Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

[michaeledward]

This thread and it's title, could just as easily been about democrats, socialists, facists and any other political bent. There is plenty of dirt to throw around. I don't like the beatles because they were great thinkers, but because they wrote and played some good tunes...I don't pick government cause they are great thinkers, but because they are great leaders. I have no "hero" worship left because all of my heros are dead, dying or have turned out to be just as human as you and me.

Of course it could. But when I started this thread, the Republicans were in control of everything. George Bush came to power promising 'honor and dignity', and the rest of the Republican Party rode to power on 'Values'.

Widespread were the lies told about the lack of honor, dignity and values of the 'liberals' (a word still used as a slur) - I'm think of the White House claims that all the 'W's were removed from the computer keyboards. Absolutely false, but by the time the reports were corrected, the damage had been done.

This thread was started to highlight the hypocrisy of those in power; who promised, but did not deliver, a different Washington.

I admit, since then, I have used this thread as a dumping group for all the foul things the leaders in the party of 'Values' have accomplished. I'm not saying that the other party is superior in moral or ethical behavior, but they certainly are far less hypocritical, don't you think?

Most Democratic members of Congress don't vote against recognizing homosexuals as full persons ... so even if they get caught looking for a hummer in an airport bathroom, it really isn't the same as what happened to Mr. Craig, is it?

And, again, for the other party ... I am a registered Democrat, but I voted for Nader in '00 (a mistake), and I have more than once considered changing my affiliation to Socialist. So, if the Clintons and Obamas and Edwards get too abusive and hypocritical, I have a place further left I can go.

 

[Big Don]

Romney's complete lack of sincerity should bother anyone considering a vote for him at least a little. "Oh X polls slightly better? I now publicly believe X!"

But, that was Clinton's whole strategy and legacy...

 

[Doc_Jude]

as stated a few pages ago, the earth is not 6000 years old, more like billions of years old. this was all hashed out a couple of conversations ago. if youre going to jump in, read some of the earlier posts

43 pages!?! can't be bothered, tbph.

 

[crushing]

And, again, for the other party ... I am a registered Democrat, but I voted for Nader in '00 (a mistake), and I have more than once considered changing my affiliation to Socialist. So, if the Clintons and Obamas and Edwards get too abusive and hypocritical, I have a place further left I can go.

Did you vote for whom you thought would best represent your interests? If so, I wouldn't consider it a mistake. Besides, Gore took more votes from Nader than Nader took from Gore.

Hmmmm. . .You didn't go Socialist after Waco?

 

[michaeledward]

In the '00 election, Bush and Gore were campaigning as if they were the same person. Each made the same pledges. It was as if they were closer than two sides to the same coin ... more like twin sons from different mothers.

I thought a Nader vote might convince Mr. Gore to pay attention to those of us on the left. Bush carried NH by a couple of thousand votes in '00. So, if I and just a small few of my neighbors voted differently ... ... hindsight.

 

[rustyself]

In the '00 election, Bush and Gore were campaigning as if they were the same person. Each made the same pledges. It was as if they were closer than two sides to the same coin ... more like twin sons from different mothers.

I thought a Nader vote might convince Mr. Gore to pay attention to those of us on the left. Bush carried NH by a couple of thousand votes in '00. So, if I and just a small few of my neighbors voted differently ... ... hindsight.

gore made the same kind of pledges as bush because he knows the vast majority of americans are not ready to live in a communist state like the extreme left wing wants.

the left figured out a long time ago that the american public would never vote for most of the measures they want passed, so they put their judges in place to MAKE laws, not only interpret them.

want examples?

also, it is funny when you think of true patriots in our modern times, they are almost always conservative. there are a few moderate liberals in theory, but i think that is just so they can get elected.

 

[Ray]

This thread was started to highlight the hypocrisy of those in power; who promised, but did not deliver, a different Washington.

Maybe I'm just sour in my old age, but I can't think of anyone of any ilk who hasn't promised then not delivered.

I'm not saying that the other party is superior in moral or ethical behavior, but they certainly are far less hypocritical, don't you think?

I do not believe that the dems are less hypocritical than the republicans. I am beginning to believe that they all just want to save their jobs.

Most Democratic members of Congress don't vote against recognizing homosexuals as full persons ... so even if they get caught looking for a hummer in an airport bathroom, it really isn't the same as what happened to Mr. Craig, is it?

What I know about Craig is from what I've read in the funny-papers and heard on the news, from thoses sources it sounds like it...But hell, I thought OJ was guilty too.

Now about the "right of homosexual marriage" and the associated benefits it may bring (medical coverage to spouse, etc)...Homosexuals are full persons and I know of no vote nor amendment that that deprives them as being "full persons" (which is to say, your characterization of the issue may be worded as to cloud the debate). But if I did miss a bill to grant homosexuals "full person" status, then please fill me in...Or maybe it was a census thing?

And, again, for the other party ... I am a registered Democrat, but I voted for Nader in '00 (a mistake), and I have more than once considered changing my affiliation to Socialist.

Someday, if we meet, I will tell you some of the people I've voted for and give you a good hour-long laugh. And today, I'm not above voting for a dem if one worthy should come along.

So, if the Clintons and Obamas and Edwards get too abusive and hypocritical, I have a place further left I can go.

You go left, I'll go right.

 

[Ray]

Romney's complete lack of sincerity should bother anyone considering a vote for him at least a little. "Oh X polls slightly better? I now publicly believe X!"

I had the opportunity to meet him. He seems sincere to me.

Now Hillary, I saw her (on the tele) walk off a stage with a big, bright eyed smile and when she out of the view of the audience it turned into a face of rage...so i question her sincerity...but, then again, how can I accurately judge what emotion her face betrays?

 

[michaeledward]

Now about the "right of homosexual marriage" and the associated benefits it may bring (medical coverage to spouse, etc)...Homosexuals are full persons and I know of no vote nor amendment that that deprives them as being "full persons" (which is to say, your characterization of the issue may be worded as to cloud the debate). But if I did miss a bill to grant homosexuals "full person" status, then please fill me in...Or maybe it was a census thing?

Ray ...

Did you get to marry the person you love?

Does the State recognize that relationship?

My colleague Steven, has been committed and in love with his partner Steve, for 32 years. The State does not recognize their love.

Does that seem to be a full and complete accounting of their mark on the world?

http://www.shalom6000.com/sns.htm

Does it seem fair?

 

[rustyself]

so, how many children do they have?

you endorse a lifestyle that encourages the death of society-
they cant reproduce, they have to recruit.

now, "naturally" speaking for a second, as you would have this conversation lead, it seems to me that "nature" intended a man and woman to be together to procreate.

so, you could say that it is against the laws of "nature," or, "un-natural."

all i have to say is, thank God your parents werent homo, or you wouldnt be here, no?

 

[Doc_Jude]

so, how many children do they have?

you endorse a lifestyle that encourages the death of society-
they cant reproduce, they have to recruit.

now, "naturally" speaking for a second, as you would have this conversation lead, it seems to me that "nature" intended a man and woman to be together to procreate.

so, you could say that it is against the laws of "nature," or, "un-natural."

all i have to say is, thank God your parents werent homo, or you wouldnt be here, no?

His parents were Homo. Homo Sapien.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Homosexual behavior exists all over the place in the animal kingdom.

(I hope the truth hurts, maybe just a little. You can always tell yourself that you're suffering for your god or something.)

 

[rustyself]

His parents were Homo. Homo Sapien.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Homosexual behavior exists all over the place in the animal kingdom.

(I hope the truth hurts, maybe just a little. You can always tell yourself that you're suffering for your god or something.)

well, many species of ANIMAL eat their young.
you are, apperently, wanting it legal to do the same. since you obviously view yourself as an animal, not a divinely crafted being.

what has that to do with the nature of a man and a woman. they were obviously created to be together. to have an opposing view to that is like denying the sky is blue.

sorry about the last statement, ok?
i realize it is your right to think the sky is green.

 

[Carol]

That means my lifestyle encourages the death of society too. I'm not gay, but I didn't have children. I drive an SUV, too. So, I guess I'm doubly encouraging the death of society.

 

[Dave Leverich]

You know, this entire thread is a troll thread.
The only purpose of it seems to be to yell fire and see who runs in which direction. Honestly Edward... I'm kind of disgusted.

 

[Doc_Jude]

well, many species of ANIMAL eat their young.
you are, apperently, wanting it legal to do the same. since you obviously view yourself as an animal, not a divinely crafted being.

Hey, I wouldn't be the first.
Swift's A Modest Proposal

what has that to do with the nature of a man and a woman. they were obviously created to be together. to have an opposing view to that is like denying the sky is blue.

sorry about the last statement, ok?
i realize it is your right to think the sky is green.

Ah, Creation is now as "obvious" as the sky being blue? Except, I just looked outside, & the sky isn't blue, it's black with little white specks. Sometimes the sky is beautiful pinks and purples and yellows.

And the sky isn't really blue, it just appears to be due to Rayleigh scattering. That's science.

"Allah loves wonderous variety." - Azeem, Robin Hood: Prince of Theives

 

[Doc_Jude]

That means my lifestyle encourages the death of society too. I'm not gay, but I didn't have children. I drive an SUV, too. So, I guess I'm doubly encouraging the death of society.

Yeah, & the next time that free society and religion mix well together, please, let us all know....

 

[rustyself]

That means my lifestyle encourages the death of society too. I'm not gay, but I didn't have children. I drive an SUV, too. So, I guess I'm doubly encouraging the death of society.

no offense meant, carol:
here is the logical conclussion to homosexuals- if everyone were gay, who would reproduce? so after one generation, who would still be alive?

thats all im saying

 

[Doc_Jude]

most christians feel as if teaching a "theory" such as evolution is an atrocity.

Our def of Theory obviously differs.

what in this world is "evolving?" why did it just stop? what created this "goo" that everything evolved from? why, with all of our "knowledge," cant it be repeated in a controlled environment?

christians have solid truth to these answers. we have already seen what secular scientists have to say about this subject- "i dont know, and im ok with that."

Well, that's better than just making crap up & making people pay to belong to your Believers Club.

PENN & TELLER'S BIBLE EXPOSE **** WARNING! STRONG LANGUAGE!****

 

[Doc_Jude]

no offense meant, carol:

Wow, that's funny, because it seems that that is the only thing you're achieving. I could be wrong of course.

 

[Doc_Jude]

no offense meant, carol:
here is the logical conclussion to homosexuals- if everyone were gay, who would reproduce? so after one generation, who would still be alive?

thats all im saying

In stead of just whipping stuff up off the top of your head, go read some about human sexuality. Try Kinsey. His stuff's a little dated, and the statistics leave something to be desired, but at least it's science, & good unbiased science at that.