a serious question to you bush supporters,

poptom · Post by **poptom** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 3:39 pm

FYI, Insight magazine discontinued publication several months ago. June, I believe.

vc_wannabe · Post by **vc_wannabe** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 3:48 pm

Bouncer wrote:It's important to cite quotes so we can verify claims. Just about your entire post is a cut and paste.

http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?incl ... yid=670120

"From their "about us" page:

"Insight on the News is a national biweekly newsmagazine published in Washington by the Washington Times Corp. ... Insight is the sister publication of the Washington Times."

The author of your story is a Republican who has run for US Senate in Maryland.

One SHOULD look at the background of a source you basically repeat completely.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

ah sorry Bouncer. About half of my post was just cut n' paste... but the battle stats for example I actually wrote that out. I just like to have things orgazined... Illl provide links from now on.

Sarahnn · Post by **Sarahnn** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 5:10 pm

Mehmet wrote:I'm not trying to start a flame-war, i'm just trying to understand HOW you think he can STILL be a good president after all that has happened?

for example:

the deficit, (what is it now, 8 trillion?)

High deficits are not new to this Country.

the non existant WOMD,

They did exist, and if we leave Iraq to the terrorists and insurgents, they will exist again.

Osama still out there,

Osama was out there under Eight years of Clinton.

Social security has been sh*tted on,

Social Security is being pooped on by the increasing baby boomers.

Facts that are skewed ("he forgot poland," no, poland went in a few months after the "Grand coalition" went in, and they didn't send a combat force).

It's on the public record what Poland did. Are you waiting for a personal briefing by the President?

A constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage (marriage is something the states are supposed to take care of, folks.)

It's not a gay ban. It's a reaffirmation of what marriage is. But I think you knew all along, didn't ya?

a thousand+ troops dead

War will do that to ya. Are counting the dead in Afghanistan too, or just the ones who didn't go to war with your personal permission?

Afghanistan is still in the ditch.

Who put it there?

Public education has also been sh*tted on because of the deficit.

etc etc.

Public education started going downhill when the dems put the NEA on a pedestal.

So, WHY do you W supporters think that he can still do the job given the events that have happened the last 4 years?

Well, we know one thing, he'll last longer than kerry did in Nam. And, President Bush won't consort with the enemy when he is relieved of duty.

stevebakh · Post by **stevebakh** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 5:23 pm

Sarahnn wrote:They did exist, and if we leave Iraq to the terrorists and insurgents, they will exist again.

Just out of interest, are you refuting the recent CIA-backed report put forth that states Saddam actually disposed of his WMD programs for fear of being discovered around 1991 and wasn't planning on starting the programmes again until UN sanctions were lifted, with Iran being the most likely target?

Just remember that our two governments justified this "war" on the basis that Saddam had weapons and could have them prepared and launched towards our nations within a 30 - 45 minute timescale. That was the sole basis for out pre-emptive attack.

The_Lurker · Post by **The_Lurker** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:12 pm

stevebakh wrote:You couldn't be more wrong. A long while back the NHS was good. The problem now is that government funding is lacking, as it is in other public sectors such as education - and the private sector is also killing the NHS. Doctors earn more working privately, so they do so.

If I had power in the matter, private groups would be unable to take over key public programs like healthcare and education. But leave it to the current administration and they're simply playing tag-team take down on the NHS.

Besides, the idea is noble and still the best way. Everyone should have access to healthcare, not only the paying. Even if you believe the UK healthcare system is sub-par (which I agree, but believe is caused by current affairs), then you can look to Europe for examples of free healthcare that is superb. Check out Sweden for example.

from what you have just stated above you are saying i am right.

have you had the benifit of using the US health care system?

i have used both, NHS and private US health care. private care is leaps and bounds better.

right now everyone does have access to health care in the UK, but yet many chose to pay extra and use private health care. thats their choice, and they chose it because they can get better healthcare.

The_Lurker · Post by **The_Lurker** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:20 pm

stevebakh wrote:Just out of interest, are you refuting the recent CIA-backed report put forth that states Saddam actually disposed of his WMD programs for fear of being discovered around 1991 .

this still doesn't make sense. after the first gulf war, the UN DID find WOMD and were in the process of destroying said weapons. they were kicked out before destroying everything.

have a chat with UOD he has noted this many times with plenty of corroborating links and such.

stevebakh · Post by **stevebakh** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:20 pm

I agree that our system is currently not what it once was, but I put that blame down to the existance of the privatisation of healthcare. So it's kind of a loop.

Using the wording "you couldn't be more wrong" was pretty much out of place and looking back at your post, I can't see where I pulled it from (my butt maybe? so my apologies) but point in hand, I was sticking up for the idea of free healthcare. A superiour idea.

I believe it's the privatisation of this service which is damaging the national, free service. Which is why more people are paying for private healthcare. It's almost like a self-fulfilling circle of idiocy. If you get what I mean.

Mehmet · Post by **Mehmet** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:34 pm

The_Lurker wrote: private care is leaps and bounds better.

I'm sure it is, but many people cannot afford it, including my family.

The_Lurker · Post by **The_Lurker** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:42 pm

one more point that has not been brought up yet about private health care. the main problem is the cost.
for the two of you above take some time and look into how illegal immigration is hurting health care. the quantity of emergency rooms shutting down here in LA due to having to take care of illegal immigrants with no health care is frightening.

i know this to be true in the UK as well as the US. both systems are being overloaded, to the point they are becoming inefective for all but the wealthy, poor, or very lucky ones to have good health care insurance.

how is Sweden dealing with it's influx of Legal/illegal immigrants?

Mehmet · Post by **Mehmet** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:46 pm

Sarahnn wrote:High deficits are not new to this Country.

They did exist, and if we leave Iraq to the terrorists and insurgents, they will exist again.

Osama was out there under Eight years of Clinton.

Social Security is being pooped on by the increasing baby boomers.

It's on the public record what Poland did. Are you waiting for a personal briefing by the President?

It's not a gay ban. It's a reaffirmation of what marriage is. But I think you knew all along, didn't ya?

War will do that to ya. Are counting the dead in Afghanistan too, or just the ones who didn't go to war with your personal permission?

Who put it there?

Public education started going downhill when the dems put the NEA on a pedestal.

Well, we know one thing, he'll last longer than kerry did in Nam. And, President Bush won't consort with the enemy when he is relieved of duty.

No, they aren't at all, but explain to me how you can go from a surplus of whatever it was (few trillion i think), down to -8.

they DID exist, but as stevebakh just said, that was our justification for the war. "WOMD or bust."

yeah, he was out there. But considering the fact that we labeled him as the leader of all of these terrorist activities, 3 years ago, and labeled him as our prime target, we should've had him by now.

Social Security would be fine if we had money.

I know what poland did, the fact that the president doesn't know that they didn't enter with the us, england, and australia scares me.

Marriage has been fine for the last... ooo i dunno, 200 years? Why now? except for the fact to implicitly ban gay marriage. Why else would they do it? please answer this oh wise one.

Yes, troops die of car crashes too, that wasn't my point. A thousand dead for a war that was wrongly justified is too much.

Who put it there? we did. kthxbye.

public education was doing fine 4 years ago, and i say this from the perspective of a student.

Consort with the enemy. lol. Like we haven't done that enough times over the last 4 years.

Leatherneck · Post by **Leatherneck** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 11:14 pm

Mehmet wrote:Marriage has been fine for the last... ooo i dunno, 200 years? Why now? except for the fact to implicitly ban gay marriage. Why else would they do it? please answer this oh wise one.

A person needn't be to wise to answer this one. Never in history has marriage been attacked like it has at the present. Never in history in any culture has marriage been defined as anything else but a union between the opposite sex. As a matter of fact, nations have fell almost exclusively due to sexual preversions. Hell yes, it's about banning Gay marriages because gay marriages don't "extend rights" it tears down the thousands of years of what marriage has been defined as. Just because a minority of individuals want to re-define marriage doesn't make it right. All polls show that the majority of citizens believe that marriage should remain a union between 1 man and 1 woman. This isn't "mob rule" material either so for you knuckleheads looking for that opening, get lost.

De Plano · Post by **De Plano** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 11:43 pm

What civilizations have fallen due to that? Outside of the Bible that is.

Knuckleheads? It is still supposed to be that the courts protect the rights of the minority over the whims of the majority.

Loonatic · Post by **Loonatic** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 11:44 pm

Not everybody will agree with every president, nor their decisions. Vote for who you like.

Brk · Post by **Brk** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 11:53 pm

De Plano wrote:What civilizations have fallen due to that? Outside of the Bible that is.

Knuckleheads? It is still supposed to be that the courts protect the rights of the minority over the whims of the majority.

Yeah, like NAMBLA

De Plano · Post by **De Plano** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 11:59 pm

Don't go using this forum for promoting your "mens/boys group"

Sarahnn · Post by **Sarahnn** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:07 am

De Plano wrote: It is still supposed to be that the courts protect the rights of the minority over the whims of the majority.

The minority has rights, but the majority has whims?

De Plano · Post by **De Plano** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:12 am

Yeah. If you want an example, letting blacks sit wherever they want on a bus.

Bouncer · Post by **Bouncer** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:13 am

bigmo66 wrote:A person needn't be to wise to answer this one. Never in history has marriage been attacked like it has at the present. Never in history in any culture has marriage been defined as anything else but a union between the opposite sex. As a matter of fact, nations have fell almost exclusively due to sexual preversions. Hell yes, it's about banning Gay marriages because gay marriages don't "extend rights" it tears down the thousands of years of what marriage has been defined as. Just because a minority of individuals want to re-define marriage doesn't make it right. All polls show that the majority of citizens believe that marriage should remain a union between 1 man and 1 woman. This isn't "mob rule" material either so for you knuckleheads looking for that opening, get lost.

What thousands of years are you talking about? George Washington was married without a license, and in fact, most colonials were before slavery became a big part of thhe workigns of commerce. In 1691 the Virginia assembly passed a law to make sure that women didn't bear mixed-race children. The law banned "negroes, mulatto's and Indians intermarrying with English, or other white women, [and] their unlawfull accompanying with one another."

Marriage License were created to allow you to marry someone you could not ordinarily marry. Like an interracial marriage in a state that otherwise prohibts such marriages (as most states did before the Civil War (see above)) or marrying blood relatives. Now, however, it's everywhere and marrying at all is illegal unless the state sanctions it.

But marriage has always been between people and God. The state really has no business in it at all. They should end the issuing of marriage licenses completely and make them civil union permits. After all, when you ask for a marriage license you're asking the state to give you permission to sanctify your relationship before the Almighty.

How messed up is that?

Consider this scenario: A man and a man get a "marriage license" but a man and a woman do not. They both have the ceremony performed by a Pastor.

Which is married in your eyes? As a Christian, isn't it in fact the man and the woman who have married as they have declared their union before God, the Pastor and their witnesses, regardless of anything the state says?

If that is the case, and the man and man ceremony isn't recognized by God because they are sodomites, then what value does the "marriage license" really have? Isn't the answer none? Because regardless of what the state says, isn't a marriage something blessed by God and only by God?

Do you see why I think we need to move marriage back where it belongs, into the church, and just let the legal joining of finances be called what it really is, a civil union?

And do you also see why you shouldn't need the states permission to stand before God anyways? What business is it of theirs at all.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

Jon · Post by **Jon** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:18 am

Bouncer wrote:And do you also see why you shouldn't need the states permission to stand before God anyways? What business is it of theirs at all.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

well that would be the 35 dollar fee you pay to the state to get married.

Sarahnn · Post by **Sarahnn** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:40 am

De Plano wrote:Yeah. If you want an example, letting blacks sit wherever they want on a bus.

It was the courts that upheld the Jim Crow laws.

Bouncer · Post by **Bouncer** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:44 am

Jon wrote:well that would be the 35 dollar fee you pay to the state to get married.

Indeed. It IS a profitable business for the state. I mean, I believe that a civil union should exist between a couple. The state has a legitimate interest in maintaining records of these relationships for various legal purposes including contract execution, inheritance, medical rights, establishment of parental rights/responsibilities and the like. I'm not for scrapping that side of the system, but rather, I'm for moving the *idea* of marriage out of the state's greasy hands and BACK where it belongs.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

Brk · Post by **Brk** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am

De Plano wrote:Don't go using this forum for promoting your "mens/boys group"

rofl

Leatherneck · Post by **Leatherneck** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:47 am

Bouncer wrote:What thousands of years are you talking about?

Not talking about the "legalities" of marriage, but the 1 man 1 woman concept. Why do we have to increasingly accept preversion as "normal"? Why the effort to continually try to re-define what is "normal". Is there anything that is simply wrong? We have judges that now interpret the law based on thier opinon and bias and it's so obvious. There is an increasing line of division. One side seems to be saying, "Anything goes" as long as it hurts no one and the other saying "You're all going to hell" Yes, we need a good balance, but I know where the real persecution lies.

Sarahnn · Post by **Sarahnn** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 2:15 pm

Marriage in our culture is gender-specific. The entire concept of a marriage is to bring together two opposites to become one union.

It's not broken. Those who wish to fix it want to bend to the "whims" (to use De Plano's term) of the very small minority who wish to be like Mom and Dad.

stevebakh · Post by **stevebakh** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 9:07 pm

On the subject of homosexual marriage, I believe they should have the right to be married (in the way where the government recognises their partnership), however, I don't see the point of a church marriage - especially since, as far as I know, most religions see homosexuality as a bad thing.

nepenthe · Post by **nepenthe** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 11:57 pm

Sarahnn wrote:Marriage in our culture is gender-specific. The entire concept of a marriage is to bring together two opposites to become one union.

It's not broken. Those who wish to fix it want to bend to the "whims" (to use De Plano's term) of the very small minority who wish to be like Mom and Dad.

Is there a need for an amendment?

I am curious about your opinion. What harm do you see in permitting civil unions between homosexual couples?

david

nepenthe · Post by **nepenthe** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 12:12 am

bigmo66 wrote:A good majority of democrats have lost their noble vision. I see way to much hatred and thirst for power. Of course I realize that "any" Politician be it Democrat or Republican can certainly fit that bill, but I see it more in the Liberal camp.

There have been peaks and valleys in partisanship. I would argue it was far worse against Clinton. Bush had enjoyed a lengthy honeymoon after 9-11.

Truth told, I have little use for either of the candidates.

Leatherneck · Post by **Leatherneck** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 12:44 am

nepenthe wrote:There have been peaks and valleys in partisanship. I would argue it was far worse against Clinton. Bush had enjoyed a lengthy honeymoon after 9-11.

Truth told, I have little use for either of the candidates.

Yeah, Bush's 911 horse is beaten, dead and gone! How the heck do we end up with these kind of candidates? Is there truly a person out there that would make the best president in history? Then again, the best person out there wouldn't want to be a politician I suspect.

Sarahnn · Post by **Sarahnn** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 1:10 am

nepenthe wrote:Is there a need for an amendment?

Depends on what you want to accomplish.

I am curious about your opinion. What harm do you see in permitting civil unions between homosexual couples?

david

I see no harm in same-sex coupling and adoption. I see no problem with same-sex couples entering into legal contracts for co-habitation which entitles them to be recognized as family.

What I am against is that same sex couples can enter into our traditional institution of Marriage and be recognized with the same cultural status as a man and woman. They simply are not.

If I loved another woman, I would fight to be legally recognized as a partnership but not as a "married couple". Marriage in our culture is gender, familial, (to prevent incest) and age-specific.

I hate to see marriage stretched, bent or distorted from its culturally traditional position to meet the whims of same sex couples who wish to co-habitate.

Bouncer · Post by **Bouncer** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 1:31 am

Sarahnn wrote: I hate to see marriage stretched, bent or distorted from its culturally traditional position to meet the whims of same sex couples who wish to co-habitate.

In short you dislike it because it's new and unfamiliar. Fair enough. I mean, these "cultural traditions" you're talking about are less than 100 years old in many places in this country. That's not much of a cultural tradition.

One thing I want to point out is that a lot of the same arguments were used to deny marriage rights to interracial couples. Now, I'm not saying you are doing this. I'm making the point that the same basic argument has been used that marriage is race specific thing, just as you have said it is a sex specific thing.

My point is that marriage is a people thing. Not a race thing. Not a sex thing. A people thing. And that if it's unconstitutional to ban interracial marriages it's almost certainly illegal to try and ban same sex marriages under the 14th Amendment. Quoting now:

" No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States] "

Thus any law banning Gay marriages is denying them the privelege afforded to straight Americans. Further, it is denying them equal protection under the law by not recognizing their rights that married people have in regards to their spouses.

I have to wonder how long it will be before a gay interracial couple shows up at the Supreme Court. That's gotta be making them sweat in DC.

Now, did the writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights imagine gay marriage? Probably not. On the other hand they didn't imagine that women would get the vote either or that blacks would be emancipated. Neither of those provisions is in the original Bill of Rights.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

Sarahnn · Post by **Sarahnn** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:21 am

Bouncer wrote:In short you dislike it because it's new and unfamiliar.

No, I like the institution of marriage.

One thing I want to point out is that a lot of the same arguments were used to deny marriage rights to interracial couples.

Only because one race's blood line was considered of lesser quality than the other. Once the equality issue was resolved, the marriage issue was resolved also.

Now, I'm not saying you are doing this. I'm making the point that the same basic argument has been used that marriage is race specific thing, just as you have said it is a sex specific thing.

And I just showed you how you are wrong. Equality issues which places status levels on people at birth are unconstitutional. Keeping homosexual unions out of the cultural tradition of marriage is simiply to preserve marriage under the same contracts that married people entered into before gays decided they wanted to be legally recognized as married without a committment to a member of the opposite sex.

nepenthe · Post by **nepenthe** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 6:55 am

Sarahnn wrote:Depends on what you want to accomplish.

I see no harm in same-sex coupling and adoption. I see no problem with same-sex couples entering into legal contracts for co-habitation which entitles them to be recognized as family.

What I am against is that same sex couples can enter into our traditional institution of Marriage and be recognized with the same cultural status as a man and woman. They simply are not.

If I loved another woman, I would fight to be legally recognized as a partnership but not as a "married couple". Marriage in our culture is gender, familial, (to prevent incest) and age-specific.

I hate to see marriage stretched, bent or distorted from its culturally traditional position to meet the whims of same sex couples who wish to co-habitate.

Thank you for your reply.

IMHO..... I do not believe an ammendment is the proper course of action.

Words are funny. Think of how traditional definitions become twisted to meet modern situations. Perhaps we require a new term for a "permanent" coupling that permits all the rights as does the traditional religious marriage.

Being honest, neither of us could genuinely state our cases as homosexual when we are not. I did find your extention to age specificity interesting.

david

Leatherneck · Post by **Leatherneck** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:53 am

Bouncer, you are twisting the words of a couple statements. In my particular case (and I believe in Sarahan) we are saying that marriage is "naturally" between a man and a woman. Yes, we know that the actual legalities may not be very old, but as I stated before, The number of people that would consider a homosexual "marriage" natural is so miniscule. A civil union is all they should get. If the country wants to give them the same benefits of marriage, then I cannot stop that, but a church marriage before God is ridiculous. What's next? It doesn't stop there. Think of what our kids and their kids will be faced with. The preversions are creeping in and numbing the minds of everyone that allows. Cursing has crept into every facet of entertainment, sexual images are bombarding us, 12 year old kids walking around with 10 tattoos, piercings everywhere. This also seems "harmless" and"normal" to a lot of folks. I saw a guy with vampire teeth implants and red contacts. What the heck is that! People are now more than ever suffering from identity crisis and contentment. There has to be more and more "Shock factor" to keep them going. More idiotic reality TV for the weak-minded ignorant masses. Sorry, that's a bit strong, but I just got up and I am full of energy.

Have a nice day.