Swift Boat Vets latest ad.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Another source named only as "a longtime Bush friend" described the situation this way: "Say you get a D in algebra ... and now you're going to be required to repeat the class the following year, but your teacher says if you promise to be tutored during the summer by a friend of hers who's good in math, she'll change the D to a C. You spend a few hours a week during the summer vacation learning all about arithmetical operations and relationships, and then the teacher issues you a new report card, replacing the old one on file in the principal's office ... Something akin to that scenario is what happened with Bush in 1972."

 

horses***....f***ing horses***.

 

there are people everyday that have "connections", and "get off" from said crimes. It's assinine to say that in this single case, because of who Bush's dad was, he is the only person to get off from a serious drug charge and handed a lesser penalty because justice can still be served.

 

I know a kid who stole some credit cards and used them for his own good, and was caught and didn't receive a term because he knew the city manager. It wasn't that this kid got off like a theif, it was mercy, and it was grace.

 

get off of it.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

It's not saying he was the only one, PA. It's just saying he was one of them who did not get justice for doing cocaine.

[Wong & Owens]

yeah, just let 'em have free reign, I mean, I'm sure they'll figure it all out by themselves, you know self regulation, etc. great idea sideshow....

No, you're right.

 

Government officials, being of supreme intelligence and ethics, should decide that for us.

 

I'm sure the Reagan administration would have been anti-stem cell research back then, had it been an issue. But, ol' Ronnie catches Alzheimers, and now we see which side Nancy now stumps for.

[sox4lifeinPA]

It's not saying he was the only one, PA.  It's just saying he was one of them who did not get justice for doing cocaine.

he got community service...

[LowerCaseRepublican]

yeah, just let 'em have free reign, I mean, I'm sure they'll figure it all out by themselves, you know self regulation, etc. great idea sideshow....

 

 

 

 

 

except when it IS harming the...oh yeah, BABY

 

 

There are people in the nation that want to take the word "responsibility" and deficate all over it.

 

Sack up, people... your decisions aren't as easy as "well it doesn't harm others".

 

*patooey*

 

BS to all that crap.

I guess I missed the day in civics class when the Constitution gave the powers of government to define what marriage was to entail.

 

And PA, making abortion illegal doesn't make it go away. It just makes it more unsafe for women to get them (not to mention the racist roots of the pro-life movement: "We need to have babies so the white race is not overrun by mongrels." and other fun statements from the American Medical Association throughout the 1880s and into the 1930s when abortion was seen as more acceptable.) Abstinence education doesn't work. It's like sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" to the problems. And if you're really tied to the pro-life premise, why not lock arms and form blockades around cemetaries? In the words of Bill Hicks, "What matters is that if you believe in the sanctity of life then you believe it for life of all ages. That's what I hate about this child-worship syndrome going on. "Save the children! They're killing children! How many children were at Waco? They're killing children!" What does that mean? They reach a certain age and they're off your f***ing love-list? f*** your children. If that's the way you think then f*** you too. You either love all people of all ages or you shut the f*** up."

 

It's fun as a Republican that you are railing for more government involvement in peoples' lives. Gay marriage. I'm more worried about heterosexuals that f*** over the meaning and "sanctity" of marriage more than I'm worried about two people who love each other getting married if they are consenting adults. If anything, people who love each other can only strengthen the idea of marriage...and they don't have to get married in a church.

 

Personal responsibility is something this country is lacking and I do not need a big-government uber-daddy telling me what I can and cannot do with my body as long as I am not harming another human being.

[sox4lifeinPA]

No, you're right.

 

Government officials, being of supreme intelligence and ethics, should decide that for us.

 

I'm sure the Reagan administration would have been anti-stem cell research back then, had it been an issue. But, ol' Ronnie catches Alzheimers, and now we see which side Nancy now stumps for.

yes, and I and many republicans are for ADULT stem cell research. It's the harvesting fetal stem cells, which admittedly by a head of stem cell researcher (I forget his name, but I was listening to NPR about it) are less stable and less likely to control, than the Adult conterparts.

 

 

It is a valuable avenue to go down. I can understand why Mrs Reagan would want the private sector to research more. I can also understand why its necessary for the US government to have some say in ethical decisions, because lets be honest, its not like politicians have a monopoly on unethical behavior.

[Wong & Owens]

It is a valuable avenue to go down. I can understand why Mrs Reagan would want the private sector to research more. I can also understand why its necessary for the US government to have some say in ethical decisions, because lets be honest, its not like politicians have a monopoly on unethical behavior.

Gov't should have a say in ethical decisions that virtually all sane people agree upon, i.e., murder is wrong, stealing should be punished, etc. But nothing in the Constitution says anything about, as Apu said, the makeup of marriage, or abortion, etc.

 

I trust the scientists that say s-c-research would save countless lives 1 billion times more than I trust ANY politician giving me a lecture on what is morally right or wrong.

[sox4lifeinPA]

ok, ok, ok...I'm breathing normally again.

 

apu, I see what you're saying, and I agree with you. I don't believe the government should make decisions for us, but I do believe they have a responsibility to monitor certain things. For example, quality of the gasoline we pump, the ethical research of private firms, or moral judgements such as abortion and gay marriage.

 

making abortion illegal doesn't make it go away

 

actually, I'm not for making abortion illegal. I realize that once a society makes a decision to take one direction over another, there's no going back, RE:Prohibition. My point is that it's awfully disheartening to see the number of abortions v. the number of parents willing to adopt be so similar. I just find it selfish and irresponsible for someone to choose an abortion. So you see where I stand on that?

 

(not to mention the racist roots of the pro-life movement: "We need to have babies so the white race is not overrun by mongrels

 

that doesn't make the current pro-life movement illegitimate in it's believe. come on, you're better than that.

 

Abstinence education doesn't work. It's like sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" to the problems.

 

once again, it goes back to responsibility. If you aren't willing to accept the responsibility of a baby, don't have sex. It's got nothing to do with sex being dirty, or bad...because in my estimation, it's gonna be wonderful. I just think we've lost any respect for what committment and "virginity" is about.

 

In the words of Bill Hicks, "What matters is that if you believe in the sanctity of life then you believe it for life of all ages. That's what I hate about this child-worship syndrome going on. "Save the children! They're killing children! How many children were at Waco? They're killing children!" What does that mean? They reach a certain age and they're off your f***ing love-list? f*** your children.  If that's the way you think then f*** you too. You either love all people of all ages or you shut the f*** up."

 

We're taught to protect the fatherless (the alien or foreignor, and the widowed.) so, it makes complete sense to protect those, whom need protecting. It has everything to do with age, if you sideshow, need as much protection as an infant baby... come on, do I really need to finish this? I can love people of all ages and still look out for the elderly and children. Bill hicks is a moron.

 

I'm ok with civil unions. Just don't try to get married in a church. we christians are doing a fine job of f-ing up the sanctity of marriage ourselves, we don't need a new group to come in and piss on the institution. when the number of divorces in the Christian church equal the divorce rate of the main stream culture, we're in for some trouble.

 

as long as I am not harming another human being.

 

what does that mean? my brother says that "as long as love exists in the relationship, then it's ok". I just say, ok, well, I'm getting a surgery to stop sperm production and marrying my sister, because we love each other. Why or how is that any different than gay relationships?

[israel4ever]

This is my (humble) opinion re. abortion...If WE give the Government the power to outlaw abortions (thus taking away the right from the individual), WE are in essence giving the "G" the right to say "You have to have an abortion!" I know it's a "stretch", but once you give up a personal freedom(s), it's hard as Hell to get it back.

[CrimsonWeltall]

I'm ok with civil unions. Just don't try to get married in a church.

 

A church doesn't have to do s*** if it doesn't want to.

 

Let people get equal legal rights with a civil union. Then they can go have their little ceremony and call it a marriage or whatever the f*** they want. If you want to say OH WELL THAT'S NOT A REAL MARRIAGE, then go ahead. They won't care.

 

Why or how is that any different than gay relationships?

 

A better question would be "why or how is that any different than a straight relationship?"

[kapkomet]

This is my (humble) opinion re. abortion...If WE give the Government the power to outlaw abortions (thus taking away the right from the individual), WE are in essence giving the "G" the right to say "You have to have an abortion!" I know it's a "stretch", but once you give up a personal freedom(s), it's hard as Hell to get it back.

What's going on? This is the third time today I have agreed with I4E. *faints*

 

[sox4lifeinPA]

This is my (humble) opinion re. abortion...If WE give the Government the power to outlaw abortions (thus taking away the right from the individual), WE are in essence giving the "G" the right to say "You have to have an abortion!" I know it's a "stretch", but once you give up a personal freedom(s), it's hard as Hell to get it back.

holy crow...we agree on something.

 

 

actually, alot of what I believe is based upon, "how will this affect Christianity and my freedoms to practice it." For instance, it might be a stretch, but I don't think the G should tell a business that it can't allow people to smoke. Now whether the company does well financially because of their right to have smokers increases or decreases their allowance of smokers, that should be completely up to them. I just wouldn't like to be told I couldn't pray before a meal, or read my bible in public, etc..

[sox4lifeinPA]

A church doesn't have to do s*** if it doesn't want to.

 

Let people get equal legal rights with a civil union.  Then they can go have their little ceremony and call it a marriage or whatever the f*** they want.  If you want to say OH WELL THAT'S NOT A REAL MARRIAGE, then go ahead.  They won't care.

 

 

 

A better question would be "why or how is that any different than a straight relationship?"

biologically we aren't programmed to have sex with our sibilings nor people of the same sex.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

ok, ok, ok...I'm breathing normally again.

 

apu, I see what you're saying, and I agree with you. I don't believe the government should make decisions for us, but I do believe they have a responsibility to monitor certain things. For example, quality of the gasoline we pump, the ethical research of private firms, or moral judgements such as abortion and gay marriage.

 

 

 

actually, I'm not for making abortion illegal. I realize that once a society makes a decision to take one direction over another, there's no going back, RE:Prohibition. My point is that it's awfully disheartening to see the number of abortions v. the number of parents willing to adopt be so similar. I just find it selfish and irresponsible for someone to choose an abortion. So you see where I stand on that?

 

 

 

that doesn't make the current pro-life movement illegitimate in it's believe. come on, you're better than that.

 

 

 

once again, it goes back to responsibility. If you aren't willing to accept the responsibility of a baby, don't have sex. It's got nothing to do with sex being dirty, or bad...because in my estimation, it's gonna be wonderful. I just think we've lost any respect for what committment and "virginity" is about.

 

 

 

We're taught to protect the fatherless (the alien or foreignor, and the widowed.) so, it makes complete sense to protect those, whom need protecting. It has everything to do with age, if you sideshow, need as much protection as an infant baby... come on, do I really need to finish this? I can love people of all ages and still look out for the elderly and children. Bill hicks is a moron.

 

I'm ok with civil unions. Just don't try to get married in a church. we christians are doing a fine job of f-ing up the sanctity of marriage ourselves, we don't need a new group to come in and piss on the institution. when the number of divorces in the Christian church equal the divorce rate of the main stream culture, we're in for some trouble.

 

 

 

what does that mean? my brother says that "as long as love exists in the relationship, then it's ok". I just say, ok, well, I'm getting a surgery to stop sperm production and marrying my sister, because we love each other. Why or how is that any different than gay relationships?

Educating people about sexuality and removing the taboos associated with it would lead to a great deal of people not f***ing like bunnies in the multitudes that they are now. There is such a great stigma put on sex and sexuality in American culture for some f***ed up reason (for example, Reagan said he believed it was "tinged with evil") and these feelings of stigmatism make people feel dirty and repressed.

 

Putting all the information out there about sex and sexuality...birth control, "the 5 officers beating the suspect" (had to use that masturbatory reference today), "plunging the happy hole" etc. Get an educated discussion going with people about sex and sexuality giving people a better understanding of it. Taking away the "I wonder what it's like, wonder what it feels like" ignorance really takes away a lot of the forbidden fruit allure. Now, how to implement this is a different story altogether (schools...after school program...etc.) It's selfish but not always irresponsible. I mean, there's always the cases of women getting raped or incest but problems that could come about with the woman's health in the birthing process etc. It's not like most women are "I'm gonna get an abortion" and be happy about it. It's an unfortunate thing that they need done and it's good that there are well equipped knowledgable medical professionals for the procedure. I think a well educated population can stem a lot of the pregnancies that arise but also access to birth control, condoms, etc. so all people can get them.

 

The current pro-life movement had a few things I disagree with. 1. The pro-life groups like the Army of God (behind the Atlanta Olympic bombing and numerous killings of clinic doctors) have gotten a free pass with this adminstration. Ashcroft did not add them to the list of terrorist organizations even though they bombed places successfully within the US. Also, many groups went and sent letters full of white powder to clinics during the anthrax scare. 2. The partial birth abortion ban was signed on the stage with Bush and all fat white men. When Clinton vetoed it, he had women on the platform with him that had had the procedure done before and put a human face on it. All I saw with the Bush signing was a bunch of grinning white guys saying that womens' bodies needed to be under the watchful eye of the government while turning a blind eye to all sorts of corporate welfare and demanding de-regulations of corporations.

 

Gays getting married...I don't think a lot of guys are gonna wake up and be like "Oh s***. You mean I could have married a guy? Goddamnit!" Gay marriage is not about gay sex (that's already legal) but it is about two people of the same sex standing before their friends and families and promising to spend the rest of their lives together. I find it near impossible to believe that any thoughtful American would feel the need to amend the Constitution to prevent a mutual promise. The vows typically consist of stuff about love, honor, cherish, in sickness and in health, well, you know the rest. While many expect a marriage to produce offspring, the legitimacy of an American marriage is not measured by the number of children produced by the couple participating in it. Therefore, anybody who argues that marriage should be limited to heterosexuals because homosexual couples can't reproduce is wrong vis-à-vis marriage and reproduction. This argument would necessitate the denial of marriage licenses to infertile couples, and I'm guessing that movement isn't gathering much steam.

 

Since marriage is about taking and honoring vows, the only folks who threaten the sanctity of the institution of marriage are those who break their vows. If Americans wish to protect the sanctity of marriage, they could very well start by denying marriage licenses to some of these schmucks. Dubya's own brother, Neil, recently completed a messy divorce from his wife, Sharon. Adultery played a factor. Then there are icons Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich, with one and two marriages ended via affairs, respectively. In short, until the pro-marriage folks do something about their own, who have been wiping their backsides with their marriage vows, they have absolutely no business talking about anybody else's marriage threatening whatever sanctity that the institution of marriage may still possess. Any couple, straight or gay, that can make and honor marriage vows is upholding the sanctity of marriage. Period.

 

Incest is different than a gay relationship because most brothers and sisters are not sexual and pretty much almost all sexual (gay and straight) relationships do not involve family members.

 

Because people do not procreate (see infertile couples, elderly couples) does not mean that their marriage is invalid.

[CrimsonWeltall]

biologically we aren't programmed to have sex with our sibilings nor people of the same sex.

 

because you say so?

 

also, since when are we limited to only biology?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

biologically we aren't programmed to have sex with our sibilings nor people of the same sex.

The biological studies I've seen show definite differences in the brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals (size of different brain structures etc) so there is a case for biological differences and different programming.

[israel4ever]

holy crow...we agree on something.

 

 

actually, alot of what I believe is based upon, "how will this affect Christianity and my freedoms to practice it."  For instance, it might be a stretch, but I don't think the G should tell a business that it can't allow people to smoke. Now whether the company does well financially because of their right to have smokers increases or decreases their allowance of smokers, that should be completely up to them. I just wouldn't like to be told I couldn't pray before a meal, or read my bible in public, etc..

I don't agree with you though on the smoking thing...not totally. I do think that employers should provide smokers with an area(s) wherein they can smoke, away from non-smokers, and/or those who don't want to breathe second-hand smoke.

[Wong & Owens]

biologically we aren't programmed to have sex with our sibilings nor people of the same sex.

That's not true at all.

 

Evidence is mounting, and within, say, 5-10 years, it will be commonly known that homosexuality is a product of one's genetics.

 

I guarantee it.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Educating people about sexuality and removing the taboos associated with it would lead to a great deal of people not f***ing like bunnies in the multitudes that they are now.  There is such a great stigma put on sex and sexuality in American culture for some f***ed up reason (for example, Reagan said he believed it was "tinged with evil") and these feelings of stigmatism make people feel dirty and repressed.

 

Putting all the information out there about sex and sexuality...birth control, "the 5 officers beating the suspect" (had to use that masturbatory reference today), "plunging the happy hole" etc.  Get an educated discussion going with people about sex and sexuality giving people a better understanding of it.  Taking away the "I wonder what it's like, wonder what it feels like" ignorance really takes away a lot of the forbidden fruit allure.  Now, how to implement this is a different story altogether (schools...after school program...etc.)  It's selfish but not always irresponsible.  I mean, there's always the cases of women getting raped or incest but problems that could come about with the woman's health in the birthing process etc.  It's not like most women are "I'm gonna get an abortion" and be happy about it.  It's an unfortunate thing that they need done and it's good that there are well equipped knowledgable medical professionals for the procedure.  I think a well educated population can stem a lot of the pregnancies that arise but also access to birth control, condoms, etc. so all people can get them.

 

The current pro-life movement had a few things I disagree with.  1.  The pro-life groups like the Army of God (behind the Atlanta Olympic bombing and numerous killings of clinic doctors) have gotten a free pass with this adminstration.  Ashcroft did not add them to the list of terrorist organizations even though they bombed places successfully within the US.  Also, many groups went and sent letters full of white powder to clinics during the anthrax scare.  2.  The partial birth abortion ban was signed on the stage with Bush and all fat white men.  When Clinton vetoed it, he had women on the platform with him that had had the procedure done before and put a human face on it.  All I saw with the Bush signing was a bunch of grinning white guys saying that womens' bodies needed to be under the watchful eye of the government while turning a blind eye to all sorts of corporate welfare and demanding de-regulations of corporations.

 

Gays getting married...I don't think a lot of guys are gonna wake up and be like "Oh s***.  You mean I could have married a guy?  Goddamnit!" Gay marriage is not about gay sex (that's already legal) but it is about two people of the same sex standing before their friends and families and promising to spend the rest of their lives together. I find it near impossible to believe that any thoughtful American would feel the need to amend the Constitution to prevent a mutual promise.  The vows typically consist of stuff about love, honor, cherish, in sickness and in health, well, you know the rest. While many expect a marriage to produce offspring, the legitimacy of an American marriage is not measured by the number of children produced by the couple participating in it. Therefore, anybody who argues that marriage should be limited to heterosexuals because homosexual couples can't reproduce is wrong vis-à-vis marriage and reproduction. This argument would necessitate the denial of marriage licenses to infertile couples, and I'm guessing that movement isn't gathering much steam.

 

Since marriage is about taking and honoring vows, the only folks who threaten the sanctity of the institution of marriage are those who break their vows. If Americans wish to protect the sanctity of marriage, they could very well start by denying marriage licenses to some of these schmucks. Dubya's own brother, Neil, recently completed a messy divorce from his wife, Sharon. Adultery played a factor. Then there are icons Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich, with one and two marriages ended via affairs, respectively. In short, until the pro-marriage folks do something about their own, who have been wiping their backsides with their marriage vows, they have absolutely no business talking about anybody else's marriage threatening whatever sanctity that the institution of marriage may still possess. Any couple, straight or gay, that can make and honor marriage vows is upholding the sanctity of marriage. Period.

 

Incest is different than a gay relationship because most brothers and sisters are not sexual and pretty much almost all sexual (gay and straight) relationships do not involve family members.

 

Because people do not procreate (see infertile couples, elderly couples) does not mean that their marriage is invalid.

I agree with you on alot of that. I don't have time to really respond, because I have to go to my s***ty Blockbuster job now. But you echoed my point about Christians destroying marriage at the same rate as everyone else. If we're allowed to mess it up, why not them? I see the point. I suppose I'm too much of a redneck at heart to be ok with it, but hey...there's still time.

 

3 million abortions yearly? they're all about medical reasons? come on... I honestly think groups like the "Army of God" will end up in hell. Their beliefs are based on love but not administered by that same devine love. I think people should rise up and support women thinking of abortions and couple them with people who want/can't have kids. Lets pay for medical bills or time lost at work and give these children a chance.

 

like I said, I don't think we can outlaw abortions, we've already gone down that road, but I don't think anyone should get one.

[israel4ever]

What's going on?  This is the third time today I have agreed with I4E.  *faints*

 

I'm not such a bad guy!

[kapkomet]

I'm not such a bad guy!

I know. But it sure is fun to give you a hard time once in a while.

 

[israel4ever]

I know.  But it sure is fun to give you a hard time once in a while.

 

 

Sadly, TOO MANY people agree with that!

 

[Texsox]

I cannot resolve in my mind the inbalance that money brings in freedom of speech. One on hand I fully agree that the swiftboat vets and moveon should be allowed to state their opinions within the current slander and libel laws. On the other hand, it bothers me that tens of millions of Americans are drowned out without the same opportunity.

 

I also understand that it is impossible to seperate the $$$$$ from the politician. Rush is an idiot when he stated on his show that Bush doesn't have and cannot have, any influence on the swift boat vets. When I heard with my own ears on AM710 Rush make that statement I almost gagged. Of course the campaigns are advising when, where, what, who in the 527s. If not directly, then indirectly.

[kapkomet]

ABCNews Correspondants are an idiot when they stated on the news that Kerry doesn't have and cannot have, any influence on moveon.org. When I heard with my own ears on ABCNews make that statement I almost gagged. Of course the campaigns are advising when, where, what, who in the 527s. If not directly, then indirectly.

 

What's the difference here? It's happening both ways... and it cracks me up when the Hannitys and the Rush's, who admit their bias, get lamblasted for this stuff.

[Texsox]

What's the difference here?  It's happening both ways... and it cracks me up when the Hannitys and the Rush's, who admit their bias, get lamblasted for this stuff.

Kap, notice I said campaignS. Agreed both sides have influence. You think the swiftboat guys cannot pick up the phone and get ahold of Rove and vice versa? The same on the Dem side. Politicians love money and these guys have the dough.

 

The difference is no liberal talk show hosts are available on any stations here, only conservative. Damn media bias.