The OAO State of the Union address thread

[MrRant 0]

I never said that laws should be made to allow people to commit hate crimes. Please show me where I did. I don't think the goverment should try and promote segragation in any private organization. Let the morons that want to see their business possibly go under by not hiring the smartest person because of their color/sex. It's totally within their right as the business owner. Public organizations yes like I stated, but not private.

 

So people hating someone makes America an unjust country eh? Again. As long as someone is not causing violence or harrasing someone in a way to make their life unliveable then it's fine. If Joe Bob wants to sit on his porch and curse the day that black people came to this land then fine. He's not doing any harm.

 

Those though that drag a black man from a truck until he's dead because of his color need to be executed as it's murder no matter the color and color is a poor reason to murder a man.

 

I'm amazed at how you have come conclusions of what my views are when I have never stated them.

 

Learn to read Eric. Please. Or go and drive a hybrid or something.

[Guest sek69]

I never said that laws should be made to allow people to commit hate crimes. Please show me where I did.

 

Loss's whole argument was how the government is trying to pass anti-gay laws and you went apeshit on him over it, which a reasonable person would assume meant you had the opposing point of view on the matter.

[MrRant 0]

No, my issue is his whining about how he is vunerable and persecuted in every thread he taints. And also his way of going about his stance and his intolerance for those that don't agree with his lifestyle but yet wanting to force them to accept him.

 

I've said repeatedly in this thread and other threads that gays should concede the word marriage and instead fight for civil unions so that the benefits are there. I think any "partnership" should be able to have those rights. I don't agree with the party that will harp and bring further harm to their stance by pushing away reasonable people who would probably be perfectly fine with civil unions but disagree with the word marriage being applied to homosexuals due to moral and/or religious reasons.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

If you don't like gay people, don't have sex with them.

 

If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Well I can't help but get behind the push to privatize Social Security after this awesome, lucid explanation of the plan by Mr. Bush:

 

Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised.

Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.

 

Okay, better? I'll keep working on it.

[NoCalMike 0]

Well I can't help but get behind the push to privatize Social Security after this awesome, lucid explanation of the plan by Mr. Bush:

 

Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised.

Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.

 

Okay, better? I'll keep working on it.

I know Bush is a pretty poor speaker and all, but come on man, that HAS to be chopped up or something. That can't be what he actually said ala a direct quote....could it!?!

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Well with that kind of in-depth understanding, I'm sure he sees the realities of the situation and is not doing this as a favor or a stunt.

 

I was awaiting the debate about what he really said and what the reporter said he said, but this is from the actual White House page. Holy crap, he's totally lost.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Even if you believe people should be allowed to hate anyone...

Yes. People should be allowed to hate anyone. That's their freedom.

 

even if you believe the government shouldn't try and promote acceptance and integration instead of bigotry

 

Forcing people to accept a change in the definition of "marriage" isn't promoting "acceptance," in fact, it will do just the opposite.

 

It is one thing to allow people to hate.  It is another thing to allow people to create laws that make their hate law.

 

So not allowing gay marriage = hate law? Gotcha.

 

There are a lot of REALLY stupid people in this country Rant, look in the mirror.

 

Or visit any university, or attend any pseudo-hippie protest.

 

Your views on so many things make you as moral as a nazi or klansman.

 

We discussed at our last conservative brigade meeting that we want the morals of a klansman. If we were to be Nazis we'd have to clean up after ourselves and beccome more organized.

 

Thats what a lot of our constituion MEANS.

 

I'm sure Ben Franklin, Washington and Jeffereson were thinking of gay marriage when writing the Constitution -- hell, with all those men in that one room, away from their wives, they were probably in the middle of an orgy while editing each amendment.

 

I would love to meet your so-called Gay/Lesbian friends, and find out if you're actually friends, and find out if they know you feel this way about them.  Because your opinions in this are pretty terrible.

 

You know, the funny thing about all this is that people like myself and Rant are some of the more tolerant people you will face on the opposite side of this issue. We don't care what two men/women do in the bedroom. We don't care who you leave your estate to. We don't care who you live with. It's just not marriage. Sorry to break it to you. Now if you think people like Rant and myself are hate mongerers (and frankly, I really don't care if you do), then the only way gay marriage will get passed in this country is to have some red diaper doper baby judge on the 9th Circut to make it legal. You would then have to hope that every federal judge out there that doesn't have Gore Vidal or Noam Chomsky on their list of required reading suddenly go missing.

 

There, I responded. Now will you stop filling up my PM box with crap, Rant?...

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I'm sure Ben Franklin, Washington and Jeffereson were thinking of gay marriage when writing the Constitution -- hell, with all those men in that one room, away from their wives, they were probably in the middle of an orgy while editing each amendment.

 

I'm sure they were thinking of black people running around voting and such, too.

 

Benjamin, a white kid, and Jeffrey, a black kid, built a time machine and went back to 1776. Guess who they ran into--George Washington.

 

Benjamin: Oh my Jeffrey. That's George Washington, the father of our country. I have so many things to ask this great man.

 

Jeffrey: AHHHHH! Run, nigga, it's George Washington!

 

Source: Chappelle, Dave

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

It's just not marriage. Sorry to break it to you.

 

 

OH! I'd never had it explained like that before! I see the light now! Thanks for making it so clear, kkk.

 

Whew, and to think all this time I was defending gay marriage.

 

I'd never really had someone clearly break down the argument against it like that before.

[Guest Loss]

Loss, do the words "living will" and "durable power of attorney" mean anything to you?

Still not the same. Married people don't have to jump through so many legal loopholes. There are also other areas where one can't get legal protection. I could very easily testify against my life partner in court, for example.

[Guest Loss]

It is one thing to allow people to hate.  It is another thing to allow people to create laws that make their hate law.

 

So not allowing gay marriage = hate law? Gotcha.

YES! It *is* "hate law". Rant is 100%, absolutely correct that people can hate whoever they want. They do have that right. I oppose legislated hate.

[iggymcfly 0]

Well shit. That gay marriage thing kind of took over the thread didn't it.

 

I just wanted to come in here and celebrate that Bush is finally cutting spending. It would be better if he increased it about tenfold, but at least it's a start.

 

I love how people think that certain programs should never be cut, no matter whether they have enough money to function properly or not. For instance, can you really tell me that $2 billion isn't enough to help the small portion of the population that's over 65, living alone, can't pay their bills, and lives in a northern state pay their heating bills for three months out of the year? He didn't eliminate the program. He just said that they're "only" getting $2 billion. Shit, they could probably handle the whole thing for $1 billion just as easily.

 

The one spending cut I do disagree with is the one eliminating cells for aliens who commt crimes. Apparently, we're in such "imminent danger" from these terrorist cells that we'll let anyone cross the border now, and do whatever the hell they want once they get there. The least Bush could do is keep his stoty straight there. This whole "open up the border" think that Bush seems to be pushing so hard seems ridiculous to me.

[Ripper 0]

I love how people think that certain programs should never be cut, no matter whether they have enough money to function properly or not. For instance, can you really tell me that $2 billion isn't enough to help the small portion of the population that's over 65, living alone, can't pay their bills, and lives in a northern state pay their heating bills for three months out of the year? He didn't eliminate the program. He just said that they're "only" getting $2 billion. Shit, they could probably handle the whole thing for $1 billion just as easily.

Its not just for the elderly, its just that a large percentage goes to the elderly. it is for low income families that can't afford the gas bill. But yeah, 2.2 down to 2 billion isn't that big of a deal. There are plenty of things that he is cutting that I see problems with though, but this isn't one of them.

[Guest Loss]

On the subject of social security, I actually don't think the idea is horrible, but what raises my suspicions more than anything is that we only have a select list of business to choose from in terms of investment. That just reeks of corporate backscratching, and there is no protection intact in case we have another big business scandal. I don't know that I trust the government that much, but I trust corporate America even less.

 

I'll laugh if Halliburton is one of the choices where he can invest our money.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I just wanted to come in here and celebrate that Bush is finally cutting spending.

 

Hahahahahahahaha -- anything he wants to cut will end up getting at least a 10 percent budget increase.

 

What raises my suspicions more than anything is that we only have a select list of business to choose from in terms of investment.

 

My guess is because Big Brother doesn't want SS investors to put their retirement nest egg into companies like www.badidea.com.

 

YES! It *is* "hate law".

 

This is where I think the Rants of the world are split from the EricMMs of the world. Saying two men can't get married is not hate law, but we're just going to go back and forth on this point, so for now just wait until the 9th Circuit tells us how to live our lives...

[NoCalMike 0]

You know, the funny thing about all this is that people like myself and Rant are some of the more tolerant people you will face on the opposite side of this issue. We don't care what two men/women do in the bedroom. We don't care who you leave your estate to. We don't care who you live with. It's just not marriage. Sorry to break it to you. Now if you think people like Rant and myself are hate mongerers (and frankly, I really don't care if you do), then the only way gay marriage will get passed in this country is to have some red diaper doper baby judge on the 9th Circut to make it legal. You would then have to hope that every federal judge out there that doesn't have Gore Vidal or Noam Chomsky on their list of required reading suddenly go missing.

 

There, I responded. Now will you stop filling up my PM box with crap, Rant?...

Geez, where have I heard that term before, Mr. Michael "Savage" Weiner?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Oh bite me -- that term always gets a chuckle out of me. You need some variety other than "commie" and "hippie..."

[NoCalMike 0]

And now for an out of place picture for no reason..........for your approval:

 

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

What do the pro gay marriage people think of privatizing all marriage from the gov't and having only civil unions recognized?

[NoCalMike 0]

What do the pro gay marriage people think of privatizing all marriage from the gov't and having only civil unions recognized?

Not a bad idea, IMO. That way it is the government that is handing out the actual rights & benefits etc...that go with a Civil Union, and then leave it up to a church and/or preacher/rabbi/minister/reverend to marry people, which there will surely be some willing.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Thank God. At least abstinence only sex ed isn't getting a cut! Whew, that was a close one.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

What do the pro gay marriage people think of privatizing all marriage from the gov't and having only civil unions recognized?

Works for me.

[NoCalMike 0]

Thank God. At least abstinence only sex ed isn't getting a cut! Whew, that was a close one.

I figure you are being sarcastic, but at the same time, just in case you weren't, it should go on record that abstinence-only education is failing miserably, as teenage sex accoriding to studies and polls is on the rise in Texas, the birthplace of this "wonderful" idea....

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Thank God.  At least abstinence only sex ed isn't getting a cut!  Whew, that was a close one.

I figure you are being sarcastic, but at the same time, just in case you weren't, it should go on record that abstinence-only education is failing miserably, as teenage sex accoriding to studies and polls is on the rise in Texas, the birthplace of this "wonderful" idea....

Yeah, I was.

 

And no, it's not getting cut. It actually got an increase in the proposed budget.

[The Czech Republic 0]

What do the pro gay marriage people think of privatizing all marriage from the gov't and having only civil unions recognized?

I'm against gay marriage but I think this holds merit.

[EricMM 0]

I'd rather have that then the current situation.

 

I don't really think the govt. should be involved in a religious ceremony. But research has shown repeatedly that married people live longer, usually better lives, IIRC. No I don't have a source.

 

Inasmuch as that's the case, plus the fact that married people are more likely to stay together than people just living together, especially if they see the marriage ceremony as an actual contract w/ God, Marriage is a very good thing. I just wish it would be given to all peoples. Marriage is good for a man and a woman, and it'd also be good for a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

 

And on Abstainance Only sex-ed, my response is a big giant HA!. That abortion of a federal program has GOT to go. The only thing they can say about condoms is what they can't do? If every teen couple used a condom instead of going bareback, wouldn't that be a good thing? Pill or not, diseases get around...

[Styles 0]

The "privatise all marriage" idea will never happen because it would take a massive re-writing of the tax code, which explicitly recognises "marriages", which isn't going to happen.

 

My Q&D is similar to Rant's (without the slurring and gay baiting). Gays need to not put the horse before the cart. Marriage is a deeply sacred insititution for a majority of Americans, who right or wrong, do not agree with the gay lifestyle being given "mainstream" acceptance (my personal theory is because they don't want to confuse their children who will no doubt ask them embarassing questions about it, and thus would rather avoid the issue all together then possibly be forced to explain it to their children who might percieve it as a lifestyle choice they might want to make).

Anyway, like I was saying, the compromise needs to be on civil unions. Across the nation, because doing by state would never work do the full faith and credit clause. Make the civil unions have the same legal rights as a marriage would just without it being called "marriage". This way everyone (except for the most militant of gays who do their cause no good by being confrontational about this, and scaring away even the moedrates who they need on their side) is happy. Gays get their rights (and can even call it a marriage amongst themselves), while the majority who is not comfortable compromising an institution like marriage really wouldn't have any argument. 10 years down the line, as mentioned with society possibly becoming more accepting, the marriage issue could be reviewed.

Anyone who can't see why going all out and compromising marriage wouldn't upset a lot of people is simply dilluted while anyone who at the same time can't accept civil unions (with all the rights granted) in just being stubborn.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Well said.

[2GOLD 0]

Basically, that's the size of it.

The country isn't ready for the marriage name to be attached and by constantly pushing, the side that don't want it hooked to marriage are going to react and react in a much darker way.

 

Civil Unions with benefits for now, get the marriage word tacked on later.