GTA

Politics and Religion => Politics And Religion Discussion => : Jerrycup March 05, 2009, 02:57:55 PM

: why you'd vote Democrat
: Jerrycup March 05, 2009, 02:57:55 PM

I voted Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my horse.

I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a much better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

I voted Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

I voted Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they're doing because they'll now know we're good people.

I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

I voted Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as THEY see fit.

I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite The Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

: RE: why you'd vote Democrat
: Big_Bill March 05, 2009, 03:47:55 PM

Well Jerry,

I'm glad that you at least have 9 reasons for voting Democratic. You have thought you decision out, and did not vote for ObamaNation because you thought he was the anti-christ, a rock star or some kind of super hero.

Very Good Post,

Bill

: RE: why you'd vote Democrat
: hodgjy March 06, 2009, 09:23:03 AM

"I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius."

This is total crap.  I'm a climate scientist by day, airgunner by weekend, and this statement just shows how uninformed you (and others) are on the subject.  Raining on Friday is WEATHER, and change 10 years from now is CLIMATE.  There is a big difference between the two.  Strangely enough, we are much better at predicting the climate than we are with the weather.  It seems illogical that we can't predict what will happen 5 days from now, but we can 10 years from now.  But this is based on the difference between weather and climate.  Climate is basically the 30-year running average of the sum of all weather within that 30-year window.  So, if we've been warming for 30 years straight, there's a damn good chance we'll be warming again next year.  And the next.  And the next.  We can make good predictions with a low probability of error based on long-term trends.  But, because it rains Tuesday through Thursday, there's absolutely no reason to say one way or another if it will rain on Friday.

And the main problem with greenhouse gases is not the cars.  That's right, it's not the cars.  It's coal-powered electricity.  Until we get the USA, India, and China off of coal, no number of Pruises on the road will change anything.

: Global Warming Rally
: ShadowShot March 06, 2009, 09:32:08 AM

(http://bitsandpieces.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/imagesglobal-20warming-20protest-small.jpg)

Hundreds of Snowmen Gather to Protest Global Warming

Earlier this week, in a not-altogether-surprising new development, snowmen across the nation joined a growing coalition in raising their voices calling for stronger action on global warming.

“I’m tired of people only talking about polar bears being in trouble,” commented one participant. “We snowmen are going to be severely endangered if global warming continues unabated.”

(http://www.iceagenow.com/SnowyProtest.jpg)

: RE: why you'd vote Democrat
: Gene_SC March 06, 2009, 10:12:59 AM

Jay, I think Jerry was just pointing out in a exaggerated manner the how the lefties see things..:) I firmly believe we could have done away with coal and oil many years ago. We have the science and ability to end all this fossil fuel crap. QUESTION... Why has the government tried to change us over years ago... I bet someone here is smart enough to fingered this one out..:)

: Re: why you'd vote Democrat
: johncedarhill March 06, 2009, 11:00:04 AM

Hay if the horse gets health insurance, I say go for it. Polygamy is OK and then you can get all the animals covered.  I am not sure in MO if you marry your horse that you still have to list her on the personal property tax form.

: RE: why you'd vote Democrat
: Big_Bill March 06, 2009, 12:30:22 PM

Hello Jay,

Not to put down your vocation, but I remember 40+ years ago, when the Climatologist's were telling us that we were heading into an New Ice Age .

And I can't see how adding up the temperatures for the last 30 years tells us anything more that what the temperatures have been over the last 30 years.

Now if we have a massive Solar Burst, we will be crispy no matter what fuel you are burning.

And if a tsunami can nock the planet 3 degrees off its axis, or a volcanic eruption can cause years without summer, or a cosmic energy burst can come from nowhere and wipe out the solar system, I can't see a problem right now, here today.

I have read recently, that the methane gas given off by cows here in America, causes more greenhouse gasses than all the cars in America. Now why don't we develop collectors to harvest all this available energy and stop the pollution.

Oh, and 40+ years ago, the Climatologist came to their conclusion due to the ice caps expanding, I guess that scientific study was wrong. Over the millennia the Earth has gone through many changes, and may go through many more changes.

As for the predictability factor, as many "believe in Global Warming" as Not ??? I would call Climatology an experimental Science or a science in study, just as Meteorology, Physiology, Psychiatry, and a few others "sciences".

But then this is just my opinion, or theory.

: RE: why you'd vote Democrat
: ronbeaux March 06, 2009, 12:48:49 PM

I can't remember. Is it OK to drink coffee these days?? I think I remember something about Scientists saying it was, then saying it wasn't, then saying it was, then saying it wasn't ,then saying........

Scientists are only as good as the data they collect. Or in this case, the data they are told to collect. You know, the data where the money comes from.

: RE: why you'd vote Democrat
: Pud March 06, 2009, 01:52:48 PM

Yes, agreed.  And climate change is multi-factorial.  But as a greenhouse gas, CO2 exerts measurable effects only in the absence of water vapor (the most abundant greenhouse gas).  Further, the greatest source or potential source of atmospheric CO2 is hardly coal.  It is dissolved CO within ocean water.  Raise the temp of ocean water and more CO2 comes out of solution, raising atmospheric CO2 levels.  Did you catch that?  Increasing temperature results in increasing atmospheric CO2.  That is know  with certainty -- but not the converse.  And on the cosmic scale of things, solar activity dominates the cyclic changes in global temperature change.  This is also proven with near certainty.  Any theoretical man-made effect on climate change is miniscule by comparison,  irrespective of any computer model that can be constructed to show otherwise.  To argue that climate change is not occurring or does not occur is unfounded and absurd.  To postulate that man-made CO2 is the primary contributor to global climate change is not only scientifically unproven, it is exceedingly unlikely, and politically motivated.

: Re: why you'd vote Democrat
: Hermie March 07, 2009, 05:23:20 PM

I vote Democrat because Republicans are hypocrites.

: Re: why you'd vote Democrat
: TCups March 08, 2009, 03:23:39 AM

Call me a hypocrite.  I am guilty, certainly.  But this excellent essay explains better than I possibly could why I am a social and fiscal Conservative, why I think same-gender marriage is wrong, why I oppose abortion on demand, why I oppose socialized medicine, why I am a hypocritical, judgmental, racist, bigoted, homophobic, money-grubbing capitalist, and most always vote Republican.  It has been beautifully and thoughtfully expressed in Mr. Prager's essay.  I urge you to read his complete lecture and think about it the next time "hypocrisy" or any of the other derogatory epithets that are typically flung at us religious conservatives comes to mind.  But much more importantly, read it before you vote in the next election.  Please?

See:  http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/HL515.cfm

The American Tradition of Personal Responsibility
by Dennis Prager
Heritage Lecture #515

which reads, in part . . .

"We need ideals even though people do not always practice them, and even though advocating ideals means that people will inevitably be called hypocrites when they do not live by the ideals that they profess. Hypocrisy, when so understood, is a positive thing. It means that at least you have a value that can render you hypocritical. I therefore have very little problem with hypocrisy. The only alternative is for there to be no ideals. Only then could no one be a hypocrite.

. . .  What is unique about our society? The United States was a socieiy founded on the almost unique belief that who your ancestors are is far less important than who you are. This was a monumentally important belief about the worth of the individual.

. . . Along with this individualism came individual responsibility: Just as I am rewarded for my good behavior, I am accountable for my bad behavior. This belief was a result of the individualism just described and of the Judeo-Christian ethic that also animated the founders of this country. Essential to Judaism and Christianity is the notion that you are accountable for your behavior-to God, ultimately.

. . .  One source of the onslaught against personal responsibility and accountability is secularism. As a secular individual in a secular, multi-ethnic society, to whom will I be accountable? Without a religious code, a religious community, a God, or a homogeneous secular ethnic community, to whom am I responsible? Obviously, only to the authorities--but what if I can elude the authorities?--and to myself.

. . . In America today, much of society holds that we are responsible only to ourselves. We have interiorized everything: We-nothing outside of us-and how we feel--not how we behave--are all that matter in assessing us. As a result, we are witnessing the death of a very important socializing tool-stigma.

. . . Without accountability to an outside authority or standard, and without stigma, the only remaining responsibility is to self Self-which may have once meant one's conscience but now simply means one's feelings-has become for many people the one standard of behavior: If I feel good, the act is good. I have no accountability to anyone or anything but my feelings.

. . .  So, then, how could there be any personal responsibility if all that matters are me and my feelings, since I am then accountable to me and only me? Not to society. Not to God, a religion, parents, or teachers. To no one. That is what has happened in America. That is why there is moral chaos. Feelings are all that matter, not behavior. I cannot be judged, and I cannot judge you. That is the way we've raised a generation.

. . . As defined by one major dictionary, "tolerate" means "to allow without prohibiting or opposing; to permit." As now redefined, "tolerate" means "not only to permit, but to approve."

. . . It is virtually impossible to hold such a position today, however. Tolerance of homo*_*_*_*_*_*uals without full acceptance of homo*_*_*_*_*_*uality renders you a "homophobe," and discussion is thereby ended. If you state that male-female love should be society's ideal, you are deemed so morally inferior as to be unworthy of dialogue.

. . .  The onslaught against individual responsibility takes yet another form-opposition to competition. Personal responsibility means that just as you have the right to succeed because of your actions, you will be able to fail because of your actions. In America today, however, there is a movement to have no one fail.

. . .  That is why there is a war against excellence. Excellence means that I am graded-and being graded, like being judged, implies that I am responsible for what I do.

. . .   I was raised with middle-class values such as, "You better save. If you make money, put some of it away. There may be a rainy day." The modern attitude in America is that when there is a rainy day, others should, and will, supply umbrellas. In the meantime, therefore, borrow and spend as irresponsibly as you want.

. . .  This opposition to personal responsibility was recently manifested in the arguments for national health care. Its proponents argued that preexisting medical conditions should not be considered an issue in obtaining health insurance. But if that is the case, why ever buy insurance? I will purchase insurance only once I get sick. It is another form of relinquishing personal responsibility-"I do not have to plan while things are going all right for me." Now, of course, it is a problem when people have preexisting conditions from childhood; and there are other areas that need reform. But think philosophically for a moment: If a preexisting condition cannot be a factor in whether you get insurance, why get insurance until you get the condition?

. . .  James Baldwin, the black novelist, once said that sometimes, when he gets into an impish mood at a cocktail party and wants to find out quickly which whites are racist, he says some particularly stupid thing, and any white who tells him how brilliant it was, he knows is a racist.

. . .  That is why I consider liberal racism the most dangerous and pervasive form of racism in America today. Of course, there is right-wing racism. And it is evil. But it is obvious and relatively rare. Liberal racism, however, is more pernicious because it is far more ubiquitous.

. . .  Finally, you can have responsibility only if you have standards. I mentioned this earlier with regard to a code of ethics-if you're not responsible to a God or a religion or some code above you, you cannot be held responsible for your behavior.

. . . There is one other way in which we have obliterated standards, and therefore responsibility. We have substituted compassion for standards. Whenever there is a conflict in America between compassion and standards, compassion wins lest, again, we judge you.

. . .  Finally, you can have responsibility only if you have standards. I mentioned this earlier with regard to a code of ethics-if you're not responsible to a God or a religion or some code above you, you cannot be held responsible for your behavior.

. . .  To demand that people take personal responsibility for their behavior is extremely difficult. It doesn't come naturally to any of us. Perhaps the case for it can best be made by using other words to describe the assuming of personal responsibility. Those words are "growing up."

Thank you.

: Re: why you'd vote Democrat
: Hermie March 08, 2009, 09:59:52 AM

On that same logic, 10 reasons why gay marriage should be banned:


1.Being gay is not natural. Real Americans â„¢ always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2.Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3.Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4.Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5.Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6.Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

7.Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8.Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

9.Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10.Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

: Re: why you'd vote Democrat
: TCups March 08, 2009, 10:19:30 AM

Here's Prager's entire section on that subject.  Were all 10 of your reasons for being a Democrat really related only to the issue of homo*_*_*_*_*_*uality?  Is your icon gender neutral?  Is Hermie a nickname?

_________

Redefining Tolerance to Mean Approval

As defined by one major dictionary, "tolerate" means "to allow without prohibiting or opposing; to permit." As now redefined, "tolerate" means "not only to permit, but to approve."

Let me touch on what I believe to be the most difficult contemporary example-homo*_*_*_*_*_*uality. I believe that, except for incest, we must tolerate any consensual *_*_*_*_*_*ual behavior among adults. I also strongly believe that any dismissal of the humanity of a homo*_*_*_*_*_*ual person is immoral; a gay person is created in God's image, just as is any other human being, and is as likely to do good as any other human. But while I must tolerate homo*_*_*_*_*_*uality and honor the personhood of the homo*_*_*_*_*_*ual, I do not have to say, "I honor same-*_*_*_*_*_* love as the equal of male-female love."

It is virtually impossible to hold such a position today, however. Tolerance of homo*_*_*_*_*_*uals without full acceptance of homo*_*_*_*_*_*uality renders you a "homophobe," and discussion is thereby ended. If you state that male-female love should be society's ideal, you are deemed so morally inferior as to be unworthy of dialogue.

Now, there are indeed anti-gay bigots, and it pains me deeply that a human would judge another solely by his homo*_*_*_*_*_*uality. But we have a right to judge *_*_*_*_*_*ual behavior even while tolerating it and respecting the individual. And I do judge it because of the tradition I come from. My Jewish religion says that male *_*_*_*_*_*ual love should be confined to one female and to marriage and that there are varying degrees of wrongful deviation from that ideal, some of which are less significant, like consenting adult premarital *_*_*_*_*_*, and some of which are more significant, like adultery, incest, and, yes, homo*_*_*_*_*_*uality.

I am stuck with a code, if you will. Without that code, what would I care if people slept with the same *_*_*_*_*_*?

Whatever your position regarding homo*_*_*_*_*_*uality, however, the fact remains that the new meaning of tolerance-approval-is another attempt to do away with personal responsibility.

Compassion Rather than Standards

Finally, you can have responsibility only if you have standards. I mentioned this earlier with regard to a code of ethics-if you're not responsible to a God or a religion or some code above you, you cannot be held responsible for your behavior.

There is one other way in which we have obliterated standards, and therefore responsibility. We have substituted compassion for standards. Whenever there is a conflict in America between compassion and standards, compassion wins lest, again, we judge you. I was a guest on a national television show, and all the other guests were single women who chose to become mothers. I had a feeling of what the Christians felt like with the lions: I was on a national talk show where I was not allowed on the first segment of the hour show. The guests were three highly attractive, highly intelligent women with their lovely kids. The host was female, as was virtually the entire audience, which agreed with the women about how beautiful it was that they decided, not having found a man, to have a kid. And then I was introduced: "And now, someone who thinks they're wrong." For that alone, however, my appearance was worth it, the word "wrong" not having been uttered on television talk shows since Phil Donahue started his first show.

Then Darth Vader Prager entered the scene and was asked, "Do you really think these women are wrong?" I put every ounce of charm I have ever been endowed with into my answer and responded, "Yes, I do."

Yes, I think it is wrong because I think that children should have the fight at least to begin life with a mother and a father. If there's divorce, if there's abandonment, if there's death, what are you going to do? But to start out with mommy and test tube doesn't strike me as being as good as mommy and daddy.

My wife and I have single women friends who are torn about this. They are dying to get married, yet cannot find a man to marry, and they are dying to have a child before they can no longer conceive. Anybody who does not feel compassion toward these many women is not fully human. But to empathize with pain and feel compassionate is one thing, and to drop standards is another.

Gays, too, are in pain. Not to acknowledge that pain is not to be fully human. But to say then that because they are in pain society should have no preference for male-female love as the society's ideal is as wrong as to say that because the single mother is in pain we have no preference for children being born with a mother and father.

The government is on the brink of establishing new national adoption rules. According to these new rules, same-*_*_*_*_*_* couples will be allowed to adopt as readily as opposite-*_*_*_*_*_* couples. That is simply incredible. Even Denmark, which allows homo*_*_*_*_*_*ual marriage, forbids homo*_*_*_*_*_*ual adoption. We will be the only society on Earth to say that we have no preference for children to have a mother and father. To say that a mother is unnecessary, or that a father is unnecessary, is so obviously untrue that it needs to be explained by a larger agenda. That agenda is to prefer personal rights-I want a child-to social responsibility-a child should be given a mother and father.

___________________

Sorry.  Take your opinion to Oprah if you want sympathy and approval for the position.  Gay civil unions?  OK.  Equating Gay marriage with Holy Matrimony and the best way to raise a family?  Morally wrong.  Not budging on that principle, Hermie, whether espoused by Dems or Republicans.

: Re: why you'd vote Democrat
: RJMcElwain March 08, 2009, 12:53:49 PM

Here's another question I don't understand:

Why did so many people vote for Bush.......twice? Other than the fact that the Democrats nominated idiots twice, it's beyond me.(http://../jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-surprised.gif)

But then, I'm a Libertarian.(http://../jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-cool.gif)

: Re: why you'd vote Democrat
: TCups March 08, 2009, 01:40:39 PM

Apparently, nominating an idiot doesn't necessarily result in failure at the polls.  Look at Al Franken.

: Re: why you'd vote Democrat
: Hermie March 08, 2009, 05:14:29 PM

TCups- I stated my reason for voting Democrat earlier in the thread. Please reread the post.

In regards to the 10 items I posted, they are likened to the reasons in the original post because they are asanine and idiodic. Only a complete idiot would think that allowing gay marriage would lead to marrying animals.

The 10 reasons I posted for banning gay marriage shows how stupid the reasons are for wanting to ban it.

About the other two things- The avatar is male. You can see the original image here: http://greykitty.deviantart.com/art/Peace-81632163
I commissioned it from that artist.

And second, Hermie was a nickname given to me in high school. There were three Michaels in my class, so we all went by our last names. A friend of mine took my last name, Herman, and came up with Hermie. I liked it better than Hermanator, which other students were content to call me.

: RE: why you'd vote Democrat
: Big_Bill March 08, 2009, 05:41:08 PM

Ya know Michael,

As I said before, I don't care what others do, as long as it does not affect me !

I don't think it's a normal lifestyle by any definition, and believe me I don't care what you cohabitate with !

But when you desire to call it Marriage, your just fooling yourself, and your kind will soon bread you genetic abnormality out of the genome now that your leaving hetero*_*_*_*_*_*ual females alone, as there is no longer a reason for you to hide behind a marriage with a women, and have children to prove to others that you are "normal". Those that are coming forward now to claim there place in the sun, will end their chain, when they stop producing offspring with these genetic defects.

So enjoy ! Be Fruitless and disappear !

: Re: why you'd vote Democrat
: Hermie March 10, 2009, 02:28:29 PM

.. Since when does supporting civil rights automatically make you gay?

You prejudicial ignoramous. Maybe you aren't secure enough in your own *_*_*_*_*_*uality to be able to stand up for gay rights.



By the way, there's no such thing as "normal". "Normal" is an illusion.

: Re: why you'd vote Democrat
: TCups March 10, 2009, 03:06:00 PM

Oops, Hermie, you are slipping.  Slouching mentally even further. from ad hominem attacks to personal insults.  You must be getting angry.  Such a shame.  But name calling is not tolerated.  Please be kind enough to couch you slurs and personal insults in a little more socially acceptable language, and maybe even try a bit of wit or humor if it is in your literary repertoire.  But thank you anyway for your kind comments and learned insights.  

Byt the way, Hermie.  While I have enjoyed our little debate, I tire of it now, and need something more intellectually challenging, I think.  Maybe a nice game of Tic Tac Toe.  And for my mental health, first,because you are 1) a prolific troll, and 2) not very gifted in crafting reasoned or persuasive arguments --, I am putting you on my "troll" list and checking the "ignore posts" button for your future posts.  I suspect we pretty much know where each other stands.  And please feel free to do the same for me, if you like.

In fact, let me just do that right now so that you may be sure that any further remarks or opinions you express will be solely for the benefit of yourself or perhaps others who may still be interested in what you have to say.  I suggest you think carefully and take three deep breaths before you respond.  As a matter of fact, I suggest you think carefully and take 3 Trillion slow deep breaths before you respond.  Good evening, sir.

: Re: why you'd vote Democrat
: Hermie March 11, 2009, 12:17:44 PM

Actually, I've mapped out every possible move for Tic Tac Toe, and determined there are only two ways X can win, and both involve a double whammy.

But that's off topic..

Calling me gay for supporting gay rights is insulting. I admit I most likely overreacted. I have noticed that most Conservatives are this prejudicial, which is why I avoid voting Republican at all costs, among other reasons. The only thing we have in common is a love of machines that fire projectiles at a high rate of speed, but even there, I find most Conservatives to be extremists when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, which annoys me as well. I can't stand extremists from either side of the aisle.


And please, explain how I'm being a "troll" by simply bringing in alternative viewpoints and mirroring exactly what is being presented to my political party. By your standards, if this was a site with mostly Democratic users, most of you, most notably the creator of this thread, would be "trolls." Which brings me to my biggest point of why I vote Democrat- Most Republicans are hypocrites.

: Re: why you'd vote Democrat
: RJMcElwain March 11, 2009, 12:55:11 PM

Hermie - 3/11/2009 7:17 PM .............................Which brings me to my biggest point of why I vote Democrat- Most Republicans are hypocrites.

As a former Republican (now Libertarian), I take exception to that. :-)

: Re: why you'd vote Democrat
: Hermie March 11, 2009, 01:21:42 PM

Please note, I said "most," not "all." There are Republicans even I'd get along with. I just haven't met very many of them.

: Re: why you'd vote Democrat
: Big_Bill March 11, 2009, 05:13:24 PM

Well Michael,

I'm secure enough with MY *_*_*_*_*_*uality to bother conversing with you ! Even though it does lower my self esteem.

And you do not say that you are not a homo*_*_*_*_*_*ual, you just stated that you do not have to be a homo*_*_*_*_*_*ual....

That is neither here nor there, you are what you are, and should never be ashamed.

Bill

: Re: why you'd vote Democrat
: Hermie March 12, 2009, 09:56:36 AM

If you reread your post, you blatantly assumed I was gay. I responded accordingly. I am quite straight, and regularly enjoy my girlfriend's taco rosado.

: Re: why you'd vote Democrat
: Jerrycup March 17, 2009, 11:13:44 AM

Hermie, I am a Republican, and your "respect" is of absolutely no consequence to me. I'd rather have my self-respect than the whole state of California. Democrats are on the whole, either low-lifes, or those who posture for the votes of low-lifes. If you respect Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama, then your respect is a condemnation in my book.

Your *_*_*_*_*_*ual preferences are about as interesting as the study of a cesspool. Who cares?

My ten reasons to vote Democrat were a joke, but I can't think of any real reasons.

PLONK.

: RE: why you'd vote Democrat
: ShadowShot March 20, 2009, 03:13:17 PM

Don't Stop now, this was just starting to get good.



(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/freeman/homer-eating-popcorn-small-c7873.jpg)

: Re: why you'd vote Democrat
: Hermie March 25, 2009, 11:06:58 AM

Jerry: And all Republicans are gun-toting rednecks missing half their teeth and marry their cousins?

Stereotypes can go both ways. Remember this.

Democrats and Republicans are all individual people who share political views respective to their party, or at least in the same ballpark. I disagree with Democrats with some areas as well as agree with some Republican ideals. I just find the ideals and the execution of them contradictory. The biggest example being the "smaller government" mantra. If they truly believed in a small government, they would stop invading people's privacy and personal lives. Bush's "Patriot Act" is quite possibly the biggest insult to personal freedom I have ever seen, and 100% the opposite of "smaller government."

If Republicans ever want my vote, they need to stop being hypocrites. Until then, I'll vote for the Democrats, who laughably call themselves a "party" when they're more like a group of individuals with somewhat parallel views.

: Re: why you'd vote Democrat
: Big_Bill March 26, 2009, 02:16:56 PM

WHAT ! NOTHING ON T.V. TONIGHT Michael ?

Did you have to come back to the adult forum, and see is you could tweak some real men ???

Did the fellows on the Gay Rights forum through you off ? Have they tired of you and your games ?

I'll tell you Michael, the Republicans wouldn't have you ! Don't want you, or you pathetic worthless vote !

You and Obama have a lot in common, WORDS, WORDS, WORDS. Where I come from we call it Bull S4it ! Only Liars, Cowards and Wussies !

You should read a book, maybe Dick and Jane to start, and advance yourself. Or maybe just read Jane and Jane !

I see that you decided not to help those AIDs' patients, or the poor , or anyone except yourself ! That's just what a good democrat is, one that professes high ideals, but wants others to pay the bills and do the work ! Yes Michael, your a GREAT democrat in the making !

Keep on Keepin on Mike !

Bill

: Re: why you'd vote Democrat
: North Pack April 01, 2009, 12:49:56 AM

Global warming??? ... Hell, where I live now was covered by about 100 feet of ice, 10,000 years ago. I just looked, - it's all gone, and has been for a LOOONG, LOOONG  time. Now THAT'S global warming, - and driving 3 cylinder golf carts didn't do it.
.
I'd really laugh my ass off if we discovered that burning fossil fuels is what makes the planet habitable, - and without it we'd decend into another "Ice Age" ... Then, we'd have to set up "government controlled/sponsored" coal fired plants all over the place just for the exhaust!!! ;)

: RE: why you'd vote Democrat
: erskine April 04, 2009, 04:51:27 PM

hodgjy - 3/6/2009  5:23 PM   This is total crap. I'm a climate scientist by day, airgunner by weekend, and this statement just shows how uninformed you (and others) are on the subject.  Raining on Friday is WEATHER, and change 10 years from now is CLIMATE.  There is a big difference between the two.  Strangely enough, we are much better at predicting the climate than we are with the weather.  It seems illogical that we can't predict what will happen 5 days from now, but we can 10 years from now.  But this is based on the difference between weather and climate.  Climate is basically the 30-year running average of the sum of all weather within that 30-year window.  So, if we've been warming for 30 years straight, there's a damn good chance we'll be warming again next year.  And the next.  And the next.  We can make good predictions with a low probability of error based on long-term trends.  But, because it rains Tuesday through Thursday, there's absolutely no reason to say one way or another if it will rain on Friday.  And the main problem with greenhouse gases is not the cars.  That's right, it's not the cars.  It's coal-powered electricity.  Until we get the USA, India, and China off of coal, no number of Pruises on the road will change anything.

I'm sorry, but Mr. Climate Scientist, "THIS is total crap." You DO know that they just discovered a fossil snake in South America that could not have lived unless the average annual temperature was five or six degrees warmer then than it is now, right? You DO know that these things run in huge cycles of thousands of years and that 30 years is like the blink of an eye when it comes to climate THEORY, right?

Maybe you really aren't such a scientist at all? I am so damn sick of hearing these "green freaks" talk this stupid garbage about how our "carbon footprint" is going to end life as we know it. This is like the Al Gore presentation. He has this graph. On his graph the first nine feet are 300 million years, but the last foot is 500 years? What the hell is that about? Any seventh grader can tell you that you are not allowed to change the scale of a graph but Al did. What does that tell you about Al? It tells me that the man is a liar. Simple enough really. Al Gore invented the Internet and then he invented "carbon credits". Glen Beck, and others, say something that is profoundly lucid with respect to all of this crap, "If you are worried about being warm, having hot water, having enough to eat, things like that, you are not going to do a damn thing about your 'carbon footprint' because you are not interested in other peoples problems." You want to fix the "carbon footprint" of this planet, go fix the poor. That means you will only have to bring two thirds of the planets population into the first world. Have at it.

This GREEN CRAP is a ruse. It takes ONE major volcanic eruption to give us a "year with out a summer". This problem is HUGE, ENORMOUS, any damned fool that thinks he can get his head around ALL of it is an arrogant egotist and not a scientist.

WORD

: Re: why you'd vote Democrat
: erskine April 04, 2009, 05:31:51 PM

Hermie - 3/8/2009  5:59 PM  On that same logic, 10 reasons why gay marriage should be banned:   1.Being gay is not natural. Real Americans ™ always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

 

Real Americans invented eyeglasses (well bifocals), polyester, and air conditioning.

2.Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

Hanging around with tall people will make you feel shorter. Hanging around with gay people will make you feel like being gay is normal. It is not normal. Less than 3 (three) percent of the population is gay. That is WAY outside of one sigma for the scientists among us.

3.Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

That is not what is next, this is: http://www.nambla.org/ I'll pass thanks.

4.Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

Where do you live Afghanistan? My ex was part black. My children are part black. Divorce is not illegal and I can vouch for that because she left me for another woman. Yeah.

5.Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

Right. Well if we are using Britany Spears as an example I guess we can use anyone as an example. Lets use Barney Frank, the unmarried boy hopping representative from MassASSachutes who led the mortgage industry into the mess we are now dealing with?

6.Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

How can you equate infertile couples or the elderly with homos3xuals? I am old. I have no desire to be lumped in with faggots and lesbians. The world needs what it needs. Did you ask the elderly or the infertile if they wanted to be part of your political agenda? If you had, how many old men like myself do you think would have told you to f--k o-f?

7.Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

Well, we both know that gay parents don't have children unless they adopt them or coopt them from a previous marriage. We also both know that straight parents can raise gay children (but don't try to tell me it is genetic because that is scientifically false, and provably so) and we know that gay children raise straight kids. I have known one personally. So it has nothing at all to do with raising children.

8.Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

You believe that? You actually believe that? No wonder you are confused enough to be gay.

9.Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

How can you equate single parenting with a homos3xual home environment? Oh, wait, you are a product of the public education system, I forgot. They did not teach you critical reasoning... so sorry my bad.

   

10.Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.  

Finally got one. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. It will do that in the same way that divorce has done it. Divorce has been very bad for the foundation of society in this country. Gay marriage would do the exact same damage.

Look, I don't give a damn what you and your boy friend do in your bedroom but it has absolutely nothing to do with marriage and I don't need you to try to shove it in my face here or anywhere else. I don't want to see you wankers walking down the street holding hands and I don't think that I should have to until I see you wankers defending the very same Constitution that says you have that right when it comes to all the other rights you would trample in the process.

What you and your boyfriend do in your bedroom has a hell of a lot more to do with petroleum jelly than it has to do with a family or raising children. It is your delusion, your perversion and your problem. Did you know that statistically homos3xual men die seven years earlier than the average smoker? That is about fourteen years earlier than the average non-smoking male in the USA?

Why can't faggots understand that when the people of a state choose to amend their constitution to prohibit gay marriage in that state, the PEOPLE OF THAT STATE HAVE SPOKEN? Oh, wait, let me guess, because they just don't want to deal with the truth and reality.

... and that sums up homos3xuality in one go, they just don't want to deal with truth and reality ...

: Re: why you'd vote Democrat
: erskine April 04, 2009, 06:13:00 PM

Hermie - 3/8/2009  1:23 AM  I vote Democrat because Republicans are hypocrites.

Moderator is right, you are a troll. You have a "designer icon"? WTF is with that, dude? How much did you pay for that "foxey" picture? ROFLMAO... Where can I get one? LOL

You vote "Demobrat" because Republicans are hypocrites? ROFLMAO again. You do know who Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are, right? You have watched the antics of Nancy Pelosi, right? You do remember that someone once said, "I did not have s3xual relations with that woman." Right?

Hypocracy is universal, my confused bis3xual friend. It is universal.

Either you are ignorant, or you are exactly what the moderator said. Which is it?

: To establish ties with brutal leftist dictators!
: 3n00n April 18, 2009, 08:09:26 AM

Obama extends hands to Chavez & Ortega

By MARK S. SMITH, AP

PORT-OF-SPAIN, Trinidad – President Barack Obama offered a spirit of cooperation to America's hemispheric neighbors at a summit Saturday, listening to their complaints about past U.S. interference in the region and even reaching out to Venezuela's fiery leftist leader.

While he worked to ease friction between the U.S. and leaders at the Summit of the Americas, Obama cautioned them to resist a temptation to blame all their problems on their behemoth neighbor to the North.

"I have a lot to learn and I very much look forward to listening and figuring out how we can work together more effectively," Obama said.

Obama said he was ready to accept Cuban President Raul Castro's proposal of talks on issues once off-limits for Cuba, including the scores of political prisoners held by the communist government. While praising America's initial effort to thaw relations with Havana, the leaders pushed the U.S. to go further and lift the 47-year-old U.S. trade embargo against the communist nation.

To Latin American nations reeling from a sudden plunge in exports, Obama promised a new hemispheric growth fund, an initiative to increase Caribbean security and a new regional partnership to develop alternative energy sources and fight global warming.

As the first full day of meetings began on the two-island nation of Trinidad and Tobago, Obama exchanged handshakes and pats on the back with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, who once likened President George W. Bush to the devil. In front of photographers, Chavez gave Obama a copy of "The Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent," a book by Eduardo Galeano, which chronicles U.S. and European economic and political interference in the region.

When a reporter asked Obama what he thought of the book, the president replied: "I thought it was one of Chavez' books. I was going to give him one of mine." White House advisers said they didn't know if Obama would read it or not.

Later, during a group photo, Obama reached behind several leaders at the summit to shake Chavez' hand for the third time. Obama summoned a translator and the two smiled and spoke briefly.

Those two exchanges followed a brief grip and grin for cameras on Friday night when Obama greeted Chavez in Spanish.

"I think it was a good moment," Chavez said about their initial encounter. "I think President Obama is an intelligent man, compared to the previous U.S. president."

The White House said Chavez was civil in his criticism of the U.S. during a summit meeting, but that there was no discussion of reinstating ambassadors who were kicked out of each other's countries last year. "Relationships depend on more than smiles and handshakes," Obama economic adviser Larry Summers told reporters later.

Bolivia President Evo Morales, a close ally of Chavez, said Obama's pledge of a new era of mutual respect toward Latin America rings hollow.

"Obama said three things: There are neither senior or junior partners. He said relations should be of mutual respect, and he spoke of change," Morales said. "In Bolivia ... one doesn't feel any change. The policy of conspiracy continues."

Morales expelled U.S. ambassador Philip Goldberg in September and kicked out the Drug Enforcement Administration the next month for allegedly conspiring with the political opposition to incite violence. Chavez expelled the U.S. ambassador in Venezuela in solidarity. The Bush administration subsequently suspended trade preferences to Bolivia that local business leaders say could cost 20,000 jobs.

In an opening speech to the 34-nation gathering on Friday, the president promised a new agenda for the Americas, as well as a new style.

"We have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms," Obama said to loud applause. "But I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership. There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations."

He also extended a hand to a leader Ronald Reagan spent years trying to drive from power: Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega. The Sandinista president stepped up and introduced himself, U.S. officials reported. Yet soon after, Ortega, who was ousted in 1990 elections that ended Nicaragua's civil war but who was returned to power by voters in 2006, delivered a blistering 50-minute speech that denounced capitalism and U.S. imperialism as the root of much hemispheric mischief. The address even recalled the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, though Ortega said the new U.S. president could not be held to account for that.

"I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old," Obama said, to laughter and applause from the other leaders.

But perhaps the biggest applause line was his call for a fresh start in relations between Washington and Havana.

Earlier this week, Obama ordered an easing of travel and remittance restrictions for Americans with relatives in Cuba. Within hours, Castro — who took over from his ailing brother Fidel a year ago — responded with an offer of talks on "everything" that divides the two countries.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090418/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cb_obama_summit (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090418/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cb_obama_summit)

: Re: why you'd vote Democrat
: North Pack April 18, 2009, 09:27:26 AM

I think it was in the late 80's to mid 90's era that an MIT scientist invented (hallucinated) a computer program that would "predict" how the climate was going to change. It got a some decent press at the time. Naturally, western civilization was about to do us in.   Last I heard about it, - NOTHING it predicted has happened. Surprisingly - the press hasn't covered that part. Perhaps they don't know. ;)

: RE: why you'd vote Democrat
: Dutchspringer April 18, 2009, 12:59:38 PM

Holy cow, what a topic.  Just spent 35 minutes reading top to bottom.  Started with "why you'd vote democrat, and ended with homo*_*_*_*_*_*uality.  Too important to let go with just a "holy cow, what a topic", so here is my thread on these things.  Before beginning on my view, as I view everything (though imperfectly to be sure) through the eyes of scripture that The Lord gave us, I want to throw out a saying that has been about as close to perfect as any man-made saying can be.   "There are no athiests in a fox-hole".  I have spent many, many hours considering that statement, and it's logical inferences.  People who are against the death penalty can have every reason that their minds can come up with, until someone in their circle of loved ones is killed in some fashion or form, and then the outlook changes.  Premarital *_*_*_*_*_* is so absolutely previlant these past 30 to 40 years, but when one is not the "taker", but rather the father of a daughter of dating age, who among you relishes the thought of sending his little angel of a daughter out with a boy with these intents on his mind, especially one who was raised with the "sow your oats while you can" belief?  Not me, not ever.  I'ts peace peace peace on the liberal side.  What do you say if it is your husband or wife that was killed in the twin towers?  I will tell you that the definition of "peace" will all of a sudden take on the facet of "justice", which means killing the dogs that did this to your loved one(s).  People so often misunderstand that you musn't be a gifted sniper who would (Lord willing) pull the trigger on Osama Ben Laden, to agree that he needs to die.  One musn't have to hate a homo*_*_*_*_*_*ual person to agree and know that it is a sin and is ruining the life of that very person.  Has anyone out there spent any amount of time with a homo*_*_*_*_*_*ual (at the workplace, school, neighbor etc.)?  In twelve years of business working in peoples homes ten hours a day I had many Homo*_*_*_*_*_*ual customers.  Though there were glimpses of "happiness" or "light" moments, I never saw PEACE, ever.  A person can only fool themselves for so long before there is no-one left to try to fool.  If you happen to know a doctor, or have the timerity or time to study it, both the lesbian as well as gay lifestyles are so very unhealthy and are constantly flirting with death around each corner, and no amount of words spoken by the likes of the Barney Frank's of this world will change this.  This leads me to the whole worthless topic of "global warming".  No amount of endless articles and books/speaking engagements by "the Algore" are going to make it any more real, or more importantly, make changes which will allow man to "alter" the path of supposed "global warming's" destruction.
     Scripturally speaking, this universe, which obviously includes this planet, is inexorably bound to the law of Entropy.  This happened from the moment that Adam and Eve sinned, and God proclaimed the curses on mankind that would be reaped by those who live under sin (which is all of us- remember Christ said "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God").  Whether athiest or Christian, agnostic or buddist, we are all under entropy- "the breaking down of the state of things".  Mountains are not getting higher, they are slowly breaking apart and gravity pulls them down.  Like physical properties, mankinds ethics, morals, and values are, and will continue, to break down as well.  We see it everywhere we dare to look.  Divorce rates, suicide rates, personal and corporate theft, crime of any kind, man's inhumanity to man is at stunning rates, etc.But these things, like mountains, do not "come back" to rebuild themselves, they simply degrade to the point that all that is left is to simply "re-name" the person or the act that they are comitting and it all becomes acceptable.  Today's scientists on one hand say that we are "evolving" at a greater rate than ever, yet we still have NO true understanding in SCIENCE of HOW WE GOT HERE, WHO WE ARE, AND WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING WHILE WE ARE HERE.  I would submit that as with any other question, the truth can only be found in the place that truth resides- The Bible.  It is true that without something to "stand" on, you will truly "fall" for anything.  ALL is subjective unless you have an immoveable anchor with which to begin, a starting and ending place that always remains there to refer to.  Climate change, homo*_*_*_*_*_*uality, abortion, illegal immigration, death penalty, etc. cannot be discussed in any meaningful way when one sees everything as subjective.  I am boring myself at this point, and so probably boring you as well.  If anyone wants to challenge these assertations or ask for a specific, I have thick skin and am not easily offended so shoot away.  Thanks guys, Ross