I disagree with GB when it comes to gay marriage, but at the same time I can sympathize with him. I’m a very religious person and I respect his faith based political views even though I disagree with them. But again, that one issue isn’t enough to make me abandon all sense and blindly follow the left. But he’s right about not allowing judges to legislate from the bench. That’s what our elected lawmakers are for.
Impeach Bush However they got my email address, I'm glad they did.
#16
Posted 26 October 2006 - 07:47 PM
I disagree with GB when it comes to gay marriage, but at the same time I can sympathize with him. I’m a very religious person and I respect his faith based political views even though I disagree with them. But again, that one issue isn’t enough to make me abandon all sense and blindly follow the left. But he’s right about not allowing judges to legislate from the bench. That’s what our elected lawmakers are for.
#18
Posted 26 October 2006 - 09:44 PM
the annoying thing is that, because i agree with niether to a complete extent, they both accuse me of fence sitting or spewing random agression.
reality is the lonliest place on earth.
left and right... the names suggest two groups on extreem sides of something... by their very nature they are both not where they are needed.
Also: The Chefelf.com Lord of the Rings | RoBUTZ (a primative webcomic) | KOTOR 1 NPC profiles |
Music: HYPOID (industrial rock) | Spectrox Toxemia (Death Metal) | Cannibalingus (80s style thrash metal) | Wasabi Nose Bleed (Exp.Techno) | DeadfeeD (Exp.Ambient) |||(more to come)
#19
Posted 27 October 2006 - 07:08 AM
well, good like with all that.
If you really think that we're better off with republican rule, I hope that your political bedfellows don't become too odious to you personally. I was just saying that I'd be uncomfortable supporting a party that holds me up as something to unify against.
#20
Posted 27 October 2006 - 10:13 PM
-John Wayne
#22
Posted 28 October 2006 - 04:02 PM
You use the same as bold but with a s instead of a b
This post has been edited by Dr Lecter: 28 October 2006 - 04:02 PM
#23
Posted 29 October 2006 - 08:35 PM
Ones' faith is the last thing that should be on anyone's mind when legislating. We're supposed to be a secular country, and it would be nice if we acted like one.
#24
Posted 29 October 2006 - 08:51 PM
(Before people start ripping out my heart and eating it, know that I'm being satirical)
#25
Posted 30 October 2006 - 09:01 AM
I’ve seen lots of GBs speeches, and he’s plenty coherent. Everybody’s always exaggerating his lack of speech giving ability to make him look stupid. So he’s not slick Willy, big goddamn deal. Being able to give a speech doesn’t make you any better a president. And just because somebody doesn’t agree with your decisions doesn’t make you a criminal mastermind. Come on. Stop drinking the koolaid.
I doubt our white, slave owning, christian, founding fathers intended this country to be entirely secular.
Just because they didnt write "God" on every document doesnt mean they didnt have deity in mind. Course, I wasnt there, so I cant say for sure.
This post has been edited by Sailor Abbey: 30 October 2006 - 09:06 AM
#26
Posted 30 October 2006 - 11:17 AM
I'm also not exaggerating. The man is a moron, and it is a HUGE deal. I don't want the leader and global representative of my country to be a complete idiot who can't string sentences together and who stumbles over nearly every word spoken that contains more than two syllables. Yes, as leader and representative of our country, he should make an effort to present himself as educated and eloquent in public. I don't at all understand how you can write off the President's lack of intelligence/preceived lack of intelligence as not a big deal.
Since I voiced an opinion to the contrary, I don't think you were talking to me with your repetative anti-left comment about Bush being a mastermind, but for the record, I don't even like kool-aid, though the kool-aid man has been a positive addition to popular culture.
#27
Posted 30 October 2006 - 11:26 AM
PM me, we'll talk.
#28
Posted 30 October 2006 - 12:13 PM
Also, I don't know if they ever intended on this being a secular country. They never mentioned "absence" of religion.
And as far as Bush's public speaking goes: Slade, how wel do you speak in front of millions of people? I'm not trying to sing W's praises or anything, I don't like him either, but I do tire of people constantly bombarding him on his public speaking. It's hard! And the more people, the harder it is. I can't imagine trying to give an uber-long speech looking down on a crowd that huge, and on top of that, cameras make your speech live to everyone else on the globe, and on top of that, he knows that most of the population of the globe are going to find every little thing wrong and exagerrate it, make fun of it, etc. It's got to be nerve-wracking. It does really annoy me that he pauses for applause so much, but I can't blame him for stumbling over his words, and I don't think that that remarks on his intelligence at all. Some of the most brilliant people in the world had various speech impediments.
Not that I'm saying Bush is brilliant... I just don't think he should get so much flack for his speech-making abilities.
(If a democrat you agreed with ever got up there and gave a speech and stutters through it and stumbles over words, I bet you wouldn't mind, then!)
#30
Posted 31 October 2006 - 08:12 AM
(If a democrat you agreed with ever got up there and gave a speech and stutters through it and stumbles over words, I bet you wouldn't mind, then!)
I have to agree. Stellar public speaking skills do not make you more intelligent. It just makes you a better a better liar. I'm not saying GB is a liar, I'm just saying that Clinton was.
Slade, I dont see GB having as much difficulty speaking as you say you do. I watch his speeches whenever I can, and I really dont see what the problem is. He does seem to have more difficult a time when he is reading something off a paper. When he's speaking from the heart, he sounds as good as anybody. I can empathize with that.
They MAY have been wrong. But the constitution is the constitution, and if somebody doesn’t like it, they need to push to get it amended. Personally, I think religion and government are a shitty mix and belong nowhere near each other, but at the same time, I don’t think you should have to abandon your personal religious beliefs in order to hold a public office. If spiritual people aren’t guided by their principals, what the fuck is the point in having any.