awesome, oil jumped again

[Celerity]

Quoted post[/post]]

Quoted post[/post]]
A third party candidate will NEVER make it through, this is the responsibity of the Electoral College.

The EC ensures that no matter how many votes someone like Howard Stern has, he can never be president.

The intrisic problem with third pary candidates is that they don't really stand for anything. Yeah, they have a schtick that they apply to the campaign, but when it comes down to it, there is nothing that will stop Nader from "changing his mind" on a few items. There is no reason for him to really follow anything once elected.

Whigs became like this, pro that yet anti that at the same time. So it came down to the impossibility of voting between Whig pro-europe/pro militia and Whig anti-europe/pro militia. It wound up not working.

You'll never see a Green or Libertarian in office. Won't happen. nor should it. Libertarian is a great example: There we have half the party being pro-choice and the other pro-life. There are no concrete guidelines.

So instead we go with moderate and extremes. Extreme is how we ended up with Kerry last time around and not Leiberman. People were foaming at the mouth so badly that they chose to go, guns drawn, with the heaviest "Not Bush" candidate they could find. And like I said, Electoral College would prevent some loony like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson from getting in.

And THAT is the problem we are faced with today. Why can't Howard Stern be president? I thought that the original idea was that an American, no matter who, had the same chances at taking the hot seat as anyone else. There should be no exclusion or preferential treatment of candidates, it defeats the purpose! That's part of the reason that our leader goes simply by the title "Mister President" because it shows no higher treatment of him over any other American citizen. Think if we called our president "Your Highness".

If the people speak, their voice should be heard. Bush got the votes in 2004, he's our prez, the people spoke. It was a close race but we've had closer. If the people's voice and vote are trumped by the EC, then we really don't have the free government we're trying so hard to defend, now do we?

Yes, the libertarians disagree amongst themselves about issues, but they were able to come together as a whole and focus themselves on their goal. They didn't let their differences tear the party apart as we are seeing with the big two that control it all.

The two main parties contradict themselves all the time. Republicans... fiscal responsibility? Let me stop laughing before I continue on. The party of smaller government? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Then we have the Democrats who have NO CLUE what to settle on. They're both a huge mess.

And Cel, you got it wrong... Kerry wasn't extreme. Dean, now that was a bit too far even for me. YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!! Although that is definitely the energy and drive we desire from a President, we aren't ready for The Scream just yet.

Howard Dean is more of an issue than just being alittle over the top. His voting record going against his "Campaign stance" is more of the issue.

And these people should NOT be president. Mister President or not, they are in charge of the military and that alone is reason enough not to allow someone with obviously no talents outside of popularity to be president. Dean is extreme, but Kerry is dangerously to the left as well.

He doesn't even LIVE in the US.

 

[Sabz5150]

Quoted post[/post]]

Quoted post[/post]]

Quoted post[/post]]
A third party candidate will NEVER make it through, this is the responsibity of the Electoral College.

The EC ensures that no matter how many votes someone like Howard Stern has, he can never be president.

The intrisic problem with third pary candidates is that they don't really stand for anything. Yeah, they have a schtick that they apply to the campaign, but when it comes down to it, there is nothing that will stop Nader from "changing his mind" on a few items. There is no reason for him to really follow anything once elected.

Whigs became like this, pro that yet anti that at the same time. So it came down to the impossibility of voting between Whig pro-europe/pro militia and Whig anti-europe/pro militia. It wound up not working.

You'll never see a Green or Libertarian in office. Won't happen. nor should it. Libertarian is a great example: There we have half the party being pro-choice and the other pro-life. There are no concrete guidelines.

So instead we go with moderate and extremes. Extreme is how we ended up with Kerry last time around and not Leiberman. People were foaming at the mouth so badly that they chose to go, guns drawn, with the heaviest "Not Bush" candidate they could find. And like I said, Electoral College would prevent some loony like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson from getting in.

And THAT is the problem we are faced with today. Why can't Howard Stern be president? I thought that the original idea was that an American, no matter who, had the same chances at taking the hot seat as anyone else. There should be no exclusion or preferential treatment of candidates, it defeats the purpose! That's part of the reason that our leader goes simply by the title "Mister President" because it shows no higher treatment of him over any other American citizen. Think if we called our president "Your Highness".

If the people speak, their voice should be heard. Bush got the votes in 2004, he's our prez, the people spoke. It was a close race but we've had closer. If the people's voice and vote are trumped by the EC, then we really don't have the free government we're trying so hard to defend, now do we?

Yes, the libertarians disagree amongst themselves about issues, but they were able to come together as a whole and focus themselves on their goal. They didn't let their differences tear the party apart as we are seeing with the big two that control it all.

The two main parties contradict themselves all the time. Republicans... fiscal responsibility? Let me stop laughing before I continue on. The party of smaller government? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Then we have the Democrats who have NO CLUE what to settle on. They're both a huge mess.

And Cel, you got it wrong... Kerry wasn't extreme. Dean, now that was a bit too far even for me. YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!! Although that is definitely the energy and drive we desire from a President, we aren't ready for The Scream just yet.

Howard Dean is more of an issue than just being alittle over the top. His voting record going against his "Campaign stance" is more of the issue.

And these people should NOT be president. Mister President or not, they are in charge of the military and that alone is reason enough not to allow someone with obviously no talents outside of popularity to be president. Dean is extreme, but Kerry is dangerously to the left as well.

He doesn't even LIVE in the US.

And W isn't dangerously to the right? C'mon. An extreme is an extreme. "Faith Based Initatives" is about as far to the right as you can get. You can't pick and choose just because your views sit just as far right as his. That pendulum swings both directions.

And whether or not these people should be president is YOUR view alone. I don't think W should be president, but he is. That's just how it goes. Maybe in two years someone who I like will be in there, maybe not. The fact remains that everyone has the equal opportunity to become head motherfucker in charge. It's our responsibility to decide if we want them there or not. The Presidency is not an exclusive club. Sure, tell your kids that they can't become president because the Electoral College doesn't deem them "presidential material". Good god dude. Every American citizen has the right (excl. felony convicts, etc) to run for the President of the United States. Our founding fathers wanted it that way for a very specific purpose.

And isn't banning gay marriage and banning stem cell research just a popularity ploy aimed at the religious right?

 

[totalburnout]

Who said I was a republican?

Yet you called me out on being a republican...
I've said this many times before, I voted for Bush because I thought he was the lesser of two evils - and I still feel that way.

To me, Al Gore was certainly not what the country was looking for and Kerry's flip flopping and inability to think for himself was the clincher in the elections for myself. I simply felt that Kerry was a puppet to his wife and many others - that he was simply attempting to gain the position for the status - much the same with Al Gore.

The last presidential canidate that I actually supported was George Bush Sr., before him - probably JFK. I come from a middle class working family. I would have no qualms seeing a blue collar gentleman thats hard working and respectable, that has a passion for learning and has educated himself to the levels of being sufficiently capable of making intelligent decisions. It would be nice to see my next door neighbor in office for his honesty and integrity, but I don't want him - or GWB - calling the shots when my life is in their hands. I prefer someone who is extremely intelligent, but is also socially ept, and is a moral person that values honesty and integrity. To me thats the ideal canidate. Bush certainly wasn't the ideal canidate, I don't like his stance on gay marriage, stem cell research, or aborption.

 

[Celerity]

In short order:

Yes.

Not My view .. Common sense. they can't run for president because the country isn't worth risking just to be funny. The electoral college will not care that Arnold Schwarzenegger could be elected (with the exception of that naturalization rule) now that he has been governator of California. Danny Devito could NOT be president. Ronnie Reagan couldn't be president from Actor either without his California stint. Stop arguing for the sake of arguing and closely consider my argument.

Yes. The ploy is for the religious right. Those are his voter base. He lost them with his Immigration reform (Which they called Amnesty.. but I guess I'm more pro-bush than the Religious Right (A thought that kinda scares me)). He needed them back. He got the call from his voter base, and that's what they want. His approval is already rising. The bill isn't getting approved, nor does it have a snowballs chance of getting approved - but he's going through the motions.

as far as "Why all this bullshit when we are in war" yadda yadda, It's simple: Because we are at war or war-like state, that is no reason to completely drop domestic affairs. This debate is hotly contested, and he believes (as I believe) that marriage is NOT something reserved for gays. I do believe someone felt the same way about drinking at some point (I forgot which presidency added that to the constitution)

Scalia won't allow it, Alito will, the balance is maintained - no point, no foul.

Did you just say that you support JFK ?


OH


My

God


It's New2 huntin' season !

 

[totalburnout]

Quoted post[/post]]
And isn't banning gay marriage and banning stem cell research just a popularity ploy aimed at the religious right?

No, because the religious have become a minority in the current population. People keep pulling the religious card far too often. If he was going for numbers, as opposed to something he truly believed in, he would be picking up all the young and lean more towards the liberal side. Thats the surefire way for a politician to gain the most votes, sit right in the middle - just like Kerry attempted but, its my opinion, that people saw through his bullshit and saw that he didn't care nor did he have a spine.

Do you fucking listen to yourself when you talk? Read what I mother fucking said or don't god damn reply to me ever.

Shit, I've stayed out of political talk on here for awhile now - but you're just being a god damn moron. Where did I mention celebrities, where did I mention anyone of clout?

I mentioned a blue collar man, none of this other bullshit you start spewing.

Listen to what I write, if you're going to make a reply directed at me. I saw blue and you start talking about yellow - what planet are you from?

 

[Celerity]

Whoa, tex, who are you talking to ?

 

[Sabz5150]

Quoted post[/post]]
In short order:

Yes.

Not My view .. Common sense. they can't run for president because the country isn't worth risking just to be funny. The electoral college will not care that Arnold Schwarzenegger could be elected (with the exception of that naturalization rule) now that he has been governator of California. Danny Devito could NOT be president. Ronnie Reagan couldn't be president from Actor either without his California stint. Stop arguing for the sake of arguing and closely consider my argument.

That is for the people to decide as a whole. If they seem him as a comic fuckup, they won't vote for him. If they see him as true presidential material, then they will vote. The point is that there should be no checkpoint between our voice and the oval office. Like it said, it defeats the purpose. If we as a country vote a person into office and the EC jumps in and says "Nope, don't like him, we're going to put this guy in." it would completely destroy everything this country stands for. Our votes really don't count? O RLY? There's a line that says what we should do in a situation like that...

Yes. The ploy is for the religious right. Those are his voter base. He lost them with his Immigration reform (Which they called Amnesty.. but I guess I'm more pro-bush than the Religious Right (A thought that kinda scares me)). He needed them back. He got the call from his voter base, and that's what they want. His approval is already rising. The bill isn't getting approved, nor does it have a snowballs chance of getting approved - but he's going through the motions.

And you don't think any other candidate, no matter how far left or right, up or down, wouldn't have a base? Being his base doesn't make it any less of a popularity stunt. He's doing exactly what you would accuse others of doing just to snag the Seat. Funny.

as far as "Why all this bullshit when we are in war" yadda yadda, It's simple: Because we are at war or war-like state, that is no reason to completely drop domestic affairs. This debate is hotly contested, and he believes (as I believe) that marriage is NOT something reserved for gays. I do believe someone felt the same way about drinking at some point (I forgot which presidency added that to the constitution)

Coulda fuckin' fooled me! Far too many domestic issues go ignored in lieu of the wars.

I want you to read this very closely:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Replace any instance of race with sexual preference.

See what I am getting at? Basic civil rights of man... denying this fundamental freedom would deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process... freedom to marry or not to resides with the individual AND CANNOT BE INFRINGED BY THE STATE. We fought over this when black people wanted to marry white people! Sounds a bit stupid these days that "mixing it up" could get you 20 in the clink, doesn't it? Sure, you can go ahead and say that this ruling was solely for marriage between races, but honestly why is it so bad that one person wishes to marry another? Isn't marriage simply a way of saying "I want to hang out with you for the rest of my days"? If you care about that person enough to dedicate your life to them, who gives a flying rat's ass who they are?!

That ruling basically told the States that they couldn't pick and choose who got married. But of course, the Christeys, as they always do, had to stick their noses into it because it goes against their views. Three words guys: Church and State. Y'all can go fuck yourselves.

Wouldn't you be a bit pissed if someone said something isn't reserved for "your kind" or that you couldn't do something because you were "the wrong type of person/people"? Ever been looked down upon or harassed because of your personal choices before? Here's a pair of shoes, go walk a mile in 'em.

Scalia won't allow it, Alito will, the balance is maintained - no point, no foul.

Cheney's hunting partner? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Actually plenty of foul. And the puns go on!!!

 

[Celerity]

"replace "race" with sexual preference".

No. No no no no. Do not belittle the racial marriage laws with gays. Race and Gay can NOT be mixed.

Marriage is a religious institution, and if you're gay you can't be part of that religion. Sorry. Bush doesn't say this, the bible does. Gay people can't be married.

On the marriage or "civil union" suggestion, Married people get treated differently in government (the real problem). By claiming to be married when no religion will condone your clown ass is "taking advantage of the system". These people are NOT married in the eyes of god - because God calls them an abomination. Why would you choose to be married in the church if your gay ?

Tax Breaks.

I hate Islam - that is well known. Would I get married under Sharia ? No. Would I bitch about not being able to marry under Sharia ? No. I would move the fuck on.

Fuck the faggots. No marriages for you. You can live together and pay taxes just like all of us.

 

[Sabz5150]

Quoted post[/post]]

No, because the religious have become a minority in the current population. People keep pulling the religious card far too often. If he was going for numbers, as opposed to something he truly believed in, he would be picking up all the young and lean more towards the liberal side. Thats the surefire way for a politician to gain the most votes, sit right in the middle - just like Kerry attempted but, its my opinion, that people saw through his bullshit and saw that he didn't care nor did he have a spine.

And it continues...


Religious a minority? Speaking of which planet we live on...

Do you fucking listen to yourself when you talk? Read what I mother fucking said or don't god damn reply to me ever.

I read what you say, but apparently you are doing the Oreilly thing and barking as loud as you can. Take a good look, I quote everything and re-read it as I post. Something you apparently don't do. Seems you are getting me and Cel mixed up. You'd be the first one to do so.

Shit, I've stayed out of political talk on here for awhile now - but you're just being a god damn moron. Where did I mention celebrities, where did I mention anyone of clout?

Yup, getting the two of us mixed up... should have contunued to stay out of political talk. You'd do better that way.

I mentioned a blue collar man, none of this other bullshit you start spewing.

Listen to what I write, if you're going to make a reply directed at me. I saw blue and you start talking about yellow - what planet are you from?

Fuck this shit, time to have a few laughs!

Listen to what I write

Okay, now you're just being stupid.

Blue and yellow? What the fuck? Are you on crack or something?

Cel... fuck this guy. You and I are actually talking on a level field without going apeshit. We don't need anyone stirring it up.

Damn you get pissy when you don't get your way.

 

[Sabz5150]

Allrightey, back on track with the good discussion.

Quoted post[/post]]
"replace "race" with sexual preference".

No. No no no no. Do not belittle the racial marriage laws with gays. Race and Gay can NOT be mixed.

Belittle? It's the same game, just different players.

Marriage is a religious institution, and if you're gay you can't be part of that religion. Sorry. Bush doesn't say this, the bible does. Gay people can't be married.

Once again with the good ol church and state thingie. Marriage happens in many, many religions, not just Christianity. Therefore the Bible can go fuck itself at this point. Gays make no attempt at being part of any religion whatsoever. They simply want the same right to marry as anyone else.

On the marriage or "civil union" suggestion, Married people get treated differently in government (the real problem). By claiming to be married when no religion will condone your clown ass is "taking advantage of the system". These people are NOT married in the eyes of god - because God calls them an abomination. Why would you choose to be married in the church if your gay ?

Fun time.

You're telling me that I, who has no religion whatsoever, cannot marry my fiance' because I am taking advantage of the system?

Excuse me?

Now the weak points in your argument are starting to shine.

I could give two shits about being married in the eyes of a deity. I will get married for one reason and one reason only: to prove beyond all doubt that I love the person I am with. People have been getting married LONG before Christ and his twelve homies hit the scene. Way long before. People have been getting married who believe in a different religion than Christianity. Hell, people of two different religions marry.

The entire "eyes of God" argument falls flat before it even gets up. You're just adding fuel to the "this is all about religion" fire.

Tax Breaks.

Don't have to marry to get those... just be rich.

I hate Islam - that is well known. Would I get married under Sharia ? No. Would I bitch about not being able to marry under Sharia ? No. I would move the fuck on.

What if you could ONLY get married under Sharia? That's the issue that plagues the gays. It's not that they can't get married under Christian Law, it's that they can't get married AT ALL. There is no "move the fuck on", there's just "you're fucked".

Fuck the faggots. No marriages for you. You can live together and pay taxes just like all of us.

Then perhaps you and your S/O should not be married and pay taxes just like the rest of them. Or are you too attached to those "Tax Breaks" that come with being hitched?

See, there's more to marriage than God and taxes. Sadly to some, that's all it's about.

 

[Celerity]

Before God and his 12 homies:

Yes. Handfasting. Handfasting is not recognised as marriage in the US either. Something us Pagans have to deal with, and have for a lot longer than Gays have had to deal with their marriage issues.

As far as the "same game, different players", my blood pressure is going up. You're going to compare black civil rights movements with gay ones ? No way, I won't let that happen. Lets put the rest of this discussion on hold while we hash out this single aspect:

Comparing racial civil rights to homosexual civil rights is not close, should not be close, and to put the REAL oppression that over a hundred years of slavery and oppression that the black man faced on US Soil is nothing - repeat NOTHING - like the minor inconveniences that gays "suffer" from in daily life.

We need to get this straight before we go on. I believe that you are viewing the Gay Marriage thing in the wrong light.

 

[Sabz5150]

Quoted post[/post]]
Before God and his 12 homies:

Yes. Handfasting. Handfasting is not recognised as marriage in the US either. Something us Pagans have to deal with, and have for a lot longer than Gays have had to deal with their marriage issues.

As far as the "same game, different players", my blood pressure is going up. You're going to compare black civil rights movements with gay ones ? No way, I won't let that happen. Lets put the rest of this discussion on hold while we hash out this single aspect:

Comparing racial civil rights to homosexual civil rights is not close, should not be close, and to put the REAL oppression that over a hundred years of slavery and oppression that the black man faced on US Soil is nothing - repeat NOTHING - like the minor inconveniences that gays "suffer" from in daily life.

We need to get this straight before we go on. I believe that you are viewing the Gay Marriage thing in the wrong light.

Let's shall.

Yes, blacks have suffered a lot while in this country. That's not for debate. However you are missing the one key point... this isn't about oppressing the blacks saying they can't marry who they wish, it's about telling a citizen of this country they can't marry. Remember, we white people played a bit of a role in Loving vs Virginia too... it was about a black woman marrying a white man. They didn't just tell the black lady no, they told the white dude the same thing. They were both given the choice to be exiled (best word I can find) from Virginia or serve 20 years. Wow, great choices there!

This goes beyond race. That was not about racial oppression or civil rights! This is about the freedom to marry regardless of who you are. Back then, interracial couples were regarded as deviants, just as gays are today. And trust me on this one, interracial couples are STILL regarded as deviants in the eyes of many. Having people yell and scream at you while throwing things at your car WHILE YOU ARE DRIVING just because the girl in your passenger seat is black lets you know exactly how people view things that aren't "the norm".

Interacial couples and gay couples are apples and oranges, yes. But they are both looked upon as different. Having gone through six hundred layers of that hell lets me view the situation as a whole in a completely different light, one which a lot of people simply can't comprehend. Once again... shoes... mile... walk.

Your blood pressure can hit the thousands all it wants, it still comes down to one fundemental issue... who is allowed to marry in this country.

 

[Celerity]

But those were Civil government issues. The bible makes no statements against jungle fever, if they are both catholic / christian, they can be married.

If they are satanists, monkeys, toothbrushes, jews or gay they can't get married in christ. They can't have a barmitzah, yet no one is holding a "No Bush" sign because of that !

If gays couldn't fly first class or vote - then we have an issue. But Marriage is a religious thing, not a civil thing. Civil Unions are really nice, and good for wiccans with no cash and the "I love you, but not enough to let go of my pixie worship" folks that just need to combine credit to buy a used Ford Escort.

 

[Sabz5150]

Quoted post[/post]]
But those were Civil government issues. The bible makes no statements against jungle fever, if they are both catholic / christian, they can be married.

If they are satanists, monkeys, toothbrushes, jews or gay they can't get married in christ. They can't have a barmitzah, yet no one is holding a "No Bush" sign because of that !

If gays couldn't fly first class or vote - then we have an issue. But Marriage is a religious thing, not a civil thing. Civil Unions are really nice, and good for wiccans with no cash and the "I love you, but not enough to let go of my pixie worship" folks that just need to combine credit to buy a used Ford Escort.

They don't want to get married under Christ. Nobody ever said that. They simply want to get married.

No, the bible doesn't say anything about the fever, but people interpreted it that way...

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Almighty God.... ALMIGHTY GOD. Apparently he didn't like the fever.

Now that they have found something the Bible DOES prohibit, they want to make it all encompassing regardless of a person's religion (or lack thereof). Isn't that kind of stupid? If a religion that you didn't follow told you that there were certain things you could not do, what would you say? I'm sure you eat a lot of pork. Suppose there was a law against that because Islam prohibits it? How about not being able to eat anything that wasn't kosher? Are you Jewish? If not, sounds pretty funny that you'd have to follow their customs.

Are you married? If so, why? I can bet you a hefty sum it wasn't for tax breaks or God.

Church and state... Church and state... and the walls came crumbling down.

EDIT: Let's continue on...

Ever heard of people being married before the Justice of the Peace? My two best friends did that. Normal man-woman white American couple. They follow no religion. They got married at City Hall, not a church. They have rings around their fingers, they are legally married, she has his last name, the whole nine. Is their marriage null and void because it was non religious?

 

[totalburnout]

I replied to his post, after I was the last one to make a reply.

The board automatically merges posts if they're by the same person, one right after another.

Thats why it came out the way it did.


I said blue and yellow, like stop and go. It was reference to nothing other than the fact that I'm talking about something completely different and then he makes a reply about something else entirely.



Take a look at the number of people attending religious cerimony now compared to the past. If its not already the minority its quickly becoming the minority. I could be considered "Christian" if one were to do a statistical analysis but in reality I'm non practicing and could care less - thats why numbers appear the way they do. The proof is in the pudding, the fact that less and less people are attending church and religious cerimonies is drastically less than the people who label themselves as religious. No you don't need to go to a place of worship to be religious, but the fact is most are CE christians - christmas and easter, and for many not even that.

You two are meshing nicely right now because its like oil and vinegar. Two extremists attempting to call me out - humorous.

 

[Celerity]

I'll wait for the responses to come in - I see you and New2 posting up