Kerry’s "Promises"
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=109282
Printed Date: 08 December 2025 at 9:37am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Kerry’s "Promises"
Posted By: hashi2008
Subject: Kerry’s "Promises"
Date Posted: 03 August 2004 at 5:28pm
|
So, I was watching an interview with John Kerry and his VP candidate (who i happen to think is a pretty good guy that made a bad choice in a partner). Anyway, he was sitting there saying that he didn't attack Bush like bush attacked him personaly. What he really meant was that he didn't attack him "directly". In his speach, he made several remarks like" I won't mislead you into war", which is an obvious attack to Bush. Then the reporter says something like "but you have said it before" then Kerry says something like "you said that i attacked you in my speach, i didn't" or something, which he didn't directly attack him (well sorta), but he has before. Kerry said that he hadn't attacked him. *Flip*Flop*. ANway. then he says that he is gonna lower taxes, then he starts talking about all of these programs and what not that he promises to do. What i am wondering, is how is he gonna do all of this stuff, without money? I know Kerry is notorious (sp) for changing his mind from speach to speach, but this was the same interview. ------------- Founder of the "Forumers Against the Ugly Woman Sigs" also known as FAUWS. |
Replies:
Posted By: Enos Shenk
Date Posted: 03 August 2004 at 5:30pm
|
Hah Dude, complaining that a candidate cant accomplish their promises is about as big a waste of energy as mowing the yard. ------------- 
|
Posted By: boomstick
Date Posted: 03 August 2004 at 5:31pm
|
lol. ------------- YONK~!~ |
Enos Shenk wrote:Posted By: hashi2008
Date Posted: 03 August 2004 at 5:32pm
|
Im not complaining. Im informing. I find it ammusing to listen to politicians talk. It's like listening to the "magic 8 ball"! ------------- Founder of the "Forumers Against the Ugly Woman Sigs" also known as FAUWS. |
Posted By: DracoPlasm
Date Posted: 03 August 2004 at 5:34pm
|
Yeah kerry is a big fart... ------------- 
|
Posted By: Mountainranger
Date Posted: 03 August 2004 at 6:08pm
|
A Presiden't can't lower taxes on their own. They have to get their ideas through Congress before anything can happen. Basically, if Kerry is elected and the Republicans still control Congress, neither party will get anything done because Kerry will propose things, which will be shot down, and Congress will pass things that Kerry will veto. It's that simple. ------------- You know who I feel sorry for? Arabs who just really want to become crop dusters. |
Posted By: cadet_sergeant
Date Posted: 03 August 2004 at 6:19pm
|
i dont see how congress will want lowered taxes, arnt there pay checks from taxes? isnt Bush's check from taxes isnt Kerrys check from taxes? where are they going to get the money to pay for the tax cut? school's? Social Security? Military? probley a little from all of them (maybe not) but im quiet sure it wont come out of his pocket or the pockets of congress, even though they are tax payers them selfs. they wont receive lower pay. VOTE ENOS 2028 wonder who enos would pick for VP? |
Posted By: thecorpseman
Date Posted: 03 August 2004 at 7:22pm
|
[QUOTE=cadet_sergeant] i dont see how congress will want
VOTE ENOS 2028 wonder who enos would pick for VP? [/QUOTE] YES!!! I also wonder who he would pick for VP. ------------- FAPM- Forumers against PopeMobile. |
Posted By: oreomann33
Date Posted: 03 August 2004 at 7:28pm
|
but thats how i get my money ------------- 
|
Posted By: hashi2008
Date Posted: 03 August 2004 at 7:29pm
AGAIN WITH THE QUOTE ERROR! J/K ------------- Founder of the "Forumers Against the Ugly Woman Sigs" also known as FAUWS. |
Posted By: tyranny
Date Posted: 03 August 2004 at 7:32pm
|
Posted By: andyhughes
Date Posted: 03 August 2004 at 7:41pm
|
Posted By: pballa j.r.
Date Posted: 03 August 2004 at 9:05pm
------------- 
|
Posted By: hashi2008
Date Posted: 04 August 2004 at 10:35am
|
Im J/K off course, I hope I don't get busted for slander or something. ------------- Founder of the "Forumers Against the Ugly Woman Sigs" also known as FAUWS. |
Posted By: Funky
Date Posted: 04 August 2004 at 11:37am
|
Kerry or Bush, half of America still won't vote, so either way, America loses.
------------- 
"Don't you hate pants?" |
Posted By: hashi2008
Date Posted: 04 August 2004 at 4:09pm
|
MTV is trying to get youing people to vote, but thier stuff is consistantly Democrat bias. Anyway, I would like to see more Black Republicans. My bro's g/f told these black girls that gas may raise even more if Kerry was elected president, and said some other stuff. They wouldn't even think of voting Kerry now, but they still refused to even think of voting Bush. ------------- Founder of the "Forumers Against the Ugly Woman Sigs" also known as FAUWS. |
Posted By: Multi-Colored J
Date Posted: 04 August 2004 at 4:58pm
|
Wow... it would help if you used an actual argument against Kerry, but seeing as your opinions (like most stupid conservatives) are based solely on quotes taken out of context like "I won't midlead you into war" and then saying "I didn't attack Bush." That frankly pales into comparison when you consider that Bush said that Iraq was importing radioactive materials from Africa and had weapons of mass destruction. In a STATE OF THE UNION address. Naturally, Iraq had neither the African uranium nor any weapons of mass destruction. Oh, and the whole "I'm going to make America safer" attitude that Bush is purporting himself to be is a load of crap. Before 9/11, Bush was so preoccupied with getting his tax cuts through, he decided (yes I realize it's Congress's decision too) to cut security programs at airports that the Clinton administration had put into place before 2000. Hmm... let's see, taxes are cut, security programs at airports are cut, then 9/11 happens. Holy crap! Looks like Bush screwed up there. Not to mention his economic policies. If you don't cut taxes for the middle/lower classes and raise them (slightly) for the upper classes, then the class structure divides, putting a great difference in wealth between the upper class and everyone else. Being a democrat, Kerry favors getting rid of Bush's tax cut and reinstating a Clinton-esque tax system (when we had the highest economic growth in US history, as well as the highest budget surplus in history).
And let's not even mention the way that the far right is trying to restrict our freedom (except for that oh-so-precious right to bear arms, that the right definitely can't be without, but peoples' intrinsic rights to liberty, to do, socially speaking, what they feel is right, and what they want (i.e. **edited** marriage) are expendable). ------------- X |
Posted By: hashi2008
Date Posted: 04 August 2004 at 5:33pm
Guns don't kill you stupid missinformed, media crap filled, idiot! People kill. If i misspell something, can I blame it on the pen? NO! And you can't blame the echonomy solely (or even mostly) on a President. If stupid, food stamp collecting, bum, losers would get jobs (I'm not directing this to all people without jobs), then the echonomy would be a lot better. You want an acctual arguement against Kerry, here's one I have been saving. Abortion is soo freaking wrong, especialy the later kinds. Little  who don't want to have to have babies, and screw thier whole town are using this like a safeguard. It is freaking murder! Taking things like drugs and pills that can kill a baby after knowing that you have a baby, and killing him/her is just like neglect, which you can get jail time for. So is Abortion. People keep complaining about rape victoms, well to bad! Killing a baby is just wrong, born or unborn. Those people are just sick, and I have 0 respect for anyone who supports abbortion in those ways. I would be happier if abortion was only allowed for rape victoms, but it wouldn't make everything right and moral. You people (Democrats) are always for "Rights for Everyone", well what about babies? Hypocrite turds!------------- Founder of the "Forumers Against the Ugly Woman Sigs" also known as FAUWS. |
Posted By: Multi-Colored J
Date Posted: 04 August 2004 at 5:47pm
|
First off, I didn't say that guns should be outlawed, because, frankly, I don't think they should. I think gun control is absolutely necessary (like people having gun locks if they have kids). Because, if guns are outlawed, then just the criminals will have guns. (On a side note, there are huge parallels with this and the war on drugs, but I'll not bring it up here). And talking about people who don't have jobs, how about the millions upon millions of jobs that have been lost as a result of the recession that Bush and the conservatives have been a huge instigator for? You're saying that it's their fault that their company has lost money and has to fire people (even AFTER the huge tax cuts Bush has given them).
Secondly, abortion is a matter of personal preference. It's whether you think a ball of cells is the same thing as a living, breathing person (which it isn't, as it can't live on its own... ie without a host). Oh, thirdly, nice job on attacking my posts on the war on Iraq and the Bush's irresponsible fiscal policies. You sure proved me wrong. Oh wait. You didn't. ------------- X |
Posted By: hashi2008
Date Posted: 04 August 2004 at 5:52pm
|
Sarcasm like that is just a distraction from real topics that don't really matter. You asked for a real topic. I gave it to you, and since you can't argue it well, you resort to sarcasm and attacking what i didn't cover, rather than what i did. ------------- Founder of the "Forumers Against the Ugly Woman Sigs" also known as FAUWS. |
Posted By: Multi-Colored J
Date Posted: 04 August 2004 at 6:24pm
|
First of all, since you've undoubtedly been brainwashed by the right/church (just like I'm "media crap filled" I believe you put so eloquently), I'll try and put this in terms you can understand.
First of all, I am pro-choice, meaning that I think that abortion should be a legal option when deciding what to do with a fetus. Honestly, hashi, do you think lots of people get lots of abortions all the damn time?? Of course they don't! Most people choose to either stick it out with the kid or give them up to adoption. Secondly, I am not an advocate of abortion. I think that that's an absolute last choice option that should only be considered when all other options are exhausted, or there is no other choice. In fact, if I were faced with that choice, I would NOT get an abortion (or, rather, tell my girlfriend to get one). Does that mean that I have the right to tell people what to do with an unborn ball of cells no bigger than the size of my thumb? A small ball of cells that cannot survive on its own. Does the government have the right saying what people can do with their own bodies? Of course not! Bush (as well as most far-right conservatives) seem to like to put a sort of a moral code on people (mostly based on the Christian Bible). They most popularly do this by taking away the rights of **edited**s (homosexuality being a no-no in the Bible) and abortion rights. Do you think it's right to have a government which is supposed to be unequivically separated from religion of any sort (you see what that did/is doing in the middle east) have leaders who very much try to put their thoughts about morality put into law? Even when it directly conflicts with the Constitution? And about the economy, look at how the economy was under Clinton (and a democrat-controlled Congress). Now look at the economy under Bush (both before and after Clinton). Striking differences, no? Both Bush's had terrible economies and Clinton had a fantastic economy! Oh, and by the way, I can argue, but, from your great post "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." And calling me a "crap filled idiot" doesn't exactly show your fantastic debating skills. Try attacking my posts with some facts next time, instead of just calling names. It makes you seem much more educated. ------------- X |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 04 August 2004 at 6:29pm
|
Horrible....Hopefully a third strike comes out of this. Then at least there was some good to this post. |
Posted By: hashi2008
Date Posted: 04 August 2004 at 7:14pm
|
I'll put this into terms you can understand. The Constitution says that the US will not respect one religion, and Bush isn't telling anyone to be Christian. The homosexual issue is about the marriage (which people have already screwe up the whole idea of marriage), not being Christian. If homosexuals are alowed to marry, then that bends many of the concepts, which is not going to help anything. He never said that they can not be together, or that they can not have some kind of agreement to share property, children, and bind them by a contract like marriage. However, like most Liberalists, you take things out of context. You people take things the way you want them to sound/mean. As for abortion, IT IS NOT THIER FREAKING BODY!(man i wish i could yell at this guy) We are dealing a LIVING thing. Just because it cannot live on it's own doesn't make it dead, newborns can't live on thier own, but they are still people. When a baby comes out of the mother, it still is strung to her. If the doctor were to shoot it, it would be murder. If you were the size of my thumb, and I killed you, would it still be wrong? Yes. (undoubtably better for this world, but still wrong) If you were mentaly retarded to a large degree, you couldn't survive on your own, but if someone killed you, it would be murder. Now that i have pointed this out enough that even you can understand, I'll move on. the echonomy is a roller coaster. It is difficult to control, and you can't even blame 1/4th of it on the President. Frankly, 9/11 tore it to shreads. This being the case, you cant even blame 1/8th of it on the president. if Kerry were president during this time, you would be saying the same thing, and I would have to agree with you. Prove to these good people of the forum that it was his fault. You can't. Finnaly, if you want to call me brainwashed because I have morals, and wish that others did as well, see that this world is going to Hell in a handbasket (this works both ways), and people like you are handing the world over, then I guess being moral and rightous is being brainwashed. If that is true, then people who want to kill, commit crimes, and just plain out be horrid people are perfectly normal. ------------- Founder of the "Forumers Against the Ugly Woman Sigs" also known as FAUWS. |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 04 August 2004 at 8:02pm
|
I will always be pro-choice. Making abortions illegal will just have women going to "back alley butchers" and hot coat hangers. Keeping this operation safe and sterile is the only way to go. I guess you must be against stem-cell research too because it uses baby embryos? Well...whatever. I am not a woman and could not possibly begin to explain what it would be like to be pregnant, especially if it was because of a rape. I don't think I should be able to tell a women, "oops, sorry, you must be a slut if you got pregnant and do not want to have the baby." That's just ignorant. I also think Presidents play a major role in the economy. They do not control it totally, but they do influence it with tax breaks, program reforms, and healthcare issues. |
Posted By: Multi-Colored J
Date Posted: 04 August 2004 at 9:06pm
|
OK. I'll deal with you on several points.
1. Homosexual marriage. It is not up to the government to decide matters of faith. What if the government were to say that you couldn't marry someone of a different faith than you? Or that you couldn't marry someone of a different race? Or from a different country? Then why is it ok for the government to say to two consenting adults that they can't get married (but maybe it'll be possible to get a "civil union") just because they happen to be of the same sex? That's ludicrous, especially when various churches allow marriage in their faiths. 2. Abortion First of all, being a newborn baby attached to their mother's umbilical cord (or, as you so eloquently put it, is "strung to her") is ENTIRELY different than being a ball of cells the size of your thumb. As is being mentally handicapped. See, these people are not dependent, biologically speaking, on a "host." And, no, of course I wouldn't like you to have squished me (and I doubt it would be better for the world, because, frankly, I'm far more intelligent and talented than you will ever be, but that's beside the point). 3. ECONOMY (not echonomy) Perhaps you can't blame it on the President alone. Oh, wait, I blamed it on the President AND CONGRESS! It's the government's job to make the economy a level playing ground for everyone. That means, the government has a responsibility to make it possible for a poor person to get rich, and the rich to stay rich, or whatever they desire. The President and Congress do, in fact, control a heck of a lot of the economy. They control taxes, healthcare, etc etc. Is it a coincidence that in the 8 years that Clinton was in office, the economy turned around, but, when Bush was elected, the economy went down the toilet (even before 9/11)? 9/11 may have had some of an effect on the economy, but it also had enormous potential to fix the economy, according to you. You say that people need to get off their asses and work. Well, NYC had a lot of fixing up to do post 9/11, and people did get off their asses and worked. Did it help the economy? Nah. Oh, and after Pearl Harbor, the US economy skyrocketed. (That and I love the arbitrary fractions you could said could be blamed on the President. That was really cool. I wish I could make up facts that well.) 4. The last couple sentences you wrote (oh wait, that's just a big run-on) I see it the other way around. Going to war with an independent republic without the consent of the majority of countries around the world is wrong. Telling people they can't marry another consenting adult is wrong (even if, as you say, it "bends many of the concepts" ...whatever that means). Making an unfair economic playing field, favoring the rich above the poor, and slashing welfare and health care reforms is wrong. Oh, and yes, I think committing crimes is a bad thing. For example, driving drunk is terrible. Theft is awful! And being a public disturbance is just irresponsible. It sure is a shame that Bush was arrested three times (!) because of those things. ------------- X |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 04 August 2004 at 9:10pm
|
^^^ Give me an O Give me a W Give me a N Give me an E Give me a D What's that spell...... |
Posted By: Multi-Colored J
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 12:51pm
|
Just waiting for a response, hashi... ------------- X |
Posted By: AdmiralSenn
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 2:00pm
|
MC-J... where were you in the big Homosexuality debate a few months ago..
My personal problem with homosexual marriage, aside from me being a Christian, is that homosexuals aren't a "race". It's not discrimination if there's no major difference between them and anyone else (I don't believe that anyone is born as a homosexual). Why should they get any special rights? Most churches won't marry them anyway. Besides, giving them rights based on their sexual orientation is, to me, as absurd as giving a criminal rights because of the crime he or she committed. My views on abortion are in a different thread. My views on the war in Iraq: You assume Bush deliberatly lied. Is it not possible that he was given intelligence stating the things that he told the nation, and it was wrong? Besides, what if he was right but we did not go into Iraq? If you recall, there were all kinds of circumstances pointing to Iraq having these weapons and preparing to use them on us. If we'd stayed out of Iraq and they'd had all this stuff, you'd criticize Bush for NOT going in. As for stem-cell research, I don't have any views on it because I haven't looked into it at all. And for the economy point: Do you really and truly believe that something as large as the US or World economy will immediately go to pieces because one person is suddenly in charge of a country? You do know that the economy we are dealing with now is a result of the actions of all the presidents for the last 50 years or so, right? Whatever Bush's policies are that he makes or disallows, it will take somewhere around a decade, I believe, before we reap the benefits or punishments of GWB's policies. ------------- Is God real? You'll find out when you die. 
Okay, I don't have a clever signature zinger. So sue me. |
Posted By: Multi-Colored J
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 2:15pm
|
Admiralsenn, it in fact IS discrimination against both religion and the people who want to get marreid. The government cannot dictate what churches can and cannot do, socially speaking (of course it is different if a church has all their members commit suicide or something), especially if the two people who want to marry are two consenting adults. The decision of whether the two are allowed to be married should be up to the individual church. I think that's the only way to solve the problem. I'm not saying they should get special rights, but I think it's wrong to make legislation against homosexuals just because they are different than the majority of the population (regardless of whether you believe people choose to be homosexual or not, which I'm certain they don't).
As for Iraq, there was not evidence of them having nuclear weapons, and, frankly, if they had had them, they would not have been able to launch them at the US. They simply didn't have the missile technology to hit us. So Bush saying they posed a significant threat to the US is misleading. Further, he (and the conservatives in Congress) took us to war with Iraq without the consent of the UN, which is absolutely absurd. That is why the UN was created, so no nation could unilaterally say "OK, I'm going to kill you now." That's what went wrong in WWII and consequently, the UN was created. Also, the weapons inspectors in Iraq had not completed their assessment of the arms there. Had they been able to finish, they would have reported their findings. Had they found any weapons, they would have made Iraq get rid of them. By the way, notice how I did not criticize Bush for gonig to Afghanistan. I think that was entirely justified. But killing people and invading a country is not justified based on "What if they had weapons of mass destruction?" As for the economy. Bush (and the conservatives who happen to be in control of Congress) have an immediate effect on the economy, especially through taxes. Bush favors a "trickle down" economic theory, which means you give tax breaks to the big businesses and the rich, adn the benefits will go to their workers in the form of higher wages and better prices. Ideally, that would work, but, unfortunately, when big corporations have huge amounts of money, they tend to want to keep it (look at Wal Mart hiring illegal immigrants and paying them practically nothing). The best way to change the economy is a "trickle up" theory, which means you give the poor/middle class lots of tax breaks and they'll buy lots more things. It's really easy, you have more money in your pocket, you're more willing to spend it, which goes to the companies, and that makes up for the higher taxes they have to pay. That's all for the moment. ------------- X |
Posted By: Enos Shenk
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 2:24pm
|
Im a priest. Ill marry the **edited**s myself just to spite dubya and the cult of christ people.
-------------
|
Posted By: AdmiralSenn
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 2:31pm
|
Who's making legislation against homosexuals? Saying they can't get married isn't changing anything that isn't already true in most places anyway.
What Bush and a lot of other people are trying to do is legally define marriage, instead of socially defining it. This is why I say that it's not discrimination against homosexuals, but allowing them to marry is giving them a special right. This goes true for allowing interracial marriages also. That is a special right, because there is in fact a difference from birth between a black person and a white person. I already said that he probably had intelligence stating that Iraq had whatever, nuclear missiles or whatever. The fact that the intelligence was wrong does NOT mean that it's his fault. Plus, the UN is, in my opinion, deteriorating towards uselessness. Saddam ignored UN rulings for years, and for all we know the trucks driving away from plants as inspectors came in were carrying nuclear material away to be dumped in some other country. And which inspections didn't they finish? Saddam had only been defying the UN inspectors for a decade.. plus he was having troops shoot at UN and US aircraft in no-fly zones. It's not as if we didn't already have reason to at least give him a military reminder, much less attack. And again, no matter what Bush says or does, it will take years if not decades for it to take effect. The economy may do what you say, but we won't know for some time. ------------- Is God real? You'll find out when you die.
Okay, I don't have a clever signature zinger. So sue me. |
Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 2:38pm
Which church are you a priest in? I signed up to be a priest in the Church of Life through the mail and I too can marry people. ------------- 
|
Posted By: PaintbalSoldier
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 2:40pm
|
No, Bush is actually doing a good job. Hes not my favorite president, but he's doing a lot better then Kerry will. Put Kerry in, and we will drop the war on terror and never be rid of it. |
Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 2:41pm
Hmm. Too bad it was true not to allow differnent races to marry 50 years ago. I see how that has changed for the better today. Sure, Homosexuals are not a race of people but neither are women, or special interest groups and they get legislation in there favor all the time. -------------
|
Posted By: Multi-Colored J
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 2:49pm
|
First of all, saying that two consenting adults can't enter into a legally-binding contract taht shares their assets, etc is pretty well restricting their freedom. The government can't define who can get married, as long as the two are consenting adults. Frankly, there doesn't need to be any legislation passed to allow them to marry. That you need to leave to the individual churches. I fail to see how not letting homosexuals marry is not restricting their freedom. Various liberal sects of Christianity and Judaism, as well as Unitarian Universalism, allow homosexuals to get married, no problem. The government saying that they can't marry is directly in conflict with religious views, which is essentially saying that their individual religions are not welcome, on the whole, in this country. And about interracial marriages, I fail to see any reasoning on that one. Are you saying that a white person should only marry a white person (barring any "special rights"). What about people who are, say, 1/4 black and 3/4 white? What do they do? How about people who are of English descent? Should they not marry people of Irish descent? Because they are naturally different when they are born. What about Americans and Canadians? What about Native Americans? Eskimos? Who decides who can marry whom? I think the more important thing here is whether or not the people love each other. If two people are in love, I don't see why they can't get married, even if they don't conform to the "norms" of people who should get married. That just seems ludicrous to me.
About the intelligence. Doesn't the Commander in Chief of our armed forces have a responsibility to check his information and decide whether or not it's valid or not? I think Bush finally found a piece of information that would help his argument, so he decided not to follow up on it and make sure it was accurate. Thirdly, if the UN is deteriorating (which I disagree with), then Bush is only helping it, because just as Saddam has ignored UN rulings, so has Bush in unilaterally going to war with Iraq. And even if the ecnonomy doesn't take effect for years after legislation has effect, it's a widely known and respected economic theory that giving more money to the poor will make EVERYONE money, not just the upper class. Regardless, Bush is purporting a very irresponsible fiscal policy. ------------- X |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 2:50pm
I'm glad you can see the future...please tell us what's in store for us next oh wonderful psychic. |
Posted By: AdmiralSenn
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 3:06pm
|
I never said that people of different races shouldn't get married.. try reading what I posted again. I said (or thought I said) that unlike homosexuals, different races are in fact different from everyone else at birth, and so giving them rights is only fair. Ditto for women, because they also did not make a choice to be any particular gender or race.
And I seriously doubt that there are Christians allowing homosexuals to be married. If they are, they're part of the group of people that pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow. And no, the Commander-in-Chief shouldn't have to check his sources himself, otherwise we wouldn't need the CIA would we? Prior to recent investigations, everyone thought our intelligence was sound and trustworthy. And your point about Bush defying the UN goes along with what I said perfectly. I agree with you 100% on that one. ------------- Is God real? You'll find out when you die.
Okay, I don't have a clever signature zinger. So sue me. |
Posted By: Enos Shenk
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 3:09pm
Im an Episkipos of the Paratheo-Anamystikhood of Eris Esoteric. -------------
|
Posted By: Multi-Colored J
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 3:30pm
|
Admiralsenn,
Perhaps I interpreted what you said earlier other than you intended it. You said that letting homosexuals marry was a special right, which, in your ealier post, you were against letting homosexuals get amrried. Then you said that interracial marriages was a special right. (which, by the way, it isn't. I've not seen any laws that say "interracial couples must be allowed to marry" .... I think it's more along the lines of they can't be discriminated against if they go to the courthouse to get married. It's not a right so much as it is protecting their intrinsic freedom to marry). And of course it's not his job to check intelligence, but it IS his job to tell the people all of the intelligence that he recieves, and not just the ones that help his case. For every piece of evidence saying that Saddam had WMDs, there were several pieces of evidence to the contrary. You don't go to war on a hunch. And Dracoplasm, how exactly is Bush fighting terror? Remember his tax cut for big corporations, including airports? Well, to fund his $5000 tax cuts for airports, he (and the conservative right) decided to cut funding by HALF security programs that Clinton put in place to help airport safety. That and he is squandering most of our military resources on Iraq at the moment, which does not have any proven connections to any terrorist cells that were involved with 9/11. That and he pulled out of the Geneva Convention, and is torturing Middle Eastern prisoners. In fact, the Bush administration is doing what nobody could ever do before, he's uniting the fanatic nations/terrorist cells in a battle against the West (especially the US). DO you really think that 9/11 was intended to convert the US to Islam overnight? Of course not! Bush just played into the hands of Bin Laden all to easily. In fact, probably better than he could have imagined because now more people hate America than ever before! Way to go, Bush! ------------- X |
Posted By: AdmiralSenn
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 3:39pm
Maybe I typed something other than what I meant. I meant that giving homosexuals rights based on the fact that they are homosexual is less justified than giving rights to different races or women, because homosexuals aren't yet conclusively proven to be born that way, and so it's not discrimination to deny someone "rights" if they aren't a race, but are instead people making a choice. ------------- Is God real? You'll find out when you die.
Okay, I don't have a clever signature zinger. So sue me. |
Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 3:45pm
|
What difference does it make whether or not they are born a certain way or not? If they want to do something, ie.. marry the same gender, what difference does it make? To the eyes of the government, it shouldn't matter. As long as an act does not infringe on someone elses rights, which it doesn't, it should be allowed. -------------
|
Posted By: Multi-Colored J
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 3:54pm
|
You beat me to the punch, Hades. Though I do have some other points.
Isn't it someone's choice to marry someone of a different race? And if it can't be proven that people are born homosexual, how can it be proven that they are born heterosexual? Perhaps they make a conscious choice at some point in their lives to say "OK I'm **edited**" or "OK I'm straight." (let me point out though, that I know LOTS of homosexual people, and uniformly they say that it wasn't a lifestyle that they chose, but rather just something they felt was natural for them... ie. they're born with it). ------------- X |
Posted By: hashi2008
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 4:19pm
|
------------- Founder of the "Forumers Against the Ugly Woman Sigs" also known as FAUWS. |
Posted By: Multi-Colored J
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 4:56pm
|
Oh Hashi, I know it must be difficult for you to understand someone who knows how to spell economy (not echonomy), skull (not scull), supposed (not suposed), dependent (not dependant). Really, though, try to hear me out.
As for marriage, I understand that in your protected, Christian world, it's very difficult to see others' points of view. But there ARE liberal sects of Christianity and Judaism that allow homosexual marriages, as well as other (wow, there are other faiths than Christianity?? Holy redneck, Batman, Hashi's misinformed!) faiths like Unitarian Universalism that perform marriages between members of the same sex. I'd really like to see the stone-cold definition of marriage. But who decides what a marriage is? The Christian church? Actually there are quite literally hundreds of different faiths out there, as well as different sects of Christianity, some of which actually allow marriages (not civil unions) between homosexuals. What if it were the other way around, and someone said that YOU could only marry a male? But if you were in love with a female you could always get a "civil union" which is essentially the same thing, except without the meaning of your faith backing it up? Frankly, marriage was not "formatted" (again, learn to spell) for homosexuals or heterosexuals, per se. It was made for two people who love each other. Secondly, a ball of cells, as much as you'd like to have it be, is NOT a "living, breathing human being." Does it have lungs, a heart, kidneys, etc etc? No. It is a ball of cells with the POTENTIAL to be a living thing. If you want to get down to the point, then each individual sperm is a living thing (because it has the potential for life), so every time you mastrubate, you're committing millions upon millions of murders. Economy. I am looking at the big picture. Just as you say I can't blame the economy on the President (who is around for 4 years), you can't blame the economic mess on 9/11 (which happened for a day, and NYC is very well cleaned up now, as I've been there recently). People around the US are not lazy, as we are the richest, strongest nation in the world. We jsut can't fidn jobs because our President and Congress is fiscally irresponsible. Fourthly... oh wait, you couldn't come up with anything to counter my point about Bush being an alcoholic, drug using loser who's gotten arrested three times (you know, I don't think I know ANYONE who's gotten arrested three times). ------------- X |
Posted By: Ejp414
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 5:01pm
|
Sperm doesn't have human DNA, a fetus does...
------------- __________________ __________________ |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 5:05pm
|
Finally, a topic in which you and I disagree. |
Posted By: Ejp414
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 5:07pm
 Abortion is my weakest subject. I try not to argue it too often, but I think the masturbation is murder if abortion is murder argument is completely wack. ------------- __________________ __________________ |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 5:08pm
| Hahaha, I see where you're coming from. I was raised in a very feministic household, so I was quick to the pro-choice route. |
Posted By: Multi-Colored J
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 5:14pm
|
Actually, sperm does in fact have half a human's full DNA code within it. I'm saying that both the sperm and a fetus have the potential to become life, but is one sperm cell THAT much different than a sperm and an egg? Of course it has a much higher potential to become a human, but both the sperm and the ball of cells (i don't mean a third trimester kid) can't live on their own as a person.
That and I'm presenting a similiarly crazy argument to show Hashi that he doesn't know what he's talking about. ------------- X |
Posted By: Multi-Colored J
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 5:21pm
|
Oh, and Hashi, I don't, and never have wasted my time taking videos of me playing football or paintball. I was too busy graduating high school with a GPA above 4.0, an SAT score of 1410, getting two full tuition scholarships from universities that I applied to (room and board also from one, which I turned down), holding a principal violin position at my conservatory last year (my freshman year), making the Dean's list both semesters, and playing viola in a professional pit orchestra all summer long. Oh, that and playing with the Baltimore Symphony my senior year of high school. ------------- X |
Posted By: Ejp414
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 5:23pm
Ermm, first of all, the fact that it has half the DNA means nothing at all. A chimpanzee's DNA is somewhere around 90% similar to a human's DNA. It has to be human DNA to classify as a human. So yes, a sperm is much different from a zygote, because a zygote is actively forming a living human being, that cannot be denied even if you do think that a fetus is not a human. Maybe hospital patients cannot live on their own, should we be able to kill them off as we please? Hell, as an infant, you couldn't even live on your own. You are completely dependent on another human being to survive at that age. And by law, not just morals, you are indeed a human being then. Finally, in some states if you kill a pregnant woman, then you are guilty of two charges of murder. (Those are state laws and not for every state). I personally find it crazy that legal abortion and the law I just mentioned can possibly co-exist. If you want to disprove a crazy argument, don't use another crazy argument. ------------- __________________ __________________ |
Posted By: Multi-Colored J
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 5:57pm
|
First of all, a sperm has HUMAN DNA. It has half the DNA necessary for a human. Not DNA that is 50% similar to a human, but rather half of a human's DNA code. The fact that a sperm isn't actively forming a human being is a much better argument.
You can't use an example of a living human against a zygote either. That's just the same as me using a sperm against a fetus argument. A zygote is, as you said, actively FORMING a human being. It is not a human being, according to that logic. That hospital patients and infants can't live on their own is much different than what I said. I said that a fetus cannot live without a host, the mother. Thus, "killing" (I use the term loosely, as I don't contend that the zygote is alive) a fetus is not the same as killing a person. That and the states with the double murder charge only have it if the fetus is viable (that is, she could go into labor when she was murdered and the fetus could have had a chance at living). ------------- X |
Posted By: Ejp414
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 6:06pm
By calling your argument ridiculous, I'm not saying the thought processes of all of those for abortion is wrong or crazy. I see your argument as the same way I'd see someone saying we should bomb abortion clinics because abortion is immoral -- wrong, unreasonable, and outright ridiculous. EDIT: By the way, it sounds to me like you are merely marching along party lines spitting out pre-written arguments. Have you ever had to deal with a situation that involves abortion? I suppose not if you're spending all your time playing the violin or the viola. Great instruments, by the way, I plan on taking violin lessons this year. ------------- __________________ __________________ |
Posted By: Multi-Colored J
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 6:37pm
|
First of all, you don't know what you're talking about concerning DNA. Try taking an advanced biology course. You said that sperm does not have human DNA. It does. It has half the HUMAN DNA necessary to complete the genome. It does not, however, have a full human genome. Comparing that to a monkey is an invalid analogy, as a monkey does not take part in forming a human being, while a sperm does. I didn't contradict myself; I just said it right, while you don't know how to form a coherent sentence and argue biology.
Yes, a zygote is FORMING a human being. That statement implies that it is NOT a human being. It's just like when you're making an ice cream sundae (forgive the stupid analogy, but I think you'll get my point), in that the ice cream, whipped cream, hot fudge, and cherry, when put together, make a tasty treat. However, taken alone, they do not equal a sundae. Secondly, if a zygote is not a human being but is still living, what the hell is it? It would really help if you clarified some statements here. Thirdly, a zygote being dependent on a mother IS different than someone relying on a nurse to feed them, because a zygote is BIOLOGICALLY dependent on a mother to live. It's not depending on someone's good nature for them to CONTINUE living, but, rather, it is NOT a human being, and needs a host that it is BIOLOGICALLY dependent on to BECOME a human being. I'm not going to source all my statements because each state has different laws regarding pregnant women. I'm sure that for every example I give you, I'll have others from other states. Oh, and I don't think masturbation is murder. You're stupid for not recognizing sarcasm directed at Hashi's ludicrous analogies. Good job at reading between the lines there, buddy. Lastly, you comparing my argument to someone bombing abortion clinics is entirely faulty. Just because certain arguments have a few general similarities ("wrong, unreasonable, and outright ridiculous" which, incidentally, are subjective terms that don't follow logic or debating rules... we need facts here). Try taking a speech/debate class sometime, and you'll learn that that kind of comparison just ruins your argument. Oh wait, one more thing. Just because I haven't had a personal experience with abortion doesn't mean I'm not entitled to an opinion on it. Especially because, for some reason, I doubt you have, either. Should I say that, because you're quite obviously of significantly lower intelligence than me that you shouldn't be allowed to talk about things like this? Or that since you can't recognize sarcasm you should be stopped from engaging in online discussions where the other people in it are much smarter and better-versed in the English language than you? (Oh, if you didn't realize it, that was sarcasm right there.) Oh, and by the way, I'm not spitting out political arguments. I actually have to form my own opinions, and I actually think about what I'm posting, rather than making a concerted (but really unsuccessful, nonetheless) effort to make myself appear smarter than I actually am. ------------- X |
Posted By: AdmiralSenn
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 7:43pm
Although considering how screwed up society in general is, monkeys may end up playing a part in that sometime in the near future. ------------- Is God real? You'll find out when you die.
Okay, I don't have a clever signature zinger. So sue me. |
Posted By: tippy98aac
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 7:46pm
 ------------- Tippy 98 c |
Posted By: fractus.scud
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 8:02pm
|
first we allow **edited** marrige. Then it's "lets let foreigners run for president" then it's "only do what the UN wants. Were slowly taking apart the intracate system thats held our country together all these years. And Kerry highers taxes on the "rich" not the middle class. So how does a middle class person expect to "climb up the food chain" they can't. And where is your proof of Bush cutting security prior to 9/11. Ive been all over and before 9/11 there was no security, even years ago with Clinton. None. ------------- 
Benny go home! |
Posted By: Multi-Colored J
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 8:13pm
|
fractus, how exactly does allowing homosexuals to marry translate into foreigners running for president? you sound like a stupid conservative who likes to throw around things that scare people, and you do so without thinking. You're the kind of person who'll say "the US is so close to communism and we don't even realize it!" You scare people into thinking the same way as you. I think that makes you, to use a popular phrase, un-American. ------------- X |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 8:14pm
|
I've delt with several situations involving abortion. Does that make me a viable candidate for debate? |
Posted By: hashi2008
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 8:58pm
|
Hey Dune, do yourself and the forum a favor, and go to Camp Jim (That MTV show with the **edited** dude). You need practice. Also, I have never had a GPA below 4.0, and the coaches tape the games for watching and correcting mistakes in formations/plays. Of course, a band geek like you who proofreads every post and crys about every little thing wouldn't know much about that. I hope someone locks this poll, before you spread around more crap. ------------- Founder of the "Forumers Against the Ugly Woman Sigs" also known as FAUWS. |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 9:02pm
|
I think I just threw up in my mouth when I read this. It's funny that you think I'm homosexual just because I believe in tolerance. If you can't handle getting owned in a debate, then just read up on the Ideas Forum. |
Posted By: hashi2008
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 9:05pm
|
I was talking about your little cheer on the first page ( maybe the second). I can understand wanting to look up girls skirts, but why do you have to **edited** up this forum. ------------- Founder of the "Forumers Against the Ugly Woman Sigs" also known as FAUWS. |
Posted By: tippy98aac
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 9:06pm
|
hey buddy lay off the band geeks. ------------- Tippy 98 c |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 9:07pm
| I'm sensing a strike three in your future. |
Posted By: Ejp414
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 10:32pm
Yes, it does. And as I've said, it's my weakest point because I believe it's immoral and beyond that reasoning, I can't really say much. Multi-Colored Jay: You just don't seem to write very elequently. I suggest you research the topic a bit more. I'd offer counterpoints, but it doesn't seem to be quite worth it because I know I could say anything and you'd fling endless amounts of insults like last time. My argument stands. ------------- __________________ __________________ |
Posted By: Multi-Colored J
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 11:22pm
|
Oh, Hashi... Hashi, Hashi, Hashi... you have so much to learn. Number one being finishing your attack on my previous post (remember when you said you'd say something about my last paragraph?) Secondly, you might call me a "band geek" and that's cool. I mean, notwithstanding the fact that I've never been in the "band" at school (string instruments play in what's called an orchestra, you uncultured slob), that's an entirely accurate statement.
Finally, I may critique you for your abuse of the English language, but your debating is far less convincing when you can't spell anything but monosyllabic words correctly (actually, I was mistaken... your great spelling of "scull" still amazes me. Somehow I doubt that you have a 4.0) Oh, and Ejp... just wanted to say that perhaps I don't write elOquently (emphasis on the O, you veritable walking dictionary, you.), but at least I use correct spelling and punctuation. Yours is, in the least, haphazard. Oh, that and I've researched abortion plenty, as well as taken plenty of biology courses, so I know very well the processes involved in creating a living human being. It seems to me (based on my research and study) that a ball of cells is not the same as a human, nor is it living in the sense that you and I are living. Does that help you at all? I mean, do I have to spell it out for you one more time and have you try to argue semantics with me? I also love how you countered my last post. Oh wait. You didn't. You just said that I didn't play fair. Oh, poor ejp... I didn't fight fair by insulting your dumb**edited** logic? And you were fighting fair by comparing my train of thought about legalizing abortion to a terrorist act of blowing up an abortion clinic? My advice to you is to get the hell out of this forum before you get proved wrong again. And next time, try and write coherently and follow the general rules of logic before you prove to everyone that you're a dumbass and the other person is right. With lots of love, Tommy ------------- X |
Posted By: spydero99
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 11:34pm
|
well half of america cant vote cause they are illegal citizens, whats really sad is in my town the most numerous population is mexicans, then blacks then whites, so pretty much whites are the minority ------------- erm, eh, well, ok, your right, i am sorry Enos, i dont know what i ever did, but you have jurasdiction over the forum, so, i am sorry for all i have done to offen you Enos |
Posted By: Multi-Colored J
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 11:39pm
|
Sad that whites are the minority? I really don't see a big problem with that, actually. I mean, America IS sort of a "melting pot" of races. Actually, I hope that you just phrased that wrong and aren't really a racist piece of **edited**.
And illegal immigrants do NOT constitute half of America. In fact, I think they'd constitute an even smaller portion if corporations were forced to pay them the same wages as citizens. ------------- X |
Posted By: spydero99
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 11:43pm
|
umm... well i wasnt serious about the illegal immarents, but i am serious about whits being a minority in my town ------------- erm, eh, well, ok, your right, i am sorry Enos, i dont know what i ever did, but you have jurasdiction over the forum, so, i am sorry for all i have done to offen you Enos |
Posted By: Multi-Colored J
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 11:47pm
|
well i still fail to see the problem with whites being the minority. ------------- X |
Posted By: spydero99
Date Posted: 05 August 2004 at 11:54pm
|
i sont see a proble either, i just think its wierd cause whites were like a 1 black for every 5 whites, now its like the opposite, i dont have a prob w/ it, but its wierd how minorities have majorly swung around ------------- erm, eh, well, ok, your right, i am sorry Enos, i dont know what i ever did, but you have jurasdiction over the forum, so, i am sorry for all i have done to offen you Enos |
Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 06 August 2004 at 1:30am
Although you and I dissagree alot, you still managed to make me laugh.  -------------
|
Posted By: Enos Shenk
Date Posted: 06 August 2004 at 1:45am
 Some people in this thread need to take a deep breath, pop some valium. and CALM DOWN. Debates are one thing, but some responses here have bordered on flames. -------------
|