If the separation of church and state were nothing more than self-explanatory, there would be no grounds to argue against it. As to lying about Iraq, I don't care. I don't trust him. I don't trust his attackers. I don't trust many people to tell me the truth. (I trust my barber. ...name that movie!) Do you honestly expect him to say that his God might be wrong? Now, there's a difference between tolerance and acceptance. I tolerate the views of a number of other religions, but I don't accept them--if I did, I'd be a member of that religion. I don't agree with all Catholic doctrine, but I don't rant and rave against them--I just let them be. But in the end I don't believe what they teach, no sir. If I did, well, I'd be Catholic. Oh, goodness, the economy. Jobs are up, but in some of those same areas, so is unemployment. The economy is good if the economy in your house is good. Are there people suffering due to job contraction? Yes. Are there people benefitting from job expansion? Yes. Do I trust either side to tell me the straight truth concerning where the balance between those two facts are? Holy popsicle sticks no. Tax cuts...rich people get a lot of tax breaks...rich people also pay a lot in taxes on a by-person basis. If you make millions, you're also paying millions in taxes. Does that mean they should collect the windfalls when they come? I don't think so. You still have millions. Unless you're funding a town or something fantabulously major like that, you don't need millions to survive. But I can see why some would follow the logic of 'pay a lot=get a lot back'. As for Kerry in the war...yeah, he served his country, but then he turned and criticized his fellow soldiers when he came home. I don't really want to get into this. It's the 'get them before they get us' mentality. Taking out Iraq before they have a chance to do anything to us. I'm not going to debate whether or not this whole thing was justified; I wasn't in the country when it started, so I don't have first-hand knowledge. Be careful with the word 'discrimination', as its base meaning is distinguishing between two things. We discriminate against felons and send them to jail. We're discriminated against when we break work rules and get fired. We're discriminated against when we're picked last to play football because we can't run fast. The nature of law is discrimination--saying that this is right and that is wrong, and if you do this you're right and if you do that you're wrong. As for religion...barring a wholly atheistic state of government, religion will never be eliminated from the system. People base law off of how they believe things should be. They base how they believe things should be off of religion, their own thoughts, or a mix of the two. When you claim either the first or the last, you can (however justly or unjustly) fall back on the argument that it's not your rules but God's, thus superceding whatever our base logic would tell us. To date, the only system that has eradicated religion from its midst in the foremost sense is communism. No other system holds the internal strength and infrastructure to withstand the policies requisite to do away with God and the concept thereof completely. Perhaps some of those people voted on "moral grounds" because that was their foremost priority. Maybe his stance on such matters trumped all else. Neither candidate was perfect. I know that isn't what you argued, but since neither man was perfect, priorities come into play. Is Bush's stance on morality enough to counterbalance his treatment of the environment?...etc. Disingenuous rhetoric is, has nearly always been, and unfortunately will most likely always be an integral part of the political process. It's the system of sound bites, pleasing words, and zingers that most easily stick in the heads of the common observer.
How 'bout this, pimper: I was going to vote, but the local office screwed up my voter registration form and didn't have me on the list. I wasn't able to vote. Back at home, I really thought about it and discovered that if I had voted, when push came to shove and I had to make a choice, after all my considerations and internal musings, I would've voted for Bush. When I realized that, I vomited into my own mouth. Does that make me a mindless sheep?
I...I want to come up with something witty in reply to this, but my faculties fail me. I beg for forgiveness.
Well, it makes you mindless and a sheep - which in a sense - is different because instead of being both at the same time you were both seperately at different times. *george bush chuckle*
The facilities are in the back of the KK. If you stink them up, use the spray. As for me, I'm not so much of a forgiving person.
And noodles, I didn't read the whole thing 'cause my eyes go crosseyed when there are really long posts (not saying what you said wasn't worth reading), but what do you call it when someone is against gays and doesn't allow them the same rights as other human beings? I'm not being flip, I'm being sincere. I swear. If it's not discrimination, what is it?
I never was good with photoshop LOL I tried for ya Grace...but it was just too damn sad to post...looked like crap it did. Then my ability to do anything constructive might be impaired by my rum and coke dinner....
Oh no no no--I never said it wasn't discrimination, rather, the whole point of that paragraph was to show that any judgment made on one thing as being different from another is discrimination. Sayings gays shouldn't be allowed to marry is discrimination. Saying they should be allowed to marry isn't discrimination, as it equates gays and heteros as the same in that context. Also, defining gays as gays and heteros as heteros and bis as bis is also discrimination, as you're applying a definition to people based on their differing actions, like saying animals are herbivorous, omnivorous, or carnivorous. Saying someone shouldn't be able to marry in the traditional legal sense because they are gay is discrimination, as it classifies gays because they're gay. The argument of those who support a 'definition of marriage' amendment see it (on an intellectual level) as mere classification--that the union between man and man or woman and woman is inherently different between the union of man and woman. Am I making sense, at least on a basic level? Please say yes.
Everything in CRays6's life is simple. Tell me, do you believe people who are mobility impaired should be discriminated against?
Major issue right off the bat, people: "Voters credited President Bush with protecting the country..." Good God, people, from WHAT?? 9/11? Oh sorry, I forgot that happened on his watch.
Everything is simple if everyone agrees. As for your query...My impulse says no, but my instinct says you're going to put words in my mouth if I'm flippant about this. Where are you taking this?
If you can argue that he could've stopped it, I'll listen. Leaders shoulder blame, but not every source of blame is the leader's.