NoCalMike

*runs away from this thread....FAST*

hint: War On Terror :hint "pre-emptive strike" Unless Cheney is solely speaking about Afganistan, because the Iraqi War is a war we definately started.

On the radio here they just played a clip of Cheney speaking, I am not sure if it was from his speech last night or something new today, but the played the quote, "We are in a war we didn't start, but we will finish" A war we DIDN'T START!?! Umm.....WTF? If Kerry doesn't speak out on that quote, he is a damn fool.

Nope, the Amendment defines marriage as between a man and a woman. A state can EXPAND that if they wish. They can always go ABOVE the rule of the Constitution if they choose to do so --- they just can't do LESS. Real simple: Amendment defines marriage as between a man and a woman. A state can opt to include homosexuals in this if they so desire. Other states will NOT be required to do so, nor will they be required to acknowledge it. It's the only possible path to leave it up to the states. -=Mike Here is my problem with the whole "state's rights" thing though. CA passed medical marijuana initiative time and time again, yet the Feds keep trying to raid the offices here. So how strong exactly are state laws when it comes to unique issues like these that divide a nation. I mean your beer law analogy is cute and all, but it doesn't exactly inspire a nation to divide and envoke passion.

Oh ok, so it is ok for Bush/Cheney/Zell to change.....but for Kerry, "times chaning" = !~LOLFLIPFLOP2004~! 9/11 changed a lot of things. But, hey, nice to see you admit that Kerry can't make a stand. It's even funnier because his base is so divided that he CAN'T even try to do so. -=Mike Well I'm not voting for Kerry, remember? I am not trying to argue that he is a strong candidate or anything, I am just pointing out the double standard. As far as 9/11 changing things.....yeah it's called the Patriot Act. Other then that, I am not sure exactly what it changed.

Oh ok, so it is ok for Bush/Cheney/Zell to change.....but for Kerry, "times changing" = !~LOLFLIPFLOP2004~!

I am forgetting that? I think YOU are forgetting that your man in the whitehouse who wants a constitutional amendment is forgetting that. So what I take from your statement is that if states want to allow gay marriage, then they can do so, right?

all the love for me.. this thread.. Gay marriage throwup: comparing gays to the Black struggle.. No one can debate my point of Polygamists/Nambla wanting the same things.All sexual-related groups wanting things that skate up-hill. Let's say I'm a polygamsist and I wanna marry me a second bride,my first wife has no problem with it ,second knows about the first one.Last time I checked we are all.. 1.Consenting adults. 2.Backed by many people and movements proly even more than the gays. 3.Born into polygmay/lifestyle/culture/ So why can't we all get hicthes? Remember it's part of my life so if i don't get what I want it's conidered DISCRIMINATION and equal to slavery&Jim Crow,so step lightly. No one is comparing one struggle to another. Can you read? The issue of which struggle is more and harder or more oppressive is as irrelevent as your opinion on homosexuality being a fad(which in fact if true would date as far back as that "prostitution" fad, lol). The issue is discrimination and civil rights. When minorities wanted equal rights, I am sure there were the same filthy bigots making arguments such as "if we give a black man rights, does that mean I have to give my dog rights, what about a arangantang, does he gets rights too....." Some hogwash, different year.

I tend to agree with the opinion that the government cannot force a church to marry anyone, however since we can legally be married by a judge, pretty much stripping any and all religious sentiment from the act itself, I don't see why a judge should not be able to perform marriage for a gay couple. Most of the folks in the government that want gay marriage banned are not doing it to "protect marriage" otherwise you would see them out there doing something more constructive related to marriage and keeping them together. Moreso, they are doing it because according to their god, homosexuality is wrong, so they have made it a life long mission to dehumanize gays as much as possible. The denial of marriage rights is just another step some are taking in order to keep the public view of homosexuals as less then equal, different, subhuman etc.....Their worst nightmare is for gays to be living side by side with the rest of us as "normal" law-abiding, citizens. And furthermore, I still haven't seen one single halfway decent argument against Civil Unions/full marital rights/benefits without the term "marriage"

Isn't it a FACT that Cheney voted the same way Kerry did on defense and miliatry budgeting every single time in the past 20 years with the exception of 3 instances? Also, I am sorry, but Zell Miller came off as a blithering fool. I know technically he has a (D) next to his name but I am thinking it stands for Dixiecrat. I don't care what political party he associates himself with, last night he came off APPEARING LIKE the stereotypical, old, angry, bitter blue-hair republican. Not to metion the fact that the transcript from a speech he gave a couple of years ago CONTRADICTS just about EVERY SINGLE, talking point he gave at the convention. Those big blown up pics in some people's sigs in this thread remind me of CAIN from the Poltergeist movies.

I hate to admit this, but besides Zell Miller's debacle of an attempt to attack Kerry, I'd say the RNC has been more effective then the DNC. Their tactics have just been more organized and focused. Also I truly think Kerry's "after all this, I'd still vote for the war blah blah" bush-lite approach will come back to haunt him. The Democrats held a trump card, which was the ability to differentiate the Iraq War from "The War on Terrorism" the ball was in their court, they had an oppurtunity to bring up that Bush did a 180 shift from Bin Ladin/Afganistan and turned straight towards Iraq before the "mission was accomplished' He could have easily stated that Osama Bin Ladin is a name that has dissapeared from Dubya's vocabulary ever since the start of the Iraq war, and that Bush's focus and purpose definately changed. I think there was enough substance to argue these points whether everyone on this board agrees with them or not. To me, Kerry totally dropped the ball with the Vietnam schtick, and should have focused on why Bush TODAY has been a disaster for foreign policy.....I am kind of depressed, but at the same time not really suprised.

Oh and this thread really should be in Current Events

Not only that, but America remains one of the few democratic countries that is a winner take all system. In almost every other democratic country, getting 5%(or even less) of the vote still counts towards something and is acknowledged, like seats in the hose, or on the board or whatever.... I really do like the idea of a "none of the above" option, because I think the majority of american are disillusioned and don't truly in their hearts like any of the candidates, but are afraid of outright NOT VOTING, because of the guy the dislike MORE, winning. So what would be the next step if the "none of the above" option won? Would they have to have a run-off election? Would it be more then 2 candidates?

do video game chick count since it is technically animation? If so, some of those DOA girls are hot.

Considering there have been about 500,000 protestors through NYC since Sunday, I'd say 1,200 arrests is pretty good, and about 99% of the arrests were for something like civil disobedience, which is nothing really shocking or evil. As for that ONE GUY who beat up the police officer, he should get the book thrown at him in the fastest way possible. However that was ONE GUY out of over 100,000.

Who in their right mind would pay$750 for a WM ticket. I don't care if it is a front row seat, that is assinine.

Holly Wood from Cool World......

you'd think it would hit one of the big three networks since they are pretty much no-selling the conventions. I mean what else is there going on?

ermm.....please tell me you don't actually believe that.

The problem seems to be that universal condemnation of terrorism seldom eminates from the centers of Islam. Islam is DESPERATELY in need of a Martin Luther-like figure. No religion has EVER needed it more. -=Mike I agree, Islam needs some MAJOR leaders/faces to come out and condem the terrorists and maybe talk to the world about how these people are the scum of the earth and do not represent the mainstream islamic opinion. However the best we get is a random professor from a university on a late-night talk show. That is one huge thing missing from this, there is no big major opposing voice within the Muslim population.

WTF is this all about? Trying to identify with the blue collar man? Gimme a freakin' break. As opposed to Kerry campaigning about 'getting money and power out of Washington'...................... Or Bush in 2000 talking about being an "Outsider" to Washington?

well considering it is probably a load of BS...."driving miles and miles in an Oldsmobile" uh-huh, riiiiiiight. I didn't know Oldsmobile made private jets.

WTF is this all about? Trying to identify with the blue collar man? Gimme a freakin' break.

Loss, how much did the 1992 GOP Convention hurt Bush? A lot, by all accounts. And none of it was because of anything Bush said. Your supporters can kill your candidacy quite easily. -=Mike I agree to an extent, but a lot of people on the streets right now aren't even Kerry supporters. They are there to protest the RNC, not to support Kerry.

yet at the same time I bet you tout the "I voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it" quote on a daily basis, knowing full well it was out of context. As well as the Kerry testimony talking about atrocities in Vietnam told to him by accounts of others, yet is cut and pasted in commercials and soundbytes to make it seem otherwise....... Seems pretty much in context. As for atrocities --- from that same Meet the Press: As usual, you seem to think he ONLY discussed that in his Senate testimony and not elsewhere. Care to explain where, in THIS quote, Kerry implies ANYTHING but "I"(Kerry) doing this? -=Mike The first quote was a small snippet of an interview, therefore will be ignored. The second one, was not referring the senate hearings that everyone is so outraged about. I do not recall hearing people in the media talking about Meet the Press, moreso they complain ad naseum about the senate hearings, which is specifically and exclusively referring to.