Is there too much division in America?

[The Senator]

Thats fine by me. You can judge me by the Lowes catalog for all I care. When we get to the end of life we'll find out just who was right and just who is in a whole world of trouble to come.

I predict that I'll be a pile of ash sitting in an urn... and since that's happened to most of my relatives, I can only assume I'm right...

 

[Paradoxium]

I don't see any division at all. Maybe disputes in social liberalism and conservativism. Maybe how the money is spent (foreign vs. domestic). But it boils down it, same ******** economic approach. Control this and you control everything else.

Obama is more or the less the same as Bush (and McCain), he merely spends differently in the same way. Different salad dressing, same quantity, same drenched ********.

 

[Addendum]

Thats fine by me. You can judge me by the Lowes catalog for all I care. When we get to the end of life we'll find out just who was right and just who is in a whole world of trouble to come.

oh I really have to be a christian now because that line right there sure done sealed it.

 

[Nitehawk013]

I don't see any division at all. Maybe disputes in social liberalism and conservativism. Maybe how the money is spent (foreign vs. domestic). But it boils down it, same ******** economic approach. Control this and you control everything else.

Obama is more or the less the same as Bush (and McCain), he merely spends differently in the same way. Different salad dressing, same quantity, same drenched ********.

Now that is a terribly depressing view of the overall picture. I hope you are wrong and it isn't truly that bad. LOL.

 

[Paradoxium]

Now that is a terribly depressing view of the overall picture. I hope you are wrong and it isn't truly that bad. LOL.

You roll with it and adapt, and/or change the scenery. You make your own reality, not the government. The government cannot and should not be the barometer of change in your life; this type of thinking is collectivism at its worst.

 

[kedrell]

^QFTMFT!

I love gridlock in government. Just means they're getting nothing done. Since almost everything they do is bad, that strikes me as a good thing.

 

[kedrell]

I like to judge people according to the Constitution.

That might actually mean something if the constitution was immutable. But it's not. According to the left it's a "living document" and thus open to different interpretations depending on who's doing the interpreting. They don't even use the legitimate system for changing it anymore(amendments), since you'll never get that many people to agree with each other. So they get the Supreme Court to get around the whole amendment process.

 

[The Senator]

Yeah, damn that Constitution for being a living document! Getting rid of slavery and giving women the right to vote-- such awful, liberal ideas!

 

[Addendum]

Yeah, damn that Constitution for being a living document! Getting rid of slavery and giving women the right to vote-- such awful, liberal ideas!

And the Supreme Court, makeing Miranda rights necessary, and ending segregation. The nerve

 

[kedrell]

Yeah, damn that Constitution for being a living document! Getting rid of slavery and giving women the right to vote-- such awful, liberal ideas!

Actually they used the process set up in the Constitution to get both of those done, so they have much more legitimacy. That would be the Amendment system. What you lefties want is to circumvent that process when it proves too difficult, just use abortion as an example. Now there's one that needed an amendment if ever I saw one.

 

[kedrell]

And the Supreme Court, makeing Miranda rights necessary, and ending segregation. The nerve

The same court that has the power to do those things can also undo them. Haven't you been paying attention to the arguement? It's not that I have a problem with those two, it's the flaw in the process I'm talking about.

 

[Addendum]

The only flaw is when it's something you disagree with

 

[Excel]

Nope.

 

[Addendum]

If the supreme court made a ruling that kedrell agreed with, he wouldn't complain.

Plus, Congress can also over rule the supreme court by making an amendment, as well as the supreme court reversing itself.

So it all balances out

 

[kedrell]

I wouldn't complain? Nice of you to do my thinking for me. I might agree with a descision but still think it's a crappy way to go about implementing it. I'm all for abortion actually(I just don't like kids), but I wish we in the USA had gotten it the way some European countries did which was by legislative action rather than judicial action. That at least is much more democratic.

 

[The Senator]

Actually they used the process set up in the Constitution to get both of those done, so they have much more legitimacy. That would be the Amendment system. What you lefties want is to circumvent that process when it proves too difficult, just use abortion as an example. Now there's one that needed an amendment if ever I saw one.

Yeah, and don't forget banning gays from being able to marry. That's such an important amendment too. Oh, and flag burning. Sounds awesomely necessary.

Maybe the Republicans should have pursued such an amendment when they had a chance...

 

[kedrell]

^Maybe they should have, if it was so important to them. I really don't care since I don't consider gays a minority the same as oh, say Black people are or Jewish people are. To me gays are people who choose to engage in what has for most of history been considered a act that is taboo. But it's still a behavior. No one chooses their ethnicity thus it should not in any way be held against them. What the people of this country need to do officially is determine what category they want to place homosexuals in. Settle this already, people!

 

[The Senator]

^Maybe they should have, if it was so important to them. I really don't care since I don't consider gays a minority the same as oh, say Black people are or Jewish people are. To me gays are people who choose to engage in what has for most of history been considered a act that is taboo. But it's still a behavior. No one chooses their ethnicity thus it should not in any way be held against them. What the people of this country need to do officially is determine what category they want to place homosexuals in. Settle this already, people!

I didn't choose my sexuality. Neither do most homosexuals. And just because society considers homosexuality a taboo subject, that doesn't mean homosexuals should be denied their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as defined by the founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence, as long as those rights do not infringe upon the same rights to others.

Society considered black people to be inferior savages two hundred years ago, and even went as far to use them in slave labor. I wouldn't dare say that society had the best judgment back then.

 

[kedrell]

I didn't choose my sexuality. Neither do most homosexuals. And just because society considers homosexuality a taboo subject, that doesn't mean homosexuals should be denied their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as defined by the founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence, as long as those rights do not infringe upon the same rights to others.

Society considered black people to be inferior savages two hundred years ago, and even went as far to use them in slave labor. I wouldn't dare say that society had the best judgment back then.

Well of course gays are going to say that. They'd be up s**t-creek w/o a paddle in this arguement if they didn't. That doesn't make it so though. And you know what, even if that is true, it's still a behavior, i.e. something they have to actively engage in. Black people don't have to engage in being black in order to be african americans. But gays can't prove they're born with it. As of yet they haven't discovered any 'gay' gene. Now I don't have a problem whatsoever with gays getting married. But gays tend to support other things like the Democratic Party and it's support of the totally unconstitutiional progressive tax system that they've foisted upon this country. So I really can't give two s**ts about their rights when they're en masse behaving like hypocrites with regards to the constitution.

 

[danoyse]

Well of course gays are going to say that. They'd be up s**t-creek w/o a paddle in this arguement if they didn't. That doesn't make it so though. And you know what, even if that is true, it's still a behavior. But they can't prove they're born with it. As of yet they haven't discovered any 'gay' gene. Now I don't have a problem whatsoever with gays getting married. But gays tend to support other things like the Democratic Party and it's support of the totally unconstitutiional progressive tax system that they've foisted upon this country. So I really can't give two s**ts about their rights when they're en masse behaving like hypocrites with regards to the constitution.

And why does the gay community have to come up with scientific evidence to prove that they're no different than we are? I'm straight, and I know I didn't choose to be. I just am. And I don't believe there's a gene proving that I'm straight either--yet none of us have ever had to make the argument that there is one. We're no different than they are when it comes to who we love.

 

[The Senator]

Well of course gays are going to say that. They'd be up s**t-creek w/o a paddle in this arguement if they didn't. That doesn't make it so though. And you know what, even if that is true, it's still a behavior, i.e. something they have to actively engage in. Black people don't have to engage in being black in order to be african americans. But gays can't prove they're born with it. As of yet they haven't discovered any 'gay' gene. Now I don't have a problem whatsoever with gays getting married. But gays tend to support other things like the Democratic Party and it's support of the totally unconstitutiional progressive tax system that they've foisted upon this country. So I really can't give two s**ts about their rights when they're en masse behaving like hypocrites with regards to the constitution.

So, because gays tend to vote for the Democratic Party, that means they don't deserve rights?

I guess that means you think blacks should go back to wearing shackles and drinking out of "special" water fountains, considering upwards 90% of the African American population has voted for the Democratic presidential ticket since 1976, and every African American in Congress is a Democrat.

 

[SuBe]

Well of course gays are going to say that. They'd be up s**t-creek w/o a paddle in this arguement if they didn't. That doesn't make it so though. And you know what, even if that is true, it's still a behavior, i.e. something they have to actively engage in. Black people don't have to engage in being black in order to be african americans. But gays can't prove they're born with it. As of yet they haven't discovered any 'gay' gene. Now I don't have a problem whatsoever with gays getting married. But gays tend to support other things like the Democratic Party and it's support of the totally unconstitutiional progressive tax system that they've foisted upon this country. So I really can't give two s**ts about their rights when they're en masse behaving like hypocrites with regards to the constitution.

I'm one of the Conservative/Libertarian Posters on this forum. I like to think I have a pretty good handle on most Political subjects and trivia.

With that Said, when did you choose your sexuality?

 

[kedrell]

So, because gays tend to vote for the Democratic Party, that means they don't deserve rights?

I guess that means you think blacks should go back to wearing shackles and drinking out of "special" water fountains, considering upwards 90% of the African American population has voted for the Democratic presidential ticket since 1976, and every African American in Congress is a Democrat.

No, because they support unconstitutional practices themselves(so do most african americans btw) they're claim that they're constitutional rights be acknowledged doesn't hold the impetus it otherwise would. And I'm not just talking about taxes. There's the 2nd amendment as well which most libs would love to erase from the constitution. If they're gonna act like hypocrites, then I really don't care what crap they have to live with.

 

[The Senator]

No, because they support unconstitutional practices themselves(so do most african americans btw) they're claim that they're constitutional rights be acknowledged doesn't hold the impetus it otherwise would. And I'm not just talking about taxes. There's the 2nd amendment as well which most libs would love to erase from the constitution. If they're gonna act like hypocrites, then I really don't care what crap they have to live with.

I'll take that as an endorsement for the resurrection of segregation, then

 

[kedrell]

I'm one of the Conservative/Libertarian Posters on this forum. I like to think I have a pretty good handle on most Political subjects and trivia.

With that Said, when did you choose your sexuality?

Are you seriously trying to equate homosexuality with heterosexuality. Somewhere there are a bunch of biologists laughing. That said, of course I didn't choose my sexuality. But if I engage in heterosexual sex, it also is a behavior. What's you're point?