NoCalMike

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.......

Arrest in stem-cell lab blast probe Wednesday, September 1, 2004 Posted: 11:57 AM EDT (1557 GMT) BOSTON, Massachusetts (Reuters) -- Police Wednesday arrested a man in connection with last week's pipe bomb explosion at a Boston-area laboratory specializing in stem-cell research. The man had already been charged last year with trying to blow up the same building. The pipe bomb exploded last Thursday morning at the Amaranth Bio laboratory in Watertown, Massachusetts, shattering windows, police said. No one was hurt in the blast. Watertown police said they arrested Brad Karger, 29, on Wednesday morning. He will be arraigned on charges of having placed an explosive device and burning a building. Police said Karger was awaiting trial on charges he tried to cause a gas explosion in the same building in February, 2003. Efforts to reach Karger and his lawyer were not immediately successful. Amaranth's Web site says its technology is focused on organ regeneration and it is working on possible cures for diabetes and liver disorders. The Federal Bureau of Investigations and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms also joined the investigation. Stem-cell research has become the subject of nationwide debate ahead of the U.S. presidential election in November. President Bush has forbidden the use of federal funds to manipulate human embryos and has limited scientific research to a few existing batches of cells. Scientists say this limits a promising field of biological research and medicine based on the potential of the cells, which theoretically can be directed to form any tissue in the body. Democratic candidate John Kerry has said he would rescind Bush's ban.

I think Dennis Miller falls into the category where he agrees with the President on the War, and that trumps every single other issue in his opinion, so he will go to bat for him. This basically all started because he got tired of people comparing Bush to Hitler, so I guess he must have had DEEP conversations with all, what TWO of those people who believed that? At first Dennis tried to do the "I am 100% republican, and have seen the light" act, but I think recently he has toned that act down and kind of still is more liberal with social issues. One thing for sure is, he is highly outclassed when it comes to debate on his own show, and all that happens is, when someone has an opposing view, he just gets frustrated and tries to force a joke which causes the guest to stare blankly back at him.

I don't have a source except for the AM news radio top of the hour news break reports. Supposedly Keyes called homosexuality "selfish hedonism" and then called Dick Cheney's daughter a sinner.......

well see that is another thing, when I was using the terms "liberal" and "conservative" I didn't necessarily mean democrat/republican.

Actually the RNC does have that on MSNBC, it is the same lineup that was at the DNC, and they are all pretty civil in their debating. One difference is though, the DNC got no coverage on the three major networks, and Arnold got his speech along with Laura's on ABC/NBC/CBS........

HAHAHAHAHAHAH! How is life up there in your ivory tower? Liberalism is the very definition of the easy way out. There's no critical thought given to just about every domestic issue; its all about feeeeeelings. Which is why the left appeals to the poor and uneducated and promises government handouts with utter disregard for the the social and economic implications. I dunno, I just figured, "hit me and I'll hit you back" is one of the easier decisions/thought processes known to mankind.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH! How is life up there in your ivory tower? Liberalism is the very definition of the easy way out. There's no critical thought given to just about every domestic issue; its all about feeeeeelings. Which is why the left appeals to the poor and uneducated and promises government handouts with utter disregard for the the social and economic implications. My ASS! Explain how just about every country (outside of the U.S) is getting more and more liberal in its policies. Explain to me how its so easy for liberals to get away with their platforms while Republicans and Conservatives get called every name in the book (racist, homophobe) when they promote their agenda. Being liberal is a breeze. Just spew crap about tolerance and fairness for all and you'll be just fine. Both sides get called names regularly.

Ok, I often hear that the Republican Party(not counting religious whackos) is the majority party/affiliation, and I kind of agree, but I think it is by design and/or nature. By definition, isn't conservatism something along the lines of wanting to keep things the same, and build on the foundation we have and make them stronger, while liberalism calls for constant progressiveness, always wanting things to change and get "better" So by nature, more people are going to want to not bother with stuff, and just keep it the way it is. Now this isn't to say that EVERY IDEA brought up by a liberal for change is a good one or bad one, I am just saying it is the nature of the beast. I think by nature people are more naturally conservative, because a lot of conservative rhetoric and ideals seem very reactionary and a lot of the times to me they seem like the "easy decisions" for example, "we get bombed, you get bombed 100x worse" As where a liberal would be like, "we get bombed, first find out why the hell we were bombed, and try to make it so in the future they won't want us to get bombed anymore" Now I am not trying to say these hypothetical situations are always right or wrong when carried out. I am sure certain ones fit in with certain situations and other times don't work at all. Agree with them or not, to me, it takes a lot more balls to be a liberal, and I think history will show it. Not to say liberals were right in every situation(they certainly were not). (yes, I am bored..... )

Ok here is my take on using 9/11. Quite frankly, I am not upset about using it when it is relevent, however Guliani's speech was about 45 minutes of....."I watched the fireman do their work, I shook hands across NY, I put on a I*heart*NY hat and walked the streets, a man jumped out of a building to his own death. Oh yeah, and vote for Bush. Honestly. I couldn't even tell that the speech was about Bush being a good president, or if Rudy was running for Governor of NY. He never really explained why the aftermath of 9/11 showed Bush to be a strong leader. He kind of threw out that "the taliban heard from us" type statements, however that is flawed since Afganistan was clearly a smokescreen that was rushed through and left unfinished, in order to pave the way for the Iraqi war, which is evidenced by the fact that suicide bombings are still going on there, in fact the other day 7 american civilians were killed from a truck bomb, which receieved maybe a 2 second spot on some obscure media outlet.

1.Polygamy..is between consenting adults.But nooo they people are demanding this so this must be ok.Just like drugs.Uhmmm..coke ...people wanna snort lines so let's legalize that too. But whatver tell me if gay marriages can be legal cuz it's between "consenting adults"(that term is so gay) why not Polygamy? 2.No,cuz it's the same thing. 3.No,cuz it's the same thing. 4.No,cuz it's the same thing. 5.You heard me. What's stopping Polygmysts,let's say from demanding the same things? Or pedo's from starting rallies to let them have pictures of little boys?Ah now they're not hurting the rest of us so it's none of my Business,right?Gay marriage sets a bad precedent. 6.So marriage is not normal now?You wanna know what's not normal..Man-on-Man action.. 7.No. You go to Stanford...or whatver.Marriage will be protected,our familes need to be protected. Once again swine like you compare a loving consenting relationship between two adults, to pedophiles and polygamy.......please stop filling this thread with your vile.

Ok someone explain the phrase, "marriage is an institution" to me. What exactly do you mean by that, and where in the the bill of rights or constitution does it say that it cannot be changed or expanded? Something I really have a problem with is that it seems like a lot of the religious right whackjobs want to keep gays from the marriage right, because in their own sick & morbid minds, they want to gays remaining to be looked at like sub-human, not on the same level as heterosexuals, and somehow outlaws from a "normal" society, and the marriage initiative is an easy way to do it. Just like the Racists wanted to be looked at as superior to blacks and minorities, and integration threatended that, just like gay marriage would be another step towards true EQUALITY. And before someone lays down the "how dare you compare this to that blah blah......." I am making an indirect comparison.

I think you are mistaking the Democratic party with the NAACP. The Democratic party usually makes speeches like, "we have made a lot of progress, but we have still not achieved that goal" While the Republican view is more like, if you aren't a millionaire living out the american dream, it is due to laziness.

I agree, however walking through the rubble of Ground Zero, hardly answers any questions about who will protect us. I mean if you were to take Guliani's speech literally, you'd think the war is over, when in fact Bush said himself the other day that it can't be won(yeah I know it was out of context) but the overall attitude on the "war on terrorism" is starting to change it seems, and it seems like the Republicans are looking to take(or just lying to make it appear so) a more rational approach to Iraq, which this entire time the democrats wanted and said they would have done if in the same situation. So in other words it is almost like conceding that they were wrong about a lot of stuff going in, yet at the same time fail to mention that 50%, THE OPPOSING 50%, were pretty much pleaing with him pre-war, about all this stuff, yet he didn't listen and started dropping bombs. Now that Bush has realized it wasn't like he thought, he is just expecting everyone to take it with a grain of salt, and join him in the new direction, when IMO, it shows to me Bush's plan for post war was a failure and thus we need someone NEW in command. Which to me, totally personifies what the Bush Presidency has represented for four years, NO ACCOUNTABILITY.

isn't marriage only 300 years old anyway?

Please don't vote.

If you are the richest man on your block... You are a Republican! Arnold should have included, "if you promised not to raise college tuition, but now it is in the budget to raise the rates by 50%" you are a Republican.

well ok, but I can care less what a poll says, unless all their votes dictate what the poll says.

We're just going to have to disagree here. I think that saying what happened to him is fine, but I think using it in a re-election effort is disgusting. Not to mention the...."Thank god George W. Bush is our president" line was more fake then the wwe diva contest.

How could anyone not find the "if you want your government to be accountable to the people, you are a republican" line.......I mean since this has been one of the most unaccountable administrations in some time now. Arnold should have replaced "republican" with "moderate democrat" or "RHINO" after his one-liners.

Need I say anymore?

well in that case they must be good friends with the americans who think Saddam had something to do with 9/11..........

Yes, because Stephen Baldwin and Dennis Miller certainly come off as intelligent......

yeah that is what Californian's like JotW thought too, and then he got elected.....and we see how little "great speeches" can mean in the long run.

well I dunno how it is for the local news in NYC, but out here the protestors have gotten ZERO coverage, positively or negatively, literally zero coverage, which is kind of ludicrious, considering 120,000 people marching isn't something to ignore, whether you agree with them or not. I just don't think they can effect the election AT ALL either way when they are being covered.