Red States Can't Live Without "Liberal Elites", Blue States

Look in a mirror. You are the bigot. Your contempt and arrogance speaks for itself. You can not even consider the fact that someone could HONESTLY hold a view different from yours. Who is it that has "contempt for humanity"? Is it the party that respects the beliefs of the people, or the party that denigrates the masses as ignorant rednecks? Who is dishonest? Both candidates believed their were WMD's in Iraq. Bush put his presidency on the line to do something about it. Kerry voted for the war, then voted against funding the troops (while claiming he had actually voted for it, earlier). If I'd wanted to vote for bigotry, dishonesty, and contempt for humanity; I'd have cast a vote for John Kerry.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Bush does not respect the beliefs of the other 50% of people in the country.

He gets about half the vote, and then says he has a "mandate". That is some sick and twisted thinking.

That is pure "might makes right" thinking.

The votes are in, I win, I therefore can commit no sin.

I am disgusted. That isn't the united states of america I learned about in school. (of course you have to keep learning if you want to realize what has really been happening)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah, but if you notice the areas in California that grow food are red if you look at the map based on counties. Infact there are just small spatterings of blue here and there. California is mostly a red state.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

California kicks ass!
Even if we became a laughingstock for voting in the governator, we have everything here. I hope there is a giant earthquake and we become an island so we can have our own country, haha. After seeing most of cali over the years, I would be perfectly satisfied for this red and blue state to leave the rest behind. We have Hollywood, and some airforce bases too to protect Hollywood, haha.

 

Does the word "legitimacy" have any meaning to you?

See, the thing is that there are legitimate assertions of belief, and then there are illegitimate insofar as our society is constructed. For instance, we all know of "goths", but heaven help us the day being "Goth" is a protected status. The identity politic isn't legitimate in the context of protection.

Now, what does this have to do with your point? Very simply, when you imply that the GOP "respects the beliefs of the people", and the Democrats "denigrate the masses as ignorant rednecks", what you're dealing with there are illegitimate assertions of belief.

For instance, gay rights.

When our society believed that people randomly woke up one day and decided to invite society's scorn upon themselves by "choosing" to "turn" or "become" gay, the courts had no problem allowing discrimination--see Bowers v. Hardwick. However, as we learn more and more about humanity, some of that progress informs us that people do not simply wake up one day and decide to be gay. Additionally, we see that gays can indeed participate efficiently in society. As the prejudices fall to stronger suggestions of fact--e.g. parts of sexuality are determined before birth, kids do okay with gay parents, &c.--the justifications for discrimination fall. What's left is a moral assertion derived from religion.

Suddenly, the conservatives are left holding an empty bag. Their "belief" is not legitimate in the face of facts. Their political demand--e.g. discrimination--is not legitimate in the face of facts.

And it's somehow contemptuous of people's beliefs to reject unjustified discrimination?

The political dialogue is made nearly impossible by the conservative insistence on simplicity and superficiality. Looking for a "single gay gene"; asking for a "single constitutional directive". Homosexuality in nature is the result of a combination of factors; Roe v. Wade reflects a combination of constitutional principles. Conservatives refuse the subtleties of reality, demand unrealistic terms of discussion in pursuit of an antisocial sociopolitical imbalance.

Or, what beliefs were you thinking of?

Sometimes I think you just don't understand the magnitude of Bush's "error". When Ronald Reagan was president, the gloom-and-doom disaffected leftists made all sorts of wild predictions about what it would lead to. Whether or not that continuity is valid, what has happened since 9/11 in this country does in fact reflect dimensions of those oft irrationally-expressed fears. Imagine the proverbial time machine. Were I to go back twenty years and recite the history of 9/11 to the present as a prediction for the future, most glaringly offensive to people at the time would be the suggestion that the United States government could act so irresponsibly. These are decent men and women in the government, despite their faults, people would say. Such a scenario would be cast out among the gloomy fringe: the magnitude of Bush's errors were unimaginable to many, and sometimes I think that's part of his appeal: traditional values recoil so sharply that folks in "middle America" may be in denial.

At the time Kerry was asked to vote, he had no reason to distrust his president so gravely. In fact, the big question about that first vote was whether or not Congress had the power to write such a carte blanche investment of war.

By the time it came to the $87b, it was clear the administration had screwed up. Without answers, that $87b could easily have been squandered further endangering our troops through irresponsible policy planning. On that count, Sen. Kerry had foresight.

Bush's errors are the kind of thing Ronald Reagan would have had you fear of liberals, and then some.

When you base such opinions on constructions of history reflective of facts on record, they'll have a little more impact.

 

If you have to choose between, "flip-flop", and "stay the course", well, only an uneducated person would think "stay the course", is right. Especially when you consider the complexity of the laws that are being voted in, and the "extras" that are included in each appropriation.

Maybe that's why higher education is still a haven for democrats.

I think it is sad that I hear conservatives slander the institutions for being "liberal". When people become educated they see that "stay the course", is not the best answer. It's like the old adage about insanity... insanity = trying to get a different result with the same tactic.

 

No one is demanding that gays sit in the back of buses or work in cotton fields as slaves. No one is forcing them to live is seperate areas or do the same job for less pay. The only real issue is marriage. Now you may believe that a "marriage" between two people of the same sex is exactly the same as between members of the opposite sex, but most people do not. Since the dawn of civilization, marriage has been defined as a union of man and woman. The primary purpose of which is to provide a safe and stable environment for children. Reproduction is a biological imperative for us as individuals and as a species. It is so important to us as a species as to accord those unions that have the potential of producing children special status: marriage. This does not mean that I (or most other Republicans) would oppose some sort of marriage analog (civil unions) to simplify things like inheritance, visitation in hospitals, etc. That's my defense on this issue. Now the other thing is, people don't like having things shoved down their throats by activist judges. Marriage has one definition for six thousand years and then some judge interprets a law written in the 18th century as guaranteeing the right to gay marriage! WTF!!! If you could get a time machine and ask the guys who wrote the law, every one of them would say they had no intention of the law allowing gay marriage. If the written word does not mean what its author meant it to mean, it means nothing. If you want to legalize gay marriage, change the law. Don't re-interpret it to mean the opposite of what was intended. This will do nothing but provoke the sort of backlash you saw in the last election.

Complexity is not synonymous with truth. Simplicity is not synonymous with superficiality. Quite the contrary. Occam's Razor states that simpler models are more likely to be correct than complex ones, in other words, that "nature" prefers simplicity. This principle underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. The explanation for the movement of the planets and the stars that existed prior to Newton was quite complex, and completely wrong. Then Newton came along with his laws of motion, and suddenly things made a lot more sense, while simultaneously getting a lot simplier.

please specify which errors you are referring to.

 

so what about the dawn of time. Science was regarded as herasy by the catholic church for most of the early centurys but that doesnt stop it being proper today, slavery was thought to be good and propper even LONGER and that doesnt stop it being an international crime now

we live NOW not in the past

and if you want to get historical it was good and proper in greece and rome for homosexuals so why isnt it now?

 

Are you brutus?
This isn't the dawn of civilization anymore. Natural selection has been usurped by human control of the planet. In china they should give gay marriage a bonus value since they don't want a population explosion. Better than marriage, gay marriage, I can see it now.

And now we have multiple theories to try to explain how it all works, so we should have stuck with newton? Let's drop the occam thing, it is a method for research, not a proof of truth. Simpler theories are not correct by default.

 

Cole Gray

No I am not Madanthonywane. Sorry

 

My statement was due to some of the wording in the post, especially the part I quoted. I am not on a hunt anyway, it was just a joke.

 

The problem with what people believe is the dichotomy between what people believe and what the law says. Look at Florida: pressed to the wall, the state has instituted the rape culture. That's sanctifying marriage, tellyawhat.

It might also be pointed out that until the twentieth century, marriage was a proprietary issue. For instance, do you know why it's traditional for the bride's family to pay for the wedding? It's an old standard: you used to pay people to take your daughters off your hands.

And it's working so well, isn't it?

First, this we are not the Jews wandering the desert. Secondly, the dawn of humanity was a long time ago. The modern day sees us struggling to keep up with the population we have.

Furthermore, your limitation of marital status is incorrect. A man and a woman not capable of reproducing are still allowed to be married.

Separate but equal? Purely discriminatory, which flies in the face of the U.S. Constitution.

As a side note, though, perhaps you don't recall when conservatives organized against a state governor for instituting a "marriage analog" (e.g. civil unions).

The Republican call for civil unions is one given grudgingly.

This is one of the lamest complaints put up by conservatives. At its core, the term "activist judge" refers to a judge who does not read each point of the Constitution in a fashion that holds it disconnected from all other parts. A common analogy I've made note of before, regarding conservative politics:

• "Single gay gene": Even into 2004, we heard the argument that there is no "single gay gene", therefore homosexuality cannot possibly be natural. Science, however, suggests something more subtle: an interaction of genes and hormones in utero. It's getting harder and harder for conservatives.

• "Single constitutional principle": Conservatives seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade often make the assertion that the decision is the result of "activist judges". There is no single constitutional point empowering abortion, they reason. Well, the reality of the matter is a bit more subtle: looking at the facts in front of them, diverse points of the Constitution came together in such a fashion as to instruct the court to the decision it made.​

I often say conservatives are superficial. This is an example of what I mean: they only look a layer or two into a deep, complex, multi-faceted issue.

It may come as a shock to you, but marriage has evolved over time. I believe it was the British who made it into the late 20th century before an "activist judge" in ruled that a wife is not the legally-owned property of her husband. In 1967, "activist judges" in the United States kicked anti-miscegenation laws out of our society. We in the United States do not promise our daughters to men they do not love. We do not buy husbands. Marital women are no longer commodities.

Your appreciation of the dynamism and flexibility of the U.S. Constitution is rather lackluster. The founding fathers did not intend Free Speech to cover modern advertising. They did not intend the right to bear arms to include weapons of mass destruction. And yet, here we are in the twenty-first century.

One of the things that invites judicial scrutiny is when a law is written and enacted with the specific intent of discriminating. Conservatives have entered that region quite aggressively. Additionally, you'll notice that it's conservatives who have to change the law. And it was also conservatives who argued that following the law is breaking the law. This, too, is a common pattern among conservatives.

Only when you fix the Constitution and our laws in concrete do they start to crumble away.

Remember that laws tell us what we cannot do. If a specific outcome was intended, it should have been addressed.

Yeah, that's what they said about civil rights.

See, the thing is that the scoreboard may be what's important to conservatives, but I hold with principles. I'll hold out for equality and justice, and hold in contempt those who celebrate their own barbarism for the amusement cruelty brings them.

In the meantime, nothing you've done has made the case that harmful, intentional irrationality deserves respect.

One of the cruel ironies that leaves me grinning is that our American conservative Christians, for instance, are creating a hell of a record of doing unto the least of His brethren. It's amazing to me what "sacred" principles conservatives will sell out for the scoreboard.

Nor is it always wrong to turn right instead of left. Unless, of course, turning left takes you to where you say you want to go.

Relying on the general to excuse you in the specific is unwise. It's superficial, and transparent as well.

Aside from that, see the examples given above (e.g. common analogy).

Such contemptuous bullshit, Madanthonywayne, is why I have no respect for you. It has nothing to do with the fact that you're a conservative. That you're a contemptuous, superficial person, however, affects my opinion of you greatly.

To start with, you made the point that "Both candidates believed there were WMD's in Iraq".

The problem with using that as any political fuel is that Kerry, being a Senator, ought to be able to trust Bush, being the president. When the president brought information to Congress and said, "There are weapons there," the standing presumption was that the president was telling the truth. As I have said many times, and as I stated in my prior post--and as you ignored, apparently, in that post--Bush's conduct since 9/11 has been what was, even during Reagan's years, insultingly unimaginable. When Republicans call the characterization of Bush as a liar being hateful, they're appealing to an old standard where you weren't supposed to badmouth a president even that badly. The conduct of the GOP during the Clinton years notwithstanding, the idea is simple.

If I had said publicly, in 1985, that:

• George HW Bush would serve one term as president
• Zealous Republicans would impeach a Democratic president for fellatio
• George W Bush would be elected president
• (Fall of Enron and resulting economic troubles)
• The GW Bush administration would hide its connections to a massive criminal scheme (e.g. Enron)
• Terrorists would hit the World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001, killing thousands
• The then-Vice President's son, as President of the United States, would ask for the USA-PATRIOT Act, and Congress would approve it
• President George W. Bush would use 19 Saudis killing thousands of Americans as a pretense for war in Iraq
• President George W. Bush would send his Secretary of State to the U.N. with bogus evidence in support of a war
• President George W. Bush would seek to sidestep the Geneva Conventions (POW/Illegal Combatant)
• President George W. Bush would choose to ignore the Geneva Conventions (fall of Saddam, resulting chaos)
• President George W. Bush would handle the Abu Ghraib scandal so poorly (or even that such an event could occur in the first place)
• President George W. Bush would run such a (criminally, by that period's standard) inefficient occupation
• President George W. Bush would bring America's prestige to its lowest point since it began its ascent
• President George W. Bush would see his administration buying off journalists .... ​

The list goes on, more or less according to how vile one finds the man. Certain details are nitpicking. The idea of stabbing the idiot Christian-conservative GOP political base in the back, for instance, doesn't surprise anybody. They're whores with nowhere else to go if they want a share of the political power: only whores of common degree can tolerate them. I mean, I'm all for prostitution, but there's a line to be drawn when one's spreading disease.

If I had said such things of the GOP's future in 1985, it would have been the sort of thing to get a man beaten in "middle America". If I had projected such a future to my father, for instance, who thankfully was not a violent man, he would have simply said, "You're sick. That's horrible. How can you say that about anybody?"

I mean, think about it: a large, intrusive government racking up record deficits while demanding a lockstep bandwagon and resorting to propaganda. Never mind that the Reagan administration racked up some irresponsible defecits of its own, nor that it demanded a patriotic lockstep, nor that it resorted to propaganda, nor that it was a large, intrusive government. Such indignity is what the GOP's favorite president would have had you fear of liberals. The detail? Well, that would have been indecent to project of anyone.

 

Cole Gray. Yes some of Madanthonywaynes posts are very simular to some of mine so I can see why you that It might also be me.

 

Red To Blue: Love It Or Leave It

Gosh those red-staters have awesome senses of humor.

Or, to quote Karmashock:

I agree we're not breaking up anytime soon, but it seems to me that some red-staters would like that, too, despite the fact that they will lose an inflow of needed cash from blue-state funds.

Gee ... I wonder if they've identified that single "rebel" gene, yet.
_____________________

Notes:

Simmons, Armond. "The South shall rise again ...". AugustaFreePress.com. February 16, 2005. See http://www.augustafreepress.com/stories/storyReader$31708 ​

 

Yall liss'n here. This here is a thrid jack; But relative ta the debates of blue vs red states!.

Seems like some Bush supporters year all pissed off!. YOU GET WHAT YOU VOTED FOR!.

Servesem riat

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Anyhow here's the awful news:http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...09&e=33&u=/ap/20050217/ap_on_bi_ge/farm_scene

By non other than an open minded, conservative!. Ya reckon?

Godless.

 

STRAW MAN. You always seem to mention this single gay gene deal. Rest assured, I have a good understanding of genetics and am aware that the lack of a single gene linked to a specific disorder by no means is evidence that there is no genetic component to that disorder. If there was a single gay gene, its presence could easily be deduced from the pattern of inheritence. Furthermore, it's ridiculous to assume that a complex behaviour such as sexuality could be controlled by a single gene. The fact that some conservative somewhere used this absurd "gay gene" argument is completely irrelevant.

Again, you overcomplicate things. The tenth ammendment states that all rights not specifically granted to the government reside in the people or the states. The reason many of the founding fathers were against the Bill of Rights was they were concerned that people would come to think that the only rights were those specifically mentioned in any Bill of rights. So they put in the tenth ammendment to remind us that was not the case. Of course there is a right to privacy, it was not necesary to bring together diverse points in the constitution to create a right to privacy, it already existed. Unfortunately, the founding fathers were right and many have come to the view that if a right is not explicitly listed in the constitution, it doesn't exist. As far as I am concerned, the only real issue as far as abortion is concerned is at what point the right of the child to live overules the women's right to privacy. Surely most would agree that abortion at nine months is wrong? So it's just a matter of balancing the child's rights with the mothers.

BS. There is no comparison. Of course the founding fathers would have intended that modern advertising be included in the right to free speech. There is no difference in principle here. Speech is speech. Now as far as considering flag burning or nude dancing speech, that's a bit of a stretch. I am quite familiar with the "living, breathing document" crap. That is nothing more than an excuse for ignoring the constitution when, as written, it doesn't suite you. You want to change the constitution? Amend it. There is no comparison between applying a constitutional principle (free speech, right to bear arms) to modern situations never envisioned by the founding fathers and interpreting a law to mean the opposite of what was intended.

Stop with the ad homs. I don't care what you think of me. My comtemptuous, superficial nature should speak for itself without you constantly drawing attention to it.

As far as lying about WMD's, I believe he was mistaken. To lie, one must know that what one is saying is untrue. Where's your proof that he KNEW there were no WMD's? If you had such proof, John Kerry could really have used it a few months ago.

 

("He's simple, he's dumb, he's the pilot")

Madanthonywayne

Thank you for appropriately disclaiming your response.

Yes, I'm aware that's not what you meant, but it's what you accomplished.

You are very perspicacious. I use it because it serves as an example. Now, hang on, I do intend to explain that:

What an interesting attempt to change the subject. Really, it's quite artful; I'm not being sarcastic.

Let's just look at the record here:

You wrote that, "people don't like having things shoved down their throats by activist judges". I responded that this is one of the lamest arguments to come from the conservative camp. I then provided "a common analogy I've made note of before". (I mentioned your perspicacity, right?)

Your response to the common analogy is, well, rather a stupid sleight of hand:

• "You always seem to mention this single gay gene deal." Have I praised your perspicacity lately?
• "Rest assured, I have a good understanding of genetics and am aware that the lack of a single gene linked to a specific disorder by no means is evidence that there is no genetic component to that disorder." I'm glad you understand that. But the issue has to do with more general trends; after all, "people" don't like certain things, remember? (Hint: "having things shoved down their throats by activist judges".)
• "If there was a single gay gene, its presence could easily be deduced from the pattern of inheritence". This argument is at the core of some conservatives homophobia; they can't conceive of a biological determinant other than a single gay gene.
• "Furthermore, it's ridiculous to assume that a complex behaviour such as sexuality could be controlled by a single gene." I'm glad that's clear to you. But it's not necessarily clear to other conservatives. Remember, that's the issue with this part of the analogy: general trends of conservative political argument.
• "The fact that some conservative somewhere used this absurd "gay gene" argument is completely irrelevant." Says you, but then again, what the hell are you talking about? You've invented a new discussion and declared the point to which it responds irrelevant.​

Really, it was a smooth attempt. Your only real error was the focus on the self, which made it completely obvious. If we wish to make ourselves that important to the discussion, I voted for Kerry because he was the closest thing I had to an acceptable, viable candidate to stop the advance of a profane ideology asserted of "middle America" which so greatly disdains the very principles upon which these United States justify themselves as one nation. You, as I recall, were a Bush fan. What's your excuse?

Really, if you want to go and make either of us that important to the discussion, go for it. There's nothing like taking a discussion of broader ideas and making it about yourself, is there?

Straw man, indeed. Egotistical scarecrow is more like it. It's a fine argument, but for a different discussion.

I don't think so. History, at least, bears me out:

Strangely, your explanation doesn't serve your point, at least in this context. Consider, please:

The Tenth Amendment is reasoned to be a mere truism.

What has not been surrendered, but rather codified to be upheld and defended, is the equal protection of all Americans before the law. If the people are to submit to law, that is, to forfeit their liberty to the institution, they must be assured of equal representation under its laws. This is the basic constitutional expectation which diminishes the Tenth Amendment argument. As with Loving v. Virginia, the court held in Roe v. Wade with the Fourteenth Amendment:

Thus the Tenth Amendment argument seems rather inapplicable. What is surrendered is the right to enforce invasive policy. Among those powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution is the duty to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment: if the conflict can be shown, the Tenth Amendment falls away.

Now, let's just think about this for a minute. You're charging, on the one hand, that the Founders intended that free speech should include vulgar and dishonest appeals for commercial patronage?

I make no defense of the Hollywood standard of verbal obligation, but when was fraud considered part of free speech?

You'll notice I'm giving right-wing radio as free of berth as possible. Gordon Liddy getting a good, stern talking-to after shooting an effigy of the president and irrational civil disobedience (something along the lines of "If you don't like a law, don't obey it") is enough for me. I think it's funny more than it is threatening. At least, inasmuch as a sick man making a fool of himself is supposed to be funny.

Same with applause or theatre itself? Is there a difference between "free assembly" and making a human pyramid in the middle of the crowd? ("Uh-oh. They're climbing up each other. Get the tear gas and the paddy wagon!")

I've bought organic milk before that had disclaimers on it intended to falsely denigrate the product. I mean, come on. Saying it makes no difference in appearance or taste is an outright lie; quality? Well, that's more subjective. To the other, is Listerine really all alone in the American advertising market as far as lying about its product quality? Is the guy hawking coral calcium really the only huckster out there? Why is "read the fine print" a cultural catch-phrase?

I've actually had a Better Business Bureau man tell me, "But the problem is that, well, I'm about five years behind. You might not hear from me for a while. Or, to be honest, ever." What is it these masses are complaining about? What is it that swamps these poor bureaucrats? Frivolity alone cannot explain it away: what is frivolous in that context is often determined in large part by where people draw a curious boundary: how much bullshit they're willing to accept.

Telling me something is what it isn't in an effort to get me to trade my money for the product as represented is still considered a despicable practice; we're just much more tolerant of it as a culture. We hate it, but it's the bread and butter of both sales and politics.

Hmm ... on those issues in which my politics look to the Constitution, I'm generally satisfied. To the other, however, there are blocs of the body politic I disagree with who are so disgusted at what the Constitution does not afford government, they would seek to expand the federal government's power against the people through amendment. Anti-abortion amendments, flag-burning amendments, marriage amendments ... I don't have to ignore the Constitution in order to get my way.

Generally speaking, one of the reasons I side with liberal politicians is that liberal political causes often coincide roughly with my own desires for society. With the Democrats, at least there's common ground to work on. Were those attributes apparent in, say, the Republican party, I would support those politicians. However, all this is intended to suggest is that you're projecting conservative political demons onto liberals.

Funny you should mention that. Abortion, flag-burning, marriage ....

Example?

(chuckle)

Nonetheless, I do feel a need to tell you why it's so hard to take your demonstrations of ignorance seriously. You're acting out a stereotype, and a bad one.

Or should I presume that you actually don't know there's a war going on in Iraq?

Well, there was the little "incident" with the yellowcake. There was the fact that much of the intelligence was from shaky sources. What? Did you miss out on that? He knew what he was saying could not be verified; he knew he was conning the people. He was intentionally gambling on faith, and he lost. But what do we find out? It's not that important to "middle America". Contemptuous superficiality seems to be their specialty. Integrity and good faith are apparently not part of mainstream-American values.

Stop with the idiocy. Or else help me out: is that all I'm supposed to think of the intelligence motivating your opinions?

Question: What would you have said if John Kerry had voted differently in the Senate on the grounds that George W. Bush was a liar?

Think about it. The advisability of Congress signing away its authority like that aside for the moment: 9/11, USA-PATRIOT Act, War on Terror, hunt and punish ... it would be months later that Bush would officially start building his case for war with Iraq. So imagine John Kerry, facing the invasion of Afghanistan, standing up and saying, "I'm voting against the president because he's a liar."

I mean, come on. Let's try to be realistic here. It is not unreasonable to assign the president the responsibility of being accurate when his executive administration advises the Congress on relevant affairs. When Bush put together his push for Iraq, American political tradition suggested to watch for the typical alarmist rhetoric, but the sheer magnitude of the disparity between what Bush and company told the people to expect and what they came up with is simply beyond all prior standards.

Did Congress screw up? In many ways, yes. But Bush could not have failed to be aware that he was treading well beyond precedent and into uncharted territory.

Then again, I'm told that even the caterers are poking fun at George Tenet these days.

To keep bludgeoning John Kerry's name with the mistake of (gasp!) trusting a president to accurately inform Congress of the nation's affairs is rather a useless distraction.

Think about it. Seriously, think about it: by the end we were hoping for some scrap of a WMD program. Didn't have to be all that big. Didn't have to be anywhere we were told it would be. Anything, just bring us anything. That's how lowly we grovel in search of our appearance of dignity.

The magnitude of presumption Kerry would have had to put up against Bush is the kind generally accused of and reserved for internet debates. I mean, how do we end up hacking on John Kerry for not being a presumptuous, excitable, fanatic Bush-hater from day one?
____________________

Notes:

RightNation.us. "New Genetics Study Undermines Gay Gene Theory". See http://www.rightnation.us/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t68476.html

U.S. Supreme Court. "Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1". June 12, 1967. See http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html

Government Printing Office. "Tenth Amendment--Reserved Powers". See http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt10.html

U.S. Supreme Court. "United States v. Darby 312 U.S. 100". February 3, 1941. See http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0312_0100_ZO.html

U.S. Supreme Court. "Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113". January 22, 1973. See http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html ​

 

Oh, please, I beg of you, for the love of all that is intelligent tell me you were exaggerating.


...


I was going to try to add something to this conversation. In fact, I had a whole notepad document of cut and pasted quotes I wanted to respond to.

However, madanthonywayne if you re-read your argument it is often hypocritical and vague; and well, plainly non-existent.

I'll wait and look for a thread with actual discussion instead of rhetoric rambling.

Oh, and tiassa, you're not helping

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!