I declare Conspiracy!

[BDK]

when did liberals become the unconstitional party?

Equal rights and privacy for all....

I think Bush/Cheney Admin proved that Repubs are the ones that have problem's with that piece of paper....

You repubs are soo funny, you have no problem giving up rights to privacy and equality as long as you get to keep your guns....hilarious....

you guys love to try to legislate what you emotionally feel should be outlawed, such as homosexuals, immigrants ect...you think that that should be in the Constitution too...

obviously, it's shit like that, in addition to Bush/Cheney type admins, that proves that your party should NOT be the gate keeper of the Constitution....

But as long as you can keep your guns, your happy.....

you say that liberals are the party of big gov't, but it is your party that likes to tell people how they should and should not live...
that sounds like pretty big gov't to me.....

[Hallen]

when did liberals become the unconstitional party?

Equal rights and privacy for all....

I think Bush/Cheney Admin proved that Repubs are the ones that have problem's with that piece of paper....

You repubs are soo funny, you have no problem giving up rights to privacy and equality as long as you get to keep your guns....hilarious....

you guys love to try to legislate what you emotionally feel should be outlawed, such as homosexuals, immigrants ect...you think that that should be in the Constitution too...

obviously, it's shit like that, in addition to Bush/Cheney type admins, that proves that your party should NOT be the gate keeper of the Constitution....

But as long as you can keep your guns, your happy.....

you say that liberals are the party of big gov't, but it is your party that likes to tell people how they should and should not live...
that sounds like pretty big gov't to me.....

Ya see, that's the problem with so many people; you have trouble differentiating between fact and overblown hype.

Nobody wants to outlaw homosexuality. Where did you get that from? The common position for a conservative is that homosexuals have the exact same rights and privileges as a straight person. They don't need special privileges and they don't need more laws protecting them. There are many religious types and others who think that homosexuality is not normal, and I hate to tell you this, but it isn't based on the definition of normal and the fact that we would have died out as a species if homosexuality was normal. That doesn't also mean that people who think homosexuality is not normal also want to outlaw homosexuality or think that homosexuals should be persecuted and denied their basic rights as provided by the constitution. Those same people may think that tattooing patterns on your face isn't normal too, but that practice also isn't outlawed. To think that people who oppose homosexual special privileges and laws are also in favor of outlawing or discriminating against homosexuals is absurd and illogical.

No conservative out there wants to ban immigration. That is yet another hype promoted by liberals. Conservatives want to enforce the immigration controls we already have in place. We have laws about immigration and there are steps that must be taken in order to become a citizen. What we oppose is illegal immigration. Why? Because it is fucking illegal. Put it this way, you own a house. Your neighbor decides he likes your place better than his. He moves in and squats in your living room, turns up the AC so he can be comfortable and starts eating your food. In your world, you should be happy about that because he's just trying to find a better place to live. In my world, that's against the law and there is a solid reason why that law is in place. Illegal immigration is only supported and encouraged by the democrats because there is a 99% chance that every illegal will vote for democrats. That is the only reason. It isn't about fairness. It isn't about concern for their fellow man, it's about politics and power. Illegal immigration is killing this country. Legal immigration has always been one of our hallmarks and should be continued. However, we have the right to control it and control the numbers. It's as simple as that. It is no more grandiose than that. It's just simple common sense and logic.

There is also major difference between sacrificing certain rights to privacy in order to protect the public good and giving up your right to life. One of the few mandates for government is protection of our country from all enemies. In order to do that, the people that live in this country have agreed to certain constraints and have agreed to abide by the law of the land. Those of us who joined the military and served our country gave up more personal rights than slackers like you will ever know. We made that sacrifice to protect your sorry ass so that you could continue to live in the dream world you have constructed for yourself. The major point here is simple. The changes made in no way will ever affect you if you abide by the law. I suspect most liberals are afraid of the conservative control is that they will be caught with their downloading of kiddie porn and their buying of their weekly baggy of dope. They also perceive a much greater capacity for finding out this kind of thing than can ever possibly exist. Bah, get a grip. There are no FBI agents scrutinizing your emails. It ain't happening.

The democrats have done more to erode your rights to privacy than the republicans have anyway. Every time the introduce a social program, it infringes upon you. Every time they pass some ill conceived "equal opportunity" law, they infringe. They are trying to create a youth core. That in itself is a huge infringement on our privacy and our right to pursue life the way we want to. They want to scrutinize your health history and track all the medical treatments you get via their socialized medicine programs. That's real privacy invasion right there. Yet somehow, all of that is OK because it is supposed to "help" us. From our perspective, things that are done to protect this nation from enemies and its people from harm are generally good things. Liberals seem to think it is more important to protect the bad guy than it is to protect the good.

Yet another, more extreme liberal, on the highest court is a bad thing. Progress always happens. As we learn more, things change. Yet a liberal who hasn't thought about the foundation of which we come from and who's only agenda is their own, is generally a bad thing for the Supreme Court. That is the check and balance that gets lost when extremists are appointed. Yes, I was happy when the Republicans had a chance to fill Supreme Court seats. However, they had to still be careful who they picked because the democrats still had majorities in the house and could stop anything that was way out of line. That balance is only in place by a thread right now and anything that does get out of committee is pretty much guaranteed of approval by congress. That's not a check and balance. That's total control.

There is such a thing as right and wrong. The basis for that is a moral one. Whether that morality is faith based or not does not matter. There are certain things that we all agree is wrong. Murder is wrong. Rape is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Those are clear cut. To say that passing legislation based on morality is always bad is fucking stupid. It is how we survive as a society. However, religion and government must remain distinct and that goes for revering the government and its leaders as a religion like so many liberals seem to. The government is flawed. It always will be. That's why there are three branches of government. Right now, those branches are becoming less and less distinct. The court is the last holdout. Since Obama will be able to appoint three justices in his tenure, that branch of government will also become compromised. That is something to fear.

[BDK]

Ya see, that's the problem with so many people; you have trouble differentiating between fact and overblown hype.

you mean like the Million's Present at the Teabaggers Party?
not so much here Hallen and you know that, I see very clearly through the RW Propaganda though, are you going to point me to Freedom Watch again???...

To think that people who oppose homosexual special privileges and laws are also in favor of outlawing or discriminating against homosexuals is absurd and illogical

What special privileges?
You mean like the right to marry someone who they are in love with?
The right to share property and to share the same basic rights as heterosexuals couples do, insurance, retirement ect...
These are special privileges?
Did your party not try to get Marriage defined as a union between man and woman only? and did they not try to get this added to the constitution?
and if they had been successful in doing so would that not outlaw gay marriage and would this not also be grounds for later outlawing homosexualality?
and this is illogical thought?
I would call it more like foresight and very logical...
Illogical would be more like starting an illegal war without an exit strategy, that is very illogical...

Put it this way, you own a house. Your neighbor decides he likes your place better than his. He moves in and squats in your living room, turns up the AC so he can be comfortable and starts eating your food.

No, that is more like breaking and entering....
have you ever seen where most of these people live, there is no AC....their cars may have it but few of their homes have it...

here is a better analogy for you,
you have relatives come to stay for a while on vacation, but they never leave....

we are talking like 10mil people here Hallen, you think that you can really get them all to leave?
It is illogical to even think that thought, you have to chose your battle, so you grant them assylum, and make them legal, their kids are mostly citizens anyway as they were born here...make them legal and make them pay their taxes, that is the most logical thing to do and you know it....
as far as jobs go, how many here are willing to pick fruit and veg all day? bent over and picking shit off the ground all day? How many? None or very few if any? so who is going to do this and for 25cents a bushel to boot?

There is also major difference between sacrificing certain rights to privacy in order to protect the public good and giving up your right to life. One of the few mandates for government is protection of our country from all enemies. In order to do that, the people that live in this country have agreed to certain constraints and have agreed to abide by the law of the land

and your saying that if you have to give up rights to protect "your nation" then that is ok?
I refer you to the Founding Fathers then, you know the quotes...BF, TJ and the boys...

I suspect most liberals are afraid of the conservative control is that they will be caught with their downloading of kiddie porn and their buying of their weekly baggy of dope.

Typical,
You will find most pedophiles are conservative,as are most serial killers....
should I bring up the RW Page scandal, or the other conservative gay scandals or how about the RW pill poppers?Oh, that is ok, the scripts were given by a doctor...LOL....
are you in favor of sending gays to ant-gay camp like the Haggert went to?

I come from a very military family eventhough I did not serve....my brother did 4 tours of Iraq and we are in agreement on many things...

They are trying to create a youth core.

ah, your attempt to relate liberals (Obama) to Hitler, you can do better than that Hallen...

They want to scrutinize your health history and track all the medical treatments you get via their socialized medicine programs. That's real privacy invasion right there. Yet somehow, all of that is OK because it is supposed to "help" us. From our perspective, things that are done to protect this nation from enemies and its people from harm are generally good things. Liberals seem to think it is more important to protect the bad guy than it is to protect the good

Double speak Hallen,
in socialized medicine no one is turned down, so tracking it only insures that you are getting the best care and proper care...
In free market medical insurance, you can be turned down for someones bonus',
just because you have health insurance doesn't mean you will get treatment,
it is not up to the Dr's, it is not up to the Hospital, it is up to the insurance company,
the person you have been paying for years now decides you are not worth treating to better his bottom line or his bonus...

Health care is way too profitable to not be under gov't control,
imagine if Policing was privatized, what would that cost?
just look at what Blackwater gets paid...
How about Fire Depts?
Water?

From our perspective, things that are done to protect this nation from enemies and its people from harm are generally good things. Liberals seem to think it is more important to protect the bad guy than it is to protect the good.

Not if we have to give up our rights, and not if some group of "business" men are making the decision on who is an enemy or not..
that is called Fear and Smear,
we have seen it before,
the people who you entitle as enemies may not really be our biggest threat,
but what will increase your bottom line the most... IRAQ...
and No that wasn't a good thing or our biggest threat but it sure allowed some people to make a ton of money with no accountability didn't it...

To say that passing legislation based on morality is always bad is fucking stupid. It is how we survive as a society.

No, rationalizing that point is stupid, unless you leave religion completely out of it...
whose morality are we going to use?
What Moral is to you and what Moral is to me will be two different things...why should your definition become law and mine not or vice versa?
Isn't Morality the basic argument for the anti-gay movement?

However, religion and government must remain distinct

alas, we do agree on something...

However, religion and government must remain distinct and that goes for revering the government and its leaders as a religion like so many liberals seem to.

I think you fibbed abit, should I mention Reagan, Bush and Limbaugh and then remind you of their flock....
your point is good in that argument, your slander of Liberal lost you the argument...

[Hallen]

What special privileges?
You mean like the right to marry someone who they are in love with?
The right to share property and to share the same basic rights as heterosexuals couples do, insurance, retirement ect...
These are special privileges?
Did your party not try to get Marriage defined as a union between man and woman only? and did they not try to get this added to the constitution?
and if they had been successful in doing so would that not outlaw gay marriage and would this not also be grounds for later outlawing homosexualality?

Homosexuals have all of those rights. Every single one of them. They can form a legal union, share property, have power of attorney, etc, all of that. What they can't do is get "married". The word Married means a union of a man and a woman. It isn't about the legal union part, I could care less what homosexuals do in their relationships that's their business. They can form a legal union in many ways and they can pick a name for it too. Something like Unilock or Cohab or something. The word marriage is already taken.

Yes, I know some religious pundits frame the argument as a religious/moral issue. That's their problem and that isn't mine or I suspect the majority's position on the subject. Like I said, there are very few people who don't support a homosexual's rights as a human being. What the voters of this country have said in most places, multiple times, is that marriage is between a man and a woman. It is the definition of the word.

All I can say is that there are a lot of people who are very sick of the "gay rights" movement and a lot of homosexuals might start feeling the negative backlash if the movement doesn't tone it down a bit.

No, that is more like breaking and entering....

Thank you for making my point.

I come from a very military family eventhough I did not serve....my brother did 4 tours of Iraq and we are in agreement on many things...

Thanks to your bothers for their service.

ah, your attempt to relate liberals (Obama) to Hitler, you can do better than that Hallen...

Who brought up Hitler? I sure didn't. The fact remains, despite your attempt to divert, that it is a gross invasion of our privacy and our rights. Where is the outrage over that? Why are you defending something that by your own admission, you are staunchly against?

in socialized medicine no one is turned down, so tracking it only insures that you are getting the best care and proper care...

Thank you again for making my point.

Health care is way too profitable to not be under gov't control,
imagine if Policing was privatized, what would that cost?

lol, oh my, you are kidding, right? It's too profitable? You don't understand free markets and you don't really understand what makes it expensive. It won't get any cheaper under government control. No possible way. Not if the same level of care was still provided. The only way the government can cut the costs is by lowering standards and rationing the services.

If police and fire were privatized, chances are, yes, it would cost us less. There is a fundamental lack of understanding of how money is handled by the government and how much it costs to field police and the military. They think that private has to cost more when in actuality , it doesn't.

No, rationalizing that point is stupid, unless you leave religion completely out of it...
whose morality are we going to use?
What Moral is to you and what Moral is to me will be two different things...why should your definition become law and mine not or vice versa?
Isn't Morality the basic argument for the anti-gay movement?

That is called relativistic morals. In other words, it is OK for a Muslim to chop off the head of an innocent westerner because morally, it is OK to the Muslim to do that because he believes his religion makes it OK. It gives free license to everybody to do whatever the hell they want as long as they can rationalize it to themselves. That kind of thinking is extremely dangerous to society as a whole.

I do agree that moral issues are extremely difficult to face because we all do perceive things differently. But are you really going to argue that murder is not a moral issue? It is wrong. You know that. Or are you advocating that murder is OK as long as the person committing the act believes that it is OK to do? What you are talking about in that case is complete chaos. You think that capitalistic competition is bad... well, just wait until you face real competition from people who have no issue with killing you just to get the food you have in your fridge.

There are many things that religions try to turn into moral issues. Those things are based on that particular religion's teachings. These types of moral issues should not be part of government. It is a religious affair. I do agree that the defining line between religious specific morals and general morals is pretty thin at times and it can be a dangerous slippery slope, but it doesn't change the fact that you have a basic right to life and freedom. If somebody tries to take that from you, it is morally wrong and there should be a punishment for that.

alas, we do agree on something...

Why alas? Do you think it diminishes your position that somebody you perceive to be a hard core religious/conservative fanatic actually has the same position as you do on something? Why are you surprised?

I think you fibbed abit, should I mention Reagan, Bush and Limbaugh and then remind you of their flock....
your point is good in that argument, your slander of Liberal lost you the argument...

Hmmm, how to explain this so you will understand... yeah, it's probably impossible.

I can't speak for everybody here. I know there are right wing loonies out there. However, from my position and I think the position of a lot of other people out there, is that government is a necessary evil. If we all were more advanced and less prone to violence and vice, then maybe we wouldn't need government. So, to say that somebody like me is the "flock" of certain conservative pundits, implying that it is religious, is way off the mark. Government is there to serve the people and provide some very basic services. It is not a nanny. It is not your mommy, and it should not be your moral guidance. It is necessary to keep chaos at bay, but it is not something to be trusted or relied on for sustaining you.

Many of the liberals that I talk to seem to put a large amount of faith in government to fix our problems. They look to government for guidance on how to behave. They look to government to secure them from hardship. They look to government to take care of them. To me, all these people are simply supplanting their need for a greater power from religion and family onto the government. I think it is sad, and I think it is dangerous. Place your faith in yourself, your family and your convictions. Don't place faith in a fickle government. That's the difference. As a conservative, I look to government to free me to take care of myself and my family. As a liberal, it seems you look to the government to control things so that you don't have to worry about taking care of yourself. How is that different from the religious fanatic that puts all his faith in God to heal him or provide for him?

[SEdgell]

May I please purchase one of your tin foil hats? What's shipping cost to 97213? Thanks. Oh and btw, it's spelled 'fluoride'.

I understand that it's easier and much more convenient to just attack me than to do some research to prove me wrong. Maybe you should check it out for yourself...

www.fluoridealert.org

Also google EPA Union Fluoride and watch the 9 minute video about their union's findings.

Oh and please excuse me for misspelling fluoride, thanks for pulling your head out of the dirt to point that out to me.

[Tree18is]

jesus.. crazy

[CorvallisBMW]

Homosexuals have all of those rights. Every single one of them. They can form a legal union, share property, have power of attorney, etc, all of that.

ummmm....no. That's not true. Only in states that have legalized same-sex unions can they do that, and there are very few states that have. Without a law that expressely legalizes same-sex unions, they are unable to obtain the same rights to inheretance, end-of-life decisions, cohabiation benefits, insurance sharing, etc.

[Hallen]

ummmm....no. That's not true. Only in states that have legalized same-sex unions can they do that, and there are very few states that have. Without a law that expressely legalizes same-sex unions, they are unable to obtain the same rights to inheretance, end-of-life decisions, cohabiation benefits, insurance sharing, etc.

I'm sorry mate, you aren't using the high level of intelligence that I know you have on this one.

Read my post. Yes they can. Every single one of those "rights" can be had with simple contracts and powers of attorney. All marriage does is codify all of that under one name. And also notice that I am arguing about the use of the term "marriage". I could care less if homosexuals want to have a union codified by law. That's their business like I said. But marriage means a union between a man and a women, period.

And also, every single homosexual can get married anytime they want, just like the rest of us, so what exact rights are they missing here?? As a straight person, am I too then lacking the "right" to form a union with another man? No, I can do that too if I want. So in essence, your argument is invalid because if I agree with you that homosexuals can't form legal unions, then basically that says that it is the same for everybody so therefore, we all have the same rights.

As a side note, and completely irrelevant to the actual argument above:

I simply do not understand what the fuss is about this. Homosexuals are missing nothing, and actually are protected by more "rights" than I am. All they have to do is pick a name, put together a simple legal package, and bang, they are done. Marriage is the same thing, really, your marriage license is just a shorthand way of identifying somebody who has done all the legal paperwork. Recognition is the problem. For a homosexual to prove that they have a union, they have to provide the paperwork. For married couples, it's just a matter of saying you are somebodies spouse. So, if Homosexuals really wanted to have that shortcut method to forming a union, then they just need to pick a word for it (that isn't already used to describe heterosexual marriage) and I doubt they would much of a problem pushing it through. What they actually want is recognition. They think it is recognition as human beings, but in actuality, it is recognition as something other than a human being because I would hazard a guess to say that 99% of Americans view them as human beings with all the rights and privileges that go with that. This argument is about homosexuals wanting to be in the forefront. It is an unhappy child with an inferiority complex screaming for attention. The only way a parent can deal with that is to NOT provide the attention the child is throwing the tantrum for.

It is really simple why marriage exists still in this world today. It is about family. And by family, I mean kids. It is about the propagation of our species and the family unit, Father, Mother and children, with all its flaws, is still the best environment for raising kids. Homosexuals, by definition, can never, ever provide this. Yes, they can have kids, but either the father or the mother will be missing from the home. I am not saying that homosexuals cannot be loving parents and provide a superior home for kids as traditional heterosexual parents can, but what I am saying is that it isn't a family that marriage exists to support.

[CorvallisBMW]

But marriage means a union between a man and a women, period.

According to you.

Homosexuals are missing nothing, and actually are protected by more "rights" than I am.

such as? ....

It is really simple why marriage exists still in this world today. It is about family. And by family, I mean kids. It is about the propagation of our species and the family unit, Father, Mother and children, with all its flaws, is still the best environment for raising kids. Homosexuals, by definition, can never, ever provide this. Yes, they can have kids, but either the father or the mother will be missing from the home. I am not saying that homosexuals cannot be loving parents and provide a superior home for kids as traditional heterosexual parents can, but what I am saying is that it isn't a family that marriage exists to support.

So single parents can't raise kids properly then either? Should all parents with single kids put them up for adoption or something, since according to you, olny 1 man and 1 women, together, can properly raise a child?

There's a difference between standing up for 'traditional values' and being a bigot.

[Hallen]

According to you.



such as? ....



So single parents can't raise kids properly then either? Should all parents with single kids put them up for adoption or something, since according to you, olny 1 man and 1 women, together, can properly raise a child?

There's a difference between standing up for 'traditional values' and being a bigot.

No, according to dictionaries.

"the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."

If I am attacked and beaten the person caught will go to jail (maybe, probably just probation though). If I am a homosexual, am attacked and beaten, the person caught will go to jail for a lot longer because it is a "hate" crime. It is not possible to commit a hate crime against a white male that is unaffiliated with any religious organization.

There are no requirements to hire me based off of my sexual preference. There are requirements to hire "minorities" which homosexuals are.

There's two rights that I don't have that a homosexual does have. There are probably more.

Now, just because you are pretending to not understand, I will say it again. The family with both the mother and the father present is still the best way to raise children in general. If the extended family is also involved, so much the better.

That is not to say that a single person cannot do a good job of raising children, they can and do. That is not to say a homosexual couple cannot do a brilliant job raising children. I am sure they can. But it is still best for a child to have a loving mother and father present in their lives. It gives them roots.

What I did say was impossible for a homosexual union household was to have both the mother and father present and acting as parents. It isn't going to happen. I would also say that unless abuse is present, divorced heterosexual couples do not provide as good of a home for a child as parents that stay together, yes again, in general.

And before you bring it up, yes, there are millions of examples of horrible, brutal and negligent heterosexual parents out there. That is what the term "in general" above is referring to. If you had horrible parents, then I'm sorry for you. But that doesn't change the simple truth that it is best to have both the mother and the father raising the children.

And don't ever try to imply that I am a bigot again. It is that kind of rampant slander and the threat of blackballing that is killing this country.
As soon as a conservative speaks out against "affirmative action", homosexual unions, illegal immigration, they are immediately labeled as bigots by both the liberal establishment and the main stream media. It's sickening.

What is also disturbing is the lack of critical thinking in your arguments. They are basically equivalent to the good old "Oh yeah?" response. You can do better than that. If you can't spare the time to put the thought into it, then maybe you really should reassess you positions on many things since you have probably not put any real thought into those either.

[mrsleeve]

lol


Hallen wins again

[assoutE12]

GOD HATES FAGS!!!

GOD BLESS 9/11!!!

Etc...

[BobombETA]

GOD HATES FAGS!!!

GOD BLESS 9/11!!!

Etc...

huh?

[TheEtaUnderdog]

I understand that it's easier and much more convenient to just attack me than to do some research to prove me wrong. Maybe you should check it out for yourself...

www.fluoridealert.org

Also google EPA Union Fluoride and watch the 9 minute video about their union's findings.

Oh and please excuse me for misspelling fluoride, thanks for pulling your head out of the dirt to point that out to me.

www.godaddy.com I can register a $15 .org site there too

[SEdgell]

www.godaddy.com I can register a $15 .org site there too

Do some research before you chime in....