Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Straw Man on December 16, 2007, 11:10:34 AM
-
.
-
I like that ticket best for the repubs. But...
McCain is very old and insists we're kicking ass in Iraq.
Huck has said some pretty extreme religious fanatical things which are coming out lately - stuff about how women should be subservient to their men, etc. baggage merging now.
Lucky for the repubs, the dems are pretty flawed too. Obama is a child. Edwards is a simp. hilary is evil.
-
I like that ticket best for the repubs. But...
McCain is very old and insists we're kicking ass in Iraq.
Huck has said some pretty extreme religious fanatical things which are coming out lately - stuff about how women should be subservient to their men, etc. baggage merging now.
Lucky for the repubs, the dems are pretty flawed too. Obama is a child. Edwards is a simp. hilary is evil.
a McCain/Huck ticket would have something for the hawks and something for the jesus freaks with none of the bad smell of Romney and Guiliani
I agree McCain is old but there are plenty of people in his age range who vote (probably more than who actually vote in the 20-40 range)
-
The Boston Globe and the Des Moine Register have endorsed McCain and Joe Lieberman will announce his endorsement of McCain on Monday
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/16/lieberman-to-support-mccain/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22276322/
-
I think my prediction from last December 16th is looking pretty damn good
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#R
I'm still gonna vote for the Democrat - even if it's Hillary
-
.
Shoot me now.
-
Shoot me now.
If McCain wins you'll have plenty of opportunity to go to Iraq and get shot
-
Huckabee looks gayer then gay in that pic.
I'd pay a thousend dollars if I could kick McCain in the nuts while he posed like that.
-
how abut mccain and condoleezza rice. takes care of the female and black vote
-
McCain and Hackable would be a losing ticket
1.) this would have a republican ticket with no conservative on it.
2.) the only candidate that Rush Limbaugh hates more than McCain is Hackable.
and you can add just about ever other conservative radio host to that as well ( Hannity, Laura Ingram, Michael Savage, etc.... )
-
.
They could do fine in the south ,maybe Florida, but based on dem turnout either Obama or Hillary will win in NOV.
-
It's almost certain (given the delegate count) that it's going to be McCain/Somebody. Huckabee is not far behind Romney in delegates and adding him to the ticket would suck in the social conservatives (i.e "born again" bigots). The neocons hate McCain for things like: voting against the Bush tax cuts, voting against ANWAR, coming out against torture, etc... These are things that appeal to the majority of the country (especially moderate Republican who might otherwise vote Democratic or just stay home).
I think the rise of McCain (and Huckabee's success) shows that the right wing media is losing it's influence over the Republican party
-
Bigots because they disagree or don't want to explain to their 5 year old why two guys are kissing in a mall...gimme abreak. But back the meat of ur post. McCain came out and praised Huck and his supporters last night..they will end up on the same ticket. Its to bad....If McCain looses..Huck won't get anywhere inside the Republican party. They won't forgive him for McCain.
-
how abut mccain and condoleezza rice. takes care of the female and black vote
Condi has lots of credibility issues and I think it's a bit presumptious to assume that females and blacks will just fall in line because she's a black female. If anything - the neo cons would love it but other than that I think she would be a net negative
-
Bigots because they disagree or don't want to explain to their 5 year old why two guys are kissing in a mall...gimme abreak. But back the meat of ur post. McCain came out and praised Huck and his supporters last night..they will end up on the same ticket. Its to bad....If McCain looses..Huck won't get anywhere inside the Republican party. They won't forgive him for McCain.
do you spend a lot of time fantasizing about this.
Seriously - I've never seen that in my life.
Yeah - they are bigots because they are trying to impose their religious beliefs on those who don't share them.
The Republican's hate Huck anyway - his ONLY chance of getting inside is to hitch his wagon with McCain
-
I heard on the radio today that Huck said he'd like to replace some sentences in the constitution with bible versus.
Anyone know of this?
Huck is wack job.
Also, McCain will 72 if he gets sworn in. Good Chance Huck will be president of he runs as vice pres.
-
I heard on the radio today that Huck said he'd like to replace some sentences in the constitution with bible versus.
Anyone know of this?
Huck is wack job.
Also, McCain will 72 if he gets sworn in. Good Chance Huck will be president of he runs as vice pres.
Huck never misses an opportunity to throw out comments/code that appeal directly to the christian evangelicals, but then again, who would have thought 6 months ago that he'd be where he is today.
It's gratuitous but he I guess he knows his core audience.
-
do you spend a lot of time fantasizing about this.
Seriously - I've never seen that in my life.
Yeah - they are bigots because they are trying to impose their religious beliefs on those who don't share them.
The Republican's hate Huck anyway - his ONLY chance of getting inside is to hitch his wagon with McCain
Ok how about a Gay pride parade....either way...if they don't like something or somebodies behaivor that doesn't make their views wrong. Its a morals call. U bash organized religion, on here, all the time..ur in the minority on that one..in this country. Nobody is forcing it down ur throat. I'd rather not see gay bullshit forced down mine. They aren't imposing any religious beliefs on anybody...ur imposing ur Lib moral code on them.
-
Ok how about a Gay pride parade....either way...if they don't like something or somebodies behaivor that doesn't make their views wrong. Its a morals call. U bash organized religion, on here, all the time..ur in the minority on that one..in this country. Nobody is forcing it down ur throat. I'd rather not see gay bullshit forced down mine. They aren't imposing any religious beliefs on anybody...ur imposing ur Lib moral code on them.
I'm not enforcing any liberal code. You're free to do, believe and say what you want - and so does everyone else
150 years ago Christians used the bible to support slavery and they were WRONG
Do you see Jews telling Christians that they're going to hell for working on the Sabbath
Why do christians think they have the moral authority to impose their own personal religious beliefs on others
You have freedom of religion in this country and also freedom of speech but that doesn't give anyone the right to impose their religious views on anyone else.
-
I'm not getting into this....I'm a Catholic and the ultra con evangelicals make me queasy....but I don't like anybody who pushes an agenda that forces me to except their life style. Do what u want but don't push it on me. I think the E's feel that alot is being pushed on them. There is only one religion u need to worry about anyway.....There aren't alot of Evangelical suicide bombers...
-
I'm not getting into this....I'm a Catholic and the ultra con evangelicals make me queasy....but I don't like anybody who pushes an agenda that forces me to except their life style. Do what u want but don't push it on me. I think the E's feel that alot is being pushed on them. There is only one religion u need to worry about anyway.....There aren't alot of Evangelical suicide bombers...
I agree - let's not get into this but at some point you're going to have to accept the fact that, due to the freedom we have in this county, you're going to have to deal with some things (words, actions, etc...) that you don't personally agree with and others have to put up with that same thing with you/me.
-
I'm not getting into this....I'm a Catholic and the ultra con evangelicals make me queasy....but I don't like anybody who pushes an agenda that forces me to except their life style. Do what u want but don't push it on me. I think the E's feel that alot is being pushed on them. There is only one religion u need to worry about anyway.....There aren't alot of Evangelical suicide bombers...
True. It's about people attempting to use the government to legitimize a lifestyle choice. It's something that should be decided at the ballot box.
And it's not a religious issue either.
-
True. It's about people attempting to use the government to legitimize a lifestyle choice. It's something that should be decided at the ballot box.
And it's not a religious issue either.
Bum, you're right. It's not a religious issue. It's a human rights issue.
You're wrong (as usual) in pretending YOUR issue with it has nothing to do with your personal religious beliefs.
I haven't heard anyone who opposes the "lifestyle" use any reason other than their personal religious belief.
The solution is simple. If your personal religious belief says it's wrong then you can simply choose not to be gay. Problem solved.
-
I didn't say a word about my religious beliefs and they have nothing to do with this issue.
Like I said, it's something the people will decide. It's sort of funny that anti-religious extremists want to preclude people from participating in the Democratic process if they happen to be motivated by their faith. What should and does happen is everyone who has the right to vote can do so, and it doesn't matter whether their motivation is fueled by faith, hatred, indifference, personal beliefs, genuine concern, etc. The people get to decide. It's a great thing. And there is nothing that extremists can do about it.
-
True. It's about people attempting to use the government to legitimize a lifestyle choice. It's something that should be decided at the ballot box.
And it's not a religious issue either.
actually what you seem to be saying is that you have a problem with homosexuals USING the ballot box to legitimize a lifestyle CHOICE (presumptious as always) but then you have no problem using the ballot box to limit that very same so called choice I didn't say a word about my religious beliefs and they have nothing to do with this issue.
Like I said, it's something the people will decide. It's sort of funny that anti-religious extremists want to preclude people from participating in the Democratic process if they happen to be motivated by their faith.
Didn't you just say it WASN'T a religious issue.
Who are those so called "anti- religious" extremist opposing then?
The point of this thread is that if Huck is on the ticket he will draw in the evangelicals and the Repubs can continue to pay lip service to these "issues" for another few years
-
actually what you seem to be saying is that you have a problem with homosexuals USING the ballot box to legitimize a lifestyle CHOICE (presumptious as always) but then you have no problem using the ballot box to limit that very same so called choice
Didn't you just say it WASN'T a religious issue.
Who are those so called "anti- religious" extremist opposing then?
The point of this thread is that if Huck is on the ticket he will draw in the evangelicals and the Repubs can continue to pay lip service to these "issues" for another few years
I know I'm probably going to regret this, but here goes . . .
Wrong. I have no problem with anyone using the Democratic process. That doesn't mean I support everyone's agenda.
Yes I said it isn't a religious issue. It isn’t. The opposition to homosexual marriage isn't confined to evangelicals or Christian conservatives, etc.
There are plenty of anti-religious extremists around. Pick up a newspaper. . . . or look in the mirror. :)
I agree that Huck might help McCain.
-
I keep saying I don't want to get into it..but anyway.....I agree with Beach to some extent...and if two Bull dykes...and lets be honest..thats what we see when they show actual marriages..want to get married..its not really all that offensive...I would easily agree to civil unions...but its the parades and the bullshit we see from the fringe, that bothers me and really bothers the evangelicals.
-
I know I'm probably going to regret this, but here goes . . .
Wrong. I have no problem with anyone using the Democratic process. That doesn't mean I support everyone's agenda.
Yes I said it isn't a religious issue. It isn’t. The opposition to homosexual marriage isn't confined to evangelicals or Christian conservatives, etc.
There are plenty of anti-religious extremists around. Pick up a newspaper. . . . or look in the mirror. :)
I agree that Huck might help McCain.
If you dont' have a problem with anyone using the Democratic process then why did you mean by this statement?
True. It's about people attempting to use the government to legitimize a lifestyle choice.
Wouldn't you agree that VAST majority of the opposition (not only to gay marriage but to the very existence of gay people) are the religious folks, primarily of the various Christian sects? If not then what other major group is in opposition?
Finally and hopefully you can comprehend this - I'm not in any way anti-religion. I'm 100% for the freedom of ALL religious belief equally, including the freedom to have no belief.
-
I keep saying I don't want to get into it..but anyway.....I agree with Beach to some extent...and if two Bull dykes...and lets be honest..thats what we see when they show actual marriages..want to get married..its not really all that offensive...I would easily agree to civil unions...but its the parades and the bullshit we see from the fringe, that bothers me and really bothers the evangelicals.
OK - so civil unions are in but parades are out
Hey wait, the KKK get parades and I find them to be repugnant.
HH - this is the freedom you've spent your life fighting to defend
-
If you dont' have a problem with anyone using the Democratic process then why did you mean by this statement?
Wouldn't you agree that VAST majority of the opposition (not only to gay marriage but to the very existence of gay people) are the religious folks, primarily of the various Christian sects? If not then what other major group is in opposition?
Finally and hopefully you can comprehend this - I'm not in any way anti-religion. I'm 100% for the freedom of ALL religious belief equally, including the freedom to have no belief.
I'm not sure how else to say this, but I'll say it again: supporting a person's right to vote doesn't mean you support what the person is voting for. People are attempting to use the government to legitimize their lifestyle choices; i.e., they are proposing and voting for laws in this regard. I support their right to use this process, just like I support the right of those on the other side of the issue to vote against those initiatives.
No I don't agree that the vast majority of opposition to homosexual marriage is "religious folks." You should take a look at the voting on the Defense of Marriage Act (hint: it was overwhelming) and look at how many states have rejected homosexual marriage. The voting public has rejected it by large numbers. I believe it was over 70 percent in Hawaii.
No I don't agree that the vast majority of "religious folks" are opposed to the "very existence" of homosexuals. Not sure where you're getting that from.
-
I'm not sure how else to say this, but I'll say it again: supporting a person's right to vote doesn't mean you support what the person is voting for. People are attempting to use the government to legitimize their lifestyle choices; i.e., they are proposing and voting for laws in this regard. I support their right to use this process, just like I support the right of those on the other side of the issue to vote against those initiatives.
Bum - you're either contradicting yourself or really bad at expressing your ideas.
you wrote:
True. It's about people attempting to use the government to legitimize a lifestyle choice.
If you had no issue with this then you should have said
"It's NOT about people attempting to use the governement to legitimize their lifestyle choice"
and of course your use of CHOICE is retarded as every gay person will tell you it's not a choice but you just keep believing whatever you want
Regarding people who oppose gay marriage - would you say that those who are actually Christian oppose it because of their religious beliefs.
-
Bum - you're either contradicting yourself or really bad at expressing your ideas.
you wrote:
If you had no issue with this then you should have said
"It's NOT about people attempting to use the governement to legitimize their lifestyle choice"
and of course your use of CHOICE is retarded as every gay person will tell you it's not a choice but you just keep believing whatever you want
Regarding people who oppose gay marriage - would you say that those who are actually Christian oppose it because of their religious beliefs.
Dude if you're incapable of understanding my point, then I can't help you. Try reading it again (I posted it twice).
Homosexuality is a choice. There is no science to prove otherwise. So call my reference to choice "retarded" if you like, but the fact is people have chosen to engage in that lifestyle and people have chosen to stop engaging in that kind of behavior.
I'm sure there are people who oppose homosexual marriage because of their religious beliefs, just as there are people who oppose it independent of religious beliefs.
-
I'm not sure how else to say this, but I'll say it again: supporting a person's right to vote doesn't mean you support what the person is voting for. People are attempting to use the government to legitimize their lifestyle choices; i.e., they are proposing and voting for laws in this regard. I support their right to use this process, just like I support the right of those on the other side of the issue to vote against those initiatives.
No I don't agree that the vast majority of opposition to homosexual marriage is "religious folks." You should take a look at the voting on the Defense of Marriage Act (hint: it was overwhelming) and look at how many states have rejected homosexual marriage. The voting public has rejected it by large numbers. I believe it was over 70 percent in Hawaii.
No I don't agree that the vast majority of "religious folks" are opposed to the "very existence" of homosexuals. Not sure where you're getting that from.
Well said, Beach. I don't think it gets any more plain than how you've just stated this.
-
Well said, Beach. I don't think it gets any more plain than how you've just stated this.
Thanks mang. :)
-
Dude if you're incapable of understanding my point, then I can't help you. Try reading it again (I posted it twice).
Homosexuality is a choice. There is no science to prove otherwise. So call my reference to choice "retarded" if you like, but the fact is people have chosen to engage in that lifestyle and people have chosen to stop engaging in that kind of behavior.
I'm sure there are people who oppose homosexual marriage because of their religious beliefs, just as there are people who oppose it independent of religious beliefs.
I read your post more than twice - and I've explained it to you clearly but you still don't understand.
First you claimed your issue was not that they were gay but that they were using the ballot box to try to prevent discrimination (my choice of words there) then you turned around and said that wasn't the issue.
If their oppenents are trying to legislate against them then WTF else do you expect them to do?
Regarding choice - we've had this discussion before and still you CHOOSE to believe something without proof.
Try to get this through your thick bigoted skull - Just because science has not conclusively proven a genetic link to homosexuality does NOT PROVE that its a choice.
I'm not gay but I wouldn't presume to over ride the statements of gay people who overwhelmingly say it is NOT A CHOICE on their part.
Only an idiot such as yourself would be so presumptious
-
True. It's about people attempting to use the government to legitimize a lifestyle choice. It's something that should be decided at the ballot box.
And it's not a religious issue either.
Bum - I'm trying really hard to understand your statement
1. you seem to be saying the issue is not that people are gay (choice or not aside for now) but that THE ISSUE is that they are USING the Government .
Please explain what this means - how are they "using the government" and what exactly is the problem with that?
If there is no problem with that then why even mention it?