Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6707|Salt Lake City

RAIMIUS wrote:

Agent, you make a good point there.  I was not trying to argue that the Constitution implies that Christianity is "the" religion, just the the founding fathers placed importance on religious values.
Agreed.  They were vary careful in their wording, but wanted to make sure that the exercise of religion was not trampled upon, yet prevent religion from becoming the institution of government.

My main point was to a previous poster.  I commented about conservatives whining that liberals want to remove references to God.  However, the area that was primarily in question was the pledge of allegience.  My adding that the part of about money was just to make the point.

One more point along the lines of religious values, they also valued free people that could, and would, think for themselves, and not simply follow blindly some religious dogma.
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6541|Portland, OR, USA
yeah agent you pretty much nailed it on the head.  the only reasons justifying not letting the homosexual population marry would be faith/religion based reasons (at least any that would make sense) but church and state is supposed to be separated in America so... let them marry
specops10-4
Member
+108|6714|In the hills
I really dont mind wiretappings myself, but I can see how criminals (like they should have any say) can be talking about illegal stuff and be caught by the government.  Or, people might misinterpret a conversation into thinking it was bad.  And last, a corrupt government might use this to tap into other people's speeches or ideas and take the ideas away from them before the original person has the chance to say it. 

This hardly effects me however it does seem weird to have people listen in to you if your having phone sex or just a weird conversation... (I dont need phone sex BTW, I just pictured like GWB listening into people in a dark room and hearing this strange eih eih eih GWB laugh)  wow that sounded really gay...
<[onex]>Headstone
Member
+102|6673|New York
WOW im isolated LMAO. I love how one can hide behind the keyboard all day long and Not have the BALLS to leave a name LMAO Such a display of courage. Isolated maybe, but Im not hiding.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6742|PNW

spacebandit72 wrote:

And if you don't thinjk Seria or Iran did'nt recieve what Sadam was hiding... you gotta be stupid.
Grammar police!

Out of all the typos in that post, let me point out one general, easy-to-remember law of the English language:

I before E except after C.

People tend to take written thoughts more seriously if they are presented in a reasonably respectable manner.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-06-26 21:05:52)

<[onex]>Headstone
Member
+102|6673|New York

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

spacebandit72 wrote:

And if you don't thinjk Seria or Iran did'nt recieve what Sadam was hiding... you gotta be stupid.
Grammar police!

Out of all the typos in that post, let me point out one general, easy-to-remember law of the English language:

I before E except after C.

People tend to take written thoughts more seriously if they are presented in a reasonably respectable manner.
Dude lighten up. Not everyone is a spelling bee champion. The way they rush you through public schools today your lucky a student can read let alone spell everything correctly. I stink at spelling, but that doesnt make me anymore less a person as a guy with a great sense of spelling.

I see your point, but belittling someone is just as bad.
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6653|Canada
lol he negged me for calling him mr. poopy pants
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|6808

CyberTough-GuyWhensoSafe wrote:

first of all ,anyone who refers to homosexual people as '(the) gays'  is either way in the closet or waay out to lunch.
FYI The Homosexuals and Lesbian Communities want to be called Gays. In the USA at least. They do not like the ( Medical or Scientific Terms ). They find it insulting, don't ask me why.

Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-06-28 10:45:47)

Major_Spittle
Banned
+276|6626|United States of America

Horseman 77 wrote:

CyberTough-GuyWhensoSafe wrote:

first of all ,anyone who refers to homosexual people as '(the) gays'  is either way in the closet or waay out to lunch.
FYI The Homosexuals and Lesbian Communities want to be called Gays. In the USA at least. They do not like the ( Medical or Scientific Terms ). They find it insulting, don't ask me why.
Faggot is the Medical term, and Candy Ass is the Scientific Term.
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6653|Canada

HorsemanBearPigVomit wrote:

CyberTough-GuyWhensoSafe wrote:

lol....   fluuuuuuuuuuuush

Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-06-28 15:23:06)

Phantom2828
Member
+51|6498|Land of the free

Marconius wrote:

So far, Bush has been caught red-handed breaking the law.  He claims that he can basically illegally wiretap Americans and invade their privacy as it is a "time of war."  Albeit he never had a formal Declaration of War approved from the Congress.  'Shock and Awe' lasted just long enough that he didn't have to present his Articles of War, and the resulting firefight in Iraq is still going on.

Hopefully the Impeachment process will start soon, but only if enough Republicans in the House will allow a call for it to pass.

My question to everyone is:

If the Republicans/Bush Administration think they can get away with anything now due to the US being at "war," what will happen if a Democrat gets elected in 2008?  Will they all back down and say, "Oh, no no no, we were wrong, we weren't supposed to do all of that as it was illegal at the time...so it looks like you Democrats can't do the same!"  Does anyone feel like there is something more sinister going on to ensure that Republicans can force another election to come out in favor of them?
stupied liberal
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6653|Canada

Phantom2828 wrote:

Marconius wrote:

So far, Bush has been caught red-handed breaking the law.  He claims that he can basically illegally wiretap Americans and invade their privacy as it is a "time of war."  Albeit he never had a formal Declaration of War approved from the Congress.  'Shock and Awe' lasted just long enough that he didn't have to present his Articles of War, and the resulting firefight in Iraq is still going on.

Hopefully the Impeachment process will start soon, but only if enough Republicans in the House will allow a call for it to pass.

My question to everyone is:

If the Republicans/Bush Administration think they can get away with anything now due to the US being at "war," what will happen if a Democrat gets elected in 2008?  Will they all back down and say, "Oh, no no no, we were wrong, we weren't supposed to do all of that as it was illegal at the time...so it looks like you Democrats can't do the same!"  Does anyone feel like there is something more sinister going on to ensure that Republicans can force another election to come out in favor of them?
stupied liberal
Phantom:  don't waste space.
Marconius:  Wasn't Jeb Bush the owner of the company that handled the electronic voting system that voted for people that were already dead?  It ain't a coincidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeb_Bush
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6665|San Francisco
"Stupied liberal"...that's a FANTASTIC and PHENOMENAL response to the everpresent gravity of the growing situation that I posted quite some time ago.

As for electronic voting, I don't trust it farther than I can throw it...especially with the Diebold controversy.  I saw a Diebold truck driving around the city the other day and I just felt myself instantly get angry at them for being such tools.  I'll stick to the current voting system that we have in place in my district.  No punching, no electronic cards and voting machines, just a form in which you use a marker to complete an arrow pointing to your choices.  This is fed into a scantron style machine, which tallies the votes.
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6653|Canada
there is no point in making voting 'easier'
the only thing being made easier is the means to tamper with vote counts.  What the hell is wrong with a pencil and a dot???  Must you 'make everything easier'?  Is the future of democracy going to become franchised like a mcdonalds?  Will they make it easier to get in and out of the voting booth for all the obese people too LAZY to DRAW using a marker?   Easier, gimme a break.  The men upstairs would laugh at that notion.
Ziggy_79x
Member
+4|6656
Losing ground aren't they? The American public is finally waking up and smelling the bullshit they are fed every day now, and have figured out that nothing the Rethugs have done in the last 6 years has benefited anyone but the top 1%.  The horseshit will soon be "flussssssshed" and they know it. After so much has come to light about the lies that led us to war and the incompetence in handling said war, some just keep hanging on to that "turd"  from the Bush administration's ass refusing to be "flussssssshed".

Feingold/Clark 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|6808

Spumantiii wrote:

HorsemanBearPigVomit wrote:

CyberTough-GuyWhensoSafe wrote:

lol
I geuss You felt the Shoe fit well, I didn't even use "part" of your name. what a dope !
Hey ASSHOLE !
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|6808

Ziggy_79x wrote:

Losing ground aren't they? The American public is finally waking up and smelling the bullshit they are fed every day now, and have figured out that nothing the Rethugs have done in the last 6 years has benefited anyone but the top 1%.  The horseshit will soon be "flussssssshed" and they know it. After so much has come to light about the lies that led us to war and the incompetence in handling said war, some just keep hanging on to that "turd"  from the Bush administration's ass refusing to be "flussssssshed".

Feingold/Clark 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You might want to read some of Ikartis posts before you hold hands with him. Just my geuss.
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6520|Southeastern USA
there is, unfortunately, a chance the dems will gain a majority over the next two elections, but, as usual, this will allow them to remind the american public why they were on a constant downhill slide since '96 in the first place, and will in turn result with another republican/libertarian/independent run........

the voting public has a short memory, and unfortunately are prone to be easily swayed by popular media and entertainment figures that tell them "you think this because I do and I was in a movie once"
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6520|Southeastern USA

Marconius wrote:

I'll ask a different question, actually...nevermind about my first one.

Well, due to the uncovering of the Abramoff scandal, Tom DeLay's money laundering scheme, Bush's wiretapping, the Bush Administration lying about the evidence they had drawn up against Iraq, and then invading/going against the UN...there have been a lot of plots to ensure their control over America.

Bush is defending his wiretapping ability and all of these "above the law" actions because we are in "a time of War."  When and if a Democrat comes into office in 2008, will the entangled agendas and corruption of the outgoing office and the incoming administration possibly spark a civil rift in the US? 
You can already see the rift in these forums; the Invasion of Iraq has gotten extremely partisan, and peoples' opinions have been getting more and more extreme about it.  What do you foresee happening to America if a Democrat gets elected in 2008?
nothing you've listed has ever been proven, just a bunch of accusations, I could get indicted for molesting a retirement home resident in North Dakota, even though I have never been there, doesn't mean I am guilty,  just more say-spray-and-pray accusations in the hopes that most people will confuse an accusation with someone being found guilty of something, unfortunately most of the posters on these forums do just that
spastic bullet
would like to know if you are on crack
+77|6512|vancouver

kr@cker wrote:

the voting public has a short memory, and unfortunately are prone to be easily swayed by popular media and entertainment figures that tell them "you think this because I do and I was in a movie once"
I think Ronald Reagan and the Governator were in a lot more movies than that.
[Valhalla]iMac_Attack
Member
+2|6731|Houston, Texas

Marconius wrote:

I'll ask a different question, actually...nevermind about my first one.

Well, due to the uncovering of the Abramoff scandal, Tom DeLay's money laundering scheme, Bush's wiretapping, the Bush Administration lying about the evidence they had drawn up against Iraq, and then invading/going against the UN...there have been a lot of plots to ensure their control over America.

Bush is defending his wiretapping ability and all of these "above the law" actions because we are in "a time of War."  When and if a Democrat comes into office in 2008, will the entangled agendas and corruption of the outgoing office and the incoming administration possibly spark a civil rift in the US? 
You can already see the rift in these forums; the Invasion of Iraq has gotten extremely partisan, and peoples' opinions have been getting more and more extreme about it.  What do you foresee happening to America if a Democrat gets elected in 2008?
My first question is how old are you?  If you go back in the last 15 years we have had some major problems with a democrat president.  Take the 8 years of Clinton.  Ruby Ridge, Clinton okayed the killing of people including children, oh yeah, and the small town of Waco, Clinton okayed that one as well, not to mention it took them a couple of months to get that mess over with.  and children died in that as well.  I really don't think bush is listening to my phone calls unless I am call a terrorist harboring nation.  and i really don't think Bush cares to hear about my wife calling me to pick up a box of tampons on my way home from work.  You liberals paint such a broad picture.  When I lived in Oklahoma City the murrah building was blown up.  They have over 40 eye witness accounts to state the muslims were involved but Clinton buried it.  When the bomb first went off they had several apb's out on middle eastern men, now grant it some over zealous okies killed a couple of gas station owners then the apb stopped.  You need to get out of the gay san fran sicko bath houses and take a shot in the mouth of reality.  Not that SanFran Cream you have been gurgling on.  It rotting your brain.
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6520|Southeastern USA
but they have proven themselves to be master statesman and don't flaunt their movie bio's as the reason for them to be credible, alot of people made the mistake as taking them for "another celebrity activist politician" and got their asses handed to them, as opposed to the likes of Janeane Garrofalo and Sean Penn, who modus operandi is "hey I'm a celebrity so I'm right", there have been liberal celebrities that have managed to become credible politicians, but again they did it in the same manner as Arnie and such.......


umm....to be more succinct I guess I'm trying to say, there is a difference between "I'm an expert because I'm a celebrity" and "I'm an expert and I'm a celbrity"
spastic bullet
would like to know if you are on crack
+77|6512|vancouver

kr@cker wrote:

but they have proven themselves to be master statesman and don't flaunt their movie bio's as the reason for them to be credible
No, of course not.  That's why their nicknames are The Gipper, and The Governator.

*cough*

What?
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6520|Southeastern USA
Don't beleive they gave themselves those nicknames, and nowhere in those links do I see anything that says "vote for me cuz I starred in this!!"  as opposed to George Clooney harping about how much more in touch the Academy is with the world of socio-politics

*cough* (hate that, almost as bad as pwned/owned)

yeeaaahh.....ooookkaaayyy (lil john)

and again, they more than hold (held) their own in the field of ideals and public debate, that's why they are great statesman, not cuz the Gipper was in "Bringing up Baby" no wait that was the Jimmy Stewart movie, what was the one where he starred with a monkey?

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-06-30 06:58:52)

spastic bullet
would like to know if you are on crack
+77|6512|vancouver

kr@cker wrote:

Don't beleive they gave themselves those nicknames
True, but they are affectionate nicknames i.e. used by folks that probably voted for them.  As opposed to, say, "Ronald Raygun", or "that Austrian bastard".

The point is that their supporters' nicknames for them are both from roles they played in movies.  At least the Terminator is a fictional character.  The Gipper was actually a real guy -- George Gipp -- who Reagan just happened to play in that one movie.

kr@cker wrote:

and nowhere in those links do I see anything that says "vote for me cuz I starred in this!!"  as opposed to George Clooney harping about how much more in touch the Academy is with the world of socio-politics
Excerpt from above link:
The phrase "Win one for the Gipper" was later used as a political slogan by Ronald Reagan, who in 1940 portrayed Gipp in Knute Rockne, All American and was often referred to as "The Gipper". His most famous use of it was at the 1988 Republican National Convention when he told Vice President George Bush, "George. Go out there and win one for the Gipper."

As for Arnie, maybe it's not so much the acting as the bodybuilding that qualifies him to be Governor of California?  Seriously, though.  What else is he known for?  During the election campaign, his movies were on TV nearly every day.  Not to mention clips from them on the news every day.  On the news!  Every day!

kr@cker wrote:

the voting public has a short memory, and unfortunately are prone to be easily swayed by popular media and entertainment figures that tell them "you think this because I do and I was in a movie once"
If it's true, it's true.  You can either say you don't believe this any more, or admit that the Republicans basically invented "celebrity activists".

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard