Election Results

[Kaleban]

Gambit, I'm gonna quote you on a few things, but just to crystallize my own points, not to mock you or anything.

Originally Posted by Gambit

Kal,

Planes shot at were in the "no-fly zones", there to make sure Saddam didn't slaughter more Kurds like he did every chance he got. They were NOT flying near/over Bagdad. Second time we've attacked them? Some figure it as an extension of the first, which was only interrrupted because Saddam granted certain concessions (was one of those the no-fly zones?) *which* *he* *never* *fulfilled*.

The capitol thing was just an example. If Iraqi MiG-21s flew over ANY American territory, what would our response be? Simple. KABOOM! Just as we would, Saddam was defending his country. Whether we think its right or not, every country has the right to defend itself, I find it highly amusing that Iraqis, in their own country, fighting against a foreign aggressor, are labeled as "terrorists." They're "defenders" actually. Regardless of what FOX News or the Republicans would have you believe, MANY Iraqis are fighting because of their beliefs, not due to some masochistic suicidal terroristic behaviour. If America were invaded to "liberate" us from Bush, don't you think a good number of people would fight back, even if others told them it was a bad idea? The Iraqi defenders are simply Moslem Republicans in a funny way. But history is very simple, the victors write the books, and get to call whomever they conquered whatever they wish.

Originally Posted by Gambit

If all the oil Iraq makes for ten years won't pay us back, doesn't that kind of deflate the "blood for oil" argument?

The FOOD for oil program was established to give the starving masses a shot at food, without the government stepping in to "tax" the relief aid. And the FOOD for oil program was established I believe by the UN, and while not perfect, it certainly was more effective at feeding the poor than a Mk. 82 Snakeye dropped through a front door!

Originally Posted by Gambit

"what I don't agree with is that we have a President who brings morality into judicial and legislative authority" -- WHAT? You want IMMORAL laws and judges? No thanks.

No, you missed my point. I don't want morality brought into the government at all. Lack of morals in the judicial system does not make for immoral judges, it makes for impartiality. I don't want some fire and brimstone judge handing down crucifixion sentences for loitering, as I don't want some pot-smoking hippie judge letting everyone go while he takes another hit off his bong. I want a system where laws and judgements are made to suit the issues at hand. What is wrong with gay marriage? It affects no one but the couple being married. All the perceived "opening doors" BS is just that, BS. If that were the case, marriage itself is "opening a door" to marriage between a man and a woman, a woman and her dog, a man and his plant, etc., etc. Rediculous, but the same argument is what is used to eliminate the possibility of gay marriage. IMHO, the state and feds should eliminate marriage from their vocabulary, and only provide civil unions, leaving marriage to the province of religion. So ANY union, whether it is hetero, gay or otherwise confers the same legal benefits, but only hetero gets to do it in a church.

Originally Posted by Gambit

FYI, in EVERY state that proposed banning gay marriage, the proposal passed by a significant margin. In Oregon, where the pro-gay movement concentrated hardest and thought they had the best chance of winning, spending millions of dollars on their campaign, it still passed by (I think) 67%. Mississippi was the stronges, at >85%.

Yeah, well that is not good is it? The people that are voting against gay marriage, which usually is all sorts of nasty people, from the KKK and Arians to "right wing nut jobs" who don't care that their prejudice and "morals" are restricting the happiness of people they're likely to NEVER meet or interact with. VERY selfish.

Originally Posted by Gambit

Those same founding fathers you mention ALL publicly stated or wrote that the Bible should be taught in school. Some were Christians, some were Deists, some were atheist, but all knew the value of the morality taught within. And you're certainly correct in saying that other cultures do not share the same moral codes as traditional American Judeo-Christian values. But something about this country must be better, because they came here. You don't see mass numbers of people running away from the US to go live in China or India or Africa or anywhere else. Those traditional values shaped the system these people want.

Nothing wrong with the Bible being taught, impartially, in school, its using it as a manual for running a country composed of many different cultures and religions that I have issues with. Many of the people that are here are descendants of slaves and other cultural groups, who are either stuck here in low paying jobs and cannot afford to move (urban sprawl) or the conditions are so bad in their home country that ANYTHING is better (such as Cuba), or they simply are unaware of what is going on. Rich and wealthy people certainly do move out of the USA, most notably to other English speaking countries with laxer rules and laws. And while the founding fathers knew the value of morality, they knew that morality is SUBJECTIVE, so in making the groundwork for laws they tried to be as ambiguous and flexible as possible, which is quite genius 200+ years ago. Subsequent administrations have refined and distilled the basic laws, but contemporary conservative groups are going AGAINST what the founding fathers dictated, that of separation of church and state. The attempts to ban stem cell research are out of a fear of aborted fetus farming, or women intentionally having abortions to make a couple hundred dollars. This is absurd. Its reactionary politics, something Republicans are good at, along with empty rhetoric.

Originally Posted by Gambit

Dude, Clinton lied under oath. And admitted it. People go to jail for that, y'know. There's a lot shady about the Clintons. I met the man, and talked to plenty of people who know him personally and knew of his activities firsthand, before I cared much about politics. I can honestly say they don't call him "Slick Willy" for nothing.

I've also met Ex-President Bill Clinton, when he was overseas on a humanitarian effort back in '94 I believe. Very personable, charming and charismatic. You know what specifically he lied about under oath right? He lied about having an affair with Linda Tripp, while his wife was in the first row of benches, to an incensed Kenneth Starr who was unable to make headway upon the case at hand, that of a real estate scandal brokered by his wife Hillary. It was totally objectionable, and yet, the Republican judge, allowed the question to go forward.

Ken Starr spent MILLIONS of dollars prosecuting a president for impeachment based on a lie most men would tell. That's why three polls taken in his last year cited over 80% of those polled (three different groups) stated they wished the Republicans would end the witch hunt and act responsibly. They just hated Clinton that much, and spent our dollars to hurt the man.

Look, I know you and I will most likely never agree on these issues, and that's fine. But one thing you should do when watching the news, or anything involving another culture, is put yourself in their shoes. If guys in military fatigues beat down your door, accused you of treason, took you to a camp, stripped you naked and molested and abused you on camera, would you take it all with a smile and acknowledging it as your civic duty? Or would you hate the men who did it, since they never even had probable cause, and secretly nurture a desire for revenge?

I try to live my life by two basic rules:

Treat others the way you wish to be treated.
Always attempt to put yourself in another man's shoes (figuratively) before making any opinions/judgements.

The people that voted for Bush, and fervently support him, banning of gay marriage, banning of stem cell research, continuing an unjust war, etc., etc. simply do not understand nor follow these two basic precepts.

Anyways, good argument, kicak ass on T:V!