| Author | Post |
|---|
DaNkinator
| Joined: | Tue Oct 23rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1838 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 05:59 pm |
|
BigJ wrote: People are gonna get what they wanna get out of it. A unique perspective. I caught not quite all of the debatE - ON THE RADIO.
Biden won on substance. However, Palin was nowhere near as bad as you libs make it out to be, and in viewing portions her charm does come across, which counts more than substance in a lot of cases.
Any way you slice it, Palin has an undeniable magnetism to a huge portion of the voting populace. She could read Green Eggs and Ham and a chunk of people would vote for her.
Plus, who knows how much shit Biden just made up.
Push.
You're right, they will. Because I didn't see charm in one single thing she said. I saw a cut-throat, vindictive, smarmy, condescending woman with illusions of grander.
Biden didn't make up anymore shit than she did. In fact, some of the fact checking shows that he only really made one or two half truths.
Another thing that just amazes me that either one brings in that tired and bullshit belief of mixing politics with religion.
I was surprised that Biden said he and Obama are outright opposed to gay marriage. His reasoning that it's up to a matter of faith/religion is horseshit. I was married in a courthouse, required to have a license, and am not religious in the least. Matter of faith?
And this whole "marriage is a union between man and woman only, by definition" angle is a joke. Don't lay that semantics shit on me like it's an unchangeable law of physics. It's a law of government and those are changed all the time. Marriage has traditionally implied man and woman. Yeah, and having kids traditionally implied getting married first. Not anymore. Getting pregnant used to imply penis squirting sperm in vagina. Not anymore, not necessarily.
But I guess a stance like that is certainly understandable from a believer´s viewpoint. Just like Sarah Palin has to force herself to go against her own nature in order to follow the God-given rules she wants to abide by, why would she (at least subconsciously) not feel that a person could non-gayify him / herself by becoming just like her.
Therefore, a non-religious gay person is gay "by choice", and all it takes to realize it is if he/she starts to see the world with a believer´s eyes.
"God said I'm a horrible person, God can save me from this, I've been a gay by choice all along since I decided not to believe in God."
____________________
|
BigJ
United States Champion
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 06:12 pm |
|
DaNkinator wrote: BigJ wrote: People are gonna get what they wanna get out of it. A unique perspective. I caught not quite all of the debatE - ON THE RADIO.
Biden won on substance. However, Palin was nowhere near as bad as you libs make it out to be, and in viewing portions her charm does come across, which counts more than substance in a lot of cases.
Any way you slice it, Palin has an undeniable magnetism to a huge portion of the voting populace. She could read Green Eggs and Ham and a chunk of people would vote for her.
Plus, who knows how much shit Biden just made up.
Push.
You're right, they will. Because I didn't see charm in one single thing she said. I saw a cut-throat, vindictive, smarmy, condescending woman with illusions of grander.
Biden didn't make up anymore shit than she did. In fact, some of the fact checking shows that he only really made one or two half truths.
Another thing that just amazes me that either one brings in that tired and bullshit belief of mixing politics with religion.
I was surprised that Biden said he and Obama are outright opposed to gay marriage. His reasoning that it's up to a matter of faith/religion is horseshit. I was married in a courthouse, required to have a license, and am not religious in the least. Matter of faith?
And this whole "marriage is a union between man and woman only, by definition" angle is a joke. Don't lay that semantics shit on me like it's an unchangeable law of physics. It's a law of government and those are changed all the time. Marriage has traditionally implied man and woman. Yeah, and having kids traditionally implied getting married first. Not anymore. Getting pregnant used to imply penis squirting sperm in vagina. Not anymore, not necessarily.
But I guess a stance like that is certainly understandable from a believer´s viewpoint. Just like Sarah Palin has to force herself to go against her own nature in order to follow the God-given rules she wants to abide by, why would she (at least subconsciously) not feel that a person could non-gayify him / herself by becoming just like her.
Therefore, a non-religious gay person is gay "by choice", and all it takes to realize it is if he/she starts to see the world with a believer´s eyes.
"God said I'm a horrible person, God can save me from this, I've been a gay by choice all along since I decided not to believe in God."
All I got to say about all that in No on 8. I'm in Cali.
____________________
The rightful Champion of these United States. Or for you illiterates, El Campeon de los Estados Unidos.
|
pjstef
| Joined: | Sun Oct 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | New Jersey |
| Posts: | 1319 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 07:34 pm |
|
I have never been a fan of mixing religion in politics. All I say about gay marriage is that I don't think the right should be seized by judicial decision if it is otherwise not legally represented. I feel that way anytime the bench legislates, no matter what the issue. If a law or local ordinance, or whatever, needs to be changed, then it should be done so through the normal legislative channel, not by way legal appeal. But that is a legal thing - personally, I have never seen a problem in calling a union whatever people want.
The idea of "gay is a taught thing, and it should be punished" is the view of Dr. Dobson and many on the extreme evangelical right. They want to hear this. Dobson has warned publically that if any candidate implies that any marriage other than man/woman is legit, that he threatens to take as many evangelicals with him, and bail on the candidate (McCain in this case). Not every Republican agrees with this, in fact I am sure that many do not.
The way I look at it, I lean republican, but mostly out of economic conservatism - the free market system, I feel, is for better and yes, sometimes worse, the best way. I don't agree with the neo-conservative foreign policy of Cheney, Rumsfeld and the like. Socially, I am not as conservative, but I don't disrespect those that are.
I am not going to dislike Palin because she views marriage as strict male/female or she is anti abortion. Likewise, I don't think just because someone else is pro choice, that they would not respect someone who is againt abortion for personal religious reasons (which I don't think belong in politics).
Back to the debate - Palin will get some positive feedback on this debate because so many watched it to see her, and how she did. The big rating last night was not to see Biden, who has run for president before. She has made an impact, only if it is to get more people paying attention. Never a bad thing. A lot of people do like how she comes across and handles herself, issues aside - as someone said, she could be reading Green Eggs & Ham.
I don't think Palin did poorly that she will lose people who were on her side to start. Those who are on the fence have probably seen enough of her to know what she has.
|
srossi
| Joined: | Sun Oct 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | New York USA |
| Posts: | 12851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 07:37 pm |
|
DaNkinator wrote
I was surprised that Biden said he and Obama are outright opposed to gay marriage.
Why are you surprised by this? Very few high-profile Democrats have ever said that they support gay marriage, including the Clintons. They just find 16 different ways to wriggle around the issue to sound leftist without alienating the typical God-fearing zombies that are prevalent in this country. They'll talk about states' rights or civil unions or non-discrimination or whatever, but they'll NEVER say that being gay is anything but an abomination in the eyes of God (and we all know how the Clintons and their ilk have never broken a commandment).
____________________
City.com Launches July 31!
http://www.city.com
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=43280019867
http://twitter.com/citydotcom
|
DaNkinator
| Joined: | Tue Oct 23rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1838 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 07:37 pm |
|
In all honesty, Government shouldn't be in the business of licensing marriages, civil unions, polygamy, etc. anyway.
____________________
|
srossi
| Joined: | Sun Oct 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | New York USA |
| Posts: | 12851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 07:40 pm |
|
DaNkinator wrote: In all honesty, Government shouldn't be in the business of licensing marriages, civil unions, polygamy, etc. anyway.
I agree, but all marriage is about is getting benefits and tax breaks anyway. It's the only reason why many low-class people have kids too (that and complete irresponsibility in not being able to keep their crab-infested pussies closed long enough to use protection). So it becomes a government issue because they created their own monster.
____________________
City.com Launches July 31!
http://www.city.com
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=43280019867
http://twitter.com/citydotcom
|
BigJ
United States Champion
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 07:44 pm |
|
srossi wrote: It's the only reason why many low-class people have kids too
Hello, officer, my wife just stole $300 from me!
When did you see the money last?
At dinner, she was eating her cold pizza then my old lady got mad, grabbed her by the hand and went out the door and I ain't seen 'em since!
____________________
The rightful Champion of these United States. Or for you illiterates, El Campeon de los Estados Unidos.
|
DaNkinator
| Joined: | Tue Oct 23rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1838 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 07:44 pm |
|
srossi wrote: DaNkinator wrote: In all honesty, Government shouldn't be in the business of licensing marriages, civil unions, polygamy, etc. anyway.
I agree, but all marriage is about is getting benefits and tax breaks anyway. It's the only reason why many low-class people have kids too (that and complete irresponsibility in not being able to keep their crab-infested pussies closed long enough to use protection). So it becomes a government issue because they created their own monster.
I probably should be offended by that, but I'm not. 
A) My wife's pussy was no crab infested.
B) Protection didn't work.
But yeah, definitely a creation of their own monster.
____________________
|
pjstef
| Joined: | Sun Oct 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | New Jersey |
| Posts: | 1319 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 07:44 pm |
|
srossi wrote: DaNkinator wrote: In all honesty, Government shouldn't be in the business of licensing marriages, civil unions, polygamy, etc. anyway.
I agree, but all marriage is about is getting benefits and tax breaks anyway. It's the only reason why many low-class people have kids too (that and complete irresponsibility in not being able to keep their crab-infested pussies closed long enough to use protection). So it becomes a government issue because they created their own monster.
This is an excellent point, and the reason why gov't involvement in many things can create a monster. the propping of Fannie and Freddie show that gov't going into the home loan business can make a big mess, too.
|
srossi
| Joined: | Sun Oct 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | New York USA |
| Posts: | 12851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 07:47 pm |
|
pjstef wrote: srossi wrote: DaNkinator wrote: In all honesty, Government shouldn't be in the business of licensing marriages, civil unions, polygamy, etc. anyway.
I agree, but all marriage is about is getting benefits and tax breaks anyway. It's the only reason why many low-class people have kids too (that and complete irresponsibility in not being able to keep their crab-infested pussies closed long enough to use protection). So it becomes a government issue because they created their own monster.
This is an excellent point, and the reason why gov't involvement in many things can create a monster. the propping of Fannie and Freddie show that gov't going into the home loan business can make a big mess, too.
And thank God for that bailout today. The market really responded well to that (Dow went from 200 up before the announcement to 60 down right now).
____________________
City.com Launches July 31!
http://www.city.com
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=43280019867
http://twitter.com/citydotcom
|
freebirdsforever2001
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 09:20 pm |
|
srossi wrote: DaNkinator wrote: In all honesty, Government shouldn't be in the business of licensing marriages, civil unions, polygamy, etc. anyway.
I agree, but all marriage is about is getting benefits and tax breaks anyway. It's the only reason why many low-class people have kids too (that and complete irresponsibility in not being able to keep their crab-infested pussies closed long enough to use protection). So it becomes a government issue because they created their own monster.
that is why those trail park families and inner city women always seem to have about 10 rugrats running around. they have those kids so they can get that 1st of the month check and tax deduction at the end of the year. it's usually there only legal income of the year.
____________________
i'm not prejudice, i don't like anybody.
|
pjstef
| Joined: | Sun Oct 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | New Jersey |
| Posts: | 1319 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 09:25 pm |
|
freebirdsforever2001 wrote: that is why those trail park families and inner city women always seem to have about 10 rugrats running around. they have those kids so they can get that 1st of the month check and tax deduction at the end of the year. it's usually there only legal income of the year.
As long as government funds it, they will get more of it.
Make the people work for it.
|
BigJ
United States Champion
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 10:26 pm |
|
pjstef wrote: freebirdsforever2001 wrote: that is why those trail park families and inner city women always seem to have about 10 rugrats running around. they have those kids so they can get that 1st of the month check and tax deduction at the end of the year. it's usually there only legal income of the year.
As long as government funds it, they will get more of it.
Make the people work for it.
300 bucks per. Every able bodied and able minded non-dangerous human being in this country that in any way lives dependent on the gov't (that means prisoners too) should be working a fucking 8 hour day.
____________________
The rightful Champion of these United States. Or for you illiterates, El Campeon de los Estados Unidos.
|
HBF
| Joined: | Mon Oct 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | Atlanta |
| Posts: | 7283 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 11:05 pm |
|
dogfacedgremlin34 wrote: HBF wrote: Actually, that game is missing the most widely used term from last night-ENERGY.
And how many times is she going to call it Nuke-u-lor?
The proper term is Nuclear.
I hit dictionary.com which told me a group of idiots mis-pronounce this simple term.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nuclear
Unfortunately, my party's VP candidate is one of them.
It also left off a square for when she does things that are completely inappropriate...like incessantly winking at the camera, or giving a "shout out" (her words, not mine) to a bunch of Alaskan third graders, or delivering lines like "Doggone it" or "Say it ain't so, Joe!"
God this bitch is vapid. All style, zero substance.
I could apply the same principle to Obama.
____________________
Bix: "At least people in the wrestling business who think this have an excuse to think this because they're convinced that life is a work.
You don't have that excuse."
|
dogfacedgremlin34
| Joined: | Fri Feb 8th, 2008 |
| Location: | Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 3700 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 11:23 pm |
|
HBF wrote: dogfacedgremlin34 wrote: HBF wrote: Actually, that game is missing the most widely used term from last night-ENERGY.
And how many times is she going to call it Nuke-u-lor?
The proper term is Nuclear.
I hit dictionary.com which told me a group of idiots mis-pronounce this simple term.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nuclear
Unfortunately, my party's VP candidate is one of them.
It also left off a square for when she does things that are completely inappropriate...like incessantly winking at the camera, or giving a "shout out" (her words, not mine) to a bunch of Alaskan third graders, or delivering lines like "Doggone it" or "Say it ain't so, Joe!"
God this bitch is vapid. All style, zero substance.
I could apply the same principle to Obama.
I highly doubt it. I welcome you to try though; see what you can come up with.
Vapidity scale: Obama = 1, Palin = 7, Paris Hilton = 9.
Last edited on Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 11:27 pm by dogfacedgremlin34
|
Current time is 09:52 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   |
|
|
|