Political Thread [3] - CLOSED

Message boards : Politics : Political Thread [3] - CLOSED
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21803
Credit: 2,815,091
RAC: 0
United States
Message 42682 - Posted: 4 Nov 2004, 5:17:32 UTC - in response to Message 42676.  

> I think that's the only way it can be passed. Unfortunately state-by-state
> legislation has its dark side, too. 11 of 12 states banned gay marriage - I
> head that Ohio went as far as banning civil unions. You've gotta wonder
> sometimes about this country.
Well this is a topic (gay marriage) that can be covered here or in Religion, but Religion seems to have its own problems so I'll continue here. With there being a constitutional seperation of church and state shouldnt there be an automatic ban on gay marriage from a technical POV? With "marriage" being faith-based in religion, and with the state seperation from religion, wouldnt anything not normally accepted per religious definition be excluded from being recognized by the State? [I know my wording here is horrible. I hope you can understand.]
Also, the opposite, with seperation of church and State, since a "domestic partnership" isnt based in religion but something created by the State shouldnt said Domestic Partnership be automatically constitutionally recognized by all the States?
It seems like it all boils down to the wording. Marriage for man/woman and Partnership for same sex.
ID: 42682 · Report as offensive
Petit Soleil
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 03
Posts: 1497
Credit: 70,934
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 42685 - Posted: 4 Nov 2004, 5:34:06 UTC - in response to Message 42682.  

> Well this is a topic (gay marriage) that can be covered here or in Religion,
> but Religion seems to have its own problems so I'll continue here. With there
> being a constitutional seperation of church and state shouldnt there be an
> automatic ban on gay marriage from a technical POV? With "marriage" being
> faith-based in religion, and with the state seperation from religion, wouldnt
> anything not normally accepted per religious definition be excluded from being
> recognized by the State? [I know my wording here is horrible. I hope you can
> understand.]
> Also, the opposite, with seperation of church and State, since a "domestic
> partnership" isnt based in religion but something created by the State
> shouldnt said Domestic Partnership be automatically constitutionally
> recognized by all the States?
> It seems like it all boils down to the wording. Marriage for man/woman and
> Partnership for same sex.

I get your point. The bottom line in my views are that mariage isn't
really religious anymore. In canada you can get a civil or church mariage.
In France even if you are the most religious person in the country you
have to say yes (or no) in front of the state representative, the mayor.
Then if you want you can go to the church and say yes (or no) in front of
the priest. Mariage, at least in France, has became a social act first.

ID: 42685 · Report as offensive
Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2940
Credit: 19,191,378
RAC: 2,594
United States
Message 42690 - Posted: 4 Nov 2004, 5:48:02 UTC - in response to Message 42656.  
Last modified: 4 Nov 2004, 5:48:19 UTC

Powell/Guliani vs. Hillary/Obama.
Now THAT would be a battle.
ID: 42690 · Report as offensive
Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21803
Credit: 2,815,091
RAC: 0
United States
Message 42693 - Posted: 4 Nov 2004, 5:54:05 UTC - in response to Message 42690.  

> Powell/Guliani vs. Hillary/Obama.
> Now THAT would be a battle.
>
Until your post I've never heard of Barack Obama. I'm not even sure how to correctly pronounce his name. A Google search doesnt help either, plenty of sites though. He's gonna need to get into the national spotlight in the next couple years.
ID: 42693 · Report as offensive
Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2940
Credit: 19,191,378
RAC: 2,594
United States
Message 42714 - Posted: 4 Nov 2004, 7:42:10 UTC - in response to Message 42693.  

> Until your post I've never heard of Barack Obama. I'm not even sure how to
> correctly pronounce his name. A Google search doesnt help either, plenty of
> sites though. He's gonna need to get into the national spotlight in the next
> couple years.
>

Born and raised in Hawai‘i, Obama (Oh-bah'-ma) gave the keynote address at the Democratic convention. He was running for his first national office, Senator from Illinois, against 7 of 9's (Jerry Ryan's) former husband, until a personal scandal caused the incumbent to bow out. The Republicans put in a replacement candidate, but Obama won ~75%/25% (not sure of the final numbers).
ID: 42714 · Report as offensive
Guido Alexander Waldenmeier
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 587
Credit: 18,397
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 42736 - Posted: 4 Nov 2004, 10:16:41 UTC

Der Gottesstaat im Westen
In den USA haben mit der Wiederwahl von Bush
die christlichen Fundamentalisten ihre Macht demonstriert.
mehr hier
http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/mein/18725/1.html
ID: 42736 · Report as offensive
Profile Carl Christensen
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Oct 99
Posts: 143
Credit: 4,106
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 42738 - Posted: 4 Nov 2004, 10:53:20 UTC
Last modified: 4 Nov 2004, 10:58:17 UTC

I don't consider the venal scumbag RepugliKKKans as working through the political process. Their whole modus operandi is fear and religious zealotry; a lot like their Wahabbi fundamentalist buddies in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, etc. I mean just look at the pathethic 11 states voting to not allow gays basic civil rights. The same zealots foaming at the mouth that gays & abortion is horrible are the ones foaming over that Bush is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Is that something to be proud of and just "move on?" That America is dumb & dumber & full of anti-scientific religious zealots? I find it humorous that even on SETI@Home pages we get our share of dittohead/Freeper losers. No alien wants to meet you assholes; maybe only to study your reptilian-humanoid brain! ;-)

I think that unfortunately it will probably take further terrorists attacks to get dumb Americans to wake up. 1-3 more 9/11's will get the idiots "rallying around the president as usual"; perhaps by the 5th they'll finally realize "hey, Bush is an absolute idiot who isn't doing anything to help us!"
Even Thomas Jefferson once said "a little blood spilled to water the tree of liberty from time to time is a good thing."
ID: 42738 · Report as offensive
Profile Darth Dogbytes™
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 03
Posts: 7512
Credit: 2,021,148
RAC: 0
United States
Message 42740 - Posted: 4 Nov 2004, 11:08:42 UTC - in response to Message 42682.  
Last modified: 4 Nov 2004, 11:20:39 UTC

> > I think that's the only way it can be passed. Unfortunately
> state-by-state
> > legislation has its dark side, too. 11 of 12 states banned gay marriage
> - I
> > head that Ohio went as far as banning civil unions. You've gotta wonder
> > sometimes about this country.
> Well this is a topic (gay marriage) that can be covered here or in Religion,
> but Religion seems to have its own problems so I'll continue here. With there
> being a constitutional seperation of church and state shouldnt there be an
> automatic ban on gay marriage from a technical POV? With "marriage" being
> faith-based in religion, and with the state seperation from religion, wouldnt
> anything not normally accepted per religious definition be excluded from being
> recognized by the State? [I know my wording here is horrible. I hope you can
> understand.]
> Also, the opposite, with seperation of church and State, since a "domestic
> partnership" isnt based in religion but something created by the State
> shouldnt said Domestic Partnership be automatically constitutionally
> recognized by all the States?
> It seems like it all boils down to the wording. Marriage for man/woman and
> Partnership for same sex.
>

Let's cut to the chase, it's bigotry pure and simple. Everything else is just hot air. With a 60% divorce rate, wife and child beatings, dead beat dads, parents molesting their own kids, I think hetrosexuals have got nothing to say about who marrys who. If two people love each other, that should be all anyone should worry about. Christians talk about love, but in reality they are best for preaching hatred and acting out their own self hatred.
Account frozen...
ID: 42740 · Report as offensive
Profile Carl Christensen
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Oct 99
Posts: 143
Credit: 4,106
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 42749 - Posted: 4 Nov 2004, 11:56:23 UTC - in response to Message 42740.  
Last modified: 4 Nov 2004, 12:33:48 UTC

I know, I love the hilarious Repuke hypocrisy --- "let's unite now" --- as if the past 4 years of Bush and at least 50 years of Repuke history has been "let's unite" --- their idea of unity is "all Americans sticking together --- except the blacks, queers, liberals, hippies, Jews, Muslims, atheists, wiccans, etc"

And gee, for Repukes to claim "we want to unite America" --- isn't that flip-flopping? ;-)

ID: 42749 · Report as offensive
Guido Alexander Waldenmeier
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 587
Credit: 18,397
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 42762 - Posted: 4 Nov 2004, 12:33:24 UTC
Last modified: 4 Nov 2004, 13:30:33 UTC

JOKE ! the humor of guido i know
i love this strong pictures ;-)))

BUMP ruleZ
ID: 42762 · Report as offensive
Profile John Cropper
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 May 00
Posts: 444
Credit: 416,933
RAC: 0
United States
Message 42787 - Posted: 4 Nov 2004, 14:26:38 UTC - in response to Message 42622.  

> Please get your facts right: I voted for Bush and I have said many times that
> while Iraq was not involved in 9/11, they were (and in places still are)
> involved in promoting terrorism.

Iraq itself as a state is not currently involved in (financially or otherwise) supporting anything other than the attempt to right itself and continue to exist. Individuals within the geographic boundaries politically defined as "Iraq" have other intentions, however...

> And you have no evidence that anywhere near
> 60 million Bush voters believe that. As for "No Child Left Behind", that
> program was approved by a large bipartisan majority, and it is still in it's
> infancy, so how is it a "laughable failure"?

Because in the world that is dissected by their microscopic attention span, anything that does not provide instant gratification is summarily ignored or criticised as a failure.

> And the deficit and war expenses
> are not as large as WWII, when compared to GNP then and now. So keep pitching
> them softballs about Bush, but don't give up on effecting change, though I
> don't agree with your reasons myself.

Sometimes change happens in spite of one's viewpoint...reality is often a function of one's perception of their 'problems'.
>

Stewie: So, is there any tread left on the tires? Or at this point would it be like throwing a hot dog down a hallway?

Fox Sunday (US) at 9PM ET/PT
ID: 42787 · Report as offensive
Profile John Cropper
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 May 00
Posts: 444
Credit: 416,933
RAC: 0
United States
Message 42788 - Posted: 4 Nov 2004, 14:32:18 UTC - in response to Message 42629.  

> Hmmm... That would have been a good combo. Powell/Bloomberg v.
> Bill/Hillary...
> Then again, there's a lot of folks even here in Lwon Gailand who can't stand
> Hillary, and I'm not sure if term limits are two terms or two
> consecutive terms...

Actually, it's ten years total in the office. One can serve two full terms, plus up to two years (if they ascend to the office due to incapacitation/death/resignation of the sitting president).

For example, Gerald Ford would only have been eligible to serve one full term, since he served more than 2 years of Nixon's term, but LBJ could've served two more full terms.

> [ADDENDUM] There are some who can't even tolerate our recently reelected
> senior senator, too. That's the real problem in New York: Incumbents always
> win.
>

The system is designed [to support the incumbent], but I recall Schumer's campaign in 1998 being among the nastiest in history (at the time), so the candidates often have a back-up plan should the 'system' fail them.

Stewie: So, is there any tread left on the tires? Or at this point would it be like throwing a hot dog down a hallway?

Fox Sunday (US) at 9PM ET/PT
ID: 42788 · Report as offensive
Guido Alexander Waldenmeier
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 587
Credit: 18,397
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 42799 - Posted: 4 Nov 2004, 15:22:13 UTC

ID: 42799 · Report as offensive
Profile Carl Christensen
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Oct 99
Posts: 143
Credit: 4,106
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 42811 - Posted: 4 Nov 2004, 16:16:53 UTC - in response to Message 42799.  
Last modified: 4 Nov 2004, 16:17:13 UTC

No Child Unrecruited

http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2002/11/ma_153_01.html

Well this is useful if you're trying to make a nation of warrior morons who think "Creationism" is science.
ID: 42811 · Report as offensive
Petit Soleil
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 03
Posts: 1497
Credit: 70,934
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 42816 - Posted: 4 Nov 2004, 16:25:22 UTC - in response to Message 42811.  
Last modified: 4 Nov 2004, 16:25:39 UTC

> Well this is useful if you're trying to make a nation of warrior morons who
> think "Creationism" is science.


This is bad OmmmmmmmmmmKay...Terrible, scarry, etc.
ID: 42816 · Report as offensive
Profile Carl Cuseo
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Jan 02
Posts: 652
Credit: 34,312
RAC: 0
Puerto Rico
Message 42829 - Posted: 4 Nov 2004, 16:52:04 UTC - in response to Message 42816.  
Last modified: 4 Nov 2004, 17:07:46 UTC

I agree this is entrusive.
I'm surprised they even ask. These lists are in some database. With homeland security provisions covering everything imaginable, I'm sure the gov't of the US can just snatch up what they want. Also there are many people making a good living just compiling lists. I worked for a time in a mailhouse- you can buy a list of '8-10year old caucasian males enrolled in public schools in Atlanta, Georgia'- anything you want on a list is for sale.

One day when we live in saner times (boy do I sound dumb or what?) I'd like to see a mandatory national service instituted. It would be good for the country for all to give 2 years of service. Of course now with this horseshit war any warm body availiable would be used for cannon fodder- but there are numerous ways for people to serve besides combat infantry.
ID: 42829 · Report as offensive
Profile Carl Christensen
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Oct 99
Posts: 143
Credit: 4,106
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 42837 - Posted: 4 Nov 2004, 17:12:44 UTC - in response to Message 42829.  

>>It would be good for the country for all to give 2 years of service.

HAHA, that would be like giving heroin to an addict. The neocons will just throw more bodies at every problem they could imagine.

ID: 42837 · Report as offensive
Profile Darth Dogbytes™
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 03
Posts: 7512
Credit: 2,021,148
RAC: 0
United States
Message 42840 - Posted: 4 Nov 2004, 17:15:03 UTC

And be sure that they're all straight, we wouldn't want any gays dying for their country.
Account frozen...
ID: 42840 · Report as offensive
Profile Carl Christensen
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Oct 99
Posts: 143
Credit: 4,106
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 42845 - Posted: 4 Nov 2004, 17:21:19 UTC - in response to Message 42840.  

Neocon scumbags don't mind gays dying for their country, just as long as they never come out of the closet. Meanwhile the chickenhawks and their families will remain safe at home.
ID: 42845 · Report as offensive
Profile Darth Dogbytes™
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 03
Posts: 7512
Credit: 2,021,148
RAC: 0
United States
Message 42849 - Posted: 4 Nov 2004, 17:25:41 UTC
Last modified: 4 Nov 2004, 17:35:03 UTC

Let's overthrow Roe v. Wade, be sure to buy stock in companies that manufacture coat hangers. They'll come in handy.

"Chickhawks." Are you refering to the Catholic clergy; the ones who won't give communion to Catholic pols for supporting a woman's biological rights?

Send in the altar boys! Just be sure that they pull their knickers up when the pile out of the rectory.
Account frozen...
ID: 42849 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Political Thread [3] - CLOSED


 
©2020 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.