Arnold 2008???

How many newspapers did he have closed down because they spoke out
against him? Quite a few, IIRC. Quite the tyrant.

--
Odinn

'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

Fill in the blanks to reply

 

That should be something the government REWARDS people for. Fewer
stupid cagers on the roads.

 

Really? Which one?

So what you're saying is America is prone to limiting the free speech
of hate groups?

My god, have we no shame? Next thing you know we'll all be parlez vous
francaise!

 

Then the newspapers wised up and now play nice with the dictator. I
remember how many journos initially mocked Bush's wartime planning.
How is America going to go back to the Reagan era sillines they
intoned? They lost their jobs pretty fast!

So America does have dictators to topple. It's just that Americans are
too fat and lazy to topple them!

 

Several in the South...Atlanta comes to mind. But, I could
missremember which one specificly. I was during the recent
unpleasantness.

Yep, 200 years of it.

Go to Louisiana...there are still parts that speak "Arcadian
French". Also known as "Cajun". Keep trying, you did trip
the ol' sarcasm meter tho'

--

Nefarious Necroloigist 42nd Degree
Some people ride, some just like to show off their butt
jewelry once in a while.
Dum vivimus, vivamus
<3 )3~~ <3 )3~~ <3 )3~ <3 )3~

 

Cities in the Shenandoah Valley, northern Virginia, Georgia, and the
Carolinas. Richmond, Vicksburg, Atlanta, Charleston and many other Southern
cities suffered large scale destruction as the war continued.
http://www.swcivilwar.com/DestructionPhotos.html

Americans are prone to limiting hate... because the KKK employed hate like a
club until someone got killed...
http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/21/klan.02/

Larry L
94 RC45 #2
Have a wheelie NICE day...
Lean & Mean it in every corner of your life...
If it wasn't for us the fast lane would rust...
V4'S are music to the seat of my pants...
1952 De Havilland Chipmunk...
Yank and bank your brains loose...
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/-xlax-/
http://home.comcast.net/~netters2/
http://www.fox302.com/index.pl?s=vg&user=netters2

 

message
SNIP

Hey don't misunderstand. I do think the French politician
are a bunch of duplicitous, lying, hypocritical, thick
cunts(otherwise Hank wouldn't love them) BUT the French
people are okay...now if they'd quit assuming their food is
better than anyone else's.



--

Nefarious Necroloigist 42nd Degree
Some people ride, some just like to show off their butt
jewelry once in a while.
Dum vivimus, vivamus
<3 )3~~ <3 )3~~ <3 )3~ <3 )3~

 

Just call em like I see em. You twist more than Chubby Checker.

Thanks. If we want to change the direction our country is going we
have that right. Why? because we are Americans just like everybody
else in this great country of ours.

Well the secular world has their own set of moral beliefs or lack
there of. Why is it they can impose theirs on me?

It is not hateful. Personally i see no problem with gay couples
getting all of the benefits of a married couple but, I don't think
they should get the title married. Marriage is between a man and a
women. If gay couples were allowed to be called married than you
would open a whole new can of worms here. A man wants to marry his
sister or his cousin or his mother or his 13 year old son or his dog
ect. Where does it end? As Troy said and I agree Gays are allowed to
marry. They just have to be like the rest of us which is over 96% of
the population and marry someone from the opposite sex. Doesn't sound
like they are being discriminated against in my book.

I find it odd that hypocrites point out hypocrisy in others.

The bottom line is the gays want us to accept their lifestyle. A
majority of Americans do not. Some of them are atheists as well as
other religious people along with Democrats one being John Kerry. It
is not only a Christian thing though although it seems like half the
country is blaming them along with all the hate mongering as well..
Hard to believe most of us do not accept the gay lifestyle?

Is Rowe vs Wade a Christian thing? I don't understand why you blame
Christians for all this. This is like Nazi Germany when most Germans
started hating all the Jews. You do know what happened?



Regards
Michael H. Fell

 

John Kerry was against it as well.


Regards
Michael H. Fell

 

Ah, you shouldn't do that, Michael. Some o' these puppies just need
to inflame hatred against Christians.

It's an old Hitler trick.

--
Instead of swerving, I should have been reloading
(remove _NO_SPAM_ to reply)

98 FLTRI
83 Nighthawk

Share yourself: http://xidos.ca/XManager/ReekyLogin.asp
To register: http://xidos.ca/OrgUserEdit.asp?OrgCode=REEKY_MOTO
Home page: http://xidos.ca/scripts/Personal/
Alaska trip: http://xidos.ca/scripts/Personal/Alaska/

 

It's easy to stop them when they aren't moving.

Even Bush could have done it.

Al Moore
DoD 734

 

Huh? When was this?

So? Don't you think that was their decision to make? Would you let
them decide what kind of government we have? Why allow us to make that
decision for them?

By now it's obvious that Iraqis are willing to fight for what's right,
unless you think unprovoked invasions are right. Maybe that's why none
of their neighbors suggested invading them. Even Kuweit, with plenty
of reason to dislike them, was unwilling to lend any troops to the
effort.

Al Moore
DoD 734

 

It's not easy to topple dictators when they're
backed by the United States.

--

"I think this is the worst government the US has ever
had in its more than 200 years of history. It has
engaged in extraordinarily irresponsible policies not
only in foreign policy and economics but also in social
and environmental policy.....This is not normal government
policy. Now is the time for people to engage in civil
disobedience. I think it's time to protest - as much as
possible....What we have here is a form of looting."
- George A. Akerlof, 2001 Nobel prize laureate economist

"One of the things we don't want to do is destroy the
infrastructure in Iraq because in a few days we're going
to own that country," - Tom Brokaw

Cost of probing Bill Clinton's sex life: $65 million.
Cost of probing the Columbia shuttle disaster: $50 million.
Funds assigned to independent Sept. 11 panel: $3 million.

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/


"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

"You know, when bu$h said that he's against nation building,
I didn't realize that he meant only the United States"
-- Al Franken

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

 

boudin rouge isn't bad if you can't find echte blutwurst.

 

I hate to have to educate stupid liberals (redundant) but Iraq has had
brutal dictators since long before the US existed. Now I would think that
Jesus would have been aware of this.

 

It was my point, and I don't think you got it. FDR arrested and
imprisoned Japanese-Americans for the crime of living within 250 miles
of the Pacific Ocean, forcing them to accept fire sale prices for their
property and businesses. No gas chambers to be sure, but I still think
that qualifies as brutal dictatorship.

Rich, Urban Biker

 

Another good reason for you to avoid it....


--


"One of the things we don't want to do is destroy the
infrastructure in Iraq because in a few days we're going
to own that country," - Tom Brokaw

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/


"After all, it is the leaders of the country who determine
the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the
people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to
do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the
peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country
to danger. It works the same in any country."
-- Hermann Goering, President of the Reichstag, Nazi Party, and
Luftwaffe Commander in Chief

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

"You know, when bu$h said that he's against nation building,
I didn't realize that he meant only the United States"
-- Al Franken

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

 

Either a very weak troll, or you're bumber than a box
of rocks.


--





"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so
are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to
harm our country and our people, and neither do we,"
- George W. (mush brain) Bush, 8-6-04



Dick Cheney: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam
Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." August 26, 2002.

Ari Fleischer: "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
January 9, 2003.

Colin Powell: "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep
his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
February 5, 2003.

Donald Rumsfeld: "We know where they are," about these weapons.
"They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." March 30, 2003.

George W. Bush: "We have sources that tell us that Saddam
Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical
weapons." February 8, 2003.

George W. Bush: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments
leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal
some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." March 17, 2003.


"I think this is the worst government the US has ever
had in its more than 200 years of history. It has
engaged in extraordinarily irresponsible policies not
only in foreign policy and economics but also in social
and environmental policy.....This is not normal government
policy. Now is the time for people to engage in civil
disobedience. I think it's time to protest - as much as
possible....What we have here is a form of looting."
- George A. Akerlof, 2001 Nobel prize laureate economist

"One of the things we don't want to do is destroy the
infrastructure in Iraq because in a few days we're going
to own that country," - Tom Brokaw

Cost of probing Bill Clinton's sex life: $65 million.
Cost of probing the Columbia shuttle disaster: $50 million.
Funds assigned to independent Sept. 11 panel: $3 million.

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/


"After all, it is the leaders of the country who determine
the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the
people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to
do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the
peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country
to danger. It works the same in any country."
-- Hermann Goering, President of the Reichstag, Nazi Party, and
Luftwaffe Commander in Chief

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

"You know, when bu$h said that he's against nation building,
I didn't realize that he meant only the United States"
-- Al Franken

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...


"Personally, I don't think all the Iraqis on earth are
worth even a single American life." - A usenet rabid
right wing extremist terrorist.

 

You're creating a false dilemna because a line has already been drawn,
which you are asking to have crossed. Using that logic, the next
person has exactly as much right as you to ask it be crossed for him.

In addition, your argument is inconsistent. If you don't let it be
crossed for the next group (e.g. polygamist), only one conclusion can
be drawn: You are ready to be every bit as unfair as those who you
now complain about, so your argument loses all of its force.

But it's not just a slippery-slope argument. And it's not just a
religious argument either (i.e. Communist countries acknowledging no
religion are also opposed to gay marriage). It's a debate about,
"Should we take what marriage used to be defined as and change it to
be something else?"

Individual freedoms are important but not everything. Society
rightfully promotes certain things that are in its vital interests and
society outlaws certain things that run contrary to its vital
interests.

For instance, marriage of sisters to brothers, daughters to their
fathers and so forth is still (even in the age of effective
birth-control) deemed harmful to society's interests because it will
tend to break down a vital, sacred pillar holding up society: the
family for reproduction and raising of children - where the goal is
for the children be genetic prodginy of the mother and father;
enhancing that special connection between all the members of the
family.

Likewise, society *promotes* certain things that it deems very
important to its preservation; again, the family, reproduction and
raising children. It's for that reason that marriage between a man
and a woman has been provided with a special institution to help
support it in that important service it provides.

No amount of changing the constitution will ever make you, a gay man,
pregnant by your male partner.

In the opinion of many people, children are already marginalized and
hurt enough by too much 'me-first' attitudes shaping marriage; counter
to the idea that it should be 'till death do us part. By redefining
marriage to includes same-sex couples, the marginalization of children
as important aspects of marriage will only be further diminished.

If marriage was originally instituted (even partly) to facilitate
their care and upbringing, it's hard to argue that redefining marriage
to be any couple - without reproductive consequences - does not
diminish their place somehow. At one time they were key players in
the definition and then, suddenly, they are not!

It ought to be recognized that children have a vital stake in this
change - not just the gays who could obtain the same monetary and
social priviledges they seek by other means.

Not that everyone's marriage will immediately be harmed by a single
case of gay marriage, of course. One could argue that having just a
few sisters and brothers, fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, men
and multiple wives marrying, that it won't spell the immediate end of
modern civilization.

Yet these restrictions remain in place for good reasons - because of
many thoughtful people convinced that, in the totality, accepting such
changes ultimately leads to harm for the well-being of children and
harm to society over the long run and for the most people.

Those are good, solid reasons but, if you need to solace yourself by
minimizing the civil rights movement for blacks by making it
equivalent to your case, I guess I can't stop you. But if it's rights
you are really concerned about, why no talk about the rights of
children and how the proposed changes (including the slippery slope it
leads to) will affect them?

So, yes, it is about rights. The rights of children. The rights of
the most helpless members of society to have the institution of the
family they depend on protected and not watered down into something
that no longer involves them.

Someone might point to adoption being common among hetrosexuals as not
being a disaster and they would be right in that.

But that does not mean that children as the genetic offspring of both
the husband and wife is therefore unimportant. Ask any thinking
person to consider these two scenarios and choose which should be
stived for:

1. All reproduction in society is accomplished by everyone
anonymously contributing sperm and eggs to a central reproduction
facilty. Children are then 'hatched' in incubators and doled out to
all the participants.

2. As a result of a man and woman, drawn together in a bond of love,
intending to spend their lives together, children are concieved -
children who are, in a real sense, a melding of the two of them and a
symbol and result of the love in their marriage - are born; something
that leads to an even closer bond forming between mother and father,
parents and children.

People will choose the second over the first. It is not slap against
those who adopt to say the ideal is the second way. For gay marriage
to be considered no different than hetro marriage and every bit as
good for the welfare of children, I think you would have to first
convince yourself that choice #1 is just as good.

--
Instead of swerving, I should have been reloading
(remove _NO_SPAM_ to reply)

98 FLTRI
83 Nighthawk

Share yourself: http://xidos.ca/XManager/ReekyLogin.asp
To register: http://xidos.ca/OrgUserEdit.asp?OrgCode=REEKY_MOTO
Home page: http://xidos.ca/scripts/Personal/
Alaska trip: http://xidos.ca/scripts/Personal/Alaska/

 

I think we should return *MARRIAGE* to the religious institution it is.
Any Church can define Marriage any way they want, its not a government
sanctioned thing.

The government should recognize and formalize a 'civil union' or 'personal
partnership' or something, which can apply to *ANY* family-sized unit, and
has governing rules somewhat similar to a not-for-profit partnership,
albeit simplified and standardized. Obviously, Church marriages are
probably also civil partnerships, and acrue the benefits of joint
household taxes, joint ownership, inheritance by the surviving partner,
etc.

-jrp