Sounds like Kerry is a Van Hagar fan [Archive] - The Diamond David Lee Roth Army

ODShowtime

07-30-2004, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
I laughed at that. He's so for family values, but creating life to kill it inorder to obtain stem cells is all okay.

My family's values say that when life is created, it's allowed to develop

Individual cells are the building blocks of life, not life itself, although we could debate the definition of life. I guess that is the root of this debate.

I am not greatly informed of the mechanics of stem cell work, but I am pretty sure one of the first goals is to be able to generate them without the need for fetuses at all. But the course of humanity is to continue progress. Bush wants to go backwards. Who else thinks that way? Oh yeah, our arch enemies the Wahhabanists, that's who!

Think of the moral concerns that must have come with the first heart transplants. Now how many lives are saved from that every year?

And the hagar song is just for symbolism, and it was pretty good symbolism at that. I doubt Kerry has the time or the inclination to give a shit who's fronting Van Halen right now. Get a grip people!

Talking about helping the poor scares me because I plan on becoming a lot less poor in the near future, but seriously, if you support Bush, you must be practicing double-think. There is no way a rational, sane, well informed person will vote for that maniac. You would have to put on blinders.

Bring it on people, it's Friday and my boss is out for the day...

John Ashcroft

07-30-2004, 08:39 AM

Heh heh heh...

That was pretty funny.

wraytw

07-30-2004, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by ODShowtime
but seriously, if you support Bush, you must be practicing double-think. There is no way a rational, sane, well informed person will vote for that maniac. You would have to put on blinders.

Irony is a great thing. :)

ODShowtime

07-30-2004, 08:49 AM

Wow, there's some healthy debate...

wraytw

07-30-2004, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Wow, there's some healthy debate...

Yeah, we all know that trying to pigeonhole a whole group of voters is such healthy debate. :rolleyes:

ODShowtime

07-30-2004, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by wraytw
Yeah, we all know that trying to pigeonhole a whole group of voters is such healthy debate. :rolleyes:

Well then, tell me why you would vote for Bush. Why is he better? These one sentence answers are getting us nowhere. I am willing to read rational reasons why anyone would vote for Bush. I'm sayin', I'm bored today. Come on people.

Warham

07-30-2004, 09:51 AM

I'm voting for Bush because I think he deserves another four years.

What major legislation has Kerry's name been on in the last nineteen years?

::crickets chirping::

wraytw

07-30-2004, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Well then, tell me why you would vote for Bush. Why is he better? These one sentence answers are getting us nowhere. I am willing to read rational reasons why anyone would vote for Bush. I'm sayin', I'm bored today. Come on people.

I will vote for Bush because I agree with the majority of his political views/stances and I like the way he has ran the country. I think that is self-explanatory. The only mainstream issues that I don't fully agree with him on are education and immigration. I don't totally differ with him on education, but much more needs to be done, IMO. Although, I think his immigration policies flat-out suck.

If you really need me to, I can go in depth about all of this, but I really don't see the point of wasting the time to type out something that's so obvious.

ELVIS

07-30-2004, 10:17 AM

Hmmm...

Eight votes for Bush in this thread alone...

Bush '04

:elvis:

JCOOK

07-30-2004, 10:59 AM

Make it nine - I dont' agree with GW on everthing -- illegal immigration for one but overall i would rather have him than Herman Munster

FORD

07-30-2004, 11:36 AM

Name one goddamn fucking thing Junior has done to benefit this country.

And please, spare me the BULLSHIT about how we've gone "three years without an attack" from terrorists that HIS FUCKING FATHER created.

Warham

07-30-2004, 11:41 AM

I wouldn't use that arguement.

What major legislation has Kerry put through in his 19 LONG years in the Senate?

John Ashcroft

07-30-2004, 11:46 AM

Not to mention the economic boom our country is in right now...

ODShowtime

07-30-2004, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by wraytw
I will vote for Bush because I agree with the majority of his political views/stances and I like the way he has ran the country. I think that is self-explanatory. The only mainstream issues that I don't fully agree with him on are education and immigration. I don't totally differ with him on education, but much more needs to be done, IMO. Although, I think his immigration policies flat-out suck.

What you said tells me that you actually agree with fucking with OUR Constitution for two purposes:

1. to alienate and restrain a huge group of people from receiving a god-given right to receive special benefits and recognition of a longterm domestic union (fags are gross, but none live with me, so why do I give a fuck about them?)

2. for the sole purpose of being able to argue about it in black and white to rednecks and intolerant people just so Kerry is forced to say he is for it.

I don't know how long you've lived in our counry or how much of our history you are aware of, but NOBODY has EVER won a fight to take away our citizens' rights. Citizen's rights has always won, every time.

His immigration policy shows a complete lack of respect for illegal aliens, something I find quite good, actually. He proposed that if illegal aliens register, they can receive gov't benefits. But actually, having them register will just make the easier to round up later. Gotta give it Bush on that one. Making ignorant people think they are getting a benefit when they are really getting one up the ass is classic Bush!!!

That's round 1. It's almost lunch time.

FORD

07-30-2004, 11:50 AM

Kerry's not running for re-election to the Senate. Junior is claiming he's done a good enough job to be actually elected to the job he was court appointed to 4 years ago.

I say he's done a shitty job and that he has ruined this country's economy, trashed our reputation, and put each and every American at great risk.

I want the fucking treasonous bastard out of my White House.

ODShowtime

07-30-2004, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Warham
I'm voting for Bush because I think he deserves another four years.

What major legislation has Kerry's name been on in the last nineteen years?

::crickets chirping::

Thanks for sharing, but what has Bush done that he deserves anything from you? Was it his delegation of authorizing interrogation techniques that have completely disgraced our country in front of the world?

Was it his great strategy to capture BinLaden and his cronies by sending a miniscule amount of troops to ass-crackistan so that Osama could escape and make himself even more legendary? I submit that the small amount of troop strength sent there was because they all knew they had to save up for the Iraq war that supposedly wasn't planned at that point.

Was it his dedication to rebuilding ass-crackistan? We're not gonna drop another dime on that shitty-ass country. It's just gonna get worse.

Seriously, this guy is a fuck-up! He fucked up the war on terrorism. HE FUCKED IT UP!!!

ODShowtime

07-30-2004, 11:57 AM

Anyone here think it's a good idea to cater to the religious extremists in our country? Anyone see any good coming out of dumping money in "faith based initiatives"? Anyone see any good in more cencorship? Argue why that is a good thing.

Warham

07-30-2004, 11:59 AM

Tsk Tsk, you answer me, I'll answer you.

ODShowtime

07-30-2004, 12:03 PM

I am not aware of any major legislation that Kerry has "put through."

I can only talk about what I know. No one ever talks about Kerry's record in the Senate (except how liberal he is). It sure as hell won't be discussed on TV any time soon. I will have to look that up.

JCOOK

07-30-2004, 12:15 PM

FORD: I say hes' done a great job to the office he was elected to -- check the electorial college. from all the things i have read the economy is heating up and FUCK WHAT THE REST OF THE WORLD THINKS OF US! The U.S comes to everybodies rescue and how do they show their grattitude. FUCK EM ALL!

FOUR MORE YEARS GW.

John Ashcroft

07-30-2004, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by ODShowtime
I am not aware of any major legislation that Kerry has "put through."

And that pretty much sums it up.

But if you don't know where to find info on Kerry, start by reading this:

Kerry's 'liberal quotient'

National Journal (http://nationaljournal.com/), the non-ideological, authoritative weekly magazine that covers Washington politics and policy, issued its congressional vote ratings for 2003 last week. Not surprisingly, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who is increasingly looking like a cinch to be his party's presidential nominee, found himself in familiar territory. Once again, Mr. Kerry has staked out the far-left fringe on the National Journal's liberal-conservative continuum.
On a scale that ranges from 0 to 100, Mr. Kerry compiled a composite liberal score for 2003 of 96.5, the highest in the Senate. He eclipsed proud liberals like Paul Sarbanes (94.7) of Maryland, Barbara Boxer (91.2) of California, Tom Harkin (89.3) of Iowa and the Senate's liberal lion, Edward Kennedy (88.3), his Massachusetts colleague. It was the fourth time in his 20-year Senate career that Mr. Kerry compiled a composite voting record that was unsurpassed in its liberalism by any of the other 99 members of the Senate.
Each year, National Journal selects dozens of key votes (62 for the Senate in 2003) and divides them among three categories of issues: economic, social and foreign policy. On economic votes, Mr. Kerry tied with six other Democrats to claim the highest ranking of 93. It was the third year in a row that Mr. Kerry established himself among the select, small group whose members were cumulatively ranked as the most liberal in the Senate on economic matters.
Because Mr. Kerry spent much of last year campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination, he did not cast enough official votes to obtain a specific ranking in the social and foreign-policy categories. (Suffice to say that the votes that he did cast were sufficiently to the left that his composite score still placed him at the top of the liberal scale.) Moreover, in 16 of the social and foreign-policy votes that Mr. Kerry missed, he announced his position on the issue. And according to tabulations by CQ Weekly (another non-ideological journal covering Congress), Mr. Kerry's publicly announced position was identical to the vote cast by Mr. Kennedy on 14 of those occasions, or 88 percent of the time. It should also be noted that during 10 years of Mr. Kerry's Senate career, including 2002, not a single senator was ranked more liberal than Mr. Kerry on social-issue votes. In addition, regarding CQ's separate survey of "key votes" in 2003 on which Mr. Kerry either cast a vote or publicly announced his position, it was identical to Mr. Kennedy's vote 100 percent of the time.
When questioned at Sunday's Democratic debate in New York City about reclaiming his distinction as the most liberal U.S. senator in 2003, Mr. Kerry called it "a laughable characterization" and "the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in my life." He asserted that "labels are so silly in American politics." But Mr. Kerry often indulges in ascribing "right-wing" or "far-right" labels to President Bush. For example, on what would have been Martin Luther King Jr.'s 75th birthday, Mr. Kerry accused the president of "threatening civil rights on behalf of right-wing ideologues." Apparently, Mr. Kerry doesn't have anything against labels. He just doesn't like the "liberal" label.
In fact, the recent analyses of 2003 votes by National Journal and CQ Weekly clearly confirm what Mr. Kerry has spent two decades doing in the Senate — and that is establishing himself as one of that body's most liberal members. If Mr. Kerry doesn't like the votes selected by National Journal and CQ Weekly, perhaps he should look at the vote ratings compiled by Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), the premier, self-styled liberal organization in America. Based on the 20 votes each year that it considers to be the most important to liberals, ADA assigns a "liberal quotient" to each member of Congress. Mr. Kerry's career "liberal quotient" is a solid 92 percent. That ranks him higher than Mr. Kennedy (90 percent), establishing Mr. Kerry irrefutably as the "liberal senator from Massachusetts." No wonder Mr. Kerry is running as fast as he can from the liberal record he has spent 20 years compiling. It is a record this page will be meticulously reviewing as the campaign moves forward.

Link: here (http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040301-085725-5267r.htm)

FORD

07-30-2004, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by JCOOK
FORD: I say hes' done a great job to the office he was elected to -- check the electorial college. from all the things i have read the economy is heating up and FUCK WHAT THE REST OF THE WORLD THINKS OF US! The U.S comes to everybodies rescue and how do they show their grattitude. FUCK EM ALL!

There are 6 Billion people on this planet, and less than 300 Million of them live here.

Now get out your calculator......

That's 5%. You really want 95% of the planet to hate you? You really think those are good odds?

BTW, about 1/6 of those people are in China alone.

Another 1/6 of them, give or take a few million, are Muslim. The very people that the BCE are going out of their way to piss off.

What useful purpose is there in encouraging entire civilizations to hate you?

Big Train

07-30-2004, 12:57 PM

Ok, I'll bite. I lived in Massachusetts for 25 years prior to moving to LA. The only legislation that he himself has put through was for funding for locating POW's. The only thing that I know of that he wasn't either Teddy's whipping boy, or a member or some 10 person committee. He rode Teddy's Big Dig construction project for all that is was worth (14 billion of labor union loyalty). He married the ketchup lady and lived the Outdoor Lifestyle.

He does not have a record on pretty much anything (he has missed 80% of the Senate votes this year alone).

But why vote for Dubya? Dubya did stimulate the economy, has been creating jobs over the last six months and did it the right way. Strip away all of the BCE angling crap people say and get down to it. The man got into a war we had to fight and is working with an economy with variables never before faced. In ALL wars of the last century, none had any events on our shores. So when one did happen and in a random fashion as terrorists prefer, it creates all sorts of economic ripples. Dubya has stayed the course through all of that.

Kerry's speech last night was full of holes and preached to people who are ignorant of the laws of economics and finance. But they feel good to say out loud.

What I like about Dubya is that even if I feel he is wrong, I know he is going to do what he says he is going to do. Kerry needs to be in a committee and have all kinds of people tell him what to do before he can make a decision (c,mon consulting with the UN? WE ARE THE UN).

Bottom line, he has no substance, no great history to go on and no real plan for the country. I will not vote for someone just because they are not George Bush. That doesn't wash with me for the most important job in the land.

Wayne L.

07-30-2004, 01:03 PM

Maybe John Kerry picked Dreams asa campaign song but I think he knows about VH just as much as I know about N'Sync.

FORD

07-30-2004, 01:17 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Big Train

But why vote for Dubya? Dubya did stimulate the economy, has been creating jobs over the last six months and did it the right way.

Prove it. Cite where the jobs have been created. What companies have hired? And prove that the jobs created are as good or better than the 3 million he lost. Or in other words, WalMart and Mickey D's don't count.

Strip away all of the BCE angling crap people say and get down to it. The man got into a war we had to fight and is working with an economy with variables never before faced. In ALL wars of the last century, none had any events on our shores. So when one did happen and in a random fashion as terrorists prefer....

....Junior ignored that 15 of 19 terrorists, along with their leader, were Saudi Arabians, and instead conveniently invaded a country where his buddies in Texas had been trying to get a gas pipeline built. Then proceeded to plan the invasion that Israeli double agents within his own cabinet had been planning since the mid 90's. Meanwhile Osama Bin Laden remains (officially) a free man, and Junior has done very little to make THIS country safer (i.e strengthening our borders and seaports, NOT shitting all over the Bill of Rights)

What I like about Dubya is that even if I feel he is wrong, I know he is going to do what he says he is going to do.

Wrong. Junior said he was a compassionate conservative and claimed to be a moderate in his last campaign. After "winning" a one vote majority in the Supreme Court, he proceeded to nominate the most radical right wing cabinet in history. He claimed to be a "uniter, not a divider", but the country is more divided than ever.

He LIED about Bin Laden being in Afghanistan (PROVE otherwise). He LIED about WMD's in Iraq. He continues to lie about the economy, claiming that record profits from corporations who fire millions of Americans and outsource jobs to India & China equals economic recovery :confused:

The man's word is as worthless as his coked out empty mind.

Big Train

07-30-2004, 01:34 PM

....Junior ignored that 15 of 19 terrorists, along with their leader, were Saudi Arabians, and instead conveniently invaded a country where his buddies in Texas had been trying to get a gas pipeline built. Then proceeded to plan the invasion that Israeli double agents within his own cabinet had been planning since the mid 90's. Meanwhile Osama Bin Laden remains (officially) a free man, and Junior has done very little to make THIS country safer (i.e strengthening our borders and seaports, NOT shitting all over the Bill of Rights)

BCE Angling Crap....

But why vote for Dubya? Dubya did stimulate the economy, has been creating jobs over the last six months and did it the right way.

He is still creating jobs in an envoirnment that is an uphill battle. How many have you created? How many do you think are going to be created with Kerry's plan? None. He is going to stall the economy by dicking with the tax breaks, which mean rich people are going to reinvest in other areas and keep their money out of the markets. Pure genius.

He LIED about Bin Laden being in Afghanistan (PROVE otherwise). He LIED about WMD's in Iraq.

How DO YOU prove either way? I can't and you can't, so that is a moot point.

He continues to lie about the economy, claiming that record profits from corporations who fire millions of Americans and outsource jobs to India & China equals economic recovery.

Thats not a lie, that a difference of opinion. Because your liberal, you reason with emotion not fact. The fact is that is economic recovery. Who it directly benefits right this second is another story. The economy is changing, this isn't the Industrial age anymore. A lot of factory work just won't be there anymore, it's a fact. We need to invent new industries and create jobs in them. Like I said, this is an uphill challenge. To oversimplify, as you do, is to ignore the real issues. All this bullshit in the speeches, my daddy was a milk man, my daddy was a road paver. All your doing is making people focus on a simpler time and the security and happiness they felt back then. You make them angry that they can't have it now (because it is unrealistic) and ask them to focus that anger "completely and directly" (says Gore) on Bush, as if he has the magic key to make everything all better.

ODShowtime

07-30-2004, 01:39 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Ashcroft
And that pretty much sums it up.

But if you don't know where to find info on Kerry, start by reading this:

[B]Kerry's 'liberal quotient'

National Journal (http://nationaljournal.com/), the non-ideological, authoritative weekly magazine that covers Washington politics and policy, issued its congressional vote ratings for 2003 last week. Not surprisingly, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who is increasingly looking like a cinch to be his party's presidential nominee, found himself in familiar territory. Once again, Mr. Kerry has staked out the far-left fringe on the National Journal's liberal-conservative continuum.

How do they define liberal? By voting to change things? That's what the Senate is for. To enact legislation to create and change rules. Every vote they cast is a compromise. Yes or No. Black and White, unlike the world we live in. Executives, especially The Chief Executives, do more than say yes and no. Bush used his position to enrich his family and friends and reward the people who got him in office by helping to enact whatever crazy ideas they had.

Quoting that article does nothing to prove your understanding of Kerry's history.

ODShowtime

07-30-2004, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Big Train

Kerry's speech last night was full of holes and preached to people who are ignorant of the laws of economics and finance. But they feel good to say out loud. [/B]

I'll give ya that one. Compromise is an unfortunate reality.

What I like about Dubya is that even if I feel he is wrong, I know he is going to do what he says he is going to do

So it's ok to push the human race ever closer to extinction, as long as we are adamant about it? That's crazy!

Big Train

07-30-2004, 01:45 PM

So it's ok to push the human race ever closer to extinction, as long as we are adamant about it? That's crazy!

If that's how you feel about it, then yea.

I feel that's a BIT dramatic, no?

Ally_Kat

07-30-2004, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by ODShowtime

I am not greatly informed of the mechanics of stem cell work, but I am pretty sure one of the first goals is to be able to generate them without the need for fetuses at all.

Nope. They get an embryo and then take the blank cells that form after fertilization before they can be specialized and then "program" them to turn into specific cells.

ODShowtime

07-30-2004, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Big Train
So it's ok to push the human race ever closer to extinction, as long as we are adamant about it? That's crazy!

If that's how you feel about it, then yea.

I feel that's a BIT dramatic, no?

There's two distinct parts to my beliefs. The parts I am sure of, which we have been discussing, and the parts that are more "out there", and I hope to God I am wrong about. The more wilder parts I hold close, so as not to plunge this debate into crazy talk. Let's just say that born again George believes every freakin' last word of the Bible. There are many implications to that.

The easy and rational way to make my point is that he is whuppin on one big-ass, pissed-off beehive right now. He is following a strategy that is not concerned with the well-being of America. We give more aid to Israel than all other countries combined, and we can't even open up a healthy debate about it. WHY IS THAT? (yes I know GW himself had little to do with this predicament, but his father sure as hell did.)

ODShowtime

07-30-2004, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
Nope. They get an embryo and then take the blank cells that form after fertilization before they can be specialized and then "program" them to turn into specific cells.

You are correct that that is the procedure now. With time and innovation, I am sure we will be able to generate them independently. Or at least find a way for them to self-replicate. Didn't we used to have to get insulin from cadavers or people or something like than? Now we have special pigs to grow it for us. I am getting out of my element here, but my point is that with progress, we won't need to take stem cells directly from fetuses anymore. I'm not sure that is even a big deal, but it won't last forever.

But if you listen to Bush, abortion is always wrong, hence any work with stem cells is always wrong and should be abandoned. Even though there will always be scientists to work on it.

Is that cocktard name a reflection of my manic and unpopular posting or is that just my ranking now?

FORD

07-30-2004, 02:01 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Big Train

BCE Angling Crap....

Meaning you don't have a defense for their actions. That's okay. They don't either.

He is still creating jobs in an envoirnment that is an uphill battle. How many have you created? How many do you think are going to be created with Kerry's plan? None. He is going to stall the economy by dicking with the tax breaks, which mean rich people are going to reinvest in other areas and keep their money out of the markets. Pure genius.

Tax breaks for the rich don't fix the economy, because the rich already have money. They don't put it back into the economy by spending, because they already have money to spend in the first place. And if they were supposed to create jobs with all this money, again I ask WHERE THE HELL ARE ALL THESE JOBS THAT JUNIOR CLAIMS "HE" CREATED??

How DO YOU prove either way? I can't and you can't, so that is a moot point.

Not neccessarily. In Afghanistan, there's only two conclusions you can believe.

One is that Osama was never there in the first place. The other is that the BCE allowed him to escape. Either conclusion makes Junior a liar. And the second makes the military appear incompetent, which doesn't at all agree with the speed with which the Taliban was defeated. So I'm going to give the troops in Afghanistan the benefit of the doubt and say that Osama was never there. As I said, either way, the BCE lied about it.

Thats not a lie, that a difference of opinion. Because your liberal, you reason with emotion not fact. The fact is that is economic recovery. Who it directly benefits right this second is another story.

If only billionaires benefit, while millions struggle to pay their bills, and millions more can't find a fucking job, then how is that a recovery? That's not emotion, that's brutal facts. We've been waiting for trickle down economics since jelly bean head was in the White House, and it hasn't trickled down yet. It's working class people who are the life blood of this country. Not pieces of shit like Bush who inherit fortunes and never work a day in their lives.

The economy is changing, this isn't the Industrial age anymore. A lot of factory work just won't be there anymore, it's a fact. We need to invent new industries and create jobs in them. Like I said, this is an uphill challenge. To oversimplify, as you do, is to ignore the real issues.

The real issues are that jobs created in fucking India and China are NOT going to help Americans. And it's not just manufacturing. Even high tech jobs are being outsourced. Some of these old school factory workers probably went to school to be retrained in IT fields, only to be FUCKED by outsourcing again. Where are all these people supposed to go? Should they move to New Dehli and get their own job back?

Big Train

07-30-2004, 02:04 PM

Is that cocktard name a reflection of my manic and unpopular posting or is that just my ranking now?

Little from column A, little from column B.

The thing with stem cell research is that I think a lot of America just doesn't want to go down that path, pure and simple. Bush isn't stopping anyone from talking about it, there as just people, such as yourself, who are passionate about it and there are people who aren't.

If it reaches a critical mass, then he will have to talk about it. I don't think you need to worry about Bush, you need to worry about what the people around you think and care about.

Ally_Kat

07-30-2004, 02:11 PM

it's just your ranking now. There's a list somewhere here on the diff rankings and bar colors.

Why is it if you listen to Bush? Is it shock and awe that people thought this way before Bush even said anything about it?

I've read and kept up with it since it was mentioned in 1998 and i just don't like it. I think it's selfish to create a life inorder to take from it so that other people can continue to live. It's different than with cadavers because those cadavers had a choice before they died if they wanted their bodies to be given to science or not.

ODShowtime

07-30-2004, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Big Train
The thing with stem cell research is that I think a lot of America just doesn't want to go down that path, pure and simple. Bush isn't stopping anyone from talking about it, there as just people, such as yourself, who are passionate about it and there are people who aren't.

If it reaches a critical mass, then he will have to talk about it. I don't think you need to worry about Bush, you need to worry about what the people around you think and care about.

Uh, no. I need to worry about Bush since he instituted a ban on it so that research was stopped.

ODShowtime

07-30-2004, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Ally_Kat

I've read and kept up with it since it was mentioned in 1998 and i just don't like it. I think it's selfish to create a life inorder to take from it so that other people can continue to live. It's different than with cadavers because those cadavers had a choice before they died if they wanted their bodies to be given to science or not.

A valid point and one not without merit.

But, the same man who says all life must be valued (while stifling what could be life saving research) is also the man who, with no hestitation, will throw people in jail indefinitely because they might be a terrorist. Just throwing people's live away. You know BCE & Friends would be doing a hell of a lot more of that if the IRC and the like weren't speaking up.

Ally_Kat

07-30-2004, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by ODShowtime
A valid point and one not without merit.

But, the same man who says all life must be valued (while stifling what could be life saving research) is also the man who, with no hestitation, will throw people in jail indefinitely because they might be a terrorist. Just throwing people's live away. You know BCE & Friends would be doing a hell of a lot more of that if the IRC and the like weren't speaking up.

do you know everything that goes on with that, from information gathering before and after they take the guy away?

ODShowtime

07-30-2004, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
do you know everything that goes on with that, from information gathering before and after they take the guy away?

The bad ones definitely need to stay locked up. My problem is with the process of law being suspended.

Big Train

07-30-2004, 02:27 PM

Posted by od...

Uh, no. I need to worry about Bush since he instituted a ban on it so that research was stopped.

No you don't need to worry about him. You need to nut up son, and get the masses on your side, if you care enough about it. Even people agree with him right to make the ban stand. Prove him wrong if you believe in it that bad.

Ally_Kat

07-30-2004, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Uh, no. I need to worry about Bush since he instituted a ban on it so that research was stopped.

Creating embryos specifically to rip them apart and test on them has been banned and the amount of money given to the area has a certain limit. Research is still going on seeing how they are allowed to use "left-over" embryos from in-vitro clinics.

Big Train

07-30-2004, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by FORD
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Big Train

BCE Angling Crap....

Meaning you don't have a defense for their actions. That's okay. They don't either.

Does ANYONE have a defense to your crackpot theories?

He is still creating jobs in an envoirnment that is an uphill battle. How many have you created? How many do you think are going to be created with Kerry's plan? None. He is going to stall the economy by dicking with the tax breaks, which mean rich people are going to reinvest in other areas and keep their money out of the markets. Pure genius.

Tax breaks for the rich don't fix the economy, because the rich already have money. They don't put it back into the economy by spending, because they already have money to spend in the first place. And if they were supposed to create jobs with all this money, again I ask WHERE THE HELL ARE ALL THESE JOBS THAT JUNIOR CLAIMS "HE" CREATED??

Your ignorant of economics. Money from the rich in the forms of loans, grants, investments, stocks, are the engines of growth that provide jobs. We are in a service economy now, NOBODY can change that or will that differently. MAKING a company put in high paid, outdated positions in is retarded economic policy (one I'm sure you endorse). We all need to find new ways to compete and new industries. During this transistion, it is gonna be hard. But to use feel good policies like that is just prolonging the inevitable and suffering. Put simplify it baby, blame it all on Dubya. Feels so GOOD doesn't it?

How DO YOU prove either way? I can't and you can't, so that is a moot point.

Not neccessarily. In Afghanistan, there's only two conclusions you can believe.

One is that Osama was never there in the first place. The other is that the BCE allowed him to escape. Either conclusion makes Junior a liar. And the second makes the military appear incompetent, which doesn't at all agree with the speed with which the Taliban was defeated. So I'm going to give the troops in Afghanistan the benefit of the doubt and say that Osama was never there. As I said, either way, the BCE lied about it.

Or a third, most likely conclusion, that he and his muslim supporters aided him and provided him safe harbor. Just simplify, wrap it up in the cardboard of conspriacy theories, the BCE. How that makes the military "incomptent" that they couldn't roll a country over and find a single man in less than two months, is beyond me. Work your magic ford, show me the convenient theory which says that the BCE (fuckin name them, I'm getting sick of asking). Tell me, exactly and specifically, who helped him and where to get him out of the country. Then tell me where he is now , so I can help the "Incompenent" military and elmiminate him.

Thats not a lie, that a difference of opinion. Because your liberal, you reason with emotion not fact. The fact is that is economic recovery. Who it directly benefits right this second is another story.

If only billionaires benefit, while millions struggle to pay their bills, and millions more can't find a fucking job, then how is that a recovery? That's not emotion, that's brutal facts. We've been waiting for trickle down economics since jelly bean head was in the White House, and it hasn't trickled down yet. It's working class people who are the life blood of this country. Not pieces of shit like Bush who inherit fortunes and never work a day in their lives.

It's a recovery because there is more money available in the system. The rich makes their money first in a recovery and lose it first in a recession. The availibility of this money is what supplys jobs. It is emotion, as you plead with me. The base facts are the economy, the GDP, are recovering, not chuck from the hardware store. That will take more time.

The economy is changing, this isn't the Industrial age anymore. A lot of factory work just won't be there anymore, it's a fact. We need to invent new industries and create jobs in them. Like I said, this is an uphill challenge. To oversimplify, as you do, is to ignore the real issues.

The real issues are that jobs created in fucking India and China are NOT going to help Americans. And it's not just manufacturing. Even high tech jobs are being outsourced. Some of these old school factory workers probably went to school to be retrained in IT fields, only to be FUCKED by outsourcing again. Where are all these people supposed to go? Should they move to New Dehli and get their own job back?

The way of the world nowadays Ford. They say the average american in our lifetime will have an average of 5 careers. The information age will require constant learning and retraining as things are moving faster. Your entirely welcome to move to Mayberry if you want a different lifestyle. It's the way it is and that isn't gonna change no matter who is in office.

ODShowtime

07-30-2004, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
Creating embryos specifically to rip them apart and test on them has been banned and the amount of money given to the area has a certain limit. Research is still going on seeing how they are allowed to use "left-over" embryos from in-vitro clinics.

I figured I was being a little broad when I said research has stopped. Stifled is a much better word.

Ally_Kat

07-30-2004, 03:12 PM

How is it stifled? It still gets a significant amount of money and do you know how many "left-over" eggs invitro leaves? They just aren't allowed to run away with it and rack up huge bills

wraytw

07-30-2004, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by ODShowtime
What you said tells me that you actually agree with fucking with OUR Constitution for two purposes:

1. to alienate and restrain a huge group of people from receiving a god-given right to receive special benefits and recognition of a longterm domestic union (fags are gross, but none live with me, so why do I give a fuck about them?)

No. I'm all for civil unions, just not gay marriage

[b]I don't know how long you've lived in our counry or how much of our history you are aware of, but NOBODY has EVER won a fight to take away our citizens' rights. Citizen's rights has always won, every time.

That's all nice and dandy, but marriage isn't an absolute right, it's a privilege. Feel free to show me where our right to marriage is protected.

Gay Marriage isn't a civil rights issue. Even Jesse Jackson acknowledges that.

His immigration policy shows a complete lack of respect for illegal aliens, something I find quite good, actually. He proposed that if illegal aliens register, they can receive gov't benefits. But actually, having them register will just make the easier to round up later. Gotta give it Bush on that one. Making ignorant people think they are getting a benefit when they are really getting one up the ass is classic Bush!!!

Illegal immigration is a major contributing factor in unemployment. Want unemployment to go down? Cut down illegal immigration.

ODShowtime

07-30-2004, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by wraytw
No. I'm all for civil unions, just not gay marriage

That's all nice and dandy, but marriage isn't an absolute right, it's a privilege. Feel free to show me where our right to marriage is protected.

Gay Marriage isn't a civil rights issue. Even Jesse Jackson acknowledges that.

Illegal immigration is a major contributing factor in unemployment. Want unemployment to go down? Cut down illegal immigration.

I agree with your stated view about illegal immigration. We are totally fucking up with that and we are paying for it.

First of all, marriage is defined by some as a sacred union under God. Would a just and loving God restrict that? Sure, people who re-wrote the bible in the last 2000 years don't dig gays marrying, but does God really care?

Second, my definition is just two people that want to pool resources and live together for the rest of their lives. Why should anyone not be entitled to that?

I think it's obvious that the gay marriage issue is not about being sickened by fags tramping around in bridal gowns. It's about them being pissed off that their life-partner is not allowed to file taxes with them and get on the health plan. Sure insurance costs have skyrocketed and this would not help. But any reason you have why gays shouldn't receive the same legal benefits as straights is a total crock of bullshit. I wish they would all go away, but they will not. I think Bush is scum for trying to trample their rights just because it's a nice issue that he can debate. Don't you see that? This country is about Freedom. The Constitution protects our Freedom. This asshole wants to change it to make Americans less free. That is truly FUCKED UP.

wraytw

07-30-2004, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by ODShowtime
I agree with your stated view about illegal immigration. We are totally fucking up with that and we are paying for it.

Yup. And I don't see any future President having the balls to change this anytime soon.

[b]First of all, marriage is defined by some as a sacred union under God.

No, it is a sacred union under God. Where did marriage originate? The Catholic church.

Would a just and loving God restrict that?

Yes, because homosexuality is not accepted under God. Does he forgive if you repent? That's what they say. ;) But gays getting married certainly isn't repenting. :)

Sure, people who re-wrote the bible in the last 2000 years don't dig gays marrying, but does God really care?

Considering that according to the Bible he destroyed two cities because of rampant homosexual acts, I'd say that he does. :)

Second, my definition is just two people that want to pool resources and live together for the rest of their lives. Why should anyone not be entitled to that?

I think it's obvious that the gay marriage issue is not about being sickened by fags tramping around in bridal gowns. It's about them being pissed off that their life-partner is not allowed to file taxes with them and get on the health plan. Sure insurance costs have skyrocketed and this would not help. But any reason you have why gays shouldn't receive the same legal benefits as straights is a total crock of bullshit. I wish they would all go away, but they will not. I think Bush is scum for trying to trample their rights just because it's a nice issue that he can debate. Don't you see that? This country is about Freedom. The Constitution protects our Freedom. This asshole wants to change it to make Americans less free. That is truly FUCKED UP.

Civil unions would fix all of that.

Warham

07-30-2004, 04:22 PM

Regarding God and homosexuality in the Bible (just to make sure there's any misunderstandings)...

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

And I'm sure you've read or heard of the story of Sodom and Gamorrah.

At least in the Old Testament, God didn't look too kindly to homosexuality

ODShowtime

07-30-2004, 04:28 PM

I think we are circling around the same conclusion. But it's 4:30. Happy hour time finally. Boy did I fuck off today.

JCOOK

07-30-2004, 07:32 PM

Let you tell it, Im' gettin paid from 7:00A.M. to 2:30P.M. PST.

FORD

07-30-2004, 08:02 PM

If you believe that God nuked all of Sodom county because he was pissed off at a couple of gay guys, then you also have to believe that God endorses rape and incest.

Here's the deal - Lot gets a visit from these angels. Given the patriarchal nature of the Bible (due to Hebrew culture) these angels are assumed to be male, but their actual gender isn't mentioned. Or for that matter, do angels have a gender??

Anyway the dudes in the city say : Yo Lot, send your friends out so we may know them. Now here's where people assume too much. At other points in the King James version there are verses that say "Adam KNEW his wife" and things along those lines. So the word "know"is presumed to refer to sexual intercourse. However, that context is NOT made clear in Genesis 19 at all.

But for sake of argument, we'll go with it. So these guys say "Hey Lot. We want to fuck your angel friends. Send 'em out".

Now clearly, angels wouldn't consent to sex, assuming they're even physically capable of the act. Which would make any action taking place here RAPE.

Surely rape would piss off God, angels or otherwise.

Except Lot, the supposedly only righteous dude in town missed that memo. Because he said "Hey guys, leave my angel friends alone, and rape my daughters instead!"

Now he wouldn't have even made the offer if the guys were GAY, because that would have been pointless. And there's no mention of what the girls thought of dad's idea.

Not that the girls were right in the head either. Because after God nukes Sodom and Gommorrah (BTW what did the Gommorrahites do anyway?) the girls are way too horny and they say "Hey, let's get daddy drunk and fuck him!" Luckily their mom had become a 5'5" salt lick and didn't have to watch, but that must have been one Hell of a scene.

And we're supposed to believe THAT was cool with God??