EBSB52

It's true - Spongebob and Tinky-Winky are fighting the US Sup Ct over gay marriage right now..... religious zealots (rolls eyes).

Yes, but it was 3 major countries, not a subversive operative that were doing the attacking in WWII.

I think that was Europe's attitude in 1939 too. Europe is not a warry and hasn't been since the Revolutionary War..... watch China, folks

As you can see, Europe will not be a threat to anybody in the future, or do you mean the World of Marxist Decline? I think Europe has not learned the economic lessons of the past. And the dollar is so strong with a bright outlook...... Capitalism is more volatile than Socialism or Communism.

Totally agree on all points. The US is a great bargain thanks to cheap labor via outsourcing for corp America's gain and the continued deficit spending. Conversely, we can't travel overseas..... oh well, I'm sure the Repugs will find a way to blame the Dems in the House, Senate and the US Sup Ct - even tho they have control of none of those.

Ya but isn't that like cutting off your nose to spite your face? ... Since the cost of pissing off a liberal is larger deficits and more dead kids in Iraq...

I am not going to jump his shit till more info is known....I see others did not bother to wait for more info... Well, I'm a not-so-proud neighbor of Lovelace the rogue murdering cop, so I am a little jaded when it comes to these matters. I can recite many incidents where cops use their discretion for personal matters to the point that they don't enforce the law but write it based on their own opinions.

So instead we go the other way and maybe require them to have an Associates degree in Justice, the easiest degree to get, and then exonerate them for all those crazy murders under the, "Good Faith Exception" as stated by the US Sup Ct. There's no middle? There is no accountability....

Unfair! If we required people to pass a class before being allowed to vote, the dead bodies who usually vote democrat would be excluded because none of them has a car to get to school. Versus live Nazis voting Repub? Don't cry foul now, you started it!!!!

So the criminals are not people? They're aliens.....

No doubt a reference to Bush's ignorant, incoherent rambling and the attention drawn to it by everyone. Bush has done zero positive that I can think of during his 4 years, yet Kennedy has done plenty to help the poor and middle class, yet he draws criticism for that even from the poor and middle class.... go figure. Remember, virtually all of your favorite Repubs and some of your Dems voted for the Overtime Bill, now law, whereas Kennedy had the cookies to vote against it all of the many times it was pushed in front of him.

Ya, laying in wait to murder how many ever people get in the way of his wife + his wife is the same as a drunken accident that turned into a cover-up. Same thing....

Then it should be OK for 2 heterosexual men to marry... Or me, a lesbian male, to marry a nymphomaniac hetero female....

Ditto (king air), and the little weightlessness at the top!!!

well if women wear men's clothing they'd be able to sneak into the stonings.. cant have that... Unless they were in Aribia.... but then it would be a different God......

Along the same lines as this thread, I was in Walgreen's in Texas on vacation over Christmas. I was waiting for my GF to buy some crap so I was milling around looking at books. I saw this book that was the Bible's quick reference. It was alphabetized, so I started with "A" in my bordom. I immediatley saw, "Abomination" so I further reviewed. It listed what is known as transvestitism as an abomination and I was hocked. I thiought the term, "abomination" was reserved for the worst of the worst, but apparently the Bible uses it loosely. Anyway, it had a Duteronomy reference so I looked at a handy bible right there and it was true. Not that I place any faith or give the Bible much credence before that, after that I was left realizing the Bible has a ridiculous theme to it. With all the Famine, disaster, incest, molest, murder, rape, and many other evils out there, how canthis even make the list? It didn't spare comedians dressing up in women's/men's clothes for comedic value, it just plainly staed that teh wearing of the opposite gender's clothes is an abomination to God. Tell me if you think this diminishes the Bible's ability to be taken seriously.

Unions get greedy. When they do, they put themselves out of fair contention for work, and lose jobs. Simple really. The nice thing is to have a balance between corporate power and union power. When that happens, everybody wins. When one or the other of the two gets too much power, everyone loses. The same could be said of our whole two party "democratic" political system, and most of the major issues that are split between them. It's a beautiful thing -- maybe the Middle East will get to experience it one day. Unions get greedy. When they do, they put themselves out of fair contention for work, and lose jobs. Simple really. And corporate America is perpetually greedy, so who is here to protect the US worker, especially when our Commander in Chimp is busy revoking/rewriting 66 year old worker protection laws? Even a corrupt union is better than letting the working man fight alone. The nice thing is to have a balance between corporate power and union power. When that happens, everybody wins. When one or the other of the two gets too much power, everyone loses. Agreed, so to revoke/disempower unions is to upset that balance. The same could be said of our whole two party "democratic" political system, and most of the major issues that are split between them. It's a beautiful thing -- maybe the Middle East will get to experience it one day. You must be talking about the utopian True Democracy, not this US representative Democracy thing we have - worlds difference. Many modern-day Monarchies have more direct elective power than do we have.

None of this has anything to do with gay "marriage". I don't disagree with providing them equal legal rights, but call it something besides "marriage" -- "Civil Union" sounds good. This topic has been beat to death in these forums. Careful with that metaphor Pun intended. Clear English, but continually misused to describe people who disapprove of the lifestyle. If I had a fear of homosexuals or homosexuality, I suppose you could correctly call me a "homophobe", but that is not the case. I don't fear any homosexual on the face of the earth, and I know (and love) quite a few. Disapproval and fear are not the same, so what we have here is just another twisting of the language to promote normalization of the gay lifestyle. None of this has anything to do with gay "marriage". And everything to do with redefinition, as you stated. I don't disagree with providing them equal legal rights, but call it something besides "marriage" -- "Civil Union" sounds good. This topic has been beat to death in these forums. Right, but Fascist corporate America has already stated they will not allow a marriage of benefits unless there is a matrimonial marriage. Clear English, but continually misused to describe people who disapprove of the lifestyle. If I had a fear of homosexuals or homosexuality, I suppose you could correctly call me a "homophobe", but that is not the case. I don't fear any homosexual on the face of the earth, and I know (and love) quite a few. You mean misapplied? Probably, just like when I refer to America as an oppressive, Fascist POS, people might call me a terrorist, when that is just ridiculous. People tend to jump to titles that describe generalities rather than measuring them for face value. Disapproval and fear are not the same, so what we have here is just another twisting of the language to promote normalization of the gay lifestyle. Right, just as disapproval of US policy doesn't make a person a terrorist. However, I wouldn't call it twisting, as npothing is being contorted, but I would call it just as Bush did: E-X-A-D-G-E-R-A-T-I-O-N. As for normalization, I would call homosexuality unnatural, but not abnormal. What I also wonder is why some people care where everyone else sicks their love tool. It is very intrusive to care what people are doing in the privacy of their homes. Don't we all have enough personal problems w/o taking on things like caring who sticks what, where?

Pretty clear to me. Yesterday, liberals were a good thing. They brought about great changes like civil rights and fair labor laws. They still do, who do you think opposed Bush's Overtime Bill/Law? Who backs labor unions and who destroys them? I fail to see your point here in regard to, "civil rights and fair labor laws." But today, they represent crappy things, like baby killing, gay marriage, and calling handicapped people "handicapable". "baby killing" - as in abortion rights, as opposed to loss of control of one's body? It must be one way or the other. "gay marriage" - as in the right to convert benefits and asets to another person the individual claims as their life partner? Seems pretty harmless to me. "handicappable" - as in what? Not sure what this means; expanding the definition of who is handicapped? I all fairness to one line of your post.......Unions are destroying the Unions. I was in one for 15 years and I am dam glad to be out I see that as spin for many reasons, one of which is the grouping together of all unions. I have been in several during my life, and have found them from useless to very useful, but not destructive to the worker or to the concept of unions. Unions are the enemy of corporate America, so they are hated by the rich. As for unions destroying unions, I can see a few ways that you might mean that, so tell me why you think that. Unions move for rights, equality, seniority, and prevention of the exportation of work overseas, please tell me how that ruins unions.

Oh please. Conservatives are not "trying to define marriage". Instead, they are merely trying to prevent gays from RE-defining a term that's had a particular definition for hundreds of years. In essence, the gay rights people (99% liberal) are trying to promote acceptance of homosexual marriage by shoving a new definition of the word down the throats of society. The same thing happened (successfully) with the word "gay", and the non-sensical word "homophobe". ou mean like, "All men are created equal?" Wasn't that said before African slavery? If so, good thing someone redefined it. And then it was redefined in the 1920's to incklude, "all women." Remember, these definitions were made by people that thought it was ok to own other people. the gay rights people (99% liberal) I wouldn't be so sure, but if so, does that indict all liberals as 'gay lovers?' are trying to promote acceptance of homosexual marriage by shoving a new definition of the word down the throats of society. Careful with that metaphor Actually 'life and let live' ideologies are less intrusive than prohibitive ones, so I don't see that claim being valid. The same thing happened (successfully) with the word "gay", and the non-sensical word "homophobe". Were you more comfortable with, "queer faggot only deserving of death?" Titles are semantic, so what's the biggie? The definition of homophobe is clear English. Homo = Homosexual Phobe = fear It would be correct to coin the word, "heterophobe" if a group of people had a fear for heterosexual people. Would that anger the gay community? I think all this homophobia is really about hate for some people's sexual orientation, whichbaffles me.

How's that crappy? They are all just trends in the wrong direction. I don't want to write a thesis on each topic, so I substitute "crappy" as a general descriptor of my opinion. How about supporting them a little then?

Bill, your experience, and action is, alas, not indicative of most liberals. Ask a Kennedy how many hybrids they own, and how often they fly on private jets. Your party does not represent you. Their habits and privelidges are those of the elite, but their legislation is that of what helps the poor far more than what the cons do to stomp out the hopes and dreams of the poor. Ted Kennedy can drive all the SUV's he wants, but his objecting to the Overtime Bill to the bitter end is what personally helps me. So I don't need my representatives to emmulate me or vice versa, but I do need them to keep the corporations at bay, which the Dems do some of. And when compared to the Repubs, they do far more.

I agree. But solutions I would favor would offer oppurtunities for jobs and careers that would pay much better than assistance. That involves education. If people are only able to learn how to survive while poor, that is what their life will be. Education can break that cycle. More poverty won't. While I've never been on welfare, and don't know the particulars, I don't think it is realistic to expect someone to go from limited assistance to underemployment. One leaves you just as broke as the other, but with less family time. Who wins? If we only offer a Band-Aid(R) solution, the problem isn't going to go away. If we don't address the underlying problem causing the poverty, such solutions will be ineffective, and only wastes the money that is being spent. I agree, but it seems oppressing these people that are not intelligent enough to educate themselves out of poverty until they commit crimes and are sent to prison is the MO of the right. And then cutting all/most prison education programs is the next step. And then the right wonders why the cycle continues. In reality they don't wonder, they just feel that every man for yourself is the correct method. And now education in AZ has increased to 150% of what it was 4 years ago with Bush in office. So the cycle not only continues, but exacerbates.

I also favor certain social programs, and I'm a Democrat. BUT I can't help but see how many of our programs DO hurt society as a whole and the individuals they're intended to help. When we have people who are the 5th generation living on welfare, THAT's a problem. People grow up knowing nothing else, and since people can subsist on what our social programs offer, it takes a strong person to escape the cycle. Society as a whole would be a lot better off, imho, if this large chunk of society were more productive. linz And then when it comes to war, we draft all the rich kids....er, I mean the poor kids on welfare. So even though there is a certain, "sponge" affect, these poor welfare recipients do contribute. Also, money given to the poor almost immediatley recirculates to the economy, so that does so immediate good. The amoun of money given to welfare recipients pales in comparison to the 300 million X 100 B-1 Bombers, which are worthless. How much were the B-2's, like 1 billion or so? Corporate welfare is much worse than social welfare. One example is that when social welfare programs are more prolific, property and physical crimes seem to be less frequent/lower rate.

I think Tom's reference is dead on. Becaussssse?????