You're not naive at all; you're spot on. There is no meaningful non-religious response from the right to any of the points you made.
12 Replies
6,030 Views
BulbousHead
0
Posts
0
Replies
115
Reputation
Activists didn't prevent the war, they didn't stop it, and they won't effect any change now. We'll see who wins the election.
15 Replies
3,022 Views
I loved geography and still do, but there's just something about a person who wants to become President of the United States yelling a list of states while turning bright red that rubs me the wrong way. And then there's that primal scream. I think that despite the recent oh-my-gosh-that-Edwards-is-on-fire hype, it's going to be Kerry in the top spot. Unless he calls someone else out of the bullpen, of the people that were or are running for
5 Replies
1,316 Views
One man: Huh?
18 Replies
8,714 Views
Politics in the federal government are tending towards utter destruction of the enemy in any way possible - politcally and personally. Badmouthing one's political opponents is thousands of years old. Do you think the Roman Senate was strictly cool-headed bu
9 Replies
5,815 Views
Heterosexual couples do not have a legal status known as "civil union." They are married or they are unmarried.
12 Replies
6,030 Views
Why do you have to identify who is gay? When a man and a woman get married, they don't have to prove that they're straight; they just have to be one male and one female. Why do you suddenly have to quiz the gay guys?
88 Replies
44,444 Views
What happened while this President was in office was a tax break that the nation couldn't afford.
18 Replies
8,714 Views
Why do you have to define anything? If two people want to get married, they get married; end of story.
12 Replies
6,030 Views
Clinton - Surplus Bush - Deficit
18 Replies
8,714 Views
Then sorry, certain religious people, but you dropped the ball when you mixed church and state and made marriage a governmental function. They just have to suck it up and deal with it now. You won't get the government out of marriage; better to squeeze gay marriage in and call it a day.
12 Replies
6,030 Views
I didn't say it was in the Constitution; I said it was constitutional, which is synonymous with not unconstitutional. Both tactics are completely valid; if the Senate's own rules prevent it from "consenting," then that's the Senate's fault as a whole, not the Democrats'.
9 Replies
5,815 Views
You're just giving it a different name; the point is that conservatives don't want to see gay couples having the same rights as straight couples, regardless of the label you tack onto the legal and social relationship.
12 Replies
6,030 Views
The Democrats are hardly trying anything new; filibustering is almost as old as the Senate itself. It's just as constitutional as Bush's power to appoint judges is. To me, this is not a big deal. Oooh, a group that hates Bush criticized his move as wrong and bad and evil. Big surprise there. It's more of the usual hot air from both sides.
9 Replies
5,815 Views
Don't forget defusing the Cuban Missile Crisis. (And founding the Peace Corps! )
47 Replies
26,458 Views
Hardcore liberals and Greens *love* Carter. Bush the First surprises you? Anyone who would even think about picking him would pick Reagan.
47 Replies
26,458 Views
Suppose a legislature, be it a state legislature or the US Congress, passes a law, and then someone violates that law and is penalized for it. This someone sues, and a state supreme court or the Supreme Court of the United States rules that the law was unconstitutional to begin with. Then the law was never valid, and the person's conduct was never illegal. It is legally possible (though obviously not likely) that the California Supreme Court or the Supreme Court of the United States c
12 Replies
3,445 Views
I don't think getting married constitutes in-your-face conduct. The decision by the mayor of San Francisco is one thing, but the people getting married are just doing what they've been asking to be able to do for years. CNN and Fox put it in your face, not the couples walking out of San Francisco City Hall.
8 Replies
4,349 Views
I think Dean's downfall was a combination of his poor showing in Iowa and his reaction to his poor showing in Iowa. (I was something of a Deanie until his decision to scream that list of US states. That was a real turn-off, and I'm generally not a knee-jerk thinker on these things.) It's been evident since 1789 that the popular vote means nothing; you're kidding yourself if you think the United States is somehow a democracy (not that there's
5 Replies
1,316 Views
Reply to
They think that's going to make me want to eat at Quizno's?
in Movies & TV & Books
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
They're known as the Spongmonkeys; their original incarnation is over a year old (January 2003) and can be found here: http://www.rathergood.com/ Notice that they've taken their original "theme" song and simply Quiznofied it for television.
13 Replies
24,599 Views
If it's truly unimportant, then the President should have no problem admitting to it. (He's had similar problems admitting to his cocaine use.) Abandoning your responsibilities to the armed forces is a serious offense, sometimes punishable by death in time of armed conflict. Just because something occurred in the past, even in the distant past, doesn't mean it is irrelevant; that's why we have a little thing called "history class" in school.
6 Replies
4,390 Views
1. If the idea of waging war against Nazi Germany leaves a bad taste in your mouth (and I think you're alone on that one), then think of it as Roosevelt "liberating France." (Remember: if you call it "liberating a country," you can do whatever you want!) Germany and Italy declared war on us as soon as we declared war on their ally, Japan. If you think the war in Europe was somehow not necessary or otherwise avoidable, you're an idiot. 2. Nobody today likes the Vietnam War. 3
47 Replies
26,458 Views