Grant Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 So let me get this right. Anybody who didn't vote like you did is an idiot? Wow. You really ARE amazing, Grant. Just those that can't even spell at a third grade level (rolly), and those that have a difficult time reading for comprehension (yourself). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Were you trying to insult me? Or declare intellectual superiority? Honestly? You couldn't even bother to use proper capitilization or grammar, and you're saying I'm uneducated. Hilarious. Well, at least you're confirming that most of the votes that went for Bush were from people barely able to operate at a functional level. 100260[/snapback] I challenge that, and also your capability of having the slightest idea of what you are talking about. I wasn't "frightened" into voting for Bush and probably have forgotten more about those particular issues than you ever knew. I don't appreciate being considered barely able to operate at a functional level simply because i did not vote for Kerry. I didn't vote for Kerry because I do operate at a functional level. I can make equally as good an argument for those who voted Democrat yesterday as a confirmation of who can think and who can not, but since neither is the truth why should I? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I challenge that, and also your capability of having the slightest idea of what you are talking about. I wasn't "frightened" into voting for Bush and probably have forgotten more about those particular issues than you ever knew. I don't appreciate being considered barely able to operate at a functional level simply because i did not vote for Kerry. I didn't vote for Kerry because I do operate at a functional level. I can make equally as good an argument for those who voted Democrat yesterday as a confirmation of who can think and who can not, but since neither is the truth why should I? 100286[/snapback] Now you know how a lot of the lefties feel when your side's morons show their colors with broad strokes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grant Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Go ahead. TRY and make a good argument for why I obviously have no idea what I'm talking about (when I haven't said much yet). Because all that post said was, "I didn't vote for Bush because I was duped by his campaign and I'm not easily influenced, I promise. In fact, it's the people voting democrat that are stupid and I could prove it but I don't want to right now, that way maybe my arrogance will scare you off and I won't have to back up what I say." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Now you know how a lot of the lefties feel when your side's morons show their colors with broad strokes. 100294[/snapback] I'd be tempted to think this might be one of either of our usual suspects in disguise, having fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 The problem with THAT argument, Brandon, is that you're saying that certain people's beliefs are more important than others. Some people think gay marriage is a "sin". NOT EVERYONE believes that. Some people are tolerant! Of course, if we decide to let the religious right rule our lives, all gay people would have to die (it's in the same book that the same people quote when arguing against gay marriage). Also, anyone that's ever had sex with their wife when she was on her period would have to die, according to the Bible. In time, we will look back upon this period and shake our heads in embarassment and wonder why some people tried so hard to prevent people from loving each other. 100270[/snapback] I didn't need a piece of paper or government blessing to love my wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 The problem with THAT argument, Brandon, is that you're saying that certain people's beliefs are more important than others. Some people think gay marriage is a "sin". NOT EVERYONE believes that. Some people are tolerant! Of course, if we decide to let the religious right rule our lives, all gay people would have to die (it's in the same book that the same people quote when arguing against gay marriage). Also, anyone that's ever had sex with their wife when she was on her period would have to die, according to the Bible. In time, we will look back upon this period and shake our heads in embarassment and wonder why some people tried so hard to prevent people from loving each other. 100270[/snapback] I'm not arguing the whether their views are correct or not. I am simply explaining why many voters consider this to be a very important issue and one that Democrats should not take lightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grant Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 I didn't need a piece of paper or government blessing to love my wife. 100310[/snapback] But, boy you'll be thankful for that piece of paper if one of you were hospitalized, wouldn't you? If you and your wife weren't legally married, and she was in a coma, you realize you would not be able to see her or have any say on life support? Because you're not related, legally or blood, and that's all hospitals would care about. And I don't think you're complaining about that piece of paper when companies say they only insure spouses and not civil unions. And if one of you died and you weren't legally married, wouldn't you be wanting that piece of paper so you might be entitled to your lover's inheritance, instead of it going to her blood family, who may or may not even like or accept your relationship? Makes it hard to pay for a funeral. It's ridiculous that we don't care if people get married on a drunken fling in Vegas, but people that've been together their entire lives can't enjoy the legal benefits as heterosexual marriages. I can't believe you even tried that argument, Darin. You're smarter than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alg Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 One major reason that I voted for Bush and have the love for him that I do is that I honestly feel that Liberalism has divided this country and has more to do with it's downward spiral than any one person could be held accountable for. GB is the man in charge but the big picture says that the peace and love, punish the rich, give to the poor, freedom of speechers and gay loving underbelly of this country has more to do with our division and lack of respect on the worldwide scale than what the President could ever do. Just my opinion but I feel that this country has been spinning downward for the last 15 years and Liberalism has everything to do with that and not who sits in the Oval office!! 99667[/snapback] Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 But, boy you'll be thankful for that piece of paper if one of you were hospitalized, wouldn't you? If you and your wife weren't legally married, and she was in a coma, you realize you would not be able to see her or have any say on life support? Because you're not related, legally or blood, and that's all hospitals would care about. And I don't think you're complaining about that piece of paper when companies say they only insure spouses and not civil unions. And if one of you died and you weren't legally married, wouldn't you be wanting that piece of paper so you might be entitled to your lover's inheritance, instead of it going to her blood family, who may or may not even like or accept your relationship? Makes it hard to pay for a funeral. It's ridiculous that we don't care if people get married on a drunken fling in Vegas, but people that've been together their entire lives can't enjoy the legal benefits as heterosexual marriages. I can't believe you even tried that argument, Darin. You're smarter than that. 100597[/snapback] It has nothing to do with the point I was making and I'm not against gay marriage, which I have stated numerous times. Virtually everything in your post goes back to too MUCH government, not too little. Hence my stance. I think private entities have the right to deny insurance benefits, just as people have the right not to take jobs for the same reasons. If someone wants to explain how getting raped on my taxes every year for being married is a benefit, I'm all ears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 But, boy you'll be thankful for that piece of paper if one of you were hospitalized, wouldn't you? If you and your wife weren't legally married, and she was in a coma, you realize you would not be able to see her or have any say on life support? Because you're not related, legally or blood, and that's all hospitals would care about. And I don't think you're complaining about that piece of paper when companies say they only insure spouses and not civil unions. And if one of you died and you weren't legally married, wouldn't you be wanting that piece of paper so you might be entitled to your lover's inheritance, instead of it going to her blood family, who may or may not even like or accept your relationship? Makes it hard to pay for a funeral. It's ridiculous that we don't care if people get married on a drunken fling in Vegas, but people that've been together their entire lives can't enjoy the legal benefits as heterosexual marriages. I can't believe you even tried that argument, Darin. You're smarter than that. 100597[/snapback] Oh, OK. I get his drift. Know where he is coming from now. And there's nothing wrong with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grant Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 I'm all for less government, too, brother. But where as you seem to be only concerned with less government fiscally, I want less government PERIOD. Which means, who cares if gay people want to get married? Why in the world are we fighting it so much? Why shouldn't they be entitled to the same benefits as heterosexual marriages? I'm waiting for someone to provide a reasonable argument for it, and I'm hearing crickets. And I don't think it's right for private entities to discriminate based on things like that. I want less government, BELIEVE ME, but we should not encourage ignorance and bigotry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grant Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Oh, OK. I get his drift. Know where he is coming from now. And there's nothing wrong with that. 100663[/snapback] I really shouldn't even dignify this with a response, because this might be the most childish thing I've ever read. If I support black civil rights, that must mean I'm black, right? Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 I'm all for less government, too, brother. But where as you seem to be only concerned with less government fiscally, I want less government PERIOD. Which means, who cares if gay people want to get married? Why in the world are we fighting it so much? Why shouldn't they be entitled to the same benefits as heterosexual marriages? I'm waiting for someone to provide a reasonable argument for it, and I'm hearing crickets. And I don't think it's right for private entities to discriminate based on things like that. I want less government, BELIEVE ME, but we should not encourage ignorance and bigotry. 100665[/snapback] I don't know where you got that idea. Like I said, I'm not against it. About the only issue I have is adoption (against). We obviously encourage ignorance and bigotry. How else does one explain Democrats and Republicans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grant Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Good point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts