BethFromVA

*snicker* *double snicker*

Would they belong to the same bogus organizations as those few scientists who claim that global warming really exists? :thumbup: By the way, what is stealing from Peter to pay Paul doing for us so far? Sounds to me like Paul keeps squandering Peter's hard-earned dough and Peter just keeps getting more broke.

Actually that was BJean, not Nancy. And I see nobody wants to take a stab at the quote I listed before: "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." So is this simply an issue on the religious right? If so, then can somebody explain why your president said the words above? Also, Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which states that: No state (or other or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. The federal government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states. Clinton also said: "I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered." So for those who keep harping that this is a right-wing/religious zealot issue, it seems to me that a couple of your guys did and still do oppose gay marriage. And when called upon to do something about it, they either spoke out against it (and *gasp* the messiah almost said word for word what Miss C did) or, in Clinton's case, signed legislation hindering it.

I guess my simplistic view simply looks at the odds in the numbers. But yes, I agree that they would be fighting an uphill battle.

Because the country is run by thugs and mafioso-types. There is no reason Mexico shouldn't be wealthy in its own right. Until the people of that country decide to overtake IT instead of the US, we will continue to be brought down and the American dollars returned to Mexico will continue to make the rich richer.

Tank ya. I wubs her. :thumbup:

Unless they're the right kind of belly shots, of course: Tequila slurped out of the belly button of some hot Adonis. :thumbup:

So... hater and bigot or somebody justified in what they believe: "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

THANK YOU, Jack! Omg, I missed this. I guess it's because I just can't stomach to thoroughly read a lot of what she says. This guy spent more in the first 60 DAYS in office than ALL PRIOR PRESIDENTS did COMBINED. But I guess she would only read and utilize this information if Bush pulled the criminal antics that the Bama is.

Who is "all," though? People who belong to NAMBLA want to marry little boys. They believe it is within their right to do so because they have a "legitimate" love for children the same as I love men or lesbians love women, etc. I'm not saying that being gay is akin to being a pedophile, but what I am saying is that there are those who believe they are in the same boat as gay people -- misunderstood individuals. It could go on to such extremes as to make one's head spin.

Okay, mostly I'm yanking your chain because you never fail to entertain. :thumbup: HOWEVER, the fact is, marriage was a religious institution before it ever became what some believe is a governmental one. You want separation of church and state, but in THIS case it appears you simply want to redefine a religious institution. AND you want people who believe it to be a religious institution to roll over and let go of our beliefs to appease those who abhor what we stand for. Hm, a bit of a panacea if I do say so. It's not quite fair to scream, "Separation of church and state," but when I say marriage is religious and keep out of it, THEN all of a sudden you want these two entities linked. Bizarre. You don't want the religious to dictate state matters; the same goes the other way. The religious (and even some who don't claim religion but simply adhere to the status quo) don't want you coming into our religious union and dictating how we do this.

Fair enough.

I wasn't here then. But again, it shows that even YOU hold dear to things you find in print -- but only if they are anti-Bush. And you say that we have issues looking at all the information presented us?? Hell, I was ALSO riding Bush for many of the decisions he made and things he did. Yet you apparently don't have the ability to speak TRUTH if that truth goes against your messiah. That's a true shame, and it shows your inability to see what's really going on.

BJean, this is beginning to sound like the skit "Who's on First." There IS NO Constitutional right to marriage. Never has been. Since the beginning of time, people have voted as to what they find socially acceptable terms. However, if you want to spin it another way, I will repeat something I said last week sometime: If you truly want separation of church and state, then the STATE/GOVERNMENT has no right to redefine marriage since it's been a RELIGIOUS institution since the beginning.

Apparently only for some on the left. If those things were listed about anybody on the right, you know dang well she would be all up in arms -- and THEN the printed word would be a viable source of information!

You mean I made ya do it? :thumbup: So what is it, I have that much power or you have that little self control? :thumbup:

How well we know, BJean. We've been saying it about your kind for some time now. :frown:

LOL, nice to see your sense of humor. :thumbup: But still, is marriage even a civil right? And I know tons of people who are NOT religious who don't want to see marriage changed. As a society, the PEOPLE have a right to vote on what is acceptable and what is not. You keep saying it is the government that is in the business of denying people these so-called rights, but it is society as a whole who either has or is in the process of specifically defining what they accept as marriage. If the PEOPLE don't want it (and I am all for a state-by-state vote), then I am for the PEOPLE deciding and the government (via the judicial branch) keeping out of it and letting the PEOPLE speak.

But to continually harp on marriage as a "right" is, well, WRONG (no pun intended). However, if you can prove otherwise, I'd LOVE to see it. And for what it's worth, on tax day, the married people are more discriminated against than those who are not. :frown:

I guess it was a slow news week. Yes, Obama did come out afterward to say it wasn't as bad as once thought, but I was very broad when I said "government" said we should never waste a good crisis. In actuality it was Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel. However, I do see that government hypes things up like Henny Penny screaming, "The sky is falling!"

I agree, Wasa. Let's not also forget how our government recently admitted that they should never waste a good crisis. Nowadays I believe they try to create crises through fear mongering in order to control people even more.

BJean, for the umpteenth time, marriage is not a right. If you can prove otherwise, I'd love to see it.

It's been so obvious from the beginning that these "bailouts" were nothing but rewards for democratic cronies. And the left bitches and moans about what they thought Bush was doing! This takes it up a notch. Where Bush allegedly gave contracts for the war to his big business buddies, THIS loser is outright stealing our hard-earned money and financially rewarding unions who voted for him. This guy makes organized crime bosses look like child's play.

ALL of these bailouts are illegal! Since when is it deemed legal to steal from Peter to pay Paul? I already knew these people were a bunch of scheisters and crooks, but now they're blatantly doing it!

What that tells me, Jack, is what I've been saying all along -- and this list proves -- is that this dolt isn't qualified to run a group of Boy Scout much less the United States. The guy is a bigger idiot than Bush was.