Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
You might find this table useful. While it doesn't cover everything, it covers a lot of the basics on where the candidates stand.
2008 Elections
Started by OUTexan
You might find this table useful. While it doesn't cover everything, it covers a lot of the basics on where the candidates stand.
Hard working immigrants do have the right to vote. Illegal Immigrants cannot vote and should not be allowed to vote because they have broken the law. Crossing the border illegally is a crime according to the law of the United States of America.
Best website ever putting the screws to lying politicians and organizations...
http://factcheck.org/
http://factcheck.org/
The Hillcrew guy is just plain scary.
Not to offend anyone, but I would more likely vote for a Muslim president than a Christian one. I have many Christian friends and many Muslim. I don't believe in either of their "truths." I do, however respect both belief systems.
That being said, our current administration is supposedly Christian. We are at war. People are dying and there is no end in sight. Fortunately due to our current policy concerning gays in the military, we aren't likely to lose many of our GLBT brothers and sisters to this senseless war. We'll just keep sending young men and women to Iraq and orphaning more children. Unfortunately, due to our current policies on gay marriage, our GLBT brothers and sisters are not given the right to marry and raise these or other orphaned children. And so begins a larger ethical, social, and educational decline.
No child left behind, my ass.
Not to offend anyone, but I would more likely vote for a Muslim president than a Christian one. I have many Christian friends and many Muslim. I don't believe in either of their "truths." I do, however respect both belief systems.
That being said, our current administration is supposedly Christian. We are at war. People are dying and there is no end in sight. Fortunately due to our current policy concerning gays in the military, we aren't likely to lose many of our GLBT brothers and sisters to this senseless war. We'll just keep sending young men and women to Iraq and orphaning more children. Unfortunately, due to our current policies on gay marriage, our GLBT brothers and sisters are not given the right to marry and raise these or other orphaned children. And so begins a larger ethical, social, and educational decline.
No child left behind, my ass.
If not agreeing with your point of view makes me crazy than I am absolutely, completely and undoubtedly insane.
Blatant, horrifying bigotry is not necessarily a barometer for sanity, but if you are willing to confess to insanity it makes your viewpoints a great deal more palatable.
And, for the record, I called you scary not crazy. You indeed pulled that one out on your own.
Crazy would be the word I'd use to describe an AdCom for a school that would welcome a bigot into their program. Do you think you can honestly empathize with and care for all of your patients, or just the ones who are like you? You may one day be faced with a Muslim patient needing your help. Will you bite your tongue when faced with such a situation, or will you open your mouth and spout your ridiculous narrow-minded bull****?
You're both scary in the statements you (pl.) make with regards to cadidates' religions.
I think the leader of the country should be a member of a religion that involves mandatory toplessness.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Negative on that, WVU. Too many disgusting sights to have to see. If anything, I'd rather have mandatory covering up (in a non-Taliban sort of way)!
...just another glass-half-empty liberal.
Nah, that's the Conservative viewpoint! 😀
BTW, WVU... Sen. Byrd (D-WV) is the man. The grandfather of the senate. I wish he were Prez..
Personally, I'd have liked if Sen. Frist (R-TN) ran for Pres, or Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN). I am disenchanted with the candidates. I think this the country needs a moderate senator, particularly, as President.
I stand on tradition, so I would be against amending the law to allow Schwarzenneger to run, but dang he'd be an awesome pres!
I hear you on that issue. NPR did a segment on orphaned children living without any family... it was heartbreaking. Some orphans (grown now) called in saying how they would have loved to have been given an opportunity to have been raised by gay/lesbian parents. They didn't care; all that mattered to them was that there was someone there for them, some person they could count on. A few of them called in saying they had no one. It was really sad.
I like him, personally. He's taken so much from other states and transplanted so much money into West Virginia that he's also known as the grandfather of pork, too. Back in the early 90s, he was getting $4 in federal money back for every $1 WV taxpayers paid in federal income tax. For some reason this is something people who run against him use as ammo. They obviously don't think that one through. I mean...you know...I like having new roads and ****. Hell, my school is called the Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center.
I don't think he should be president though, nor should anybody from West Virginia.....we're all ****ing crazy. We'd invade Sweden and sign trade agreements with North Korea because they'd sell us cheaper electronics for Dave & Busters....
I never stated anything about hating anyone. I simply stated that having a president with a muslim background would not be a postive step for this country. Do not ever assume that because someone disagrees with your point of view that they have hatred towards you or your position. Someone can be against gay marriage and that does not mean they HATE gays or are "homophobic." Disagreeing does not mean hate.
The liberals use great techniques to keep the opposition quiet in this country. If someone is against gay marriage they than hate gays and are homophobic. If someone is opposed to amnesty of illegal immigrants than they are racist. These are great tactics to keep the masses quiet but they don't work on me.
Why does it matter what background he is? Isn't that the very definition of being racist?
I honestly can't fathom why people are against gay marriage. It's none of my business, it doesn't affect me, and it makes them happy. Plus, it would benefit me indirectly. Happy people work harder....those that work hard are good for the economy...if the economy is good, more people have access to healthcare.....if more people have access to healthcare, it's better for me. Not to mention you will have an entire segment of people that now qualify for healthcare via a gay spouse.
****in eh! Viva legal gay unions!
Seriously though...there is no reason to not let them do it. The only reason people are against it is because they want to transpose their own ethical values on other people. That's just wrong. It might not mean you "hate gays" but it certainly means that you do not want them to have the same civil rights as you.
****in eh! Viva legal gay unions!
Seriously though...there is no reason to not let them do it. The only reason people are against it is because they want to transpose their own ethical values on other people. That's just wrong. It might not mean you "hate gays" but it certainly means that you do not want them to have the same civil rights as you.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I never accused you of hate, I accused you (and I believe deservedly) of bigotry. Call it intolerance, bias, discrimination, prejudice, whatever you want. To not have the presence of mind to make a distinct separation between church and state and to allow religion to guide political motivations is a dangerous practice.
Let's go at this from a different angle. If you don't believe in gay marriage, how do suggest we provide equal rights and protections for gay and lesbian couples?
On a side note, this gay guy I know is fervently against gay marriage because he wants to stay single his whole life and not be pressured into that sort of a commitment.
I don't believe in redefining marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. If we redefine marriage for gays than why not legitimize polygamy. Proponents of gay marriage say, "who are you to say that two grown consenting adults that are in love cannot get married." If that is the case, who are we to say that three consenting adults cannot get married.
The slippery slope argument is illogical by definition. The gay mariage will lead to polygamy argument is an example of such. Who said anything about three people? Gays aren't asking to marry three people, they are asking for equal protection under the law. They are asking for the SAME rights as other citizens. Seriously, you're going to have to come up with something better than that.
And, further, who gives a **** if one dude has 8 wives, either? I sure as hell don't. Hell, I get more women hitting on me now that I'm married than before. Maybe I'll want to have 8 wives in the future. And why the hell shouldn't I?
I have no idea either. And people who are against it disgust me. I believe it must stem from some lingering idea that somehow children raised in a gay/lesbian environment will somehow be abnormal. Umm... sure. Great argument there. And the ones that don't even want children? I can't even think of an argument for not letting them get married--its just plain inequality. Some people somehow still believe that gay/lesbian people are not equal to people involved in a heterosexual relationship. People who think that should have some of their rights taken away and see how it feels.
Marriage is the union of two entities. Your argument is ridiculous.
Someone is going to have to explain this to me like I am three years old. Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between man and a woman at least until 2001. Any attempts to define marriage in any other way changes the definition of marriage.
Now, that being said, Gay and Lesbian couples should have all of the rights of every other citizen. They should be able to adopt children, be treated as equals in assigning custody when people divorce, be able to execute health care decisions inherit property w/o penalty. It's called civil unions. Civil Unions give Gay and Lesbian families all of the same rights straight couples.
Once you take the rights problem out of the equation, what does the title mean? If you can convince the majority of society to change the definition of marriage, so be it. It just has not been done yet.
Now, that being said, Gay and Lesbian couples should have all of the rights of every other citizen. They should be able to adopt children, be treated as equals in assigning custody when people divorce, be able to execute health care decisions inherit property w/o penalty. It's called civil unions. Civil Unions give Gay and Lesbian families all of the same rights straight couples.
Once you take the rights problem out of the equation, what does the title mean? If you can convince the majority of society to change the definition of marriage, so be it. It just has not been done yet.
Of course marriage itself is just a religious term. Technically all marriages are legally just civil unions. Semantics is just an annoying ball of crap we all get to deal with. The bottom line should be ensuring civil rights for everyone, be it under whatever name you chose.
That is absolutely true. There are those who believe from a religious point of view that homosexuality is wrong. These people should NOT force their religious beliefs on others and deprive those people of their constitutional rights.
On the other hand, once granted civil unions with FULL AND EQUAL RIGHTS, Gay and Lesbian couple should NOT force those religious people to be subjected to having their definition of marriage changed or altered when the change or alteration has no effect other than to debase the beliefs of those that hold them.
Legally, there is no concept of marriage, per se. Legally, all a man and women are when they get "married" civilly unionized. Marriage is ust a religious term..but if gay couples started having civil unions, nobody can tell them they can't go around saying they are married, either.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
wow...something that we agree on...
TheHillCrew said:
Conservatives use great techniques to never answer questions from an opposing point view point and keep reiterating tired idiotic slogans. Btw- you ever going to answer any of my previous questions???
True, you can personally call it what you want......
wow...something that we agree on...
Conservatives use great techniques to never answer questions from an opposing point view point and keep reiterating tired idiotic slogans. Btw- you ever going to answer any of my previous questions???
He won't answer any of your questions Caverject. He avoided mine as well. I asked for suggestions, other than marriage, for providing equal rights benefits and protections for GLBT people. He quoted my question and went on to give me his definition of marriage, totally avoiding my question. Unless he can provide some suggestions, I feel justified in saying in calling him bigoted. Maybe he doesn't "hate" gays, but is devaluing their worth and refusing them equality better?
He can't even claim to tolerate gays, for that would make him one of "the liberals."
