Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

President Arnie
novemberrain Posted: Mon Feb 23 12:56:20 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  New York Post, February 23, 2004 -- Actor-turned-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger yesterday left the door wide open to a future White House bid as he touted a proposed constitutional amendment to let foreign-born Americans like himself run for president.

The Constitution says only native-born Americans can run for president, but Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is pushing an amendment to extend eligibility to anyone who has been a citizen for 20 years.

"Man, I should look at that, because it sounds really good," the Austrian-born Schwarzenegger told NBC's Tim Russert. "I mean, are you going to help me? Come on, Tim. Come on."

Schwarzenegger and his wife, Kennedy kin Maria Shriver, got a preview last night of what life in the White House would be like, when they attended a black-tie reception in advance of the winter meeting of the National Governors Association.

State leaders will meet with President Bush again today.

Schwarzenegger made it clear that the amendment would make him eligible, since he's been a citizen since 1983 - more than 20 years.

Schwarzenegger - making his Sunday talk-show debut as California governor on "Meet the Press" - insisted, "I haven't thought about [a presidential bid] at all," but eagerly promoted the idea of a foreign-born president.

"Times have changed. I think this is now a much more global economy. I think that there's so many people here in this country that are now from overseas that are immigrants that are doing such a terrific job with the work, bringing business here and all this," he said.

"There's no reason why not," he said. "I mean, the key thing is it's just that you understand the political system, how it works. And, you know, maybe people can be great contributors."

As examples, the Republican ex-bodybuilder cited European-born former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright.

After looking at a film clip of the Sylvester Stallone film "Demolition Man" - which projects a Schwarzenegger presidency after a constitutional amendment - The Governator joked, "If Sly would help me, I mean, of course I would [run]."

Schwarzenegger also insisted yesterday that Bush can win California next fall - if the White House supplies enough financial aid to the Golden State.

And he reaffirmed his opposition to the gay marriages that are taking place in San Francisco.

He said they could set a bad precedent.

"In San Francisco, it is [a] license for marriage of same sex. Maybe the next thing is another city that hands out licenses for assault weapons and someone else hands out licenses for selling drugs," he said.

He ducked the question of what he would do if the California state Legislature passed a measure seeking to legalize gay marriage.

Schwarzenegger arrives in New York tomorrow, and is slated to ring the closing bell at the New York Stock Exchange before attending two evening fund-raisers.


 
addi Posted: Mon Feb 23 14:03:22 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I was worried about this too back when Arnold was elected, and stated so in a post. But there's no need to worry cuz our bud hif assured us it was constitutionaly impossible. His exact words in the "Cal lee Forn Ya" thread last year:

ifihadahif said:
>umm, that would require an amendment to the constitution dude. can't happen.

If hif says it can't happen, then it can't happen, and that's good enough for this nervous liberal. Nobody knows his shit like hif knows his shit : )


 
novemberrain Posted: Mon Feb 23 14:13:44 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I heard a couple of DJ's arguing about it on the radio this morning. Thought it was interesting. Most of the people who called in to the show agreed that even if the sen. from Utah pushes an amendment it wouldn't get passed.




 
Aeon Posted: Mon Feb 23 14:24:55 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  There's no way it would pass. If it did... the world would turn into that movie Demolition Man. Right?


 
novemberrain Posted: Mon Feb 23 14:26:54 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Aeon said:
>There's no way it would pass. If it did... the world would turn into that movie Demolition Man. Right?

hehe

I don't know...I can think of a few GTers who could make an awesome president or madame president
:)


 
libra Posted: Mon Feb 23 14:44:37 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  god dammit. Its bad enough him being governor here, but if he's president?!

My tuition is going up AGAIN. While it's being raised, classes and programs are being cut.


 
novemberrain Posted: Mon Feb 23 14:55:39 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>god dammit. Its bad enough him being governor here, but if he's president?!
>
>My tuition is going up AGAIN. While it's being raised, classes and programs are being cut.


tell us how you really feel, libra:)


 
Malik Posted: Mon Feb 23 15:01:10 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Gawd, I loved that movie. :)

Well, it doesn't really matter if it's constitutionally possible or not. There is an amendment process to the constitution. Up until 1865 (or whenever), it wasn't constitutionally possible for blacks to vote, be citizens, etc. Before prohibition, it wasn't constitutionally possible to sell alcohol.

If America decides (and when I say America, I mean the policymakers) to amend the constitution to remove that clause, they can do it.

And Libra, I agree with you on your point. The accident where Schwartzhenhiger (I don't care) became governor proved that politcs is just like it was for Middle School class officers: somebody popular, outrageous, and not expected to run, runs, and people vote for him. Just for "what the hell" value.


 
addi Posted: Mon Feb 23 15:30:19 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>god dammit. Its bad enough him being governor here, but if he's president?!

Libra , ya know you and I are kindred spirits and I luvs ya, but I just can't help but laugh when you cuss like that. It's so cute! I get this visual of you in that pink bunny outfit flailing your arms about and swearing like a sailor and I laugh. I'm sorry, really.

As far as arnold goes we're safe. Don't forget the blacks wanted an amendment to the constitution giving them the right to vote and that never happened.
And uppity women demanded the right to vote and that never happened either. Now arrogant 20 year US foreign citizens want the right to run for President and, just like the others, that can't happen here either. : )



 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Feb 23 16:06:49 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  There will never be an amendment to the constitution allowing foreign born citizens to run for prez.
At least not in our lifetime.
I personally don't have a problem with it, but I think most of the country will.
As for Arnold raising tuition and cutting benefits in California - what did you expect ?
California has more social programs than most countries. Hell there are even clinics that remove tattoos that are govt sponsored.
The state either had to cut back or go bankrupt.
You certainly can't blame that on Arnold. He's just trying to fix what the dems already fucked up.


 
marsteller Posted: Tue Feb 24 01:12:56 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i've never voted for anything, but if arnie ran for president, i'd register and vote for him


 
libra Posted: Tue Feb 24 01:31:58 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  marsteller said:
>i've never voted for anything, but if arnie ran for president, i'd register and vote for him


why???!


 
iggy Posted: Tue Feb 24 01:32:02 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i'll vote for king thong



 
libra Posted: Tue Feb 24 02:59:28 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i don't know who i'd pick...out of everyone i know...to be president. It'd be difficult...because even people you really like, you can admit that they wouldn't make a very good president. I think my dad would be ok in certain respects, but he's too head-in-the-clouds-y. He's like me that way. My mom would be an awful president. She's way too opinionated, but she doesn't get all the info she needs to make the opinion...and you can't reason with her.

What do you guys think? would you trust your parents with the country you reside in?


 
iggy Posted: Tue Feb 24 03:11:24 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  my dad is my boss.

the way he runs the show at times, i'm glad he's semi-retired.

if he ran the country, churches and libraries will make way for golf courses and if u can't play golf, u'll either learn or go to jail.

he;s a great dad. a bad boss. and i shudder to imagine if he's president.

in some strange dimension, he's the president and i will lead the rebellion


 
addi Posted: Tue Feb 24 07:59:58 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  marsteller said:
>i've never voted for anything, but if arnie ran for president, i'd register and vote for him

This I just can't understand. I'm really trying, but it don't make sense.

Over the past few decades in America analysis of those who consider themselves Republicans, and vote republican, the majority also align themselves with conservative Christian beliefs: like no smoking (pot, cigs), no drinking, no sex before marriage, they believe gays choose to be gay and it's a sin, they are extremely pro-life, they believe Christianity is the one true religion, and that muslims are going to hell. You get the picture. The Republican Party is the party of traditional conservative American values. Any in-depth analysis done recently of republican voters supports the above. In fact, I just saw one done on the make up of Bush supporters back in the 2000 election that backs the above up. The Fundamentalist Christians just had some huge annual meeting a few weeks ago and our pres personally called them on speaker phone during the convention to say a few godly words and throw his support their way. He's a righteous Dude, and went out of his way to show that these kind of people are who the party aligns with.

America needs both parties. It's healthy, but they clearly stand for and represent two very different ideologies.

So it baffles me that you would make this kind of statement.
It's like me saying I would vote for Al Sharpton (black politician) for president as I put on my white sheet to attend this months KKK meeting. (southern politicians that were against segregation and the civil rights movement in America were also, coinsidently, republicans.)


please take a few minutes and explain to an old guy like me what I'm obviously not understanding; your lack of hesitation to support a republican party candidate, but marsteller also being a cool hip (pot smoking?) drinking sexually active cussing anti-fundamentalist liberal-values party going Dude.

...Or could it be that it has nothing to do with Arnie being a republican, and you just like him because he's one cool, bitch ass grabbing, super action hero, terminating mutha f**ker! : )



 
mat_j Posted: Tue Feb 24 09:07:55 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Libra's cap rules


 
addi Posted: Tue Feb 24 09:18:44 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  mat_j said:
>Libra's cap rules

Here I was looking forward to reading an intelligent response from matboy on my post...

and your unnatural fetish for Ms.Libra's hat comes up again. My Gawd, Man. Get a hold of yourself!!!


 
Iamjustdancing. Posted: Tue Feb 24 09:24:39 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Listen, not all republicans are right wing zealots. I for one am a die-hard republican, but leaning heavily on the fiscal side of the coin. I believe in low taxes, small government, social darwinism, a strong military, and as little intervention in the general public as possible. I for one agree with legalizing pot, i am all for sex !! drinking is good, homosexuals are fine, i am against abortion... but in the end its the womans choice. I hate affirmative action (as its just legalized racism) So in the end, who do i vote for? The republican.
(because democrats are usually socialists and i hate socialists >:I )





 
mat_j Posted: Tue Feb 24 09:52:35 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>mat_j said:
>>Libra's cap rules
>
>Here I was looking forward to reading an intelligent response from matboy on my post...
>
>and your unnatural fetish for Ms.Libra's hat comes up again. My Gawd, Man. Get a hold of yourself!!!

I'm sorry Addi, i think i'm okay now.





Ohhhh no i'm not Damn!


 
addi Posted: Wed Feb 25 07:13:53 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  mat_j said:

>I'm sorry Addi, i think i'm okay now.
>
>
>
>
>
>Ohhhh no i'm not Damn!

LOL! I hope you're not okay. The world would be too boring!


 
addi Posted: Wed Feb 25 07:20:37 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  WSU-Dave said:
>Listen, not all republicans are right wing zealots.

Yes you are!! Every stinkin' one of ya!! lol

*I had a typical Addi long drawn out serious and angry response to Dave, but the site went down before I could post it. Now I don't feel like posting it. I just feel like enjoying the fact GT's up again, returning to my slutty posting ways, and being a liberal smart ass. Woo Hoo!!


 
mat_j Posted: Wed Feb 25 07:42:55 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Fucking Republicans, they're the'White man' you hear about on TV and i Movies. I say we all get together and drive them into the sea!


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Feb 25 07:49:33 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>marsteller said:
>>i've never voted for anything, but if arnie ran for president, i'd register and vote for him
>
>This I just can't understand. I'm really trying, but it don't make sense.
>
>Over the past few decades in America analysis of those who consider themselves Republicans, and vote republican, the majority also align themselves with conservative Christian beliefs: like no smoking (pot, cigs), no drinking, no sex before marriage, they believe gays choose to be gay and it's a sin, they are extremely pro-life, they believe Christianity is the one true religion, and that muslims are going to hell. You get the picture. The Republican Party is the party of traditional conservative American values. Any in-depth analysis done recently of republican voters supports the above. In fact, I just saw one done on the make up of Bush supporters back in the 2000 election that backs the above up. The Fundamentalist Christians just had some huge annual meeting a few weeks ago and our pres personally called them on speaker phone during the convention to say a few godly words and throw his support their way. He's a righteous Dude, and went out of his way to show that these kind of people are who the party aligns with.
>

>America needs both parties. It's healthy, but they clearly stand for and represent two very different ideologies.
>
>So it baffles me that you would make this kind of statement.
>It's like me saying I would vote for Al Sharpton (black politician) for president as I put on my white sheet to attend this months KKK meeting. (southern politicians that were against segregation and the civil rights movement in America were also, coinsidently, republicans.)
>
>
> please take a few minutes and explain to an old guy like me what I'm obviously not understanding; your lack of hesitation to support a republican party candidate, but marsteller also being a cool hip (pot smoking?) drinking sexually active cussing anti-fundamentalist liberal-values party going Dude.
>
i'm not sure but maybe the info you have on republicans is wrong. What you have stated above is the republican platform, not necessarily the values of all voting republicans. there are many republicans out there that are fiscal conservatives and social liberals but still vote republican. there are a lot of pot smokers who consider themselves liberal. there are a lot of gays that know that all conservatives don't subscribe to the republican doctrine that they chose to be that way.
There are many republicans who never go to church of any kind.
Maybe your "in-depth" analysis was done by a democrat ?
The make-up of the republican party has changed and the democrats have failed to realize that.


 
addi Posted: Wed Feb 25 07:53:31 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  mat_j said:
>Fucking Republicans, they're the'White man' you hear about on TV and i Movies. I say we all get together and drive them into the sea!

Yes! The Dead Sea! Muhahahaha!

*But let's keep hif, put him in a cage, and tease him by having Libra occasionally walk by wearing just her hat. : )


 
addi Posted: Wed Feb 25 08:11:50 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>There are many republicans who never go to church of any kind.
>Maybe your "in-depth" analysis was done by a democrat ?
>The make-up of the republican party has changed and the democrats have failed to realize that.


I step up to your challenge, Sir!

Let's pretend:
Addi says:
The majority of Blacks in America enjoy and listen to Hip Hop and Rap music.

Hif responds:
I dun know where you're getting your information from, but there are a lot of Black americans that prefer Jazz, Country, and Classical music to Hip Hop.

Well, Frickin' Duh!!
Did I say Blacks ONLY enjoy Hip Hop and Rap music?
Did I say every Republican believes this way in the post your responding to?

You gotta do better than that hif.

The moral majority aligns itself with the Republican Party. Pro-Lifers align themselves with the Republican Party.
Anti-Gays align themselves with the Republican party. See a pattern?

Now you find me ANY credible analysis of the how the majority of Republicans fall on the issues I mentioned, and I'll eat my words. Otherwise, my thong clad conservative friend, your rebuttal has no teeth.


 
addi Posted: Wed Feb 25 09:07:05 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ABC News Poll from 2002


Which Party Is Favored?
Group Democrats Republicans

Non-White 74% 23%
Annual Income
<$30K 60% 36%
$30K-$49.9K 57% 40%
$50K-$74.9K 52% 44%
$75K+ 37% 60%

White Protestants
Evangelical 25% 71%


*One poll does not make gospel truth. But it does demonstrate a few things that have been the pattern of American political voting, and fairly obvious, for the past 40 years or so.
The poor see themselves as Democrats. The majority of the wealthy align themselves with the Republicans. Non-Whites prefer Democrats. Religious conservatives overwhelmingly prefer the republican party.







 
FN Posted: Wed Feb 25 09:51:15 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I can't believe Bush wants to ban gay marriage.

What's his fucking problem.

If people are happy that way let them for fuck's sake. It's none of his or anybody else's bussiness.

Over here it's been approved for quite a while and nobody made a fuss about it.

He's even more stupid than I thought, and people still vote for him.

I would laugh and laugh and then laugh some more if arnold would become president, just like I did when he became governor lol.

Ah, the fun.

I don't think it would be so funny to me if it was my region he was governing though.


Anyway, if the amendement gets through I'm running for president.


 
libra Posted: Wed Feb 25 10:10:29 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  mat_j said:
>addison said:
>>mat_j said:
>>>Libra's cap rules
>>
>>Here I was looking forward to reading an intelligent response from matboy on my post...
>>
>>and your unnatural fetish for Ms.Libra's hat comes up again. My Gawd, Man. Get a hold of yourself!!!
>
>I'm sorry Addi, i think i'm okay now.
>
>
>
>
>
>Ohhhh no i'm not Damn!

I knew I should have bought that hat...I loved it...but it was too expensive


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Feb 25 11:07:14 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>There are many republicans who never go to church of any kind.
>>Maybe your "in-depth" analysis was done by a democrat ?
>>The make-up of the republican party has changed and the democrats have failed to realize that.
>
>
>I step up to your challenge, Sir!
>
>Let's pretend:
>Addi says:
>The majority of Blacks in America enjoy and listen to Hip Hop and Rap music.
>
>Hif responds:
>I dun know where you're getting your information from, but there are a lot of Black americans that prefer Jazz, Country, and Classical music to Hip Hop.
>
>Well, Frickin' Duh!!
>Did I say Blacks ONLY enjoy Hip Hop and Rap music?
>Did I say every Republican believes this way in the post your responding to?
>
>You gotta do better than that hif.
>
>The moral majority aligns itself with the Republican Party. Pro-Lifers align themselves with the Republican Party.
>Anti-Gays align themselves with the Republican party. See a pattern?
>
>Now you find me ANY credible analysis of the how the majority of Republicans fall on the issues I mentioned, and I'll eat my words. Otherwise, my thong clad conservative friend, your rebuttal has no teeth.

just because one group or another aligns itself with a particular party, that does not define said party. duh !
with the exception of pro-lifers the groups you mentioned are less that one tenth of one percent of the voters.
I stand by my previous post.
The voters have proven my point by giving the republicans control of both houses and the white house.

As far as how the majority of Republicans fall on one issue or another, how bout the dems ? They can't seem to decide on anything. They have been a party divided for a long time and that is why they have been losing ground at a steady pace for so long.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Feb 25 11:09:21 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>I can't believe Bush wants to ban gay marriage.
>
>What's his fucking problem.
>
>If people are happy that way let them for fuck's sake. It's none of his or anybody else's bussiness.
>
>Over here it's been approved for quite a while and nobody made a fuss about it.
>
>He's even more stupid than I thought, and people still vote for him.
>
>I would laugh and laugh and then laugh some more if arnold would become president, just like I did when he became governor lol.
>
>Ah, the fun.
>
>I don't think it would be so funny to me if it was my region he was governing though.
>
>
>Anyway, if the amendement gets through I'm running for president.

Now don't get your panties in a wad Chris. You don't know what you're talking about here and just a little too quick to jump on the pile.
Dubya is against "marriage" for gays, but he has no problem with "civil unions", or other legal arrangements that give them the same rights and priviledges as married couples.


 
FN Posted: Wed Feb 25 11:18:05 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Who is he to make that decision for other people


 
addi Posted: Wed Feb 25 11:20:12 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>just because one group or another aligns itself with a particular party, that does not define said party. duh !

What defines a party then? You've already discounted that parties platform in your previous post. And now it can't be the "groups" that traditionally vote with that party. So what's the distinction? You obviously believe the democractic party is different than the republican party. What defining factors separate the two for you?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Feb 25 11:55:30 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Who is he to make that decision for other people

who said he was making any decisions for other people ?


 
FN Posted: Wed Feb 25 12:08:12 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Christophe said:
>>Who is he to make that decision for other people
>
>who said he was making any decisions for other people ?

He seems to think that he has the right to decide if people should allowed to be maried or not if they wanted to do so.

So do people who vote for it.


What harm does it do to anyone if people are happy if they can be married. I think there's enough discrimination to go around, and now they're going to make it a governemental thing?


 
mat_j Posted: Wed Feb 25 12:41:20 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Christophe said:
>>Who is he to make that decision for other people
>
>who said he was making any decisions for other people ?

Jesus Hif what part of banning Gay marriages escaped your attention, by doing so he's effectively made the decision for every gay couple in America who wanted to tie the knot.

What a cunt Bush is i was really looking forward to 'Americas Gayest Marriages' on Fox.


 
mat_j Posted: Wed Feb 25 12:42:23 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>mat_j said:
>>addison said:
>>>mat_j said:
>>>>Libra's cap rules
>>>
>>>Here I was looking forward to reading an intelligent response from matboy on my post...
>>>
>>>and your unnatural fetish for Ms.Libra's hat comes up again. My Gawd, Man. Get a hold of yourself!!!
>>
>>I'm sorry Addi, i think i'm okay now.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Ohhhh no i'm not Damn!
>
>I knew I should have bought that hat...I loved it...but it was too expensive]

It's a great hat!!! Get Addi to wire you the cash to get it. I'm sure he wouldn't mind!!


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Feb 25 12:44:21 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Christophe said:
>>>Who is he to make that decision for other people
>>
>>who said he was making any decisions for other people ?
>
>He seems to think that he has the right to decide if people should allowed to be maried or not if they wanted to do so.
>
>So do people who vote for it.
>
>
>What harm does it do to anyone if people are happy if they can be married. I think there's enough discrimination to go around, and now they're going to make it a governemental thing?

We have a presidential democracy, not a monarchy.
Our president does not have the power to make laws, only congress can do that.
It must be voted upon.
And you are correct, it does no one any harm if people are happy if they can be married.
Approx 70 percent of Americans are against gay marriage, but they have no problem with civil unions guaranteeing them the same rights as married couples.
It's really a matter of terminology.



 
marsteller Posted: Wed Feb 25 12:58:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>marsteller said:
>>i've never voted for anything, but if arnie ran for president, i'd register and vote for him
>
>
>why???!

'cause he's fuckin sweet as hell.


 
FN Posted: Wed Feb 25 13:00:00 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Christophe said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>>>Christophe said:
>>>>Who is he to make that decision for other people
>>>
>>>who said he was making any decisions for other people ?
>>
>>He seems to think that he has the right to decide if people should allowed to be maried or not if they wanted to do so.
>>
>>So do people who vote for it.
>>
>>
>>What harm does it do to anyone if people are happy if they can be married. I think there's enough discrimination to go around, and now they're going to make it a governemental thing?
>
>We have a presidential democracy, not a monarchy.
>Our president does not have the power to make laws, only congress can do that.
>It must be voted upon.
>And you are correct, it does no one any harm if people are happy if they can be married.
>Approx 70 percent of Americans are against gay marriage, but they have no problem with civil unions guaranteeing them the same rights as married couples.
>It's really a matter of terminology.
>


Why is it such a problem then if it's only terminology.

Belgium is a constitutional monarchy, you think the king has any power here? (sounds like you think he has)


 
addi Posted: Wed Feb 25 13:06:41 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  mat_j said:

>It's a great hat!!! Get Addi to wire you the cash to get it. I'm sure he wouldn't mind!!

Oh, You'd like that wouldn't you, you sick little puppy! What am I? Your sugar daddy?!! LOL!
You need help (even more than I do)!


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Feb 25 13:26:20 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Christophe said:
>>>ifihadahif said:
>>>>Christophe said:
>>>>>Who is he to make that decision for other people
>>>>
>>>>who said he was making any decisions for other people ?
>>>
>>>He seems to think that he has the right to decide if people should allowed to be maried or not if they wanted to do so.
>>>
>>>So do people who vote for it.
>>>
>>>
>>>What harm does it do to anyone if people are happy if they can be married. I think there's enough discrimination to go around, and now they're going to make it a governemental thing?
>>
>>We have a presidential democracy, not a monarchy.
>>Our president does not have the power to make laws, only congress can do that.
>>It must be voted upon.
>>And you are correct, it does no one any harm if people are happy if they can be married.
>>Approx 70 percent of Americans are against gay marriage, but they have no problem with civil unions guaranteeing them the same rights as married couples.
>>It's really a matter of terminology.
>>
>
>
>Why is it such a problem then if it's only terminology.
>
>Belgium is a constitutional monarchy, you think the king has any power here? (sounds like you think he has)

I'm aware of your king's limited powers, just trying to make a point.
It's not really that big of a deal unless your a gay militant.
read my following cut and paste job and see if it doesn't clear it up a little.

Respecting Marriage and Equal Rights
By Tammy Bruce

Whoever thought that there would be actual voiced concerns about men in America wanting to marry their goats? Is there something going on in our great Heartland that I’ve missed? Instead of “The L Word” does Showtime have a special series just for the Midwest called “The G Word”?

Of course not.



But the debate over the idea of gay marriage has brought out concerns by one extremist end that it will lead to people marrying their livestock to Gay Gestapo charges of homophobic bigotry against those opposed to same-sex nuptials.



Neither accusation is valid, so as an independent gay woman, I think it’s time to make a few things clear. First of all, despite what you hear from the Gay Elite, there is not a consensus in the gay community about this issue. We do not all operate in the cultural or political equivalent of a Vulcan mind-meld.



I, one among many, respect and understand the growing concern about the disintegration of our traditions and values. I am so concerned, it is the heart and soul of my second book, The Death of Right and Wrong.



Consequently, I respect the majority of Americans and their opinion that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman.



At the same time, as an American, I also believe that every American deserves the same rights and protections as every other. Most of you do, too. The very same polls that show how united Americans are against “gay marriage” indicate a majority approving of civil unions.



That doesn’t surprise me. It is consistent with the American belief that we can have fair play and equality while recognizing the need to honor traditional institutions.



Frankly, I believe the cultural trouble and moral vapidity in our society today—the moral relativism I write about in DRW—has sprung from the ‘liberation’ movements of the ‘60s and ‘70s. It was then that the Left began to attack the traditional in the name of liberation and equality.



Anything that would strike a pose against authority and social norms, ranging from promiscuous sex to drug abuse to adultery to riotous violence, was embraced and encouraged by leftist leadership. The “Counter Culture” was born.



Courtesy of cultural Incrementalism (which I explained in my previous column) what it became has rivaled Rosemary’s Baby.



Today’s struggle with single-parent families, drug addiction, the epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases among the young, suicide rates, the devaluing of the family, and even the extraordinarily high divorce rate, I contend, can be traced back to the time which lionized the destruction of the traditional and the elevation of moral relativism.



Despite this, American society remains committed to equality, but it’s apparent that we don’t like the aftermath of taking our traditions for granted. So, yes, we’ve decided to maintain the idea of “marriage” as it has stood, while finding another way to guarantee the rights of gay people.



While this should actually be a relatively easy situation to resolve (heck, Bush, Kerry and Edwards all hold the same position—against gay marriage, for civil unions), all Hell seems to have broken loose—not only in San Francisco, but in Washington, D.C., as well.



On one hand you have the reckless law-breaking behavior of San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom bestowing marriage licenses on gay couples. A few of my gay friends have voiced their support for this. I reminded these friends, who are also pro-choice, that Fresno, California has a pro-life mayor. How would they feel if that mayor decided to ignore the law and keep women from accessing their legal abortion rights?



They heard me, but it was disturbing that I had to put this into perspective.



Now, in Washington, D.C., the president has declared the need to amend the U.S. Constitution! Really now—that appears to be as much of a stunt as the rogue gay marriages in San Francisco. And this from a man (who along with Cheney) in the last election who said it should be a matter left to the states. It seems, though, only if the states do what you like.



Clearly, the Constitution should be amended as a last resort. Regardless of how you feel about gay marriage, or abortion, or saving the spotted owl (or not), the Constitution is not made of silly putty—to be twisted and shaped and torn apart depending on our national mood. It is written in a way that makes us have to struggle with issues we face.



After all, if we are truly committed to wanting to save and not tamper with our traditional institutions, which represent the core of the American value system, doesn’t the Constitution fall into that category as well?



I am heartened by a few true conservatives, including Representative David Dreier (whom I got to know on the Schwarzenegger Transition Team), who have voiced concerns about the rush to amend.



We’ve been through worse; we’ve survived and found solutions. We’ll survive this too, but the gay community must come to terms with a few issues first.



Gays ultimately need to stop looking to government for unconditional love and approval of who we are. Andrew Sullivan, a political commentator and writer many of you know and respect, wrote a piece for Time magazine where he actually equated governmental recognition of gay marriage as a necessary element to all gay people feeling accepted and wanted. He claimed that anything other than marriage will “build a wall between gay people and their own families.”



While his story was personal and moving, the argument was, frankly, nonsense, and representative of the general mentality among the gay elite. It also gives the government and other people’s opinions far too much power over the quality of our lives and effectively eliminates our own responsibility for our happiness.



Part of the fight for gay marriage is based in Sullivan’s lament—that it is only governmental recognition of who are that will make us whole. Let’s get real—the only thing that will make gay people whole is personal acceptance of ourselves by ourselves. Instead, we are still looking to Mommy or Daddy, now in the form of Society, to tell us we’re “okay” – to sanctify, if you will, our lives and relationships.



Society has been the benevolent parent for a very long time. And it has been amazing, and a testament to the American character, that despite being a people of faith who have legitimate concerns about the gay lifestyle, Americans have made this the best place on Earth for gays and lesbians, where we are free to live incomparably rich lives.



Now, when Americans have said through polls and voting, that they do not want to give up the meaning of marriage but support a comparable alternative, how do the gay elite respond? When you ask for one cultural thing to be left untouched, the Gay Elite become the Gay Gestapo.



It’s a very fast change from the polo shirt to the brown shirt these days.



In classic Thought Police fashion and like children throwing a tantrum, the name-calling flies—those who oppose gay marriage are “homophobes,” “haters” and, the label du jour, “bigots.” Once again, the Left, unable to answer critics with respect, resort to name-calling only to further the divide they need to validate their inevitable victimhood.



Marriage is worth protecting, in more ways than one. It’s also worth noting the cavalier way in which heterosexuals have handled marriage has lent fuel to the fire of this issue.



How seriously can any of us take the president’s vow to “protect the sanctity of marriage” when Britney Spears indulges in it for 5 minutes in Vegas? Marriage has become a television reality game show. And protecting children? Before amending the Constitution, perhaps the Feds should make divorce a little harder to get. It’s divorce that is ruining children’s lives at the moment, not a couple of lesbians who want to get married (no matter how scary some of those pictures were out of San Francisco).



If George W. Bush is serious about “saving the institution,” he has his hands full and he’s running late.


 
libra Posted: Wed Feb 25 13:52:00 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I really don't see why its up to politics to make the decision surrounding gay marriages. I don't understand why its anyone's business but the people who want to get married. I don't like it when people say that civil union is the same thing, so why can't everyone just be ok with it. It's the idea behind it. It separates people, makes something less and takes something away from people who have the right to have it.

I'm so incredibly annoyed with bush and arnold right now...I'm not even going to start. I'm so sick of our country. We say we're so culturally diverse, and advanced, but really, we're behind and dragging our feet. American's are so irritating. We act like we have this sort of responsibility to the rest of the world, but then we're totally ignorant when it comes to our own people and country. People vote for candidates cause they're the only name they recognized on the ballot (I actually had someone tell me about that in the recall election...'i voted for schwarzenegger cause i knew who he was' I wanted to kick them, and i'm not a violent person.)

What the hell does Bush care if gay people can get married...its not like he has to go get married to some guy. (Although i would definitely not mind having a gay president.)


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Feb 25 13:55:14 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>I really don't see why its up to politics to make the decision surrounding gay marriages. I don't understand why its anyone's business but the people who want to get married. I don't like it when people say that civil union is the same thing, so why can't everyone just be ok with it. It's the idea behind it. It separates people, makes something less and takes something away from people who have the right to have it.
>
>I'm so incredibly annoyed with bush and arnold right now...I'm not even going to start. I'm so sick of our country. We say we're so culturally diverse, and advanced, but really, we're behind and dragging our feet. American's are so irritating. We act like we have this sort of responsibility to the rest of the world, but then we're totally ignorant when it comes to our own people and country. People vote for candidates cause they're the only name they recognized on the ballot (I actually had someone tell me about that in the recall election...'i voted for schwarzenegger cause i knew who he was' I wanted to kick them, and i'm not a violent person.)
>
>What the hell does Bush care if gay people can get married...its not like he has to go get married to some guy. (Although i would definitely not mind having a gay president.)

how about because 70 percent of the American people don't agree with you and they vote that way


 
libra Posted: Wed Feb 25 14:08:39 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>how about because 70 percent of the American people don't agree with you and they vote that way

i'm going to respond immaturely and entirely selfishly...

they should agree with me AND i don't like them. *sticks out tongue*

whether they have an opinion or not, i don't think it's our right to have an opinion on this issue...that doesn't sound very clear, but do you see what I mean? Even if I didn't like the idea of gay marriages, I don't think it's my right to decide on it.


 
addi Posted: Wed Feb 25 14:18:48 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  hard to argue with hif's logic, Libra

the majority is always correct

Back in 1800 America 70% of the people thought that blacks were subhuman and that slavery was biblical and therefore just.

If 70% of us feel that Gays shouldn't be married then it's the correct opinion and don't question it.


 
libra Posted: Wed Feb 25 14:29:50 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  *begins evil plot to overthrow the country*


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Feb 25 14:34:21 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>hard to argue with hif's logic, Libra
>
>the majority is always correct
>
not necessarily correct, but legal.

>Back in 1800 America 70% of the people thought that blacks were subhuman and that slavery was biblical and therefore just.
>
70% thought blacks were subhuman and slavery was just ? prolly not that many.
but rule of law is all we have.
If America votes against gay marriages, then that will be the law.
Would you prefer anarchy ?




 
libra Posted: Wed Feb 25 14:39:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>addison said:
>>hard to argue with hif's logic, Libra
>>
>>the majority is always correct
>>
>not necessarily correct, but legal.
>
>>Back in 1800 America 70% of the people thought that blacks were subhuman and that slavery was biblical and therefore just.
>>
>70% thought blacks were subhuman and slavery was just ? prolly not that many.
>but rule of law is all we have.
>If America votes against gay marriages, then that will be the law.
>Would you prefer anarchy ?
>
>

i'd prefer a pretty, happy land run by me...everything will be happy and fun and there will be flowerpots hanging from the lampposts. Oh, and no one will drive hummers.

*walks away mumbling: stupid useless gigantic monstrosities...*


p.s. don't mind me, i'm in an odd mood right now...totally unreasonable yet angry and opinionated at the same time. It's my friends' favorite mood of mine, but still, i'm sure it gets rather tedious.


 
FN Posted: Wed Feb 25 14:49:29 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I thought religion and matters of state were supposed to be seperate things.

Dont know if it's the case in america, seems it isn't, but over here it is.


 
FN Posted: Wed Feb 25 14:57:17 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  If you're on the side of the majority it's time to reform


 
mat_j Posted: Wed Feb 25 14:58:04 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'm sorry it's just fucking Hogwash, it is impossible to believe 70% of a civilized and advanced nation would stop gay people getting married. It's not hurting anyone, It doesn't even have to happen in a church. It reeks to me of Republican scammage.

Also isn't the point of your constitutionally guarded guns to create anarchy if the views expressed by the people aren't being held.




 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Feb 25 21:31:02 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  It's not hogwash if most people believe the institution of marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman.
If it's something that shouldn't be sanctioned by the government, then where is the outrage for having to get a marriage license ?
No one is saying that gays shouldn't have the same rights as straight people, they just have to get a civil union instead of a marriage.


 
iggy Posted: Wed Feb 25 21:45:03 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>*begins evil plot to overthrow the country*

join the queue

1) the resistance
2) king thong
3) ludwig and evil minion addi
4) tyrant meshuggah
5) discoball christophe and his pussycat harem cabaret show


 
iggy Posted: Wed Feb 25 21:51:45 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>There are many republicans who never go to church of any kind.
>>Maybe your "in-depth" analysis was done by a democrat ?
>>The make-up of the republican party has changed and the democrats have failed to realize that.
>
>
>I step up to your challenge, Sir!
>
>Let's pretend:
>Addi says:
>The majority of Blacks in America enjoy and listen to Hip Hop and Rap music.
>
>Hif responds:
>I dun know where you're getting your information from, but there are a lot of Black americans that prefer Jazz, Country, and Classical music to Hip Hop.
>
>Well, Frickin' Duh!!
>Did I say Blacks ONLY enjoy Hip Hop and Rap music?



fuck! i am yella and i love hip hop
u should see how i make my beetle bounce to jay z, tupac and 50 cent!

yeah bounce wit me
bounce with me

chanz, asian gangsta
will bust a cap on yo ass
if u diss my tribe


 
addi Posted: Wed Feb 25 21:56:30 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>No one is saying that gays shouldn't have the same rights as straight people, they just have to get a civil union instead of a marriage.

Plessy v Fergusen 1896 US Supreme Court decision

No one is saying that blacks shouldn't have the same rights as white people. they just have to drink at their water fountains, and not at ones for whites.

This reminds me of the ol' separate but equal line. Now I would be the first to admit that we're talking about two different situations here. How gays are treated and how blacks were treated are different in most respects. But there are some similarities that shouldn't be dismissed. Your line of thought smacks of the same rationalization the judges laid down in that verdict. And we all know how equal and fair that turned out to be.

The gays can have their legal civil unions if they want. Just keep the them away from a priest, church, and a traditional marriage ceremony. That's reserved for us normal folk.


 
addi Posted: Wed Feb 25 21:59:45 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  chanz said:

>fuck! i am yella and i love hip hop
>u should see how i make my beetle bounce to jay z, tupac and 50 cent!
>
>yeah bounce wit me
>bounce with me
>
>chanz, asian gangsta
>will bust a cap on yo ass
>if u diss my tribe

LOL! you would have a good time here in hotATL, chanz. Let me know if you ever make it over this way.

California Love- tupac


 
mat_j Posted: Wed Feb 25 22:37:16 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>It's not hogwash if most people believe the institution of marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman.
>If it's something that shouldn't be sanctioned by the government, then where is the outrage for having to get a marriage license ?
>No one is saying that gays shouldn't have the same rights as straight people, they just have to get a civil union instead of a marriage.

So why disenfrancish and cause so much uneccesary indignity to people over the use of terminology, it's pointless.


 
iggy Posted: Wed Feb 25 22:37:21 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  haha mo wouldn't allow me

all the times when i get angry, i tell her if i was in east LA, i will pop a coupla caps in their frigging heads.




 
Mouse Posted: Wed Feb 25 23:35:46 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>*begins evil plot to overthrow the country*

*Raises pitchfork with daisies on tines*
Count me in!

Mouse


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 26 06:59:20 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>No one is saying that gays shouldn't have the same rights as straight people, they just have to get a civil union instead of a marriage.
>
>Plessy v Fergusen 1896 US Supreme Court decision
>
>No one is saying that blacks shouldn't have the same rights as white people. they just have to drink at their water fountains, and not at ones for whites.
>
>This reminds me of the ol' separate but equal line. Now I would be the first to admit that we're talking about two different situations here. How gays are treated and how blacks were treated are different in most respects. But there are some similarities that shouldn't be dismissed. Your line of thought smacks of the same rationalization the judges laid down in that verdict. And we all know how equal and fair that turned out to be.
>
>The gays can have their legal civil unions if they want. Just keep the them away from a priest, church, and a traditional marriage ceremony. That's reserved for us normal folk.

no, the jim crow laws were born of ignorance, the marriage/civil union issue is one of tradition.
And who said that gays wouldn't be able to get a civil union in a church ? how the hell can government mandate that one ? or why would they even want to ?
for 5000 years marriage has been between a man and a woman, now we are in different times and gays want to be married. ok fine, we'll call it a civil union because "marriage" is sacred to us.
it doesn't mean they are dis-included, it only means they are different in the sense that it is a same sex union.
does anyone really believe there will be a "stigma" placed on them ?
C'mon give me a break !
They will have the same rights and priviledges as everyone else and that is what they have been fighting for all these years.


 
FN Posted: Thu Feb 26 07:11:50 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>It's not hogwash if most people believe the institution of marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman.
>If it's something that shouldn't be sanctioned by the government, then where is the outrage for having to get a marriage license ?
>No one is saying that gays shouldn't have the same rights as straight people, they just have to get a civil union instead of a marriage.


The sanctity of marriage also says that you shouldn't divorce hif.

This isn't an attack or anything at you but see the hypocrisy.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 26 07:59:40 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>It's not hogwash if most people believe the institution of marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman.
>>If it's something that shouldn't be sanctioned by the government, then where is the outrage for having to get a marriage license ?
>>No one is saying that gays shouldn't have the same rights as straight people, they just have to get a civil union instead of a marriage.
>
>
>The sanctity of marriage also says that you shouldn't divorce hif.

>
where exactly do you get this ?




 
mat_j Posted: Thu Feb 26 08:39:00 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>addison said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>>
>>>No one is saying that gays shouldn't have the same rights as straight people, they just have to get a civil union instead of a marriage.
>>
>>Plessy v Fergusen 1896 US Supreme Court decision
>>
>>No one is saying that blacks shouldn't have the same rights as white people. they just have to drink at their water fountains, and not at ones for whites.
>>
>>This reminds me of the ol' separate but equal line. Now I would be the first to admit that we're talking about two different situations here. How gays are treated and how blacks were treated are different in most respects. But there are some similarities that shouldn't be dismissed. Your line of thought smacks of the same rationalization the judges laid down in that verdict. And we all know how equal and fair that turned out to be.
>>
>>The gays can have their legal civil unions if they want. Just keep the them away from a priest, church, and a traditional marriage ceremony. That's reserved for us normal folk.
>
>no, the jim crow laws were born of ignorance, the marriage/civil union issue is one of tradition.
>And who said that gays wouldn't be able to get a civil union in a church ? how the hell can government mandate that one ? or why would they even want to ?
>for 5000 years marriage has been between a man and a woman, now we are in different times and gays want to be married. ok fine, we'll call it a civil union because "marriage" is sacred to us.
>it doesn't mean they are dis-included, it only means they are different in the sense that it is a same sex union.
>does anyone really believe there will be a "stigma" placed on them ?
>C'mon give me a break !
>They will have the same rights and priviledges as everyone else and that is what they have been fighting for all these years.

Aw fuck off Hif, marriage is no more sacred to straight people than toilet paper is, The divorce rate is rising and Britney Spears can walk into a las vegas chapel and marry someone for 24 hours only to have it anulled. It's not as if they are asking to be gay mormons or something. Fuck worrying about something as insignificant as a terminology in face of tradition. WASPs wouldn't even exist to be republicans if someone hadn't changed the terminology of a religion then carried it on as corrupt and bellicose as before.


 
FN Posted: Thu Feb 26 09:03:47 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Christophe said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>>>It's not hogwash if most people believe the institution of marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman.
>>>If it's something that shouldn't be sanctioned by the government, then where is the outrage for having to get a marriage license ?
>>>No one is saying that gays shouldn't have the same rights as straight people, they just have to get a civil union instead of a marriage.
>>
>>
>>The sanctity of marriage also says that you shouldn't divorce hif.
>
>>
>where exactly do you get this ?
>
>



Isn't marriage supposed to be an eternal bond?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 26 10:25:21 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  mat_j said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>addison said:
>>>ifihadahif said:
>>>
>>>>No one is saying that gays shouldn't have the same rights as straight people, they just have to get a civil union instead of a marriage.
>>>
>>>Plessy v Fergusen 1896 US Supreme Court decision
>>>
>>>No one is saying that blacks shouldn't have the same rights as white people. they just have to drink at their water fountains, and not at ones for whites.
>>>
>>>This reminds me of the ol' separate but equal line. Now I would be the first to admit that we're talking about two different situations here. How gays are treated and how blacks were treated are different in most respects. But there are some similarities that shouldn't be dismissed. Your line of thought smacks of the same rationalization the judges laid down in that verdict. And we all know how equal and fair that turned out to be.
>>>
>>>The gays can have their legal civil unions if they want. Just keep the them away from a priest, church, and a traditional marriage ceremony. That's reserved for us normal folk.
>>
>>no, the jim crow laws were born of ignorance, the marriage/civil union issue is one of tradition.
>>And who said that gays wouldn't be able to get a civil union in a church ? how the hell can government mandate that one ? or why would they even want to ?
>>for 5000 years marriage has been between a man and a woman, now we are in different times and gays want to be married. ok fine, we'll call it a civil union because "marriage" is sacred to us.
>>it doesn't mean they are dis-included, it only means they are different in the sense that it is a same sex union.
>>does anyone really believe there will be a "stigma" placed on them ?
>>C'mon give me a break !
>>They will have the same rights and priviledges as everyone else and that is what they have been fighting for all these years.
>
>Aw fuck off Hif, marriage is no more sacred to straight people than toilet paper is, The divorce rate is rising and Britney Spears can walk into a las vegas chapel and marry someone for 24 hours only to have it anulled. It's not as if they are asking to be gay mormons or something. Fuck worrying about something as insignificant as a terminology in face of tradition. WASPs wouldn't even exist to be republicans if someone hadn't changed the terminology of a religion then carried it on as corrupt and bellicose as before.

Yes the divorce rate is rising and Britney did make a mockery of it, so what ?
That doesn't make it right. And maybe we can do something about it.
If it's so goddam insignificant then why are the gays so adamant about it ?


 
FN Posted: Thu Feb 26 10:45:01 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Because it seperates them from 'normal' people.

Also, you haven't answered my previous question hif.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 26 11:28:40 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Because it seperates them from 'normal' people.
>
well, they are different now aren't they ?
That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them, they are just in a different category. big deal
everyone has to fill in the blocks for their ethnic persuasion on any govt. form, this is no different.

>Also, you haven't answered my previous question hif.

sorry, things getting busy here in the office today.
yes, that's the idea going into marriage, but if it doesn't work out that way, that certainly doesn't make one a hypocrite.


 
FN Posted: Thu Feb 26 11:43:21 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  It's double standards again.


We must protect the sanctity of marriage but on the other hand we can break it by divorcing.


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Feb 26 11:48:54 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  does libra remind anyone else of alice from alice and wonderland??




 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Feb 26 11:54:51 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I think addison was on the money here w/ comparing the gay marriage issue to the seperate but equal doctrines. although less severe of a consequence than forcing blacks to seperate schooling, forcing gay people to have "civil unions" and not "marriages" is saying that there is something wrong w/ what they're doing. something that gay people obviously realize many others believe anyway, but still, under the law they shouldn't be viewed differently for many straightforward reasons


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Feb 26 11:56:39 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  oh yeah, and mat_j makes me wet


 
Sheoul Posted: Thu Feb 26 12:18:14 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>I think addison was on the money here w/ comparing the gay marriage issue to the seperate but equal doctrines. although less severe of a consequence than forcing blacks to seperate schooling, forcing gay people to have "civil unions" and not "marriages" is saying that there is something wrong w/ what they're doing. something that gay people obviously realize many others believe anyway, but still, under the law they shouldn't be viewed differently for many straightforward reasons

Why should anyone care what anyone else thinks? Why do gay people need the law to say it's ok to be married before they are happy with themselves? Sounds like they want to feel accepted by people who will, most likely, never accept them.

I believe you have a law for statutory (sp?) rape. It's two consenting people having sex. But it's illegal. Why does the government have a right to intervene in that case but not prevent gay marriages? The government owes it to the society they serve to preserve the morals/culture of that majority. That's democracy... right? Majority rules? I mean, seriously, it's not like right or wrong was ever a consideration.

Personally, I think democracy is one of the worst forms of government. On average, you have uneducated, uninformed people making important decisions. The majority preference is often not the best choice.


 
FN Posted: Thu Feb 26 12:21:58 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Yes, that much I agree with.


Imagine a world with me as the unquestioned ruler.

Did anybody order a Utopia?


 
addi Posted: Thu Feb 26 12:25:09 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>oh yeah, and mat_j makes me wet

LOL!!

He has just the opposite effect on me. Every time I read one of his posts I get dry and want a drink.


 
Mesh Posted: Thu Feb 26 12:34:44 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  yes I agree, democracy sucks.


I would much rather an intelligent autocracy make decisions about every aspekt of my life.

I hear CCCP was very accepting of differences of opinion from the parties, and was just an all around lovely place to live.



Hope you guys got the sarcasm in that.


Really though, democracy definately has its flaws, one of its biggest being that it involves any humans at all in the process;)

But I dont really want to chance being ruled by an intelligent dictatorship or autocracy or monarchy who has dark intentions and their own agenda on how people should liver their lives, and who ultimately want to only serve themselves and those who agree with them and support them.


sheoul and christophe, you may now both start calling me an idiot starting......right......about...........now. :)


 
libra Posted: Thu Feb 26 12:41:10 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>does libra remind anyone else of alice from alice and wonderland??
>
>

wow you don't know how big of a compliment that is. I love alice in wonderland!


 
FN Posted: Thu Feb 26 12:44:31 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Luckily I would only rule for the good of the people.


 
FN Posted: Thu Feb 26 12:45:42 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>Asswipe said:
>>does libra remind anyone else of alice from alice and wonderland??
>>
>>
>
>wow you don't know how big of a compliment that is. I love alice in wonderland!


If he keeps it up we'll have to get him nutured just like we did with hif.


 
Mesh Posted: Thu Feb 26 12:46:52 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Luckily I would only rule for the good of the people.


Well I'm convinced :)


Just keep the beautiful women, stoli, and cheesecake comin my way.


 
libra Posted: Thu Feb 26 12:50:21 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  meshuggah said:
>Christophe said:
>>Luckily I would only rule for the good of the people.
>
>
>Well I'm convinced :)
>
>
>Just keep the beautiful women, stoli, and cheesecake comin my way.

mesh, i keep on looking at your picture and thinking its some sort of dessert with chocolate...but then i click on it and its nothing of the sort.


 
FN Posted: Thu Feb 26 12:55:12 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  It's better than chanz's hairy nipple isn't it.


The horror!


 
libra Posted: Thu Feb 26 12:57:20 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>It's better than chanz's hairy nipple isn't it.
>
>
>The horror!

i could never make that out...dunno why


 
FN Posted: Thu Feb 26 12:59:18 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>Christophe said:
>>It's better than chanz's hairy nipple isn't it.
>>
>>
>>The horror!
>
>i could never make that out...dunno why


You're so innocent I'd send you money to buy that hat.


 
libra Posted: Thu Feb 26 13:11:41 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>libra said:
>>Christophe said:
>>>It's better than chanz's hairy nipple isn't it.
>>>
>>>
>>>The horror!
>>
>>i could never make that out...dunno why
>
>
>You're so innocent I'd send you money to buy that hat.


i'm too innocent. I wish i was less so. Not that i want to be some bad girl. But my friends will not tell me things cause they think i would freak out if i heard it...and i probably wouldn't, its just this reputation i've gained


 
Mesh Posted: Thu Feb 26 13:12:52 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://img9.photobucket.com/albums/v25/jachimabad/dirtymind.jpg>


 
Mesh Posted: Thu Feb 26 13:13:24 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  now tell me miss libra, what do you see in that picute above?


 
libra Posted: Thu Feb 26 13:15:13 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ok, i can see that...




 
Mesh Posted: Thu Feb 26 13:16:55 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>ok, i can see that...
>
>


well missy you should have only seen nine dolphins.



For the record, it took a good ten minutes of constant staring before I finally saw the dolphins. I guess thats is just how corrupted I am.


 
addi Posted: Thu Feb 26 13:18:39 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>It's better than chanz's hairy nipple isn't it.
>
>
>The horror!

Just for the record it was ant's hairy nipple pic...poor chanz, always gettin' confused with hairy nipples.


 
libra Posted: Thu Feb 26 13:19:28 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  meshuggah said:
>libra said:
>>ok, i can see that...
>>
>>
>
>
>well missy you should have only seen nine dolphins.
>
>
>
>For the record, it took a good ten minutes of constant staring before I finally saw the dolphins. I guess thats is just how corrupted I am.

hey, it took me about ten seconds...i was like..."what, dolphins? where the hell...ooohhhhh"


 
addi Posted: Thu Feb 26 13:20:11 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  meshuggah said:

>well missy you should have only seen nine dolphins.

All I saw was a penguin tripping another penguin.



 
Mesh Posted: Thu Feb 26 13:20:55 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>meshuggah said:
>>libra said:
>>>ok, i can see that...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>well missy you should have only seen nine dolphins.
>>
>>
>>
>>For the record, it took a good ten minutes of constant staring before I finally saw the dolphins. I guess thats is just how corrupted I am.
>
>hey, it took me about ten seconds...i was like..."what, dolphins? where the hell...ooohhhhh"



haha, ok then thats better.


The first thing I saw was boo....er......a beautiful womans face.....


 
Mesh Posted: Thu Feb 26 13:22:47 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>meshuggah said:
>
>>well missy you should have only seen nine dolphins.
>
>All I saw was a penguin tripping another penguin.
>

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I see..........


 
mat_j Posted: Fri Feb 27 02:23:46 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>oh yeah, and mat_j makes me wet

Say what?



 
mat_j Posted: Fri Feb 27 02:24:35 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>Asswipe said:
>>oh yeah, and mat_j makes me wet
>
>LOL!!
>
>He has just the opposite effect on me. Every time I read one of his posts I get dry and want a drink.


hey, you know that's not true you big lug


 
mat_j Posted: Fri Feb 27 02:26:49 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>Christophe said:
>>libra said:
>>>Christophe said:
>>>>It's better than chanz's hairy nipple isn't it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The horror!
>>>
>>>i could never make that out...dunno why
>>
>>
>>You're so innocent I'd send you money to buy that hat.
>
>
>i'm too innocent. I wish i was less so. Not that i want to be some bad girl. But my friends will not tell me things cause they think i would freak out if i heard it...and i probably wouldn't, its just this reputation i've gained

don't change Libra, more people should be like you, the world would be a better palce


[walks off]


[Stops]

Shudders at the curious thought of Mesh being like Libra


 
libra Posted: Fri Feb 27 03:47:28 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  mat_j said:
>libra said:
>>Christophe said:
>>>libra said:
>>>>Christophe said:
>>>>>It's better than chanz's hairy nipple isn't it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The horror!
>>>>
>>>>i could never make that out...dunno why
>>>
>>>
>>>You're so innocent I'd send you money to buy that hat.
>>
>>
>>i'm too innocent. I wish i was less so. Not that i want to be some bad girl. But my friends will not tell me things cause they think i would freak out if i heard it...and i probably wouldn't, its just this reputation i've gained
>
>don't change Libra, more people should be like you, the world would be a better palce
>
>
>[walks off]
>
>
>[Stops]
>
>Shudders at the curious thought of Mesh being like Libra

hahahaha


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]