SegaXtreme

Home	Forums	What's new	Resources

dear gwb

SkankinMonkey - Nov 3, 2004

< Prev

Next>

		mal		Nov 3, 2004
			Heh, this is the discussion we should have had prior to the election.

		reX dart: eskimo spy		Nov 3, 2004
			Indeed, mal. Indeed. More bad news for unhappy democrats....

SkankinMonkey

Nov 3, 2004

	
	
		
		
			Originally posted by E Nice@Wed, 2004-11-03 @ 07:42 PM



Like firefighters and policemen are any different than soldiers when in the line of duty? How many of them would like to die inside a burning building or in some shootout with criminals but have to get in such situations because it's their job and have no choice in the matter?



[post=122694]Quoted post[/post]

The difference between a firfighter and a policeman dying in action and a soldier is this:

Firefighters aren't considered to be dying in the line of duty if they get in a car wreck and their car bursts into flames with them in it.

Likewise, a soldier not dying defending the country, but fighting for the greed of the people that they don't represent is not in their line of duty. Ask any of them.

Resident_Lurker

Nov 3, 2004

	
	
		
		
			Originally posted by it290@Wed, 2004-11-03 @ 07:46 PM



I'd like to know what the 'strong moral value' is in forcing one's own values upon others. And where is the morality in pushing for an exclusionary amendment to the Constutution, when our country is supposedly founded upon the concept of equality?



[post=122696]Quoted post[/post]

Right, and I think people are having a problem separating their private and mostly religious views from the matters that take precedence over religion. These being the universal issues of economy, foreign policy, and domestic policy. These are things that affect every American.

Gay marriage is not something that should decide a presidential election, especially when this issue has a strong religious basis. How this "loophole" issue is even able to be voted on is astounding. It's an issue of religion that should be left out of federal control, as the fathers of the country dictated that church and state shall be separate.

Anyone else feel like George Bush used religion to get reelected? Somehow convinced a good number of people that he's a "good, moral Christian."

Quadriflax

Nov 3, 2004

	
	
		
		
			Originally posted by mal+Wed, 2004-11-03 @ 08:22 PM-->QUOTE(mal @ Wed, 2004-11-03 @ 08:22 PM)Heh, this is the discussion we should have had prior to the election. 



[post=122702]Quoted post[/post]


[/b]

Oh, it wouldn't have done any good. See Fark for a reference. In fact, I'm kind of glad politics wasn't much of a topic here. It was the one place I could lurk that wasn't tainted. That's why I'm trying not to get too deep into it. Trying.

QUOTE(mal @ Thu, 2004-11-04 @ 12:27 AM)

And this is?
[post=122737]Quoted post[/post]

[/b]

Actually, I hope so, in a non-specific way. What you said implied that talking about this before the election might have changed voter minds while it's too late now. This is just a friendly discussion of opinions now, not a push to move people to vote one way or another. Civil discussion of ideas. I know it's been a while since we've seen them, but I think they're a good thing. Feel free to disagree.

QUOTE(VertigoXX @ Thu, 2004-11-04 @ 11:56 AM)

The gay marriage issue was mainly brought up because the large insurance companies that make large contributions to the Republican party didn't want to have to extend benefits to same-sex partners.[/b]

I can't say I've heard that reason before. This is another point to illustrate the blatent discrimination in the system. They don't have any problems extending benefits to bi-sex partners when they get married. If they don't want to cover people, they shouldn't be selling insurance.

Kerry's biggest problem was that he wouldn't just come right out and say what he believed on certain topics.

...

He wasn't flip-flopping. He was just skirting the issues. Problem was, they were issues that people care about. Iraq and terrorism weren't the be-all-end-all issues of the campaign like the Democratic party thought they'd be.

[post=122777]Quoted post[/post]

I don't know that he was skirting the issues. He just was too vauge most of the time (I think there's a subtle difference). I was also upset that he didn't just come out and say these things. I understood what he meant, but apparently most people didn't (or at least a lot of potential voters didn't). You can be both straight talking and mindful of multiple points/opinions. Bush has the straight talking down and Kerry has the consideration of multiple and complex points. We just need a candidate that has both of these abilities.

QUOTE(ExCyber @ Thu, 2004-11-04 @ 01:10 PM)

Personally, I'm not big on re-importing drugs from Canada; I think if we want lower prices we should take measures here instead of relying on a foreign government for political convenience.[/b]

Yeah well unfortunetely, a lot of people think re-importation is the holy grail. As I've already explained, it won't even help for generic drugs.