Nobel Peace Prize Winner Says She Wants to Kill George W. Bush, Gets Standing Ovation

[Drewbacca]

Giuliani was a better leader than Bush during that time, and god knows I wouldn't want him anywhere near the presidency.

He really wasn't that better of a leader. CNN and ABC said so to make people feel like something was being done. The twin towers are still being fought over by real estate clowns, the clean-up crews of the towers are facing health crisis' without medical help and his inaction on broken radio's may have actually cost hundreds of firefighters their lives on 9/11 (which is still under investigation so it may be untrue).

I would be really pissed off about the state of politics in America if I lived there. You have the world's greatest democracy and it's being torn apart by secret agenda's. There should only be one agenda, and that's helping the American people.

IBTN, nice post Drewbaccca.

The extreme left would have you arrested for saying that conflict in the Middle East involves uneducated religious zealots, even though it's true. We don't want to hurt their feelings...

I think it involves educated religious zealots who are exploiting their population, which is under extreme oppression and duress (in some form or another, whether it be wealth, sex, or accomplishment/opportunity). Although I get the impression g0zen was more interested in talking about the hostile Arab extremists in a way that is less demeaning. People just hate it when race ushers a discussion from the original topic at hand.

I'm for Gay's getting the same rights but i won't allow them to call themselves Married. Partners in Life is a common alternative to Married.

The gay argument isn't for same rights. It's for new rights. Nobody in the country can marry a person from the same sex. It's consistent across the board. diffusionx was always good at counterpointing the Gay Marriage arguement. It all has to do with the way marriage is technically defined under US Law.

I personally don't give a shit. Chuck & Larry getting married does not in anyway demean or lessen the marriage of me and my wife (hypothetically anyway, LOL @ marriage) in the same way that a woman being able to compete for my job does not in anyway lessen my ability in the workplace. I'm going to show her up the same way I'm going to show any guy up who tries to bring it.

[Space Pirate Roberts]

The gay argument isn't for same rights. It's for new rights. Nobody in the country can marry a person from the same sex. It's consistent across the board. diffusionx was always good at counterpointing the Gay Marriage arguement. It all has to do with the way marriage is technically defined under US Law.

I really thought TNL was above this sort of drivel.

Homosexuals already have the right to marry; they can marry someone of the opposite sex right now!

How strange for those who rant and rave about the "sanctity of marriage" to demand that homosexuals marry someone they couldn't possibly love. Again, it sounds as though the homosexuals take marriage far more seriously than the heterosexuals do, especially the fundamentalist ones. Those using this argument must take the position that "marriage" is a meaningless business contract; but even taking that position, it cannot be denied that the contract is being offered to a certain class of people and not to another based solely upon the sexes of those involved. This is a clearly discriminatory position.

The fact is that heterosexuals presently have the right to marry the person of their choosing (with reasonable limitations of age and genetic relationship). Homosexuals do not, at all, under any circumstances (age and genetics notwithstanding). The two classes of people are treated differently under the law, clearly.

This same intellectually bankrupt argument could be used to argue in favor of interracial marriage bans; after all, so long as white people can marry the other white people of their choice, there's no problem, right?

[...]

Gays want "special rights!"

On its face, the term "special rights" doesn't even make sense. If something is a right, it isn't "special." It belongs to everybody. And according to the Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia, marriage is a fundamental right. Yet, the anti-gay extremists trumpet this "special rights" meme every time gays attempt to attain or retain any type of equal treatment, in an apparent effort to try to convince people that gays are trying to get something that other people don't have.

In fact, it's obvious in the case of marriage that the only group that could be considered to have a "special" right is heterosexuals. They can get married. Gays cannot. What these people should be saying is that they want their own right to remain "special" by preventing gays from attaining equality.

[Drewbacca]

I really thought TNL was above this sort of drivel.

Marriage has never been defined by love. Sorry, try again.

If I want to marry a man, I can't. If a homosexual wants to marry a man, he can't. Same applies for women and lesbians. That's equal rights based on a marriage contract that is not defined by love. That's the whole point I was making and your article backed me up ten fold (making the same mistakes).

The "equal rights" brigade is trying to fly the same banner the blacks did. Only in their case they were being discriminated against. A black man wasn't allowed to marry any woman he wanted. A white man was allowed to marry any woman he wanted. That's discrimination based on an equal playing field (equal rights).

In the case of gay marriage everyone is being discriminated against equally. If I want to marry a man, I can't. If a homosexual wants to marry a man, he can't. I don't have a solution. But if gay rights activists want to make some progress on the matter they should atleast know what they actually need to demonstrate for. I'm not even anti-gay rights and I can see that their arguement is soft under what we now define marriage as.

In order for this to take any sort of serious ground in your country they have to prove their point without bringing love in to the equation which, as far as I can tell, is the only arguement they've taken up stake in.

[Space Pirate Roberts]

Forest for the trees, man.

[Drewbacca]

That doesn't even remotely relate.

purple dildo forest

[icarusfall]

Far Right= Suck (Unholy "God Men" trying to tell us how to live our lives)
Far Left = Suck (Extreme P.E.T.A. type whackos who would destroy the US to appearse Luxembourg if they had to)

We need a change, we have to take out the douchebag right and the pussywillow left pansies. It's time for a new school of thought, this isn't 1950 anymore, things are not defined with clear lines because we have blurred them all.

Let's let the far left have California, the far right, Texas, then we can move everybody out of Colorado and let them slaughter themselves, the world would be a better place.

This is essentially why I have no one to vote for. It's upsetting to have to agree with Biff, but I don't relate to the right or the left either. To me it's not really about liberals or conservatives, it's about class. The left isn't for the working class anymore than the right are - and that's what affects me more than anything.

[Saint of Killers]

g0zen's playing of the race card in this thread is everything I hate about the left (and I'm very liberal. So is Melf for that matter.)

Stibbons summed it up perfectly a couple months ago:

g0zen has a remarkable ability to make everyone that agrees with him turn against him. Then he argues them stupid while wearing cotton swabs in his ears.

Oh, I'm a racist now?

No, you're a bigot.

I didn't mean that they couldn't.
I meant that, if you aren't born in this country, and you don't have a personal investment in it's actions, then you really shouldn't give a shit.

Everyone in the world has a personal investment in America's foreign policy.

[Pineapple]

america's forgien policy = expand and influence, therefore SoK = confirmed

[SpoDaddy]

Ah, but it has everything to do with capitalism.

Capitalism is what made the Allies decide to arbitrarily make up countries in the middle east which have nothing at all to do with the ethnicity of the people living there. And thus the problems.

Britain (not the Allies) created Iraq as a buffer for their slave trade. It had nothing to do with capitalism either as most of the profits went directly to the state. President Wilson was actually opposed to what Britain did with Iraq (his big thing was national destiny) as well as how severely the Treaty of Versailles punished the Germans for WWI, which is why he didn't join the League of Nations.

[g0zen]

Oh please, this is like saying Westerners cannot handle Algebra and Geometry because they got it before the Europeans we started to build proper cities. Democracy requires a highly educated populace that trusts the government enough to vote in it. I mean On your line of logic I could say that blacks lack the mental acumen to understand modern germ theory as they seem to keep infecting everyone with HIV, or the political acumen to form a non-tribal government as most of the states keep devolving into a. anarchy, b. civil war, or c. personality/tribally lead governments which collapse with the fall of the leader back to a or b. until c. seizes power.
See: South Africa, Robert Mugabe, Charles Taylor, Congo, Zaire, Ivory Coast, Togo, Central African Republic, Somalia, Algeria, or hell lemme just say everyone south of the Sahara.

Hey dumbass, that was sarcasm directed at Spo. Why would I say and mean something like that and then accuse someone else of racism?

You HATE the right, as for as to say if a right wing guy saved the world and discovered the cure for aids, you would still cry about it because he obviously had an agenda.

LOL, I've never said or implied anything of the sort.

I went through your posts for proof but realized I didn't have the time.

Failure, thy name is Biff.