TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- -U.S.A. Has Spoken To The World!--
Pages (5): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »

Remember...

Democracy is the tyranny of the ignorant.

Some Americans are among the most ignorant people in the world I've ever spoken too. This is a generalization, but meh... it's a very popular belief among Canadians.

I would say the pucker factor just rose significantly for the terrorists after the election! And those American fries ain't getting French again anytime soon.


[[[smoke]]]

Woooah!

I come back from being gone a few days and find I've made lots of nice new friends here. Sheeesh! I guess now wouldn't be the time to say "check out my latest trance song"? oh well. mabye later if things cool down here.

Well what can I say? Obviously the post must have struck a bad note with a lot of you in here. Wow, I never imagined there was this much hatred here in this forum and even from US members?. At least it's good that you all get it out of your system. Thats healthier than letting it build up. Still, I'm starting to wonder if all the rumors about you canadians are true. you know the ones about how canadians say how peaceful they are but how they are really planning to stab US in the back first chance they get. yeh those.

Anyway, let me just point out a few things here ...

Election 2000


Election 2004


This election revealed a lot. This graphic shows how diverse the support for Bush was in both election. Notice in both elections there is for the most part the same regions supporting conservative and liberal candidates. Even down to the county level. Notice how the most support for Kerry was in the largest metropolitan areas. The heartland of America appears to overwhelmingly support Bush. Notice that most definately it was broad support not just in the bible belt.

Interesting that the large cities like LA and New York city are also the biggest media hubs also. The media, particularly t.v. and newspaper have been strong Kerry supporters this election. The american people have been under the illusion that this nation is dominantly liberal. I think all americans can learn a lot from this picture. With the exception of radio, it seems most every media outlet was representing liberalism.

The U.S. democratic party is going to continue to loose and weaken until they unerstand that america really a moderate majority. If the dems had chose a candidate that was more centered and didn't confuse people on what his actual position was the election would have been much different imo.
Moderation is what is best because extreme liberalism or conservatism leads to perhaps communism or religious authoritarianism.
America was founded on moderate ideals. Therfore, I don't believe it is best for our nation to move too far left or right. Although, I am a strong christian, I don't want to impose my beliefs on others even if I've come across that way on here at times. USA was designed to be a free nation that would welcome people from all over the world and give them the choice to worship God how they feel is best in their heart.

It must be remembered that christianity has always been the dominant religion in this nation. Politics and religion have never been completely divorced and christianity has been the moral backbone of our nation from the beginning with the first european settlers. Liberalism in recent time has tried to cover that up and bombard us with the illusion that morality and christianity no longer are important in this nation.

Everything I said in my innitial post is true and thats why many don't like to hear it. The moderate majority of america came out and voted Bush in not just evangelicals. The hard liberals came out in full force otherwise the 4million difference would have been even larger.

quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover Although, I am a strong christian, I don't want to impose my beliefs on others even if I've come across that way on here at times.

Then, presumably you would/did vote against a ban on gay marriage, correct? After all, I can think of few more obvious examples of "impos[ing] [your] beliefs on others."

hmm seperation from church and state...

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Then, presumably you would/did vote against a ban on gay marriage, correct? After all, I can think of few more obvious examples of "impos[ing] [your] beliefs on others."

Even if he did, how can he be imposing if he's the one answering the question posed?

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Then, presumably you would/did vote against a ban on gay marriage, correct? After all, I can think of few more obvious examples of "impos[ing] [your] beliefs on others."

Arbiter, I did vote against gay marriage because I don't feel my state has to give them financial benefits as married folks recieve. It doesn't not mean that I don't respect these people or that I believe they shouldn't have the natural right to practice their homosexual behaviours. As I've stated before, I believe a homosexual family unit is also bad influence on any children. It can be argued that gay families are actually destructive and abusive to children. What about the childrens rights also?

Democracy has never been about giving people unlimited freedom. Unlimited freedom is a society of chaos. The majority vote is the democratic way. The gay population is only a small minority of the US population. When gay marriage is voted against it isn't taking from their natural right to practice homosexual relations only that the state is making a statement that they will not give benefits or legally recognize the marriage. This is not imposing religion on others. Religion, particularly christian, shouldn't be targeted as being imposed on anyone here. The state society has to draw a line on what it will and will not legally support. I could say that I would like to marry myself to my dog and that I should get state benefits as well. Well that is absurd! The state shouldn't have to support this if the majority think it's ridiculous. It doesn't mean I can't still have relations with my dog however. This is my protected natural right under the constitution.

Basically, I believe the states have the right to choose whether they will support gay marriage or not. I don't believe that should be decided at the federal level. So i am not necessarily for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage but rather a constitutional amendment that limits federal powers and leaves that choice up to each state.

quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover Arbiter, I did vote against gay marriage because I don't feel my state has to give them financial benefits as married folks recieve. It doesn't not mean that I don't respect these people or that I believe they shouldn't have the natural right to practice their homosexual behaviours. As I've stated before, I believe a homosexual family unit is also bad influence on any children. It can be argued that gay families are actually destructive and abusive to children. What about the childrens rights also?

well, so what you say is that they have the right to be who they are, but they wont get the same benefits that everyone else enjoys.

thats like the black people before, they had the right to be black, but they didnt have the same benefits as the whites. that was fair too, right?

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew well, so what you say is that they have the right to be who they are, but they wont get the same benefits that everyone else enjoys. thats like the black people before, they had the right to be black, but they didnt have the same benefits as the whites. that was fair too, right?

No. It means that I believe they have the natural right to make that choice to practice their homosexual ways. And don't even start with that 'it's the way they are crap' with me. I don't believe that for a second and this was discussed at length in another thread already on anti-gay marriage. If these people want an entire society to financially support their ways the burden of proof lies on them provide overwhelming evidence that it is not choice but 'how they are'. Even if there was overwhelming evidence that it was genetic that still doesn't mean a state should have to support it. Democracy isn't always fair to everyone and it's time you people woke up and smelled the flowers.

Do I have the right to run around exposing myself or engaging in gay acts in public? What about in your country? Other people may find that offensive if allowed. Yet many would say they should because it's their natural right. Well obviously there are limits to what democratic societies allow since too many rights allow infringement on others rights also. It is a balance and the US has done quite well for 200 years now.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot Remember... Democracy is the tyranny of the ignorant. Some Americans are among the most ignorant people in the world

is it really a democracy?

so u get to vote on a FEW issues, and who's president.
but then ANY decision the president makes must be accepted.

to me, "democracy" is just a scam by gov'ts to make people
BELIEVE they are making decisions.
a TRUE democracy would mean the PEOPLE decide what stand
to take on important issues.

the iraq war wasnt supported by many in the US (sure prolly more
did than not), but it wouldnt have made a difference.

60+% of british were against the war but they still went ahead,
and are still there.... is this democracy?

i should be able to VOTE on iraq, tax cuts, education issues etc...

quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover No. It means that I believe they have the natural right to make that choice to practice their homosexual ways. And don't even start with that 'it's the way they are crap' with me. I don't believe that for a second and this was discussed at length in another thread already on anti-gay marriage. If these people want an entire society to financially support their ways the burden of proof lies on them provide overwhelming evidence that it is not choice but 'how they are'. Even if there was overwhelming evidence that it was genetic that still doesn't mean a state should have to support it. Democracy isn't always fair to everyone and it's time you people woke up and smelled the flowers. Do I have the right to run around exposing myself or engaging in gay acts in public? What about in your country? Other people may find that offensive if allowed. Yet many would say they should because it's their natural right. Well obviously there are limits to what democratic societies allow since too many rights allow infringement on others rights also. It is a balance and the US has done quite well for 200 years now.

For me democracy is more than just the people choosing the government, its about treating everyone equal

i guess we think different and you will probably never change your opinion, nor will i, so i give up

quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover Arbiter, I did vote against gay marriage because I don't feel my state has to give them financial benefits as married folks recieve. It doesn't not mean that I don't respect these people or that I believe they shouldn't have the natural right to practice their homosexual behaviours. As I've stated before, I believe a homosexual family unit is also bad influence on any children. It can be argued that gay families are actually destructive and abusive to children. What about the childrens rights also? Democracy has never been about giving people unlimited freedom. Unlimited freedom is a society of chaos. The majority vote is the democratic way. The gay population is only a small minority of the US population. When gay marriage is voted against it isn't taking from their natural right to practice homosexual relations only that the state is making a statement that they will not give benefits or legally recognize the marriage. This is not imposing religion on others. Religion, particularly christian, shouldn't be targeted as being imposed on anyone here. The state society has to draw a line on what it will and will not legally support. I could say that I would like to marry myself to my dog and that I should get state benefits as well. Well that is absurd! The state shouldn't have to support this if the majority think it's ridiculous. It doesn't mean I can't still have relations with my dog however. This is my protected natural right under the constitution. Basically, I believe the states have the right to choose whether they will support gay marriage or not. I don't believe that should be decided at the federal level. So i am not necessarily for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage but rather a constitutional amendment that limits federal powers and leaves that choice up to each state.

So it's acceptable to to impose your beliefs on others as long as it's the majority doing the imposing upon a minority?

By voting against gay marriage, you make the statement that you believe that it's perfectly reasonable to deny gay individuals, for example, the right to sue someone for harming or killing their partner, since that right can be obtained only by marriage. If this isn't based on your beliefs, what is it based on? And if it is based on your beliefs, how is denying gay couples a basic right given to heterosexual couples for no reason other than your beliefs not imposing your beliefs upon them?

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter So it's acceptable to to impose your beliefs on others as long as it's the majority doing the imposing upon a minority? By voting against gay marriage, you make the statement that you believe that it's perfectly reasonable to deny gay individuals, for example, the right to sue someone for harming or killing their partner, since that right can be obtained only by marriage. If this isn't based on your beliefs, what is it based on? And if it is based on your beliefs, how is denying gay couples a basic right given to heterosexual couples for no reason other than your beliefs not imposing your beliefs upon them?

In all democracies there will exist a majority who will vote based on their personal beliefs. However, you can't target everything you don't agree with to christianity. There are many more religions in this country than just christianity. Are you trying to take away from the fundamental process of democracy? You are trying to make a an argument that what a majority of people in a society vote is meaningless and irrelevant. You aren't supporting democracy, you are supporting a kind of socialist society now.


Democracy is based on a majority rule it is not a utopian society where everyone recieves complete equality. And naturally, a person doesn't have to live there either do they? The gays can buy some deserted island somewhere and create their own democracy where they are the majority. If a state chooses not to recognize a gay marriage and give it equal benefits, that power is granted to them under the constitution as long they are not denying them any natural rights.

It's so ironic that so many of you liberals don't even understand what a democracy is. You are so far left that you are trying to turn democracy into socialism. There are many things in a democracy that are not equal. How come I don't get to make as much money as some other dude? Is that fair? So what if he has more education or training, shouldn't I have the right to make the same salary? Heck, why shouldn't everyone have the right to make equal salaries? See what I mean. This gets us into socialism very quickly.

The founding fathers designed US democracy around state sovereignty and 'natural rights' which are God given. Financial support and benefits are not a part of 'natural rights'. All the many social programs that dems support are not part of these rights. Equal salaries are not part of these rights. It has nothing to do with imposing christian beliefs on anyone.

Stop trying to avoid the issue with irrelevant drivel, and answer the question.

You said, quote: "Although, I am a strong christian, I don't want to impose my beliefs on others."

And then you proceed to cite the "majority rule" of a Democracy as an excuse to do precisely that: impose your beliefs upon gays.

So what is it? Do you want to impose your beliefs on others or not?

quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover In all democracies there will exist a majority who will vote based on their personal beliefs. However, you can't target everything you don't agree with to christianity. There are many more religions in this country than just christianity. Are you trying to take away from the fundamental process of democracy? You are trying to make a an argument that what a majority of people in a society vote is meaningless and irrelevant. You aren't supporting democracy, you are supporting a kind of socialist society now. Democracy is based on a majority rule it is not a utopian society where everyone recieves complete equality. And naturally, a person doesn't have to live there either do they? The gays can buy some deserted island somewhere and create their own democracy where they are the majority. If a state chooses not to recognize a gay marriage and give it equal benefits, that power is granted to them under the constitution as long they are not denying them any natural rights. . It's so ironic that so many of you liberals don't even understand what a democracy is. You are so far left that you are trying to turn democracy into socialism. There are many things in a democracy that are not equal. How come I don't get to make as much money as some other dude? Is that fair? So what if he has more education or training, shouldn't I have the right to make the same salary? Heck, why shouldn't everyone have the right to make equal salaries? See what I mean. This gets us into socialism very quickly. The founding fathers designed US democracy around state sovereignty and 'natural rights' which are God given. Financial support and benefits are not a part of 'natural rights'. All the many social programs that dems support are not part of these rights. Equal salaries are not part of these rights. It has nothing to do with imposing christian beliefs on anyone.

This is why the founding fathers also created a balance of power with a Supreme Court that was given lifetime appointments as a means of keeping their decisions outside the realm of politics, as they would not worry about re-elections. The courts have been an institution designed to protect Constitutional rights for the miniority. The most obvious example of this is Brown v. Board, which ended segregation for African-Americans despite their lack of a majority. Obviously the court system is not completely separated from politics, but there are numerous examples ofthe court protecting the rights of minorities, despite the contrary intentions of the majority.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter You said, quote: "Although, I am a strong christian, I don't want to impose my beliefs on others." So what is it? Do you want to impose your beliefs on others or not?

Your trying to get me to somehow announce that i'm trying to force my beliefs on others or that all christians are, which isn't true. When a group of people in society don't agree with something another group of people do, it doesn't mean they are 'imposing' their beliefs on that group. I respect each persons natural rights and the right to make their own decisions. I'm not forcing anything on anyone.

edith and if you are going to try to somehow argue that anytime a people don't agree with another group of people.. this is technically imposing their belief system on them, don't bother with the keystrokes. The argument can equally be made that homo's are imposing their perverted ways on society as well. No one is forcing anyone to convert to anothers ways, therfore 'impose' isn't really the correct word. Maybe you meant 'influence'. In which case yes, i suppose my beliefs do influence others just as everything in our environment does to one degree or another.

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 This is why the founding fathers also created a balance of power with a Supreme Court that was given lifetime appointments as a means of keeping their decisions outside the realm of politics, as they would not worry about re-elections. The courts have been an institution designed to protect Constitutional rights for the miniority. The most obvious example of this is Brown v. Board, which ended segregation for African-Americans despite their lack of a majority. Obviously the court system is not completely separated from politics, but there are numerous examples ofthe court protecting the rights of minorities, despite the contrary intentions of the majority.

Correct. Natural rights of all US citizens is to be protected at all times. However, this isn't the debate here. The legal benefits etc etc. that gays want for their 'marriages' or 'unions' doesn't fall under natural rights. It's all about money. Each state has the right to decide based on majority vote whether to support those unions or not. Natural rights are not an issue. If the state or fed gov. were to prohibit all homosexual relations/practices that would constitute a natural rights violation.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter The fact that such a large portion of the population has radically shifted views without even acknowledging it says something powerful to me: it says that people are not basing their political views on sound philosophy, facts, or reason, but on blind faith in a political party. When democracy has reached that point, it's difficult for me to surmise how to view American democracy as anything but a failure.

You just nailed it on the head again Arbiter. Well said.

Maybe people are simply seeing a clarification of their own philosophies. Maybe the difference between the left and right has become so starkly defined this go round that people had an easier decision based on their own views. In any case, I'd hardly call democracy in America a failure when you have over 100 million individuals casting their votes. The left should quit trying to rationalize their loss--it amazes me how nobody wants to give Bush any credit. The left is still convinced that Kerry should have won, but with record voter turnout and record amounts of money spent on the campaigns, he was clearly the loser. Time to move on. Democracy worked.

I often wonder how Clinton ever got elected for a second term. IMO he was simply in the right place at the right time and Bob Dole simply wasn't a strong enough candidate that people could identify with, so Bubba got the nod to sick around for 4 more years while the Internet was rocking the market and people were making money hand over fist.

Hi technolover. I really have some questions for you here, so I hope you don't mind the intrusion...

quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover Arbiter, I did vote against gay marriage because I don't feel my state has to give them financial benefits as married folks recieve.

Why? Why discriminate on the basis of finances when two consenting people have a committed, life-long relationship?

quote:

It doesn't not mean that I don't respect these people or that I believe they shouldn't have the natural right to practice their homosexual behaviours. As I've stated before, I believe a homosexual family unit is also bad influence on any children.

Care to support your beliefs with any research? Most studies tend to say just the opposite - that children reared by gay relationships tend to be quite heterosexual, and apparently tend to be more accepting and less judgemental than average, though admittedly scientists are not conclusive on this aspect:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar13.htm

quote:

It can be argued that gay families are actually destructive and abusive to children. What about the childrens rights also?

Argue it, then. I hope you're not going to pull out the old child molestation bit or propensity of future pedophilia:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainb...olestation.html

quote:

Democracy has never been about giving people unlimited freedom. Unlimited freedom is a society of chaos. The majority vote is the democratic way.

The Constitution also guarantees a minority voice and equal rights between minority and majority. You fail to make a strong case on how sexual preference among two consenting adults would be considered an "unlimited freedom". Keep in mind that at the time that the US Supreme Court legalized mixed-race couples, a majority of adults in many states were opposed to the concept.

Do you think it was appropriate back then to illegialize mixed-race marriages based on majority rule? By your logic, this must be true.

quote:

The gay population is only a small minority of the US population. When gay marriage is voted against it isn't taking from their natural right to practice homosexual relations only that the state is making a statement that they will not give benefits or legally recognize the marriage. This is not imposing religion on others. Religion, particularly christian, shouldn't be targeted as being imposed on anyone here

On the surface, no, but please don't pretend that religious beliefs have nothing to do with this argument. That's somewhat insulting to most of us here. But the argument you do present, however, is discriminatory and prejudice based on sexual preference between 2 consenting adults.

quote:

The state society has to draw a line on what it will and will not legally support. I could say that I would like to marry myself to my dog and that I should get state benefits as well. Well that is absurd! The state shouldn't have to support this if the majority think it's ridiculous. It doesn't mean I can't still have relations with my dog however. This is my protected natural right under the constitution.

Well first of all I think we all understand that such a beastial relationship is not exactly consensual, though it may certainly seem like your dog humping your leg may state otherwise.

Second, I think we should have enough faith in our legislation and judiciary on both the state and federal level to carry enough logic to know the difference between a consenting adult relationship of two humans vs. human and beast. I really don't think that slippery slope that the anti-gay rights folks love slidin' down is of much use here.

quote:

Basically, I believe the states have the right to choose whether they will support gay marriage or not. I don't believe that should be decided at the federal level. So i am not necessarily for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage but rather a constitutional amendment that limits federal powers and leaves that choice up to each state.

I agree, and I think it was simple politicizing by Bush and the Christian Right to push this into our federal legislative branch the way they did.

In general it seems to boil down to whether or not sexual preference between 2 consenting adults should be given the same natural rights as, say, those of different race, color, nationality, gender, and so forth. IOW, should sexual preference be given the same status as those unchangeable factors mentioned. Well first off, historically those factors mentioned were, in fact, not given same status as the white male. Only through time, tolerance, bloodshed, and understanding have we allowed such unchangeable factors such as gender, race, and color to be given the same status as the majority white male.

So why should sexual preference between 2 consenting adults be treated any differently? What is the rationale? Are you about to say that sexual preference is a choice? I hope you are willing to support that assertion if you do.

quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover Correct. Natural rights of all US citizens is to be protected at all times. However, this isn't the debate here. The legal benefits etc etc. that gays want for their 'marriages' or 'unions' doesn't fall under natural rights. It's all about money.

So the benefits given to opposite-sex marriages DO fall under "natural rights" then, or not? Do we give heterosexual marriages certain benefits such as being able to see their dying spouse in the hospital because of their "natural rights"? Do we give heterosexual marriages certain tax breaks because they are following "natural rights"?

Maybe I'm a bit confused as to what you're arguing here. Yes there is a government financial aspect involved here, but simply stating as such doesn't explain the rationale behind the discrimination of finances and benefits between one type of marriage/civil union over another. If the argument is, in fact, about money, then you're going to have to explain the logical differences between what our government arbitrarily chooses relationships between 2 consenting adults should and should not be given finances, tax breaks, and benefits. What would they base their rationale upon here?

quote:

Each state has the right to decide based on majority vote whether to support those unions or not. Natural rights are not an issue. If the state or fed gov. were to prohibit all homosexual relations/practices that would constitute a natural rights violation.

I think we've seen enough of how Christians have historically defined natural rights. Needless to say, I tend to be quite elated when the Christian definition of "natural rights" has slowly broadened to include slavery, women, marriages among African-Americans, and marriages among interracial couples over the past coupla hundred years or so. I see no reason why "natural rights" should not include same-sex marriages/civil unions and give them the exact same rights as heterosexual marriages.

Perhaps we need a working definition of "natural rights" before we can go much further.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Stop trying to avoid the issue with irrelevant drivel, and answer the question. You said, quote: "Although, I am a strong christian, I don't want to impose my beliefs on others." And then you proceed to cite the "majority rule" of a Democracy as an excuse to do precisely that: impose your beliefs upon gays. So what is it? Do you want to impose your beliefs on others or not?

Arbiter makes an extremely good point here...

This is an extremely gray area. I (as a Christian) am all about never imposing my beliefs onto other people (and I cringe when people do it to try to "convert" someone) - yet this is an area where you have to take into consideration the harmony and well-being of the society you are living in.

I believe that homosexuality is a strong enough topic where it should be a democracy for the people to choose whether they will accept it in their society or not. I believe the recent vote has proven this. I also believe that if Kerry was anti-gay (as Bush is) that he would easily be president right now.

Anyway, just my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Needless to say, I tend to be quite elated when the Christian definition of "natural rights" has slowly broadened to include slavery, women, marriages among African-Americans, and marriages among interracial couples over the past coupla hundred years or so. I see no reason why "natural rights" should not include same-sex marriages/civil unions and give them the exact same rights as heterosexual marriages. Perhaps we need a working definition of "natural rights" before we can go much further.

i said earlier in this thread that the word "christian" is
WAY too overused. that word is too broad.
its just been manipulated by way too many people to mean
something immoral and improper.
not my belief

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter The fact that such a large portion of the population has radically shifted views without even acknowledging it says something powerful to me: it says that people are not basing their political views on sound philosophy, facts, or reason, but on blind faith in a political party. When democracy has reached that point, it's difficult for me to surmise how to view American democracy as anything but a failure. quote: Originally posted by MisterOpus1 You just nailed it on the head again Arbiter. Well said.

Opus, i'm glad you reminded me of Arbiter's comment. I must agree to disagree with both of you again.

No offense to either of you, because I know both of you aren't stupid. but where have you been? Have you been living in a cave since birth? The american people have not shifted views. There has been relatively little change in the american political psychology except for the possibility that there are more liberal extremists these days and they are getting more publicity and legitimacy from the media. The US majority are still centered. The majority also continue to hold onto christian moral foundations. You can both think whatever you will about US democracy but it makes no difference. The primary reason your candidate didn't win the election and the reason the democrats are losing power, is because of the fact they have lost their connection with the majority of americans. They have moved too far to the left and away from the center. If they continue, they are going to get even weaker until they move back again. And believe you me, with the strength of the republican party right now they are going to have to obtain a very strong and charismatic pres. candidate next time also. A candidate that will re-establish the democratic parties credibility and earn the respect of the american people again. Perhaps a JFK type leader. I really do want to see more balance in the two parties. I think it makes for the healthiest democracy. However, the gridlock and contentions of recent has to be overcome. If this cannot happen I would rather see a dominating power party that gets things accomplished.

Pres. Bush is in a unique position in history to do what presidents of recent times have not been able to do. He is an extremely powerful leader. The likes of which our nation hasn't seen in a long time. I think even you would have to agree with this even if you dislike him. He has chosen to tackle the hardest problems our nation has in his next four years. The problems that presidents of yesteryear were scared to even touch. Social security and tax reform being the main ones. You know these are huge problems in this country. Perhaps this powerful right wing is what was necessary for our country to have a shot at fixing these crippling problems. One thing is for sure, the bi partisan gridlock/contention of recent times was only going to further delay the problem for future generations of americans. Indeed, Bush has the opportunity and the motivation to do incredible things for our nation and I'm sure we can all agree on that. I hope so. If not, then i'm done conversing with you or any other opposing americans in this forum. I've seen too many of that kind on this forum already. The likes of whom can't see the positive aspects of the current situation because they can't look past their own hatred and political bias. peace.

quote:

Originally posted by UWM You did know that John Kerry is Christian, right? Idiot.

He is catholic not christian and those are 2 completely different things, about as defferent as republican and democrat.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.