israel4ever Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 *sigh* sadly, you missed the whole point of my post being about SUPREME COURT APPOINTEES...Bush is a politician like every other scumbag in D.C.... You're kidding yourself if you think John Heinz-Kerry isn't in bed with just as many special interests. Just wait, Kerry gets elected and there will be just as many accusations and scandals as GWB, Clinton, or Reagan. My point was that if I had to choose a Bush appointee who most likely will have stricter interpretation and conservative approach to Law versus a Kerry nomination who'll cement Roe V. Wade, eliminate gun ownership, and blow the door wide open for gay marriages... who the hell would you vote for?? p.s. your use of green was pedestrian at best... better luck next time. The answer is...KERRY! Is it preferable to have a Supreme Court that would do away with civil rights and personal freedoms, and maybe expand on the Patriot Act? Do we need more FCC censorship? First of all, the "right to bear arms" is not going anywhere; the NRA will see to that. Second, once again, why does (should) it bother you (or anyone else) if gay couples want to get married? How does that affect you? Does it "desecrate" the "sanctity of marriage"? If so, do tv shows like "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?", "Who Wants to Marry a Midget?", "Joe Millionaire" etc., offend you as well? Third, and most importantly, why should an old, rich, white conservative (probably male) be able to tell women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies? That makes no f***king sense whatsoever! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 But cw, I never, ever, see you criticize a Democratic national figure. It's called blind support, IMO. Just once, I would like to see what you would change about Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Charlie Rangel, etc. etc. etc. etc. Do you see my point? I hne nothing but good to say about Charlie Rangel. The rest, you haven't been reading. In the spirit of Republicanism however I think you and I should go to a sex club and have an audience watch us while we get taped having sex (Jack Ryan) and then yell f*** You at each other (Dick Cheney imiitations)! God bless the party of family values and civil political discourse! (the last two sentences are attempts to lighten the mood and are intended for Republicans with senses of humor only. oh s***, there probably are none! that is more humor! ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 The answer is...KERRY! Is it preferable to have a Supreme Court that would do away with civil rights and personal freedoms, and maybe expand on the Patriot Act? Do we need more FCC censorship? First of all, the "right to bear arms" is not going anywhere; the NRA will see to that. Second, once again, why does (should) it bother you (or anyone else) if gay couples want to get married? How does that affect you? Does it "desecrate" the "sanctity of marriage"? If so, do tv shows like "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?", "Who Wants to Marry a Midget?", "Joe Millionaire" etc., offend you as well? Third, and most importantly, why should an old, rich, white conservative (probably male) be able to tell women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies? That makes no f***king sense whatsoever! ACLU will take care of civil liberties...give me a break. The Brady Bill is still with us, and the NRA hasn't been able to do anything about it. Gay marriages unite two biologically incompatible beings. Love does not transcend biology. I can love a chicken and it may love me back, but I can't f*** it when I please And yes, those shows as well as Christians that seek to degredate the sanctity of marriage make me sick. I pray for those people. What makes no F***** sense whatsoever is the fact that life is so easily given and taken in this pathetic and irresponsible nation. Our parents generation thought it was helping us so much with personal choice. Open your eyes. You hate Bush for his handling of the Iraqi war, yet you're perfectly okay with the war being wagged on unborn US citizens... yeah, conservatives are terrible :headshake :puke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 I hne nothing but good to say about Charlie Rangel. The rest, you haven't been reading. In the spirit of Republicanism however I think you and I should go to a sex club and have an audience watch us while we get taped having sex (Jack Ryan) and then yell f*** You at each other (Dick Cheney imiitations)! God bless the party of family values and civil political discourse! (the last two sentences are attempts to lighten the mood and are intended for Republicans with senses of humor only. oh s***, there probably are none! that is more humor! ) My favorite quote is by dick morris. He said that there's an unspoken Senate Floor rule that foul language is ok only when directed towards Sen. Leahy. CAVUTO: All right. Sir, a couple of little issues I want settled, or maybe to get the real skinny on. One was this blowout you had the other day with Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont. What happened? CHENEY: Well, we — I guess you could say we had a little floor debate in the United States Senate. CAVUTO: I heard it was more than a debate. CHENEY: Well, it was — I expressed myself rather forcefully, felt better after I had done it. CAVUTO: All right. Now, did you use the "F" word? CHENEY: That's not the kind of language I usually use. CAVUTO: All right, because the reports were that you did. CHENEY: Yes, that's not the kind of language I ordinarily use. But... CAVUTO: What did you tell him? CHENEY: I expressed my dissatisfaction for Senator Leahy. CAVUTO: Over his comments about you and Halliburton? CHENEY: No. It was partly that. It was partly — also, it had to do with — he is the kind of individual who will make those kinds of charges and then come after you as though he's your best friend. And I expressed, in no uncertain terms, my views of the — of his conduct and walked away. CAVUTO: Did you curse at him? CHENEY: Probably. (LAUGHTER) CAVUTO: Do you have any regrets? CHENEY: No. I said it, and I felt that... (CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: So let me understand, he comes up, he sees you, Mr. Vice — he's all nice, shakes your hand. And then what do you do, let into him? CHENEY: Explain my unhappiness with the way he conducted himself. What — part of the problem here is, that instead of having a substantive debate over important policy issues, he had challenged my integrity. And I didn't like that. But, most of all, I didn't like the fact that after he had done so then he wanted to act like, you know, everything's peaches and cream. And I informed him of my view of his conduct in no uncertain terms. And as I say, I felt better afterwards. CAVUTO: All right. Now, they say you broke decorum for normally a Senate or congressional session. Now, technically, I guess, it wasn't in session. CHENEY: No, we weren't in session. What we were doing was waiting to take our pictures, our official Senate photo. And I go up and sit in the chair, as the president of the Senate (UNINTELLIGIBLE). CAVUTO: What was reaction from the crowd? CHENEY: Well, I think that a lot of my colleagues felt that what I had said badly needed to be said, that it was long overdue. CAVUTO: Pretty feisty guy, aren't you? CHENEY: Well, I'm usually fairly calm (UNINTELLIGIBLE). CAVUTO: Your wife's just a few feet away. CHENEY: And ordinarily I don't express myself in strong terms. But I thought it was appropriate here. and for the record, he was politely saying that yes he said the F bomb, but wasn't going to go around parading that fact. The Left is just DESPERATELY trying to have something stick. Bush is up on Kerry by 7-8 points in most polls. The left is scared. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 Gay marriages unite two biologically incompatible beings. Love does not transcend biology. It doesn't have to. Biology doesn't prevent any two people from loving each other, it may only prevent their ability to reproduce with a certain partner. I can love a chicken and it may love me back, but I can't f*** it when I please Not these f***ing stupid arguments again. A chicken is not a person, cannot consent to sex or marriage, and has no ability to apply any of the legal benefits of marriage, like property issues or power of attorney. And yes, those shows as well as Christians that seek to degredate the sanctity of marriage make me sick. Who gives a s***? We're not going to make things illegal because you don't like them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 Dude...you can f**k all the chickens you want, AS LONGAS IT DOESN"T AFFECT OTHER PEOPLE ADVERSELY! That's the whole point of the gay marriage issue. It doesn't have any affect on you at all if two men or two women wanna get married. It is none of your f***ing business. Live and let live! Re. the topic of legalized abortions, I am not pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice. Think of it this way...if you give the government the authority to outlaw abortions, you are also giving them the authority to MANDATE abortions. The gov already has too much control over our personal freedoms, why give them total control? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 You mean Cheney got kid gloves on Fox News? Color me surprised. And Cavuto knows all about using name calling to advance an argument. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82504,00.html So am I slanted and biased? You damn well bet, professor. - Neil Cavuto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wise Master Buehrle Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 Nader, damnit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 And the threat in that memo that the 9/11 Commission made such political hay about was specific? All that said was that there were like 75 investigations ongoing about Al Qaeda's desires to attack in the U.S., but that didn't stop anyone from saying that Bush ignored the threat and is responsible for 3000 deaths. So, which is it? Oh my God, are you serious??? So if France was told in 1939 that Hitler was planning to attack, they should have done nothing? FDR is told that Hirohito is planning an attack, and it's just one dude planning an attack? I'm sorry, but that's funny. How many "dudes" does it take for it to be a threat to respond to? History Lesson: France declared war on Germany first in 1939 as part of a mutual defense agreement with Poland. Germany followed suit. Actual battles in the war didn't really take place until early 1940. You have to have a threshhold of proof to take action against a specific person. To do otherwise goes against the basic fundamentals with which we build our society. If our way of life is so much better than theirs, why do we need to circumvent it to win? The answer is we don't need to. We are Americans and as such should hold ourselves up to a higher standard. A free society, is to a degree, a vulnerable one to unexpected attack. There are natural born risks to being free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 and blow the door wide open for gay marriages... who the hell would you vote for?? Being a gay guy who'd like to get married someday and have the same recognized legal rights as impotent heterosexual couples who can't bear children who decide to take the marriage rites, I think I'm voting for Kerry thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 Dude...you can f**k all the chickens you want, AS LONGAS IT DOESN"T AFFECT OTHER PEOPLE ADVERSELY! That's the whole point of the gay marriage issue. It doesn't have any affect on you at all if two men or two women wanna get married. It is none of your f***ing business. Live and let live! Re. the topic of legalized abortions, I am not pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice. Think of it this way...if you give the government the authority to outlaw abortions, you are also giving them the authority to MANDATE abortions. The gov already has too much control over our personal freedoms, why give them total control? Actually you cant f*** all the chickens you want. And if you do, I don't wanna know about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 Being a gay guy who'd like to get married someday and have the same recognized legal rights as impotent heterosexual couples who can't bear children who decide to take the marriage rites, I think I'm voting for Kerry thanks. Sinner!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 History Lesson: France declared war on Germany first in 1939 as part of a mutual defense agreement with Poland. Germany followed suit. Actual battles in the war didn't really take place until early 1940. You have to have a threshhold of proof to take action against a specific person. To do otherwise goes against the basic fundamentals with which we build our society. If our way of life is so much better than theirs, why do we need to circumvent it to win? The answer is we don't need to. We are Americans and as such should hold ourselves up to a higher standard. A free society, is to a degree, a vulnerable one to unexpected attack. There are natural born risks to being free. I had a brain cramp and meant Poland, but the point is still the same. And you surely should vote for Kerry because it sounds like your approach to the war on terror is the same. Prosecute them in the courts. Unless we actually get videotape of Hussein signing the order to attack the U.S., then nothing should be done about it. People want their cake and eat it too. Bush is incompetent because he didn't act on 75 investigations into Al Qaeda plots to attack the U.S., and he's a warmonger because he did act on intelligence from our own agencies and several foreign ones that Hussein was planning attacks. s***, this guy can't win! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 And... drumroll please, no one will be able to refute this, they never can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Kap and IlliniBob, Google W199I. I've posted details about this a lot. Bush's executive order stopping any investigation into AQ and a bunch of FBI agents are now coming out saying that the Bush admin. handcuffed their investigations. As for the CIA evidence, would that be the CIA intelligence used in the State of the Union address or the UN speech that was shown to be plagiarized from grad school work done in 1991. Even Hussein Kamal, the Iraqi weapons program director (whose testimony most hawks in the admin. use to justify the war) said that Iraq had dismantled any production and possession of chemical/biological weapons by 1995. And nowhere did anybody say that Iraq was going to attack the US except for Bush and Blair and both their statements were disproven. Read Ralph McGehee's book about the CIA (It's called "Deadly Deceits: My 25 Years in the CIA". He spent 25 years working for them as an agent and said that the CIA is not an intelligence gathering agency but rather an agency that is told to find any evidence to make a White House course of action that has been pre-determined look respectible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Apu, what about the recent statements by Putin? Are these to be discounted because they were so vague? I don't feel as though those sort of statements, from world leaders, should be discounted either. The Senate has the same intelligence information (generally) that the Exectutive Branch has, so where is the outcry from the senators, including John Kerry, who voted for the use of force? Just as recently as a year ago, Kerry was touting that the damage of leaving Hussein in power outweighed the damage of removing him from power. Interesting how a year later, that's completely flipped, and Bush misled the country? (note: Bush did, but does that excuse Kerry? He did too...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 I'm not going to defend Kerry because I think he is a softheaded tit as well. Since we're in a safe state in IL that is automatically going to go to Kerry anyway, I'm thinking of voting Cobb for the Greens since they finally have gotten away from Ralph Nader. I think the reason there is not more outcry from the people that advocated force is one simple reason: partisan advantage. Either party seizes on those and uses them. Nobody wants to be painted as somebody who was had to their constituency. You know as well as I that changing a decision can be used by the opposition (look at Dubya's attacks on Kerry's flip-flopping or the Dem attacks at Dean for his constant change of position in the primaries) To take a line from Full Metal Jacket "It's a big s*** sandwich." and nobody wants to take a bite. Kerry in my eyes is Bush lite because he voted for damn near everything that Bush wanted to get through legislation-wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 I'm not going to defend Kerry because I think he is a softheaded tit as well. Since we're in a safe state in IL that is automatically going to go to Kerry anyway, I'm thinking of voting Cobb for the Greens since they finally have gotten away from Ralph Nader. I think the reason there is not more outcry from the people that advocated force is one simple reason: partisan advantage. Either party seizes on those and uses them. Nobody wants to be painted as somebody who was had to their constituency. You know as well as I that changing a decision can be used by the opposition (look at Dubya's attacks on Kerry's flip-flopping or the Dem attacks at Dean for his constant change of position in the primaries) To take a line from Full Metal Jacket "It's a big s*** sandwich." and nobody wants to take a bite. Kerry in my eyes is Bush lite because he voted for damn near everything that Bush wanted to get through legislation-wise. EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!! And that's why I have such a problem with the whole damn thing. How can anyone say that they are for Kerry, when he was "with" everything that has happened, and now, he's simply saying the opposite s*** a year later to get elected???? You've hit darn near every "middle of the road" person's dilemma. I don't like either of them, but Kerry just out and out changing his stance purely to be "electable" makes me want to :puke - at least with Bush, you know what you're going to get. Now whether or not you like it is a different story, and that's where I will leave this for now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!! And that's why I have such a problem with the whole damn thing. How can anyone say that they are for Kerry, when he was "with" everything that has happened, and now, he's simply saying the opposite s*** a year later to get elected???? You've hit darn near every "middle of the road" person's dilemma. I don't like either of them, but Kerry just out and out changing his stance purely to be "electable" makes me want to :puke - at least with Bush, you know what you're going to get. Now whether or not you like it is a different story, and that's where I will leave this for now. True...with Bush you know what you're gonna get...4 more years of bulls***, 4 more years of terrible "leadership", 4 more years of raping the environment, the economy, social services, 4 more years of the gov taking away our freedoms. What you'd also probably get are 2-3 new (conservative) Supreme Court appointees who will "guarantee" that more of our freedoms are taken away from us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 24-24 - 2 Nader (not on Green party ticket) and 2 undecideds. Looks like Florida all over again kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 WHAT A JOKE! People... go watch this for yourself... www.georgewbush.com The ad was SIMPLY REPRODUCING DEMOCRATIC ADS AGAINST BUSH. And you have the audacity to say that BUSH is at fault? Who the hell started it? It is simply replaying the ads that the Democratic party has used against him, and at the end he says that optimism and not negativity is what we need. Now, cw, you come on here and slant your post to make like this is something that Bush did on his own. The Dems did it first! I love your version of half-truths. Absolutely sickening. Your post, and dammit, you are smart enough to know this, was intending to say that Bush has an ad that has Hitler and Kerry in it at the same time... but did you really say what the ad was? That's misleading as hell and you did it on purpose. That's the stuff that makes me sick because your side can NEVER admit when they are wrong. I candidly wish that I didn't have to vote for Bush, but posts like yours and your views and others like you tell me how delusional liberal thinking has become. Other people are finally figuring it out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UICJason Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Other people are finally figuring it out! It took me a long time to figure out that the Bush ad was a reproduction. In that case, even as a very liberal democrat, I am dissapointed in moveon.org. That kind of rhetoric (Hitler) is for people like you and I to use...not a large special interest. It should be noted that it is not the democratic party, but moveon...supposedly unaffiliated. It is not his fault, but I think Bush has done himself more harm than good with this one just based on the amount of misunderstanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Hmmm the liar or the treasonist war criminal... let me get back to you on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 It should be noted that it is not the democratic party, but moveon...supposedly unaffiliated. I don't think so. They are funded by George Soros who has said he would spend his entire multi-billion dollar fortune if he was guaranteed Bush would lose. Doesn't sound unaffiliated to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Hmmm the liar or the treasonist war criminal... let me get back to you on this one. Welcome back! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.