Ok I can fix :P That's my sig for other forums (PHPBB2, IPB, etc forums)
~Kujila
That makes no sense. You want more money, so you want someone in office who will raise your taxes instead of lower them?
| |
Every single president we have ever had were white Angelo-Saxon males except for two. The two who were not Angelo-Saxons were JFK and I think Raegen. We need nutjobs. Did you even know that Osama is scared to death of Bush? He thinks he is friggin' crazy and wants to stay the hell away from him. That is why we have not heard from him so far...or his followers. They are scared to death of Bush. We don't need a leader like Kerry who wants to make "allies" with the terrorists. It is damn well the terrorists will lie and turn on us, people like them cannot change, they hate us and always will. We need a strong leader like Bush, who will goto war and fight for our country.
| |
The insulter waives his right to judge the insult as insulting or not. The insulted are the only ones who can tell you if they were insulted by the insult. Hey, I find that insulting. | |
Crispy wrote:
Sorry to tell you this, but you've completely swallowed the Republican party's propaganda. I hope that one day you'll learn to think for yourself. (I'm being sincere here, not sarcastic.) I hope you aren't insinuating that the democrats don't have propaganda of their own, since it is there and, arguably, worse. Maybe US spies were detecting more extreme anti-U.S. sentiment (which is hardly surprising, with all the people Bush has been bombing lately), but the reality is that those "terror alerts" were stirring up panic (whether intentionally or not), and the more fearful a population is, the more likely they are to vote the current government back in. Only if they think the current government will do a better job resisting that which they fear. If they thought the alternative would be better, then that fear would drive them to bring in the new. Please don't tell me Kerey would be "safe". He's rich, arrogant, and just a corrupted as any would-be president could be. Although I disagree entirely there, I will at least give you equally for the sake of argument. But definately not "if not more so". Also, I don't think that past generations force the current ones to be just as corrupt, but I do find it interesting that one of the things the democratic campaign tried ever so hard to cover up was that Kerry's forefathers aquired much of their worth through illegal means with their merchanting. I don't recall all the exact particulars, but that is something you probably can (and should) find on the 'net. Kerry isn't the perfect U.S. president. But he's at least the lesser of two evils. I mean, Bush is a friggin' evangelical fundamentalist! A religious nutjob is the last person you want running the U.S. I find it interesting that Mike didn't reply with his moderator green to this, as it is worse than telling someone they are dimwitted (which he replied to farther up). A Christian (everyone is religious, you have to be more specific) is definately not the last person you want running the U.S. In fact, it is the opposite. Even if you aren't one yourself, you have to admit that at least most of the biblical commandments do nothing but give people good morals and build their character. I believe they all do; but if you won't admit that at least most of what it teaches is good then I think that, and I think most will agree with me, your views are not ideal and are not what we want in a leader. A "religious nutjob" is the first person we want running the U.S. As long as the person does not force his/her other religious views onto the government and other people then you would be hard-pressed to find a better candidate where that is concerned. | |
Hedgemistress wrote:
Also, most of the founding fathers were philosophers, deists, and humanists more so than anything you would recognize as Christian. They invoked "Providence" and "The Creator" in a general way. Oh, there is one notable exception: the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He was very much a proponent of religion in public (government) life. Guess what? He moved back to England. If you really believe that, you should read quotes from them and, more importantly, read their own writings. Their own writing proves your point wrong to a high degree. They were more Christian than modern Christians. | |
Rockinawsome wrote:
shouldn't that make you happy? Not when both the right and the further right keep taking away the rights of the people. | |
Loduwijk wrote:
A Christian (everyone is religious, you have to be more specific) is definately not the last person you want running the U.S. In fact, it is the opposite. Even if you aren't one yourself, you have to admit that at least most of the biblical commandments do nothing but give people good morals and build their character. I believe they all do; but if you won't admit that at least most of what it teaches is good then I think that, and I think most will agree with me, your views are not ideal and are not what we want in a leader. I personally wouldn't want a "religious nutjob" running our nation. Especially not as my first choice. Because, believe it or not - but that's all those types of people do is try to impose their beliefs not on "some", but an entire nation. Just look at the Pledge Of Allegiance. Prior to the conflict between the Soviet Union & the United States, it never had "under god" in it. But, yet - when a few politics didn't like that the Soviet was based on a non-religious stance, they wanted to propagate a stance towards the USSR as "bad non-believers", and attempted to impose their beliefs on a nation by placing those words in a once good pledge. | |
I fail to see how detering the democratic quasi-communism is taking away rights. If anything, they are slowing down the subtraction of rights.
To take it a bit further, if you want to get rid of the subtraction of rights and actually reverse the damage that has been done, but libertarians in office for a few terms. | |
Gughunter wrote:
We have lost 1,000 lives and gained nothing. NOTHING. It's trading people's blood for corporations' oil. Unless you're incorporated, you don't get any. :P | |
I was rooting for Kerry, mostly due to his views on abortion. I believe that the carrier of a child should have the right to keep her baby or to choose to have an abortion or adopt, etc. And this is where I agree that religious views shouldn't be allowed in politics. It's a human right to have your own choice.
I'm upset about the Bush win. Take a look at this. http://66.135.33.70/bushisantichrist.com/ It's not just some Anti-Bush site, but it actually has some good facts on it. Especially about the "Skull and Bones" society (Although I heard Kerry was apart of as well). It's something to look at. | |
Zlegend2 wrote:
Im sorry but Im not going to read the whole message because I can already reply. There is no such thing as Republican propaganda in the U.S. You might of made a typo. The democrats will do ANYTHING to make Bush look evil. Im sorry you've been fooled. If you're not going to bother reading the message you're replying to, please don't reply. Of course there's republican propaganda in the US. There's also democrat propaganda, and if any of the other parties could get the media to cover them more, they'd have lots of propaganda too. | |
Zlegend2 wrote:
What makes you think that John Kerry would be a good president? Whoa...somebody didn't catch the sarcasm. I hate Michael Moore and I voted for Bush. There you go. | |
You can take a lot of stuff like that, base it off of the facts and then spin it in a million different directions.
I'm not saying that Bush is perfect, or that there aren't some causes for concern about some of the things he's done, and his policies. However, I refuse to believe an accusation that he let 9/11 happen for profit. Bush isn't an evil person. He cares about this country, and he does what he believes is best for it. | |
Funny for a joke, but the fact is that nobody gets any. Contrary to the shouts of oil by the democrats, none has been taken that I am aware of.
| |
Zlegend2 wrote:
God made man to love-love a woman, not man love man. We don't make our population bigger by sticking eachother in the fatcakes. I myself oppose gay marriage. It's wrong and it should never be done. Thats exactly what my mom said, and it goes against what this country stands for. You must remember that there is a little thing about separation between church and state, and so the US is blind to anything religious. It is not like getting recognized as married by the state is doing anything against your religion, since most religions, marriages are done through cermonies while also being recognized by the state. So just let same sex marriages happen, all it means is that two people of the same sex will have more options for sharing their unity. If you don't allow that to happen, then you might as well make gay relationships illegal. Anyone who opposes gay marriages, in my opinion, is no better than a racist. | |
Gays, however, are a group of people. Take it like this instead of basing it on skin color, if we don't allow a certain group of people to marry, then why let any other group marry? I mean lets divide the nation into 3 main tyeps of people greens, blues, and reds. Reds and blues outnumber the greens, and the reds and blues don't all agree that the greens should share relationships with each one another, because then they wont make any new colors. So the reds and blues block the greens from being able to do what they want, even though it harms nobody, and even though the country they live in is supposed to allow freedom within boundaries of safety and consideration. The only arguement the reds and blues have is that their god, whom will be called "Grey", does not want any color to unite within its own color. So now the reds and blues have a leader who believes in Grey, and he agrees with the other reds and blues, and so he wants to make this ruling based on an opinion developed by religious belief not recognized by the country, and help by deep followers of Grey whom proposed this. That is not very fair to the greens though, who most probably even believe in Grey. I need to edit this to make sense.
| |
Though I would say quasi-socialist instead of pseudo-socialist.