Is Bush helping or ruining this country?

[Kiddo]

Woah, everyone take a time-out. If you can't debate this civily get off the board. So let's all cool our heels for a moment, okay? This ain't worth getting upset and fighting over.

[Patjade]

OK, everyone, settle down...

When people start resorting to SHOUTING, nothing is going to get accomplished, so be civil, OK?

I will reserve my own views in the subject matter, however, because I can argue both sides of the coin, and most know my thoughts on this subject. However, let's throw out some things to think upon:

The "insurgents" that most claim to be in Iraq are Iraqis. That would make them either resistance, freedom fighters, rebels, or terrorists, depending on who is doing the naming, and the outcome of the actions. The winner writes the history, remember.

The British looked upon the colonists as rebels, and the French, Prussian, and Polish as insurgents during the Revolutionary war. Less than 1/3 of the colonists rebelled against Britain, and Canada sided with Britain.

Napoleon attacked Britain for the purposes of "National Security". Hitler claimes the same thing. So did Japan in WWII, as an alliance with Germany.

The US meddled in the affairs of Cuba, supporting Batista, who was deposed by Castro. When the US turned it's back on Castro, he dealt with the Soviet Union.

The US meddled in China during and after WWII, backing Chang Kai Shek, who fled from the Soviet backed Mao Tse Tung to Formosa (Taiwan). Chang was accused of many crimes and atrocities, but hated communism and opposed the Soviet Union, so was supported by the USA.

The Shah of Iran was supported by the USA until he was overthrown by the Muslims and fled. Saddam Hussein was supported by the USA because he fought against the Muslims of Iran, then was faced down when he attempted to invade Kuwait.

The USA left South Korea shortly after WWII, and led North Korea to believe that it was open to the taking, so they invaded in 1950. If it were not for the proximity to Japan, and the fact it is communist, the USA probably wouldn't have cared or done anything.

The USA has backed many regimes that decalred hatred of communism, and turned a blind eye on the atrocities of those self-same regimes.

The US deposed Saddam Hussein, declaring him a threat with WMD's (not there), torture, corruption, and other things, yet one need only look at Abu Ghraib, Halliburton, Fallujah, and other actions that equalled the acts that they claim Saddam did. Yet one was the actions of a dictator and the other was in the name of "freedom and democracy". Which action is more evil?

We now have a democratic election in Iraq, but what happens if the major group elected declares the country a Muslim theocracy and demands the US to leave? What if they decide to join with the Shiites of Iran? Will the USA bow and say "As you wish, you are a free people?"

Think long and hard before throwing the "USA, love it or leave it" and today's variations of "Better Dead than Red" at each other. There are other choices. Such as changing it, or trying to come to some sort of compromise and understanding.

Bbecause you happen to like somebody, don't turn a blind eye on what is really going on behind the scenes. Germany LOVED Hitler after the loss of WWI and the German depression of the 1930's. He made them feel proud and powerful again. he innovated many things to get people working. And then look what he did with all of that. Don't tell me the people didn't see that and support the murder and massacre of the Jews and other sects. Most Germans, after realizing they were duped were either too afraid or too ashamed to speak out against Hitler and his goons. Do a comparison between the two leaderships.

Then draw your own conclusions.

[Komori]

The said:

Defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman essentially outlaws gay marriage, because only a man and a woman could get married -- not a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

And don't give me any of that 'civil unions are the same thing' dung. If they were the same then you'd give everyone the same thing. You wouldn't need civil unions. History has shown us that 'separate but equal' simply does not work. Decades ago the U.S. said 'yes' to it, and then colored people were discriminated against in the South.

If civil unions ans marriages were equal, then why would we need both? U.S. citizens are all citizens -- there are no 'inhabitants' or 'residents' or any different forms of citizenship. All citizens are equal. We don't have different forms of citizenship because they are 'essentially the same thing'.

Actually, I was asking if civil unions and marriages were the same thing. I was honestly asking, because I didn't know, whether or not marriages got different benefits (legally, like taxes and so forth) than civil unions. Because, as I understood it, civil unions were the same as marriages, except for the religious nature of marriage. So no, I'm not saying that they are the exact same thing, or else they would be synonyms. I was just saying that the only difference was the religious factor, according to my understanding.

And I figured since most religions are against homosexuality, I assumed homosexuals weren't all too particularly into religion, either. So, I was just wondering why they'd make such a big deal about not being able to marry, if marriage is just a civil union with religion thrown in.

So if I am mistaken about the definition of civil union, please tell me.

[Komori]

Buddy said:

To continue with this (See? Now you've got me on a tangent!), do you know why drugs are so expensive for those on Medicare and Medicad? Well, without going into the whole eco-sociological reasons behind huge drug and medical prices, I'll simply say this - a few years ago, the government reworked the Medicare/Medicade system. And in the new law Congress created, it stated specifically that the government could not negotiate drug prices with drug companies.

Now, the government negotiates prices on everything else - construction, military equipment, etc. But for some reason, they believe it is in the best national interest that they make themselves unable to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices...

Of course, Bush signed this into law, no problem.

Negotiate prices? So, the law states, in layman's terms, that the government cannot tell the drug companies how much to charge for medicines? Well, what else do they negotiate prices on? Military equipment? But the military is part of the government, medicine isn't. And construction is often used for government projects or public buildings, so that kinda' makes sense too. So, what can the government negotiate prices on that doesn't have to do with them?

(And please note, I'm not arguing anything right now, I'm just asking, because I've never heard of this law before. It's for mah edu-ma-cation.)

[Patjade]

Ghost said:

Actually, I was asking if civil unions and marriages were the same thing. I was honestly asking, because I didn't know, whether or not marriages got different benefits (legally, like taxes and so forth) than civil unions. Because, as I understood it, civil unions were the same as marriages, except for the religious nature of marriage. So no, I'm not saying that they are the exact same thing, or else they would be synonyms. I was just saying that the only difference was the religious factor, according to my understanding.

And I figured since most religions are against homosexuality, I assumed homosexuals weren't all too particularly into religion, either. So, I was just wondering why they'd make such a big deal about not being able to marry, if marriage is just a civil union with religion thrown in.

So if I am mistaken about the definition of civil union, please tell me.

A civil union is a term coined by some beaurocrats to try and apprease those they are discriminating against. The "separate but equal" philosophy, as stated by some already, is never equal.

It is a false notion that Gays are any less religious than straight people. They are being excluded and discriminated against by those who claim to have some sort of religious high ground. gays are meant to feel inferior by a group of people who need to feel they are better than they are.

I believe this is presented for religious reasons, but it is actually fear, hatred, and those actions deemed counter to the very religion being represented by these people. The same was done against the Native Americans, Blacks, jews, and any other race, culture, society, or group. It seems to be in the basest human nature to overcome and overwhelm that which is unknown or appears to run counter to one's experiences, regardless of the actual circumstances. Unknown = fear = prejudice.

Denying Gays the right to marriage is yet another way to oppress a people that are misunderstood and feared for an unknown reason. It makes them different.

[Komori]

Patjade said:

A civil union is a term coined by some beaurocrats to try and apprease those they are discriminating against. The "separate but equal" philosophy, as stated by some already, is never equal.

It is a false notion that Gays are any less religious than straight people. They are being excluded and discriminated against by those who claim to have some sort of religious high ground. gays are meant to feel inferior by a group of people who need to feel they are better than they are.

I believe this is presented for religious reasons, but it is actually fear, hatred, and those actions deemed counter to the very religion being represented by these people. The same was done against the Native Americans, Blacks, jews, and any other race, culture, society, or group. It seems to be in the basest human nature to overcome and overwhelm that which is unknown or appears to run counter to one's experiences, regardless of the actual circumstances. Unknown = fear = prejudice.

Denying Gays the right to marriage is yet another way to oppress a people that are misunderstood and feared for an unknown reason. It makes them different.

Ah. Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for that explanation. Well, then I suppose I'll have to change my opinion, then. I guess it isn't fair to lump all homosexuals into a non-religious group. And it isn't right for religions to discriminate against gays, that gets me so bummed that they go completely against their relgion in the name of their religion. Especially since it isn't that big of a deal, even religion-wise. According to Christianity, (at least the way I believe), every sin is equal to every other sin. So a person is gay. That's one sin. But then a person who goes to church lies about being to sick to go to service last week. That's one sin too. Neither is worse than the other, so neither person is worse than the other. People are so hateful.

But I guess this digresses from the topic of Bush. And for the main question, "Is Bush helping or ruining this country", I would have to say, he isn't really helping it too much, but he certainly won't drive the country into anarchy or something (though some may believe so). He's got some flaws, and he makes a bunch of mistakes, but nothing that will destroy the fabric of America as we know it. *shrug*

[Patjade]

Ghost said:

But I guess this digresses from the topic of Bush. And for the main question, "Is Bush helping or ruining this country", I would have to say, he isn't really helping it too much, but he certainly won't drive the country into anarchy or something (though some may believe so). He's got some flaws, and he makes a bunch of mistakes, but nothing that will destroy the fabric of America as we know it. *shrug*

It depends on how Bush achieves his goals. Amending the constitution to discriminate against a group of law-abiding individuals damages the fabric of freedom and democracy the US was founded upon. To curtail freedom and liberty for the sake of security can be best summed up this way: "He who sacrifices freedom for security is neither free nor secure." -- Benjamin Franklin

Other early patriots, such as Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Jefferson stated similar sentiments. What IS freedom if you are confined to a cell to keep from being injured?

[Cyanna]

But what would a law allowing gay marriage mean?

Like it or not, many religions do consider sodomy to be a sin. That goes for heteros as well. So by their rules and laws, it would seem obvious to them that they would deny the ceremony to couples that would be the most likely to do such an act.

Would such a law mean that religions would have to choose between obeying the laws of their diety or the laws of men? And what if they choose to obey the laws of their diety? Would action be taken to strongly encourage them to choose otherwise.

I don't know how many of you know this but in the US, the Catholic Church does not pay taxes. (Because of this I'm assuming that other faiths don't have to pay taxes as well). It would be very easy for the government to make a faith pay for obeying the laws of their God(s) over men. And I don't see how that is any more "right" then the current situation. Someone's beliefs are going to end up being compromised either way. It is easier to change a law then to change a religion. Amendments can't undo what a person believes is divine law.

The way I see things...a religious ceremony should not be binding in the laws of men. Married by a justice of the peace would be legally binding. If you want to be married in the eyes of the law and of your God(s), do both. That way each individual religion can handle things as they see fit without being tied up with the government.

Yes I know that would mean that gay couples can still be denied marriage by some faiths due to religion conflicts...but you don't have to be gay to be denied marriage due to religion conflicts. Some religions consider it a sin to marry outside the faith anyway.

*ends rambling and shrugs*

In a nutshell I guess I'm just supporting the further seperation between church and state in a way...

And that was rather off topic wasn't it...

[Shadyy]

Erm...this board turned a bit ugly while I was sleeping. I didn't meant to start a snowball-effect, I was just stating my opinion in a rather civil way, I think. Anyways 'black and white' is just an expression, it's like black and white pictures, they hold lots of gray. And I know you know I didn't mean it in a racist way...just needed to post that.

I think the world is just a mess, and it's always been like that troughout the ages in all the parts of the world...just these days there are more sophisticated and frightening weapons, if over 30 countries stick up weapons like this, who can you trust. I think all the alliandes and UN, NATO and all of that are very rickety construction(that is a word, right?), it just needs a little poke and it'll all fall down.

[Patjade]

Cyanna said:

But what would a law allowing gay marriage mean?

Like it or not, many religions do consider sodomy to be a sin. That goes for heteros as well. So by their rules and laws, it would seem obvious to them that they would deny the ceremony to couples that would be the most likely to do such an act.

Jews consider eating pork blasphemy. Hindus consider eating beef blasphemous. Muslims consider drinking alcohol blasphemous. Each religion has that which others consider wrong and that each other's group is condemned to the punishments of the non-believers.

Nobody said that any church CONDUCT the ceremony. City Hall and Elvis Chapels in Las Vegas perform weddings. Britney played with weddings and annulment like some game. Should HER wedding mean more than two people in love, committed to each other for 15 years and wanting the ultimate bonding?

Does Liz Taylor deserve better recognition than Joe and Jim, or Jane and Joan?

In a society where the divorce rate is over 50%, and for some portions 75% or greater, some "religious sect" frowns on two MEN or two WOMEN having a lifelong commitment and condone a man/woman couple who get married on one day and divorce six months later (the woman with a baby on the way) because the guy couldn't get his nookie because he knocked her up. Real religious attitude, isn't it?

Tell me who has the more sacred attitude about commitments to each other? Why should one group be considered a proper pairing because there is a difference in the 23rd chromosome from each other. The other 22 match. And men are the only gender where the 23rd pair is not a match.

To determine such based on that does not make sense. You might as well say that only whites can mate with whites, blacks with blacks, asians with asians, hispanics with hispanics, and West Virginians with each other... For the sake of a passage in the Old Testament telling Jews how to comport themselves you are taking on a mantle of biased, bigotry, and discrimination and wrapping it in a veneer of religious trappings. Again, Hitler used such reasoning for genocide of the Jews.

Is today's society reduced to that level?

[Crystal]

Patjade said:

Jews consider eating pork blasphemy. Hindus consider eating beef blasphemous. Muslims consider drinking alcohol blasphemous. Each religion has that which others consider wrong and that each other's group is condemned to the punishments of the non-believers.

Nobody said that any church CONDUCT the ceremony. City Hall and Elvis Chapels in Las Vegas perform weddings. Britney played with weddings and annulment like some game. Should HER wedding mean more than two people in love, committed to each other for 15 years and wanting the ultimate bonding?

Does Liz Taylor deserve better recognition than Joe and Jim, or Jane and Joan?

In a society where the divorce rate is over 50%, and for some portions 75% or greater, some "religious sect" frowns on two MEN or two WOMEN having a lifelong commitment and condone a man/woman couple who get married on one day and divorce six months later (the woman with a baby on the way) because the guy couldn't get his nookie because he knocked her up. Real religious attitude, isn't it?

Tell me who has the more sacred attitude about commitments to each other? Why should one group be considered a proper pairing because there is a difference in the 23rd chromosome from each other. The other 22 match. And men are the only gender where the 23rd pair is not a match.

To determine such based on that does not make sense. You might as well say that only whites can mate with whites, blacks with blacks, asians with asians, hispanics with hispanics, and West Virginians with each other... For the sake of a passage in the Old Testament telling Jews how to comport themselves you are taking on a mantle of biased, bigotry, and discrimination and wrapping it in a veneer of religious trappings. Again, Hitler used such reasoning for genocide of the Jews.

Is today's society reduced to that level?

Bi or homo or hetero, it doesn't mean anything to me, as long as they don't take it inside the church. Aside from that, it's not like only Christianity doesn't like the idea of homosexuality. If I remember right, a lot of other religions are also against it, and as long as Islam is against it... I don't think gay marriage will be coming very far here at all.

So since I'm not really involved... I think I'll just stay far, far away from this topic.

[Cyanna]

If that's what people thought was the point of my post then I apologize. I should have worded it better.

The point of the paragraph you quoted was meant to segway into my actual point, which was that individual religions should be able to practice their faiths without government interference and that religious ceremonies should not be recognized by the government.

I said absolutely nothing about wanting to deny gays marriage. I personally don't care which way the law goes as long as they don't force any religions into breaking their traditional laws.

[Komori]

Patjade said:

... and West Virginians with each other...

Inbreeding, lol. ;D

...
(*hopes no one is offended by that comment*)

[Patjade]

Cyanna said:

If that's what people thought was the point of my post then I apologize. I should have worded it better.

The point of the paragraph you quoted was meant to segway into my actual point, which was that individual religions should be able to practice their faiths without government interference and that religious ceremonies should not be recognized by the government.

I said absolutely nothing about wanting to deny gays marriage. I personally don't care which way the law goes as long as they don't force any religions into breaking their traditional laws.

The problem is that these days, in the USA, at least, The top office is trying to marry religion with government, saying that God has ordaned him (Bush) to spread Democracy and Freedom throughout the world. If this particular speech has been uttered by bin Laden, Charon, Kim Jung Il, Khadaffi, Putin, or ANY other world leader, we would be on them like a starving dog on a banquet. Again I use the Hitler reference, since Hitler attacked his neighbors using similar excuses. Hitler also claimed that it was God's will he subjugate Europe and the world.

Yes, the comparisons are disturbing and startling. Do you realize that even a fraction UNDER half of the voting public supported Bush and his positions? And it's becoming apparent that most of the non-voting public share that view, yet Bush claims a mandate and says it is his devine destiny to do what he is doing.

If it weren't for the fact that the US Presidency ceased being an office for the best and brightest of the USA and became yet another position elected to by the candidates' entertainment value, I would be mortefied that the population dared to elect him. But look at the track record:

Bush beat Kerry because Kerry had no position. There is still some debate about this because it appears that in the states that use Diebold voting computers, more people voted for Bush than were registered in the precincts. There may be more about this in the future, but trust me, it IS being hushed up. So the Village Idiot beats Mr. Wishy Washy because we know where the Idiot stands. The Village Idiot is smart enough to surround himself with smart people. Or perhaps it's the smart people in the background that are actually controlling the Village Idiot. This seems more likely. All the power without the risk.

Bush beat Gore because Gore was wooden and an inveterate liar, making claims that nobody could even believe. Even then, Gore won the vote, but Bush engineered an electoral victory in Florida. So in the race between the Liar and the Village Idiot, the Idiot wins, thanks to the Supreme Court.

Bill Clinton was a free soap opera and was re-elected because Dole was so old, boring, and lacking much personality. Bill Clinton played Sax on TV! So Mr. S&S (Sax and Sex) beats Mr. Drab and Boring.

Bill Clinton beats Bush the senior. S&S was a message to the elder. Punishment for the "No New Taxes" gaffe.

Bush the elder got elected clinging to Reagan's coat tails. The Cowboy stomped the competition, regardless of who. After all, he was the Sheriff, riding in to save the day, and by golly he was entertaining and funny.

It has been thus since the advent of TV campaigns. The American population elects the entertaining, the pretty, the charismatic. Not the intelligent, the capable, the true leaders. They are too smart to run.

If TV had been around in History, most of the Presidents the USA has had would not be elected. Perhaps Teddy Roosevelt and Thomas Jefferson. Lincoln was too ugly, Washington had wooden teeth and was dedicated to the job.

Think about the reasons the people who run today, run. Is the United States so lacking in talented and capable people that we resort in picking these losers to try for the most visible public office of the land?

[The Wanderer]

I just don't think anything's right. President Bush: Great guy, real friendly. But no, I agree, that guy isn't exactly the brightest bulb in the Vegas sign. Mainly because he thinks in terms of his own interests, and preferences. This is coming from someone who's Republican, and content with it.

Look, I am Christian, I am Republican, I am a young voter. But that does not mean I go along with all the same general opinions that people claim to share with one another, just because they are somewhat similar to their own. President Bush tends to incorporate religion into his speeches. That should not be objectable. The president has just as much right, as anyone else, because that is the way our country was founded. In terms of lawmaking, that's debatable, whether people like it or not, because our founding fathers did not count on the changes that would occur within this country. I mean, haven't we made promises that we thought we could keep, and then find out there was more to the promise than we realized? So yes, by the way it was written, our founding fathers didn't think there would be any other religion, other than Christianity in this country. It could be one of the best, or worst-- depending on your views, things to happen to this country. We are equal no matter what our philosophy or beliefs are. I think it's nice that people can do that. If not for this concept here, who knows if civil liberties would've happened in other countries as well?

President Bush puts economy before ecology. Typical conservative right? Wrong. Economy and ecology are repellant of each other. On one hand, this is our world, our life we're talking about. On the other, is a means to maintain stability and order. Sadly, commerce is all that is really keeping humanity in order. So when weighing costs of keeping things clean, vs. cost-effective production, that is something that really depends on who's in charge. I disagree with Bush wanting to drill for more oil in Alaska, I disagree with him cutting back on certain emissions regulations on commercial vehicles. That hasn't driven down gas prices, and it certainly isn't helping me breathe better. All it takes, is for him to say "Alright, all you automakers... If you want to continue selling cars in the country that is number one in buying new cars, you'd better step it up on your research for an alternative fuel source." Think of how good a clean-burning, renewable resource would be for the environment AND the economy. But Bush is making it obvious that oil is the only way to go, which it isn't. Remember, the U.S. isn't the one producing most of the world's crude oil... So shaking our dependance on oil is one thing Bush isn't in a hurry to fix.

Foreign policy, and everything else, well... I don't know much about that, so I'll leave that alone. The point is, that in some ways Bush is good enough to be president. But others well... all you have to do is turn the t.v. to any news channel that isn't Fox News. Believe me, it'd be nice to have someone up there, that KNOWS what they're doing. And for the last few elections, I hadn't seen that.