Props to John Kerry... - Page 3 - Keira Knightley.com Forums
Keira Knightley.com Forums  

Go Back   Keira Knightley.com Forums > Wavefront Community > General Discussion

General Discussion Talk about pretty much anything.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-11-2004, 01:58 PM   Senior Registered Member #41
CFC
Lord Cock Inhaler
 
CFC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: USA, NC
Posts: 528
Try 60%



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mags
I'm a woman, I'm pro-choice, so Bush's second term could affect me a GREAT deal.

It has been estimated that during the next 4 years, we could have to confirm up to 4 more justices to the Supreme Court. With the ailing health of Chief Justice Rehnquist, there will soon be an immediate need for a new Supreme Court Justice. It is quite likely that the Bush administration will seek to name incredibly conservative candidates. With the current conservative justices, the Supreme Court would likely become a conservative powerhouse. Once they have a majority, it's likely that they will seek to reverse current rulings on issues like abortion. And since the Republicans now have a majority in the House and the Senate, it's likely the candidates would be confirmed. This is a very real issue, which could concievably have ramifications for the next 40 years as justices are appointed for life.
I don't support killing babies and I think the supreme court will go conservative. That is the way America leans though so it makes since.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mags
And I'm not gay, but I don't...I don't understand, on any level, what allowing gay marriage does to somehow threaten marriage between a man and a woman. Bush campaigned on that issue, and it is incredibly likely his administration (I'm not going to make the mistake of assuming that Bush has all that much to do with policy decisions) will seek to fulfill that as a way to complete campaign promises.
Gay marrige lost in all states it was on the ballot for. I don't see why gay people can't be happy with a civil union that gives them equal benefits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mags
I find health care to be a huge issue as well. I'm not suggesting nationalized health care. I'm really not. But something needs to be done. The way things are set up now, it is...so difficult to get by on the prescriptions needed with the money available as a senior citizen. It's...so difficult. And making health care and prescriptions more available and affordable is incredibly important to me. The...current legislation being suggested that outlaws getting cheaper prescriptions from Canada...is ridiculous. It's one way our citizens can get affordable medicine, and if it weren't taking profits away from huge drug companies that support so many members of Congress, it wouldn't be this big an issue. We could perhaps *gasp* even negotiate trade that would still allow us to get cheaper medicines and offer them at a lower cost to US citizens.
Social Healthcare sucks and it is anti captialistic. I don't want my taxes going through the roof to pay for somebody elses health.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mags
I don't care as much about foreign issues. I know it's a big deal, and I know that the United States is in a position of power to influence several other countries. But I'm much more concerned about the situation here. We...claim to have gone to this country to make it free...to remove a dictatorial despot. But...if our civil liberties at home are disappearing, if people can't afford the medicine they need...what the fuck are we fighting for? We're trying to...or claiming to...set this example of what a powerful country should do. But we're not taking care of our own citizens. And that pisses me off. If it means we have to become isolationist again to get this done, that's fine with me. Lets get it done.
Last time I check, I was not missing any civil liberties. What civil liberties are you talking about?
__________________
+1
CFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2004, 06:41 PM   Senior Registered Member #42
Ashley
Senior Member
 
Ashley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Kansas
Posts: 594
Quote:
Originally Posted by CFC
Gay marrige lost in all states it was on the ballot for. I don't see why gay people can't be happy with a civil union that gives them equal benefits.
I don't see why they have to settle. I'm not gay either, but I have many friends that are, and they don't want to settle. Does it hurt anyone else if they get married? Fuck no. America is supposed to be "the land of the free" well, it's not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CFC
Last time I check, I was not missing any civil liberties. What civil liberties are you talking about?
You must not have checked since 2001, it's called the US PATRIOT Act. Look it up.
__________________
Ashley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2004, 08:14 PM   Attended an OMGWTFKKWBBQ! KKWiki Contributer Senior Registered Member #43
Hazzle
Sponsored Cunt
 
Hazzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 5,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashley
And I'd think the reporting for duty would be, if it even was a snide comment, a comment on how he actually went to war.
That too. I wasn't berating the man...but he lost...end of story. I'll give him credit for the "reporting for duty" line, and to be honest, though he ran entirely the wrong campaign and was ALWAYS going to lose in my book given his stance on the war...he was largely hamstrung by the fact he had to keep the anti-war democrats (ie the majority) on-side.

The democrats need to resolve their differences...and try and be more moderate. They have to accept that the US electorate right now IS shifting towards conservatism. This is shown by how Bush ran as a hardline conservative and won more votes, and more electoral college votes, than he did running as a moderate conservative last time. I think they should take a leaf out of the Labour Party's book...sell out your idealistic dogma and try and focus on pragmatic electioneering. It needn't be a permanent shift...a temporary one will do...just to return faith in the Democrat party as a party of government. It would also help out winning back Congress, which has to be part of the Democrat agenda too.

I mean under Clinton's successful presidency...didn't the Democrats lose more Governorships and more seats in Congress than under any other president in recent history? I think I remember hearing that stat (but don't quote me on that). Either way...it's got to be a concern for the Democrats that they're losing to conservatism across the board...Governorships...Congress...I think even State legislatures too...

The Patriot Act has yet to be ruled unconstitutional so as yet it's premature to say it actually strips you of any civil rights you had. It may strip you of rights you THOUGHT you had and didn't...people really are poorly educated on what rights they do and do not have...Mags' cab driver is a perfect example, ironically enough.

I disagree with the gay marriage and abortion stance that Bush campaigned on. However people really are forgetting something...Bush can do whatever the fuck he likes as he's not standing for reelection (as he can't). Just a thought...but if I was Bush I wouldn't be reversing abortion law or banning gay marriage UNLESS I felt it would be a good long-lasting legacy to leave. He'd only believe that if he thinks most of America agrees...and whether you personally do or not...the election shows he'd be right to think that. If he makes abortions harder, and ensures that gay marriage stays illegal...then such is life...I may not like it but tough...it's what the majority of America wanted.

I could understand the Democrats being angry after GORE lost, as at least he won the popular vote...but ffs shut up and accept Kerry LOST because MORE people wanted Bush than wanted Kerry...if you don't like it...deal with it. I didn't vote Labour...yet I'm ruled by a Labour government...such is life. Deal with it. I'm sorry, I like both of you girls...but the way democrat voters are behaving makes me sick...you're all behaving like spoilt children. Accept the way things are...the only people to blame? Your own party. The platform Kerry had to campaign on fucked him over...had he managed a better platform on the war...the rest of his policies probably would've won over moderate conservatives...but his STAUNCH anti-war stance fucked him over.

Anyhow...it's done now. To be honest though...whilst I'm pro-choice I totally disagree with the "right" to have an abortion. It's not a constitutionally guaranteed right in my humble belief, as it stems from a "privacy" right that cannot even possibly be read into the text. If there was even the slightest scope for reading the text that way, I'd agree...but to be honest...the only way I'd agree with the abortion right being a legal one would be if the democrats managed to get control of both houses, and the white house, and passed an amendment, which given how much control of both houses is needed...doesn't seem likely to happen. It's a "right" only if the government decides to allow it...a negative right...you might not like it but in my belief that's the proper status of the right to choose.

Gay marriage is also something I agree with, and I actually see more basis for arguing that, since marriage is a legal contract, and freedom of contract is a fundamental tenet of US Common Law. It's also protected under substantive due process in the US Constitution...THAT can be read into the constitution.

Ironically I'd say the US Law is totally the wrong way round. Gay marriage IS ALREADY constitutionally protected...by freedom of contract...and abortion is wrongly protected under the constitutution, when it should be a negative right (ie only if the state allows it). Just my view though...

Either way...I get back to my initial point. Kerry lost...he dealt with it...why can't his supporters?
Hazzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2004, 09:55 PM   #44
marry rich people
Member
 
marry rich people's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: U.S.
Posts: 156
Quote:
Gay marrige lost in all states it was on the ballot for. I don't see why gay people can't be happy with a civil union that gives them equal benefits.
They shouldn't have to settle for just a civil union. If it's ok to let them have a civil union then just let them get married. It doesn't affect anybody else's life. A gay person is still a person and actually, a more courageous person than anybody else.

I'm not totally sure what I think about abortion. I think the type of abortion that is illegal right now (the last-minute type) should remain illegal. However, I think abortion should be allowed with limits on it. It's a little extreme for everybody to run out and get abortions. If someone was raped or really really doesn't want the baby than I totally approve. Some kids will end up with horrible lives because they weren't wanted in the first place and adoption doesn't always work out to well either.
__________________
You say, somethings wrong
This Kind of life style doesn't work
I'm trying something else
For a change, for a change
Thats ok, ok, ok
marry rich people is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2004, 10:24 PM   Senior Registered Member #45
Ashley
Senior Member
 
Ashley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Kansas
Posts: 594
Republican and Democrats both believe partial birth abortions are wrong... they are.
First off, let me say I'm Catholic, and very against having abortions, and thing it is too often used as a form of birth control. However, I believe that abortions should be kept legal within the first trimester. I mean if you're pregnant you should be able to tell if you want the kid within the first 3 months.
If the government somehow makes abortion illegal the ramifications would be terrible. Do they really think abortions would stop? Hope not, or they're living in a dream world. The only think that would do is cause the abortions to be done in places which are less sanitary and more dangerous.
__________________
Ashley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2004, 04:39 AM   Senior Registered Member #46
CFC
Lord Cock Inhaler
 
CFC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: USA, NC
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashley
You must not have checked since 2001, it's called the US PATRIOT Act. Look it up.
I don't have anything to hide, so I am not afraid of the patriot act.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marry rich people
They shouldn't have to settle for just a civil union. If it's ok to let them have a civil union then just let them get married. It doesn't affect anybody else's life. A gay person is still a person and actually, a more courageous person than anybody else.
No, gay people are not more or less courageous then a straight person. I think they are gonna have to settle for civil unions and should, they have all the same benefits of marriage, just a different name.
__________________
+1
CFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2004, 01:04 AM   Attended an OMGWTFKKWBBQ! KKWiki Contributer Senior Registered Member #47
Hazzle
Sponsored Cunt
 
Hazzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 5,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by CFC
No, gay people are not more or less courageous then a straight person. I think they are gonna have to settle for civil unions and should, they have all the same benefits of marriage, just a different name.
But why the different name? A marriage is just a contract...it has no other meaning other than that...a marriage IS actually nothing more than a "civil union"...no...it is NOT a religious bond...it is a CONTRACTUAL ones...we don't stop gay people contracting to buy goods, or contracting to procure services...I'm sure we don't stop gay people contracting for jobs...so why not marriage, which is nothing more than a contract?

Are now saying gay people have unequal right to contract?! That's rather an extreme thing...so gay people can't buy things now?!

See where the far right conservative view ends up? At its logical conclusion it means gay people can't buy goods...I'm SURE noone wants THAT to be the conclusion...so to continue this fallacy is idiotic.

As for abortion, I believe in the right to an abortion at ANY stage. The foetus is NOT a baby, not until it is born...no...it is NOT a human being before then. It is nothing more than a parasitic lump of genetic matter that will one day become human. I just don't think it's a constitutionally protected right is all I'm saying. There IS no privacy right in the constitution. If the Bill of Rights protects certain areas of privacy (freedom of conscience, freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into one's home, freedom from having troops barracked in one's home etc) but not others, clearly that's intention. If the framers intended a right from government intrusion into "private space" they could have simply put that in...it's not like the concept of privacy was unknown in 1787.
Hazzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2004, 05:46 PM   #48
marry rich people
Member
 
marry rich people's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: U.S.
Posts: 156
Quote:
No, gay people are not more or less courageous then a straight person. I think they are gonna have to settle for civil unions and should, they have all the same benefits of marriage, just a different name.
If a civil union is the same as a marriage, just by a different name, then why not just let a gay couple call what they have marriage is there's no difference? If a gay couple can have a civil union then what are the reasons for them simply not calling it a marriage?

I said gay people are more courageous in the way that most gay people know they will face discrimination and ridicule in society but they stand up for what they believe in and tell people that they are gay. I think that should be called courageous.
__________________
You say, somethings wrong
This Kind of life style doesn't work
I'm trying something else
For a change, for a change
Thats ok, ok, ok
marry rich people is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2004, 06:41 PM   Senior Registered Member #49
CFC
Lord Cock Inhaler
 
CFC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: USA, NC
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by marry rich people
If a gay couple can have a civil union then what are the reasons for them simply not calling it a marriage?
Because it offends a lot of Christians and people. Thats why. 11 states agree.


(I don't care if gay people call it marriage or civil union or whatever. I just don't think they will be able to call it marriage here in the US)
__________________
+1
CFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2004, 06:42 PM   Senior Registered Member #50
Jacoby
'The Flapper'
 
Jacoby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 2,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by CFC
Because it offends a lot of Christians and people. Thats why. 11 states agree.
That's a retarded reason.
__________________
I'm only here to remind Brad to take his protein pills daily.
Jacoby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2004, 06:45 PM   Senior Registered Member #51
Ashley
Senior Member
 
Ashley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Kansas
Posts: 594
Quote:
Originally Posted by CFC
Because it offends a lot of Christians and people. Thats why. 11 states agree.


(I don't care if gay people call it marriage or civil union or whatever. I just don't think they will be able to call it marriage here in the US)

That has to be one of the most ignorant things I've ever read. I thank you for bringing down the IQ of everyone who has read this post... really top job on that.
__________________
Ashley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2004, 06:49 PM   Senior Registered Member #52
CFC
Lord Cock Inhaler
 
CFC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: USA, NC
Posts: 528
I just state the facts.
__________________
+1
CFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2004, 09:53 PM   #53
marry rich people
Member
 
marry rich people's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: U.S.
Posts: 156
I know you're just stating the facts but in this democracy we have, 11 out of 50 states counts for nothing.
__________________
You say, somethings wrong
This Kind of life style doesn't work
I'm trying something else
For a change, for a change
Thats ok, ok, ok
marry rich people is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2004, 12:08 AM   Senior Registered Member #54
CFC
Lord Cock Inhaler
 
CFC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: USA, NC
Posts: 528
Yes i know that. But if it was on the ballot as a national issue, do you really think it would stand a chance at passing? Sadly I don't think it would stand a snowball's chance in hell.
__________________
+1
CFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2004, 03:05 AM   Attended an OMGWTFKKWBBQ! KKWiki Contributer Senior Registered Member #55
Hazzle
Sponsored Cunt
 
Hazzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 5,168
Offends Christians? Since when did America have an established religion? I thought there was a seperation of church and state?
Hazzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2004, 03:20 AM   Senior Registered Member #56
CFC
Lord Cock Inhaler
 
CFC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: USA, NC
Posts: 528
That is what they want you to think.
__________________
+1
CFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2004, 03:40 AM   Senior Registered Member #57
Ashley
Senior Member
 
Ashley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Kansas
Posts: 594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazzle
Offends Christians? Since when did America have an established religion? I thought there was a seperation of church and state?
That's how it should be, and how it was meant to be. But our lovely leader is a born-again Christian who was elected by the small town Christians.
__________________
Ashley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2004, 03:43 AM   #58
bob
Member
 
bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 240
he's a born-again christian? is that to imply that there was a time when he wasn't?

and don't you all think this is just a bit idealistic? sure, they're causes we should be fighting for, but at the same time i find it hard to believe that christianity and its effect on the general public's moral values will just fade away.
bob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2004, 04:27 AM   Senior Registered Member #59
Ashley
Senior Member
 
Ashley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Kansas
Posts: 594
No, they won't fade away. But I think when voting your morals shouldn't be the only thing you base your vote on. I personally leave my religious beliefs at the door. I have to think about my future, and if I'll be able to get a job out of college, which the outlook is grim.
And Bush lost faith and now is a born again Methodist I think. Correct me if I'm wrong.
__________________
Ashley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2004, 04:32 AM   #60
bob
Member
 
bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashley
But I think when voting your morals shouldn't be the only thing you base your vote on. I personally leave my religious beliefs at the door.
but then you have to take into account the number of people who base their entire lives (and the way they live) on their extremist orthodox beliefs. you'd want to change their opinion, but they're usually the ones who can't be swayed.

we need more acceptance. education is the key.
bob is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
By appointment to HM Keira Knightley.