An angry libby shot himself at ground zero because of the election results.

If they keep this up, in addition to fleeing to Canada, we'll be a fully conservative country. :D

He did this out of protest but sadly it is not going to ammount to anything. Life goes on for everyone else. Another monk sets himself on fire....

It shows how strongly some people disapprove of the monkey president. I hope he gets assassinated.

[quote author=Vicious link=topic=9462.msg87858#msg87858 date=1099876314]
It shows how strongly some people disapprove of the monkey president. I hope he gets assassinated.
[/quote]

I don't hope he gets assassinated, but I'd like to see him impeached sometime during his 2nd term.  And Trust, if you believe this country is largely conservative/republican, think again.

[quote]And Trust, if you believe this country is largely conservative/republican, think again.[/quote]

First of all, please show me where I said that I thought that. I didn't. I said if this continues (meaning 100,000,000 (or however many) people go and commit suicide/go to canada) then we will be all conservative. mk.

Second, considering that Republicans control the house, the senate, the majority of governerships, the court, and the presidency. I'm willing to assume that there is a vast number of Republican voters - but it's mainly liberals who don't vote. People are realizing the flaws in the liberal agenda though, I beleive.

Unfortunatlly people are not realizing the flaws of the republicans....

[quote author=Vicious link=topic=9462.msg87858#msg87858 date=1099876314]
It shows how strongly some people disapprove of the monkey president. I hope he gets assassinated.
[/quote] I hope you get in trouble for making comments like this some day.

[quote author=Forged link=topic=9462.msg87864#msg87864 date=1099879166]
Unfortunatlly people are not realizing the flaws of the republicans....
[/quote] But they sure are realizing the flaws of John Kerry... that is why he lost decicively.

[quote author=Forged link=topic=9462.msg87864#msg87864 date=1099879166]
Unfortunatlly people are not realizing the flaws of the republicans....
[/quote]

Both Democrats and Republicans have flaws, they're human beings and all humans have flaws. Which is why I referenced the liberal agenda - the Democratic platform. Is that what you meant, I mean, that's what you said. And, you know, the left calls Bush egotistical - and you know calling every Republican flawed because of their ideology isn't the least egotistical/one way/etc. is it?

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9462.msg87870#msg87870 date=1099880572]
[quote author=Forged link=topic=9462.msg87864#msg87864 date=1099879166]
Unfortunatlly people are not realizing the flaws of the republicans....
[/quote] But they sure are realizing the flaws of John Kerry... that is why he lost decicively.
[/quote]

I don't think john kerry could do any beter of a job than bush, maybe even worse.

[quote]and you know calling every Republican flawed because of their ideology[/quote]
I think trying to govern my morals which is what all the new neo-cons are into is flawed just as much as I think trying to tell me what I have to do with my money is flawed.

So yes I call every republican flawed or atleast a large majority of them because they voted for bush for moral reasons.  Morals and politics are two diffrent things, don't like something don't do it.  Trying to tell others they can't is just wrong...

[quote author=Forged link=topic=9462.msg87883#msg87883 date=1099886488]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9462.msg87870#msg87870 date=1099880572]
[quote author=Forged link=topic=9462.msg87864#msg87864 date=1099879166]
Unfortunatlly people are not realizing the flaws of the republicans....
[/quote] But they sure are realizing the flaws of John Kerry... that is why he lost decicively.
[/quote]

I don't think john kerry could do any beter of a job than bush, maybe even worse.[/quote] and that is why bush won.
[quote]
[quote]and you know calling every Republican flawed because of their ideology[/quote]
I think trying to govern my morals which is what all the new neo-cons are into is flawed just as much as I think trying to tell me what I have to do with my money is flawed. [/quote] Well with the democrats you do not need to do anything with your money! Kerry would manage your portfolio for you!

also: This administration is not made up of neo cons. Could I please hear your definition of neo con?
[quote]
So yes I call every republican flawed or atleast a large majority of them because they voted for bush for moral reasons.  Morals and politics are two diffrent things, don't like something don't do it.  Trying to tell others they can't is just wrong...
[/quote] A lot of conservatives are fiscal conservatives and they voted for bush because he has a _working_ fiscal policy. Not just some promises that will be broken like the alternative.

A lot of bush supporters were for the war on terror and for his handling of it. They do not think that Kerry would have done a good job.

In reality those who voted for bush strictly on moral issues are not that big of a bunch.

Also, our legal system is founded on morals. That is all the more reasons why morals should be taken into account when voting. I do not agree with abortion, why am I going to vote for a guy who does not favor limiting it or outlawing it? That is not the path I think that the nation should do in. I do not agree with gay marriage either. I do not think that is the path that the nation should take. I do not want to see our nation go down what I see are the wrong paths. That is why I took my morality into account as one of the reaons why I voted for who I voted for.

Don't like gay marriage?  Don't attend one...

Don't like abortions? Don't have one....

Don't like drugs? Don't do them...

Some laws make sense, but laws based soely on morality should all be thrown away.

If the Democrats actually had a good person running, he'd have won no problem, I'd bet.

[quote author=iago link=topic=9462.msg87892#msg87892 date=1099889945]
If the Democrats actually had a good person running, he'd have won no problem, I'd bet.
[/quote]

Al Gore.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9462.msg87869#msg87869 date=1099880528]
[quote author=Vicious link=topic=9462.msg87858#msg87858 date=1099876314]
It shows how strongly some people disapprove of the monkey president. I hope he gets assassinated.
[/quote] I hope you get in trouble for making comments like this some day.
[/quote]
I hope the president gets shot in the face, and then raped in the hole by john kerry, while al gore takes a shit on him.

[quote author=Forged link=topic=9462.msg87888#msg87888 date=1099889398]Don't like gay marriage?[/quote]

If you'd followed the discussion on this, you'd realize that the issue runs much deeper than just same-sex marriage.  Specifically, if such is permitted, then other currently "unusual" configurations can (and likely will) cite it as precedent for their own legalization.  Consider polygamists, polyandrists, etc.  Also consider that if marriage is offered to homosexuals, straight couples may seek civil unions in place of a full marriage.  I've heard some arguments asserting that civil unions are a bad idea to offer in general, because they're so much easier to dissolve and thus there is little incentive for the participants to work out problems, when they can quickly and easily dissolve the bond at the drop of a hat.  I don't necessarily agree (or disagree) with the arguments on either side, as I haven't had time to fully consider them.  However, I suggest you give the issue deeper thought as well.

[quote author=Hitmen link=topic=9462.msg87895#msg87895 date=1099890420]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9462.msg87869#msg87869 date=1099880528]
[quote author=Vicious link=topic=9462.msg87858#msg87858 date=1099876314]
It shows how strongly some people disapprove of the monkey president. I hope he gets assassinated.
[/quote] I hope you get in trouble for making comments like this some day.
[/quote]
I hope the president gets shot in the face, and then raped in the hole by john kerry, while al gore takes a shit on him.
[/quote]
and they get pounded by dead babies!

[quote author=Kp link=topic=9462.msg87896#msg87896 date=1099890944]
[quote author=Forged link=topic=9462.msg87888#msg87888 date=1099889398]Don't like gay marriage?[/quote]

If you'd followed the discussion on this, you'd realize that the issue runs much deeper than just same-sex marriage.  Specifically, if such is permitted, then other currently "unusual" configurations can (and likely will) cite it as precedent for their own legalization.  Consider polygamists, polyandrists, etc.  Also consider that if marriage is offered to homosexuals, straight couples may seek civil unions in place of a full marriage.  I've heard some arguments asserting that civil unions are a bad idea to offer in general, because they're so much easier to dissolve and thus there is little incentive for the participants to work out problems, when they can quickly and easily dissolve the bond at the drop of a hat.  I don't necessarily agree (or disagree) with the arguments on either side, as I haven't had time to fully consider them.  However, I suggest you give the issue deeper thought as well.
[/quote]

I am against goverment marriage in general, I think that they should issues civil unions to all.  If people want a church marriage too that is their own purogative.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9462.msg87869#msg87869 date=1099880528]
[quote author=Vicious link=topic=9462.msg87858#msg87858 date=1099876314]
It shows how strongly some people disapprove of the monkey president. I hope he gets assassinated.
[/quote] I hope you get in trouble for making comments like this some day.
[/quote]

Jigsaw made similar comments but you did not protest in that situation.

[quote author=Hitmen link=topic=9462.msg87895#msg87895 date=1099890420]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9462.msg87869#msg87869 date=1099880528]
[quote author=Vicious link=topic=9462.msg87858#msg87858 date=1099876314]
It shows how strongly some people disapprove of the monkey president. I hope he gets assassinated.
[/quote] I hope you get in trouble for making comments like this some day.
[/quote]
I hope the president gets shot in the face, and then raped in the hole by john kerry, while al gore takes a shit on him.
[/quote]

There are limits to freedom of speech....

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9462.msg87902#msg87902 date=1099893833]
[quote author=Hitmen link=topic=9462.msg87895#msg87895 date=1099890420]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9462.msg87869#msg87869 date=1099880528]
[quote author=Vicious link=topic=9462.msg87858#msg87858 date=1099876314]
It shows how strongly some people disapprove of the monkey president. I hope he gets assassinated.
[/quote] I hope you get in trouble for making comments like this some day.
[/quote]
I hope the president gets shot in the face, and then raped in the hole by john kerry, while al gore takes a shit on him.
[/quote]

There are limits to freedom of speech....
[/quote]
Yes, but that sure as hell shouldn't be one of them. He just says he hopes the president gets assassinated. So what? He doesn't like the president. It may be a sick wish, but it's sure not a violation of free speech to share it with others. It's not like he said "I'm going to assassinate the president" or "I'm going to hire someone to assassinate the president".

Freedom of Speech is limited if you have an intent to harm a person physically/emotionally.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9462.msg87911#msg87911 date=1099915100]
Freedom of Speech is limited if you have an intent to harm a person physically/emotionally.
[/quote]
I see no intent in his statement.

[quote author=Forged link=topic=9462.msg87900#msg87900 date=1099892693]
I am against goverment marriage in general, I think that they should issues civil unions to all.  If people want a church marriage too that is their own purogative.
[/quote]

I've heard that argument, too, but government needs to be able to draw the line.

Recently in Utah (I know because the area I live in is Mormon-ville) a radical Mormon group was recently busted for committing polygamy, which included a thirteen- and a fourteen-year old girl (who was with the guy).  There are good reasons that marraige at that age is not legal (psychological trauma, potential pregnancy, inability to raise a child or provide for a family) and also why polygamy in general is not legal (inability to support an extremely large family comes to mind).

There are certain things that the government must define; it is part of your socialization and world view.  Whether or not you agree with it is a different story, and in the States you have the right and the prerogative (note that THIS is the correct spelling, not "purogative") to attempt to convince people to change it.

The government just can't take no stand at all.

[quote]The government just can't take no stand at all.[/quote]

Why is a desicion between two consenting adults about how they intend on spending their life an issue of the state.

Polygamy is a complicated issue I really can't argue on.

Some guy marrying his dog is out because the dog can not give consent

Incest is out because of the negative effects.

A man marrying a 14 year old is out because the 14 year old can not give legal consent

Other than that I don't see how marriage is any of the states buisness.

[quote author=Hitmen link=topic=9462.msg87895#msg87895 date=1099890420]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9462.msg87869#msg87869 date=1099880528]
[quote author=Vicious link=topic=9462.msg87858#msg87858 date=1099876314]
It shows how strongly some people disapprove of the monkey president. I hope he gets assassinated.
[/quote] I hope you get in trouble for making comments like this some day.
[/quote]
I hope the president gets shot in the face, and then raped in the hole by john kerry, while al gore takes a shit on him.
[/quote] If your comments present a clear and present danger you are not going to have free speech. Also, I was not specifically talking about the law, someone could also just beat your ass.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9462.msg87901#msg87901 date=1099893676]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9462.msg87869#msg87869 date=1099880528]
[quote author=Vicious link=topic=9462.msg87858#msg87858 date=1099876314]
It shows how strongly some people disapprove of the monkey president. I hope he gets assassinated.
[/quote] I hope you get in trouble for making comments like this some day.
[/quote]

Jigsaw made similar comments but you did not protest in that situation.
[/quote] I probably didn't see them.

The original story reminds me of an episode of M*A*S*H, where they had Col. Flagg from the CIA.  He said he was "sent to break up the Penicillan ring, and [he had] written permission to die if necessary."

Hawkeye responded, "If we had more men like you, we'd have less men like you."  :)

[quote author=Forged link=topic=9462.msg88021#msg88021 date=1099968744]Why is a desicion between two consenting adults about how they intend on spending their life an issue of the state.

Polygamy is a complicated issue I really can't argue on.

Some guy marrying his dog is out because the dog can not give consent

Incest is out because of the negative effects.

A man marrying a 14 year old is out because the 14 year old can not give legal consent

Other than that I don't see how marriage is any of the states buisness.[/quote]

Just so we're all clear about where you stand...
You can't/won't address the most complicated issue (polygamy).  You feel the state should prevent inter-species marriages, incest (which does not require marriage, btw), and under-age marriages, and that otherwise the state should stay out of it?  Does this not seem a little bit silly, to say the state should step in and forbid these cases, and otherwise keep its nose out of things?  If you're going to bring the govt. in at all, it's going to get involved in all the aspects, not just blocking a few cases- that's how things usually go.  Besides, if the state stays out of marriage aside from those cases, what's to stop "consenting" (and I use this loosely since some parties may not be of legal status to consent in a legally binding way) individuals from setting up one of those cases and just not mentioning it to the state at all?  If the state isn't involved in marriages in general, these exceptional cases will have just as much documentation as more legitimate unions -- none at all.

I respect your position that the state shouldn't be involved, but you seem to be arguing for it both to be involved and not to be involved, which is at best a mess and at worst a contradiction.

It is a contradiction.

I really don't care about gays being married, I just don't want to go be there when it happens or see them making out in public places. Whether or not they're married they're still going to commit homosexual acts. The reason I stand against gay marriage is because of the effects that will result. Under the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution the goverment isn't allowed to promote/deny a religion. If you permit gay marriage, you'll not be able to deny any other form of marriage that may be considered less than normal just like you can't deny a religion because it's less than normal.

[quote author=Kp link=topic=9462.msg88072#msg88072 date=1100018115]
[quote author=Forged link=topic=9462.msg88021#msg88021 date=1099968744]Why is a desicion between two consenting adults about how they intend on spending their life an issue of the state.

Polygamy is a complicated issue I really can't argue on.

Some guy marrying his dog is out because the dog can not give consent

Incest is out because of the negative effects.

A man marrying a 14 year old is out because the 14 year old can not give legal consent

Other than that I don't see how marriage is any of the states buisness.[/quote]

Just so we're all clear about where you stand...
You can't/won't address the most complicated issue (polygamy).  You feel the state should prevent inter-species marriages, incest (which does not require marriage, btw), and under-age marriages, and that otherwise the state should stay out of it?  Does this not seem a little bit silly, to say the state should step in and forbid these cases, and otherwise keep its nose out of things?  If you're going to bring the govt. in at all, it's going to get involved in all the aspects, not just blocking a few cases- that's how things usually go.  Besides, if the state stays out of marriage aside from those cases, what's to stop "consenting" (and I use this loosely since some parties may not be of legal status to consent in a legally binding way) individuals from setting up one of those cases and just not mentioning it to the state at all?  If the state isn't involved in marriages in general, these exceptional cases will have just as much documentation as more legitimate unions -- none at all.

I respect your position that the state shouldn't be involved, but you seem to be arguing for it both to be involved and not to be involved, which is at best a mess and at worst a contradiction.
[/quote]

Unless something is blatantlly damaging
i.e the child of an incest couple or the child in an adult-child relationship, or the poor dog getting fucked in the ass.
I don't see why the state should care.  I am not arguing for or against polygamy however because I simplly don't know enough about it to be for or against it.

I think the government should stay out of marriages and just issue civil unions between any people who want one. Marriage is something religious, and there should be freedom of religion.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=9462.msg87970#msg87970 date=1099956674]
Recently in Utah (I know because the area I live in is Mormon-ville) a radical Mormon group was recently busted for committing polygamy, which included a thirteen- and a fourteen-year old girl (who was with the guy).  There are good reasons that marraige at that age is not legal (psychological trauma, potential pregnancy, inability to raise a child or provide for a family) and also why polygamy in general is not legal (inability to support an extremely large family comes to mind).
[/quote]

I don't understand how they busted someone for polygamy. They might have busted people for sex with minors?

Polygamy in general should be legal and the government should issue civil unions. Inability to support an extremely large family is not the right issue. If you care only about supportability, limiting the number of children between single man single woman would make more sense than limiting number of women with number of men. Most every adult can produce an income, so adding more to a relation isn't as much a problem as adding children. You would also have to outlaw sexual relations outside marriage...

[quote]and there should be freedom of religion. [/quote]

Freedom of religion has to do with being able to worship how you want, not about who you can marry.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9462.msg88248#msg88248 date=1100119536]
[quote]and there should be freedom of religion. [/quote]

Freedom of religion has to do with being able to worship how you want, not about who you can marry.
[/quote]

Actually, it does. Marriage between a man and a woman is common in the regular christian religion. Not all religions proscribe that you should live that way though. Not even all christians are supposed to make such families - think celibacy, and marrying your god.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9462.msg88266#msg88266 date=1100124723]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9462.msg88248#msg88248 date=1100119536]
[quote]and there should be freedom of religion. [/quote]

Freedom of religion has to do with being able to worship how you want, not about who you can marry.
[/quote]

Actually, it does. Marriage between a man and a woman is common in the regular christian religion. Not all religions proscribe that you should live that way though. Not even all christians are supposed to make such families - think celibacy, and marrying your god.
[/quote]

Adron... that doesn't make sense. The freedom to worship as you please does not dictate what marriage is.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9462.msg88267#msg88267 date=1100125212]
Adron... that doesn't make sense. The freedom to worship as you please does not dictate what marriage is.
[/quote]

Of course not. How could it? That's exactly what I'm saying. If you're free to practise your religion as you please, then noone outside is telling you how to worship, confirm, marry, baptize, or perform other religious practise.

Atheists get married.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9462.msg88298#msg88298 date=1100128425]
Atheists get married.
[/quote]

I think there's a confusion in terms here. I wish there were more different words available. Atheists do get married, but are they getting a christian marriage, with the priest and the church, or are they just getting a civil union to declare their love and get the legal benefits?

Someone who is deeply christian will do the church thing, and that specifies a lot of things about virginity before marriage, marriage between man and woman, etc, and that's OK.

Someone who is not might have completely different views on what kind of union they're supposed to live in. Perhaps they live in huts, all women on one side of the village, all men on the other, and the Seer tells them when to celebrate fertility and reproduce?

I'm just trying to make a point that, "freedom of religion" is a completely different matter from marriage. Sure, people get married in a church, but the church doesn't have to match their religion. If you're not a member of the church, however, you do have to pay to have your wedding there. Our constitution allows us to worship how we want, it doesn't say we can marry whatever we want.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9462.msg88327#msg88327 date=1100139681]
I'm just trying to make a point that, "freedom of religion" is a completely different matter from marriage. Sure, people get married in a church, but the church doesn't have to match their religion. If you're not a member of the church, however, you do have to pay to have your wedding there. Our constitution allows us to worship how we want, it doesn't say we can marry whatever we want.
[/quote]

I.e. as long as your religion proscribes marriage between a single man and a single woman, it's OK. I think that kind of relationship is something religion usually says a lot about otherwise. Fertility and children were important things to pray for.

It does seem to me that Bush is trying to enshrine in law the christian concept of marriage...

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9462.msg88381#msg88381 date=1100155558]
It does seem to me that Bush is trying to enshrine in law the christian concept of marriage...
[/quote]

That's what it seems like to me too.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9462.msg88381#msg88381 date=1100155558]
It does seem to me that Bush is trying to enshrine in law the christian concept of marriage...
[/quote]

More than just one religion shares the "christian concept" of one man v. one woman.

Ok,  then the Christian + whoever else concept of marriage.

[me="hismajesty[yL]"]notes that even if Kerry were elected, 11 states would have still banned gay marriage on 11/2/04.[/me]

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9462.msg88416#msg88416 date=1100182478]
[me="hismajesty[yL]"]notes that even if Kerry were elected, 11 states would have still banned gay marriage on 11/2/04.[/me]
[/quote]

I would have voted for the gay marriage ban if it had been on the ballot in Florida.

I would have too, if I were old enough to vote and if it were on the Virginia ballot. :P

There's an interesting thing I'd like to mention here in this thread.

I briefly read about the Cincinnati Issue #3 a week or so ago. It was described as a law that would forbid making laws to give preferential treatment based on sexual orientation.

What does that make you think of? What does an American think of, reading that description?



To me, that sounded like a law that would ban any laws against same sex marriage, or other preferential treatment given to heterosexuals.

You probably know what it was, since you live in the US.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9462.msg88430#msg88430 date=1100191629]
I briefly read about the Cincinnati Issue #3 a week or so ago. It was described as a law that would forbid making laws to give preferential treatment based on sexual orientation.

What does that make you think of? What does an American think of, reading that description?

To me, that sounded like a law that would ban any laws against same sex marriage, or other preferential treatment given to heterosexuals.

You probably know what it was, since you live in the US.[/quote]

It was an interesting idea, and one I wouldn't mind seeing refined a bit.  Properly expanded, it would fly in the face of quota-driven hiring and similar such things designed as reverse discrimination against those historically not discriminated against (i.e. white heterosexual males).

Americans are supposed to be equal under the law, but there's a great many places where that simply doesn't happen.  For instance, it's a more serious crime to kill a black man than to kill a white man, if you did it because you hated him.  It has been humorously described that "some of us are more equal than others."

[quote]All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.[/quote]

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9462.msg88418#msg88418 date=1100184490]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9462.msg88416#msg88416 date=1100182478]
[me="hismajesty[yL]"]notes that even if Kerry were elected, 11 states would have still banned gay marriage on 11/2/04.[/me]
[/quote]

I would have voted for the gay marriage ban if it had been on the ballot in Florida.
[/quote] I wish it were because that would be one thing I would have voted for.

I am pissed that they passed the increase in minimum wage. It seems that people just do not understand inflation.

They don't. It's just the poor people are like "Oh shit, we be gettin' mo money." without any concept of economics.