Democratic Debate

[Pressure-Less]

So if you take morality out of our personal check and gradually replace it with immorality which eventually over time leads to chaos! Something our founding fathers new could happen and why we have morals in place in all aspects of law. The moral demeanor of our country in being flushed down the toilet and has far more sinister results for this nation than loss of jobs! IMHO of course.

Drew

 

[TurboTer]

Originally posted by chevyII
I really like the repulicans who always pivot on issues like gay marrige and abortion these are minute issues compared to the defict, off shore corps pulling our jobs,the war which was BS. Like I said before stay blind till its your problem. If your wooried about gay marriage theres a name for that its called homofobia thats the least of my worries

Oh, so I'm afraid of homosapians?

 

[chevyII]

I dont know are you . The bottom line is this untill there is a person(s) who have an interest in the comon people not special interest there will be no justice. I once asked whats the difference between a judge taking a bribe and a politician taking lobiest money and he replied well you have to have faith that the politican isnt corupt so who can name one of those. Utill regular Americans start giving a sh@t what happens to them and take what is ours back from the millionare politicans who want to keep the rest of the richest 1% rich we can talk all we want it wont make any difference. I am now unsubcribing from this uselless topic

 

[TurboJunky]

It's far from useless and has been quite a civil debate on today's issues.

Remember I'm not a Republican or Democratic here, but if you think Republicans are the only party who are pandered to you're sorely mistaken. I would also venture to say most (if not all) the members of the House and Senate are members of the millionaire club. Most are professionals holding at least a masters degree, attorneys or come from a rich/wealthy family...and this includes the Democrats who are supposedly looking out for the "poor folk". Reps and Dems pander to special intrests, don't kid yourself.

If Democrats were TRUELY looking out for those on the low end of the economic scale they would be AGAINST cash handouts commonly known as welfare and for getting them working taxpayers. They prefer government programs which keep them attached to the public (synonymous with taxpayer or YOU AND I) dole forever. How does welfare or ADC help anyone become self reliant?

Anyway, gay marriage is a civil union as determined by the LEGISLATURE, not courts. A gay couple could go to any attorney's office in all 50 states right now and "get married". It's called a contract between 2 parties legally outlining the terms of their "arrangement". But no, they want legitimacy in the public eye and are never going to get it since the majority of Americans are against it.

<Stepping off soapbox>

 

[Pressure-Less]

TT/A1233
I'll agree with what you have said but, marriage defined is between a man and a woman. Call these other arraingements by any other name is fine. Don't try and redefine the term marriage which is Biblical.

Drew

 

[TurboJunky]

Originally posted by Pressure-Less
TT/A1233
I'll agree with what you have said but, marriage defined is between a man and a woman. Call these other arraingements by any other name is fine. Don't try and redefine the term marriage which is Biblical.

Drew

Hey I agree 110%. Those who CHOOSE to have alternative lifestyles want to twist the definition of marriage to suit them. Plain and simple it's a union between a man and woman. If they want a legal "civil union" then dial up an attorney, get a contract drawn up, say some vows, exchange rings and/or whatever and call yourself married. It's a free country and I don't need to have GAY MARRIAGE in MY vocabulary.

I love how a minority of people want everyone else to respect and accept them in America. Why not just go about your own business and not bother the rest of us with your "alternatitive lifestyle"? It is a free country and I don't wish to be bothered with whether you take it in the ass or not. Just do it behind closed doors and have a modicum of normalcy in society and you won't have any problems.

 

[FastRegalWE2]

Originally posted by DCEPTCN
If I ever get my hands on that Dean a-hole........wait, is it safe to threaten presidential candidates? These clowns give Bush so much crap about launching a military strike. What, exactly, do they think we as a country should have done after watching thousands die in collapsing towers? All sign a petition to send to Al Qaeda telling them to cut it out and play nice?! This subject angers me so much.....no offense to anybody here, but I have just about had it with the democrats and their limp-wristed snivelings.(At least the snivelings of those who claim to represent the democratic citizens.)

HELL YEAH!!!!!!!!! WHAT HE SAID............................

 

[S2V6RACER]

Who follows these clowns anyway? All they do is lie.


Bush sucks, he scammed the public like his old man. We the people can only vote in the one who seems like the lie the least.


Note that Hollywood is entering politics, they are actors too.


Get the picture? Open your eyes, read into it. This is a politics 101 lesson.

 

[TurboJunky]

Originally posted by Ted A.
Bush sucks, he scammed the public like his old man.

Bold statement, please explain in DETAIL.

 

[S2V6RACER]

Originally posted by TT/A1233
Bold statement, please explain in DETAIL.

How about selling the war for starters? No surprize he couldn't produce the evidence he needed after his statements. Holds true for both guys. That's the way I see it.


That war didn't need to be sold.

 

[TurboJunky]

Originally posted by Ted A.
Bush sucks, he scammed the public like his old man.

Originally posted by Ted A.
How about selling the war for starters? No surprize he couldn't produce the evidence he needed after his statements. Holds true for both guys. That's the way I see it.


That war didn't need to be sold.

Maybe it's just me and my thickheadedness but I'm still not seeing any specific explanations of your blanket statements. Can you elaborate?

Perhaps your heading in this direction;

GWB said Iraq had WMD, they (according to Cheif Weapon Inspector Kay) have an 85% chance they did not. Was this a lie, no. Did GWB, France, Russia, Germany, Canada, England, and Hussein believe Iraq possessed WMD....YES.

Was GWB's statement about WMD made in good faith...YES.

Did we need a claim of WMD to pound Iraq and oust Saddam....NO. He consistantly violated the cease fire agreement made between us and Iraq to halt hostilities in the Gulf War of 1991. Is this fact?....YES.

Because he violated the cease fire agreement on multiple occasions could we have resumed hostilites at any time against Iraq....YES.

Did Saddam fire on US aircraft numerous times in the No Fly Zones....YES. Was this a violation of the cease fire agreement....YES.

Is the world better off with Saddam in prison....YES.

Are the torture chambers inactive....YES.

Are the rape rooms inactive....YES.

Is Iraq on the road to a rebirth thanks to us....YES.

So, with all these positives what's the problem here?

GWB was incorrect so far about WMD in Iraq, however they were clandestinely resurrecting their WMD program along with a nucular program in violation of the cease fire agreement and numerous UN resolutions.

Since GWB followed our intelligence community in believing Iraq possessed WMD should he be held accountable....YES, he is the Commander-In-Chief and the buck stops with him. Is it enough to disqualify him from re-election?...not a chance. He took the initiative to enforce our cease fire agreement albeit with faulty intelligence and a mis-informed reason but he did what needed to be done.

I've cited MANY factual specifics, please respond in kind with opposing FACTS and geometric logic. Leave the hatred for GWB out.

Thanks,

 

[Captain Mark]

I'm glad we went to Iraq.

I couldn't care less if we never find WMD. We did what needed to be done. I'm just glad Bush had the balls to go get the bad guys.