same percentage of those interviewed -- 54 -- said Bush would be better on Iraq than Kerry.

The story was almost the same on who would be a better commander in chief -- 55 percent said Bush would be better before the debate, 54 percent said so after the debate.

Although Kerry made a better impression on some basic measures and may have been successful at re-introducing himself to voters, the poll showed he might not have changed many minds on Iraq and military matters.

DYNAGOD

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1164
  • Last login:May 21, 2012, 07:01:55 am
  • sprites taste better than polygons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #87 on: October 01, 2004, 08:28:44 am »
if I hear one more mention of polls i think im going to puke..
the entire notion and concept of polls is flawed and sways opinions artifically..asking 30 people what they think and then portraying their concensus as the overall opinion of all americans is a crime and it needs to stop..
sadly people cant differentiate reality from the poll fodder theyre fed by the media..some people actually misconstrew this as the overall opinion of their peers and take it as fact and misleadingly base their votes off this crap.. the media has too much influence..and polls are a tool of manipulation..

NO ONE ASKED ME! SO ANY POLL MEANS NOTHING..

« Last Edit: October 01, 2004, 09:37:13 am by DYNAGOD »
Enjoying the fruits of technological obsolescence one game at a time...

fredster

  • Grand Prophet of Arcadeology
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2311
  • Last login:February 16, 2019, 04:28:53 pm
  • It's all good!
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #88 on: October 01, 2004, 11:10:53 am »
DynaGod is right.

Who need Statistics?  I mean all that math is so confusing.  

I am voting for DyanGod. His slogan - WHEN I'M IN CHARGE - THERE WILL BE CHANGES MADE!

catchy huh?

King of the Flying Monkeys from the Dark Side

Dexter

  • Patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel. -- Irish, darnit!
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 988
  • Last login:May 22, 2015, 11:52:02 am
  • "MAKE POVERTY HISTORY......."
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #89 on: October 04, 2004, 11:30:08 am »
How bout 1 reason to vote FOR Kerry i.e. He's not Bush

(By the way I'm a Wes Clarke fan myself, Kerry is really the lesser of Two evils but the lesser nonetheless)

Dexter

Dartful Dodger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3488
  • Last login:July 23, 2012, 11:21:39 pm
  • Newer isn't always better.
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #90 on: October 04, 2004, 11:38:59 am »
How bout 1 reason to vote FOR Kerry i.e. He's not Bush

(By the way I'm a Wes Clarke fan myself, Kerry is really the lesser of Two evils but the lesser nonetheless)

Dexter
That is the only reason people are voting for Kerry.

The flaw in that argument is that, Kerry is not the lesser evil, he's the only evil one running.

GGKoul

  • Cheesecake Apprentice
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4723
  • Last login:July 23, 2019, 05:47:30 pm
  • I was once a big man!! -4700 posts later...
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #91 on: October 04, 2004, 11:51:42 am »
That is the only reason people are voting for Kerry.

There is other issues out there, but this one is high on the list.

Dexter

  • Patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel. -- Irish, darnit!
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 988
  • Last login:May 22, 2015, 11:52:02 am
  • "MAKE POVERTY HISTORY......."
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #92 on: October 04, 2004, 12:04:53 pm »
Quote
That is the only reason people are voting for Kerry.

The flaw in that argument is that, Kerry is not the lesser evil, he's the only evil one running.
Quote

Hmm, I know the families and loved ones of 23 children and 18 women killed in Samarrah today alone might have a different opinion, but not to worry ;)

Dexter

abrannan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
  • Last login:July 25, 2012, 11:32:14 am
  • Building a cabinet in perpetuity since 2002
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #93 on: October 04, 2004, 03:09:01 pm »
DynaGod is right.

Who need Statistics?  I mean all that math is so confusing.  

I am voting for DyanGod. His slogan - WHEN I'M IN CHARGE - THERE WILL BE CHANGES MADE!

catchy huh?

Somebody needs to tell DYNAGOD that when Sinistar said "Run, human!" he didn't mean for office.
If no one feeds the trolls, we're just going to keep eating your goats.

ChadTower

  • Chief Kicker - Nobody's perfect, including me. Fantastic body.
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38216
  • Last login:January 20, 2020, 10:27:05 am
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #94 on: October 05, 2004, 04:05:03 pm »
Hmm, I know the families and loved ones of 23 children and 18 women killed in Samarrah today alone might have a different opinion, but not to worry ;)


Were you paying attention when Kerry voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq, while viewing the same intelligence used by Bush to make the decision?

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #95 on: October 06, 2004, 08:03:25 pm »
Hmm, I know the families and loved ones of 23 children and 18 women killed in Samarrah today alone might have a different opinion, but not to worry

You know these families?

No?

Then how do you have any idea what opinion they might have?


Dexter

  • Patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel. -- Irish, darnit!
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 988
  • Last login:May 22, 2015, 11:52:02 am
  • "MAKE POVERTY HISTORY......."
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #96 on: October 07, 2004, 12:23:51 pm »

You know these families?

No?

Then how do you have any idea what opinion they might have?


Quote

Because in my country reporting of Iraq news is non partisan and we got to see Iraqis carrying what was left of their loved ones from the rubble in Samarrah. I think the look on their faces said enough about their opinion on their 'liberation' and the people responsible. Give them liberty or give them death, yes?

Dexter

ChadTower

  • Chief Kicker - Nobody's perfect, including me. Fantastic body.
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38216
  • Last login:January 20, 2020, 10:27:05 am
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #97 on: October 07, 2004, 12:32:15 pm »
Shouldn't they be angry at the people who set the bomb, rather than people who did not set the bomb?

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #98 on: October 07, 2004, 12:32:41 pm »
I think the look on their faces said enough about their opinion on their 'liberation'


Oh.  I see.

And tell me:
Can you read minds, too?  Tarot cards?  Tea leaves?

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 03, 2020, 07:25:29 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #99 on: October 07, 2004, 10:14:17 pm »
Because in my country reporting of Iraq news is non partisan
Rii-iiight!  ::)  Let me guess, you know it's non-partisan because they said so, right?   ::)  

Hey, ya know what, in my country, the news I believe reports both sides as well.  I know it because they tell us they're "fair and balanced".  

As John Stossel would say...."Give me a break!"

Oh, when you see them, say hi to the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, and Santa Claus for me.   ::)
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

Dexter

  • Patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel. -- Irish, darnit!
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 988
  • Last login:May 22, 2015, 11:52:02 am
  • "MAKE POVERTY HISTORY......."
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #100 on: October 08, 2004, 05:55:53 am »
And what bomb would this be? I was not referring to any 'terrorist' bomb, I was referring to the US assault on Samarrah in which the associated press and Irish news reported that the first wave of strikes killed 23 children and 18 women, actually more women and children were killed  then insurgents, who shifted position once the pounding started.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit boys and girls. Especially when you're not armed with the facts. And the Iraquis looked very angry with the people who made mincemeat out of their families, would you not? Or would you be throwing flowers at your 'liberators' instead of placing them on your loved ones grave (oh, and before we have anymore attempts at wit, I'm referring to a western funeral, not muslim)?? I don't have ESP or mind reading skills, just eyes and ears and common sense.

Dexter

Mameotron

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #101 on: October 08, 2004, 06:47:16 am »

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit boys and girls. Especially when you're not armed with the facts.

Hmm, what do you call this?
Quote
Hmm, I know the families and loved ones of 23 children and 18 women killed in Samarrah today alone might have a different opinion, but not to worry  ;)

Dexter

  • Patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel. -- Irish, darnit!
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 988
  • Last login:May 22, 2015, 11:52:02 am
  • "MAKE POVERTY HISTORY......."
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #102 on: October 08, 2004, 07:24:04 am »
I put the wink at the end for a reason, to show it was not malicious OR personal in any way. The line in question WAS a personal expression based on fact and was not directed at any forum member as the sarcasm was in my case. Thats the difference. Geez, lighten up everyone, watch some (proper) news reports from the country in question and put things in perspective!

By the way, nobody does sarcasm or piss-taking better than the Irish and trust me, this was not Irish sarcasm in action.

Dexter

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #103 on: October 08, 2004, 07:33:55 am »
And the Iraquis looked very angry with the people who made mincemeat out of their families, would you not?


Who made mincemeat out of them - the Americans who dropped the bomb, of the insurgents the Americans were trying to kill?

If you were right, and every civilian that lost someone to an American bomb hated us, we'd still be at war with Germany and Japan.

Dexter

  • Patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel. -- Irish, darnit!
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 988
  • Last login:May 22, 2015, 11:52:02 am
  • "MAKE POVERTY HISTORY......."
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #104 on: October 08, 2004, 09:18:14 am »

Who made mincemeat out of them - the Americans who dropped the bomb, of the insurgents the Americans were trying to kill?

If you were right, and every civilian that lost someone to an American bomb hated us, we'd still be at war with Germany and Japan.

The bomb, dropped by the Americans, of whom Bush is the Commander in chief, made mincemeat of those women and children, lets not sugarcoat it.

These people are fighting an invasion force who have occupied their country and are stealing their main natural resource. Would you not do the same??

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #105 on: October 08, 2004, 09:37:15 am »
The bomb, dropped by the Americans, of whom Bush is the Commander in chief, made mincemeat of those women and children, lets not sugarcoat it.

WHY did we drop that bomb?
WHO were we trying to kill?
WHAT do those people want?


These people are fighting an invasion force who have occupied their country and are stealing their main natural resource. Would you not do the same?

News:
The people we're trying to kill are trying to overthrow the legitimate government of Iraq.

To argue that their actions are legitimate is to consider their goals legitimate.

Are you REALLY going to do that?

Dexter

  • Patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel. -- Irish, darnit!
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 988
  • Last login:May 22, 2015, 11:52:02 am
  • "MAKE POVERTY HISTORY......."
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #106 on: October 08, 2004, 09:55:24 am »
The bomb, dropped by the Americans, of whom Bush is the Commander in chief, made mincemeat of those women and children, lets not sugarcoat it.

WHY did we drop that bomb?
WHO were we trying to kill?
WHAT do those people want?


These people are fighting an invasion force who have occupied their country and are stealing their main natural resource. Would you not do the same?

News:
The people we're trying to kill are trying to overthrow the legitimate government of Iraq.

To argue that their actions are legitimate is to consider their goals legitimate.

Are you REALLY going to do that?

First off, just because the intention was to kill insurgents does not excuse the slaughter of innocent women and children. If an invading force on US soil blew your family to pieces because they happened to live a few houses away from American 'terrorists' trying to fight the occupation, would YOU excuse it because they meant well?

Second, there will be no legitimate government in Iraq until a proper election takes place with international monitoring of the ballots. The current 'government' is a puppet government installed by the invading army with a former CIA spy as its leader.

I acknowledge the legitimacy of any nations people to fight a guerilla war against an invading force who have slaughtered 10s of thousands of its people and are sucking its oil wells dry. I do not condone killing be it of Americans OR Iraqis but have an open enough mind to know how I would feel if anybody invaded my country and kiled the people I loved.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #107 on: October 08, 2004, 10:15:43 am »
First off, just because the intention was to kill insurgents does not excuse the slaughter of innocent women and children.

Hmmm.
What do you think of the wholesale slaughter of women and children diring the mass incendiary raids over Japan?



If an invading force on US soil blew your family to pieces because they happened to live a few houses away from American 'terrorists' trying to fight the occupation, would YOU excuse it because they meant well?

We arent an invading force - except to the insurgents.  We're there at the request of the Iraqi government, and acting in their assist.



Second, there will be no legitimate government in Iraq until a proper election takes place with international monitoring of the ballots.

So, in January, your argument will change?  or just be invalid?


The current 'government' is a puppet government installed by the invading army with a former CIA spy as its leader.

Yes, Mr Kerry - way to go.  Nice to know you think our allies are just pawns.  I'm sure this attitude will endear you to their hearts.


I acknowledge the legitimacy of any nations people to fight a guerilla war against an invading force who have slaughtered 10s of thousands of its people and are sucking its oil wells dry.

So, you support the insurgent efforts of Ba'athists who look to re-install the former government, and the Muslim extrmists what want to turn Iraq into a theocracy, ala Iran.

Well, at least you admit it.  Thats more than most people like you will do.



I do not condone killing be it of Americans OR Iraqis but...

...you support the efforts of those that do.

How does that make you any different from them?


have an open enough mind to know how I would feel if anybody invaded my country and kiled the people I loved.

And how would you feel if the Canadian military, in assisting the American military in its effort to kill that invader, dropped a bomd and mistakenly blew up your house?



Your problem is you dont have the testicular fortitude to differentiate between the good guys and the bad guys.

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #108 on: October 08, 2004, 10:46:31 am »
"We're there at the request of the Iraqi government, and acting in their assist."
Saddam called us to come over?  Oh wait, you're talking the government we put in place after we were already there.

"the Canadian military"
Who??  heheh.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #109 on: October 08, 2004, 11:02:00 am »
Saddam called us to come over?  Oh wait, you're talking the government we put in place after we were already there.

So....  what do you think of the German and Japanese government?



"the Canadian military"
Who??  heheh.


Thats it... .avoid the question.

ChadTower

  • Chief Kicker - Nobody's perfect, including me. Fantastic body.
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38216
  • Last login:January 20, 2020, 10:27:05 am
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #110 on: October 08, 2004, 11:13:04 am »
"the Canadian military"
Who??  heheh.


Thats it... .avoid the question.

You can't call the Canadian military, he goes home at 5pm like everyone else.

Dexter

  • Patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel. -- Irish, darnit!
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 988
  • Last login:May 22, 2015, 11:52:02 am
  • "MAKE POVERTY HISTORY......."
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #111 on: October 08, 2004, 11:34:53 am »
What do you think of the wholesale slaughter of women and children diring the mass incendiary raids over Japan?

Oh yes, which country did that again??

We arent an invading force - except to the insurgents.  We're there at the request of the Iraqi government, and acting in their assist.

In this instance, the tail doesn't wag the dog. The US installs a puppet government which, surprise surprise, then requests it sticks around. Democracy by definition cannot be forced on a culture.

So, in January, your argument will change?  or just be invalid?

If the election is fully inclusive and everybodys vote counts then there will be a legitimate government so I can then have no arguement. But seeing as though this didn't even happen in the US in 2000, I don't hold much hope.


Yes, Mr Kerry - way to go.  Nice to know you think our allies are just pawns.  I'm sure this attitude will endear you to their hearts.


Just calling it as it is guys.

So, you support the insurgent efforts of Ba'athists who look to re-install the former government, and the Muslim extrmists what want to turn Iraq into a theocracy, ala Iran.

Thats putting words in my mouth. As stated I acknowledge the legitimacy of any nations people to fight a guerilla war against an invading force who have slaughtered 10s of thousands of its people and are sucking its oil wells dry.

I do not condone killing be it of Americans OR Iraqis but...
...you support the efforts of those that do.

How about I cut your sentences in half and finish them off for you. Again, words in my mouth, and any intelligent person reading this thread will pick up on it.

And how would you feel if the Canadian military, in assisting the American military in its effort to kill that invader, dropped a bomd and mistakenly blew up your house?

Answering a question with another question isn't really answering it at all now is it? Never mind, I think the next bit sums it up for me really.....

Your problem is you dont have the testicular fortitude to differentiate between the good guys and the bad guys.

Ah yes, first the sarcasm, now the insults. I'm glad I didn't have to resort to either to hold a conversation. I was born and live in a country that fought colonisation with Guerilla war. Who the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' are is relative. Thanks to the policy of preemption Americas standing in the world is severely tainted.

If somebody thinks they can accurately judge a persons 'testicular fortitude' from a forum thread then it really says more about the poster than the person they are insulting.

Off home for the weekend. Have a good one guys! I look forward to reading any replies on Monday

Dexter









DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 03, 2020, 07:25:29 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #112 on: October 08, 2004, 05:33:18 pm »
Thats putting words in my mouth.

So that we aren't accused of putting words in your mouth, you said the following:
Because in my country reporting of Iraq news is non partisan

Your complete refusal to answer how you know this to be fact is thus far clouding your assertion that
...Especially when you're not armed with the facts....I don't have ESP or mind reading skills, just eyes and ears and common sense.

Since you've not explained your case factually regarding your assertion that your country reports news in a non-partisan fashion, I can only infer that when you state that we're not armed with facts, you in fact mean not armed with YOUR facts.

Since you have eyes and ears and common sense, did you use them when viewing your "non-partisan" news reporting?  If so, then your common sense should prevail in stating your case and showing the sarcastic slack-jawed yokels amongst us that, in fact, there IS such a thing as non-partisan reporting in your country.

Until you can show otherwise, I'm forced to come to no other conclusion than:  We, the great unwashed, cannot be dealt with in a fashion other than the way you have, and we should kneel with our heads flat on the ground when you deign to proselytize to the group.  You possess a highbrow sense of humor that is above us, giving us yet another reason to kneel before you. and leave, striving to better ourselves to the level you have reached.

Pretentiousness, thy name is Dexter.

Thank goodness you're coming back to school after the weekend.  Perhaps when you're done with all of your higher education, we can all sit around you in a circle to hear you rhapsodize about the utopia you plan to instill on this planet.

Sarcastic?  You betcher @$$ I'm sarcastic.  Lowest form of wit?  As long as it leaves you spouting platitudes about your "common sense", it's effective as all get out.  

You've bested me, Dex.  I used to think that I could be considered a Specialist for the Pompous Windbag Division.  I couldn't hold a candle to your expertise.  Maybe I'll now be demoted to "Overblown Buffoon Division"  :'(
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #113 on: October 08, 2004, 05:53:36 pm »
What do you think of the wholesale slaughter of women and children diring the mass incendiary raids over Japan?

Oh yes, which country did that again??

We did.
What do you think of it?



In this instance, the tail doesn't wag the dog. The US installs a puppet government which, surprise surprise, then requests it sticks around. Democracy by definition cannot be forced on a culture.

There you go - demeaning the people you supposedly care so much about.

Given your opinion of the Iraqi government, Mr Kerry, why do you think you can work with them in any effective manner?




If the election is fully inclusive and everybodys vote counts then there will be a legitimate government so I can then have no arguement. But seeing as though this didn't even happen in the US in 2000, I don't hold much hope.

Of course not.
And I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that your position -doesnt- change.



As stated I acknowledge the legitimacy of any nations people to fight a guerilla war against an invading force who have slaughtered 10s of thousands of its people and are sucking its oil wells dry.

The insurgents are fighting the Iraqis, and us.
In order for your argument to hold water, you have to argue that the insurgents represent the legitimate government of Iraq, and that the current Iraqi government is an 'invader'.

You're going to do that?
Really?




I do not condone killing be it of Americans OR Iraqis but...

...you support the efforts of those that do.

How about I cut your sentences in half and finish them off for you. Again, words in my mouth, and any intelligent person reading this thread will pick up on it.

Just calling it as it is.



Who the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' are is relative.

Why does it not surprise me that you'd say that.

If you cannot, without hesitation, reservation or equivocation, denote the insurgents as the "bad guys", then you cannot possibly be reasoned with.

Dexter

  • Patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel. -- Irish, darnit!
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 988
  • Last login:May 22, 2015, 11:52:02 am
  • "MAKE POVERTY HISTORY......."
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #114 on: October 11, 2004, 07:32:36 am »
Morning guys, have read your reply and am going to put this to bed now as I have not received a reply attempting to converse with me that did not contain sarcastic or abusive remarks. The rules for this forum state "There is more
tolerance for stronger language on this forum,
but the rules for civility remain the same." so if you can't be civil, I can't be bothered wasting my time, so this will probably be my last post in relation to this, just to answer your questions...

TA Pilot wrote:What do you think of the wholesale slaughter of women and children diring the mass incendiary raids over Japan?

Oh yes, which country did that again??

We did.

What do you think of it?

Nope, YOU did it. I'm in Dublin, Ireland, born and raised here. We're a neutral country and had no part in the mass incendiary raids you mention.

Given your opinion of the Iraqi government, Mr Kerry, why do you think you can work with them in any effective manner?

Of course, and they'll do what they're told, just like any good puppet government.

And I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that your position -doesnt- change.

If you're going to force 'democracy' on a country, then it should be real democracy (i.e. a government of the people, by the people, for the people). IF the election is fully inclusive and everybodys vote counts then there will be a legitimate government. This IS my position so why will it change when this happens, as promised. There is no legitimate government yet.

The insurgents are fighting the Iraqis, and us.
In order for your argument to hold water, you have to argue that the insurgents represent the legitimate government of Iraq, and that the current Iraqi government is an 'invader'.


The majority of insurgents ARE Iraqis. They view Iraqis assisting the US as collaborators to the invading force. And I don't argue that the insurgents represent the legitimate government of Iraq, and that the current Iraqi government is an 'invader'. As I've stated SEVERAL times, Iraq  presently has NO legitimate government. The present government is headed by a former CIA spy. Hopefully elections will change that. The vast majority of insurgents are this nations indigenous people fighting an invading force. Know thy enemy guys, understand their reasons for fighting and respect their opinions, then you can begin to win the peace.


Who the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' are is relative.
Why does it not surprise me that you'd say that.

Because its the truth. Think the Vietcong soldiers woke up every morning and said 'We're the bad guys, lets go kill nice american good guys'. It depends on weater you're the bomber pilot or the 'bombee', or weather you're an invader or invadee.

If you cannot, without hesitation, reservation or equivocation, denote the insurgents as the "bad guys", then you cannot possibly be reasoned with.

Well I can see the arguements from the otherside of the fence. But I guess it's like Bush said "You're either for us or against us". I'm in a neutral country and see non partisan reporting (explained next). Basically this: 'We're invading Iraq because Saddam has WMDs and can launch them within 45 minutes and his links with Al Quaida'. Then, no WMDs found, no conclusive link found, so.... 'We have freed the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam'. It stinks. The reasons given to go to war and kill so many don't hold water so lets change the reasons after the damage is none. Nice.


DrewKaree wrote: Since you've not explained your case factually regarding your assertion that your country reports news in a non-partisan fashion, I can only infer that when you state that we're not armed with facts, you in fact mean not armed with YOUR facts.

My news reports come from RTE (Radio Telef

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #115 on: October 11, 2004, 10:02:23 am »
...have read your reply and am going to put this to bed now as I have not received a reply attempting to converse with me that did not contain sarcastic or abusive remarks.

Awww
Someone can't handle a little critical commentary.
Awww

If the responses you got were "abuseive" in your mind, you better plan on staying in school for a long, long time.



Nope, YOU did it. I'm in Dublin, Ireland, born and raised here. We're a neutral country and had no part in the mass incendiary raids you mention.

You didnt answer the question.
What about them?  Bad?  Good?  Ugly?
Do you think of FDR for killing civilians like you think of GWB?


Of course, and they'll do what they're told, just like any good puppet government.

Whoa!
I bet they LOVE your characterization.  I'm sure you'll win their hearts and minds!!

I wonder if you thought the same of Germany and Japan.



And I don't argue that the insurgents represent the legitimate government of Iraq, and that the current Iraqi government is an 'invader'.

Well then - you have nothing to stand on.




Because its the truth. Think the Vietcong soldiers woke up every morning and said 'We're the bad guys, lets go kill nice american good guys'. It depends on weater you're the bomber pilot or the 'bombee', or weather you're an invader or invadee.

No.   It doesnt.
The Ba'athists and Islamic extremists are not, and will never be, the good guys.

Your problem is you're all wound up in moral relativism.  Got news for you:  moral relativism can be used to justify anything and everything.

According to the moral relativist, Hitler wasnt a "bad guy".   If you can't call Hilter a "bad guy", you cannot be reasoned with.



DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 03, 2020, 07:25:29 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #116 on: October 11, 2004, 01:22:16 pm »
Morning guys, have read your reply and am going to put this to bed now as I have not received a reply attempting to converse with me that did not contain sarcastic or abusive remarks. The rules for this forum state "There is more
tolerance for stronger language on this forum,
but the rules for civility remain the same." so if you can't be civil,
If you view the replies to your post abusive and uncivil, then I'm requesting you send off round after round of protest pm's to MrC, lobby Saint to boot him off the board for his remarks, and ask that Saint re-word the forum rules.  

I don't have quite the thin skin you seem to possess, and view civility just a WEE bit differently than yourself.  You'll find me, outside of these threads, quite easy to get along with, as others of your political stripe already have.  Political views, like religious ones, are by and large strongly held and vigorously defended.

If, as you state, we use sarcasm to the nth degree, is it possible that some of those things you state are abusive are simply being classified according to your bias?  

Quote
TA Pilot wrote:What do you think of the wholesale slaughter of women and children diring the mass incendiary raids over Japan?

Oh yes, which country did that again??

We did.

What do you think of it?

Nope, YOU did it. I'm in Dublin, Ireland, born and raised here. We're a neutral country and had no part in the mass incendiary raids you mention.
you seem to be taking this far more personally than is warranted.  This probably has to do with my first reply above.

TA is FROM the U.S., and you DO seem to grasp that, however, you certainly HAVEN'T picked up on the fact that when he says "We did", he is REFERRING to the U.S.  

I thought you were trying to give the impression you were more intelligent than us, since we use sarcasm and lack reason.  Giving us such large targets makes it hard for our slack-jawed yokel instincts NOT to take over

Quote
Given your opinion of the Iraqi government, Mr Kerry, why do you think you can work with them in any effective manner?

Of course, and they'll do what they're told, just like any good puppet government.
Given that you come from another country, I believe you read this statement as asking something entirely different.  Otherwise, I believe you aren't wanting to have "an intelligent conversation" and are using sarcasm in your reply.

Quote
My news reports come from RTE (Radio Telef
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

Mameotron

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #117 on: October 12, 2004, 03:29:12 am »

  It is presumptious at best to assume that all religions forbid homosexual marriages. Gay marriage may go against the Judeo-Christian part of what defines a marriage, but what about Wicca, Buddism, insert-religion-of-choice-here?

I have just finished going through Eerdman's Handbook of the World's Religions (revised 1994), and cannot find ONE religion that condones gay marriage.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802808530/qid=1097565870/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-4838071-2107805?v=glance&s=books

Mameotron

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #118 on: October 12, 2004, 05:29:42 am »
I just don't see how anyone can debate the situation in Iraq and not even mention religion.  Here's a quote from a book review that I think is the center of the issue:

"Holy War: The Blood of Abraham identifies those elements of Judeo/Christian and Islamic belief that are the underlying cause of 21st century world religious conflict.

Book Description
Holy War: The Blood of Abraham is a book about the origins of Islamic terrorism.

It addresses two of the most important questions facing the world today:

What is the role of the religions of Abraham in present world conflict?
Is only Islam to blame, or also Judaism and Christianity?

It exposes the underlying flaws that are built into each of these three religious belief systems and, although it leaves it to the reader to decide, argues that culpability for Islamic terrorism lies not only with the failures of Islam, but also with the failures of Judaism and Christianity.

It is a book that calls on its readers; Christians, Jews and Muslims, and all others, to look within themselves in search for answers to the most important questions facing our world today."


Now, I haven't read the book and don't endorse it, but the review sums up the whole problem pretty nicely.

Here's one more quote to think about:

"To this day, these issues; Jewish, Christian, and Muslim still simmer and fester. As they have in the past, they continue to be a major underlying cause of world conflict--a form of conflict which now has led to world terrorism. Pointing to the inerrancy of their scriptures, as well as their own interpretations of these scriptures, fanatical factions within nations and in some cases the nations themselves brazenly justify their actions as the will of God. They claim to be chosen to carry out his will."
« Last Edit: October 12, 2004, 05:33:26 am by Mameotron »

fredster

  • Grand Prophet of Arcadeology
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2311
  • Last login:February 16, 2019, 04:28:53 pm
  • It's all good!
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #119 on: October 12, 2004, 11:12:27 am »
Good point Mameotron.

Iraq was ran by a secular government.  If Saddam's regieme had fallen by internal conflict, obviously an Islamic militant government had a good chance to take over.  Either by interal fundamentalists or the obvious neighbor, Iran.

If that happened, then Iraq and the old Afgahnistan Taliban government could/would be similar.  Iran would have had the power to take over Iraq if Saddam fell for any other reason than the US.

That would have been a very very big problem too.  More than what we could imagine.  Iran would have been one of the largest and richest countries in that area of the world with an possible army rivaling the US.

If we didn't go in and hold it, then any number of the adjacent Isalmic governments would have had access to the resouces of Iraq.

We probably did more to promote the peace and stability in the region than any other senerio possible.

Thank God Bush had the vision to stop that.
King of the Flying Monkeys from the Dark Side

ChadTower

  • Chief Kicker - Nobody's perfect, including me. Fantastic body.
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38216
  • Last login:January 20, 2020, 10:27:05 am
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #120 on: November 02, 2004, 02:19:57 pm »
In true Democrat fashion:

Everyone who votes for Kerry, sign up here to receive the benefits to which your vote entitles you.