Halos Heaven: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Spencer Hall's Sports Meme Power Rankings

DON'T READ THIS THREAD IF YOU ARE EASILY OFFENDED
THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO TALK POLITICS.
Do NOT be respectful. Don't be nice, don't be thin-skinned, please BE offensive, brash and rabidly unforgiving to those who disagree with you. Please ridicule your opponents and mock your enemies.
BUT: No obscenities, no racism, no breeder-or-gay-bashing, and no pictures of fat chicks in bikinis will be tolerated.

about 1 year ago 4323_1105939621665_1622022962_290465_5300842_n_tiny Rev Halofan 576 comments 0 recs  | 

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Just got done voting!

No on hate, no on 8!

And Yes on Obama!

Hostility abounds on Halos Heaven

by thrill000 on Nov 4, 2008 8:39 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

no on 8 baby

no point in arguin the big one now cuz it was over weeks ago

by ihearhowie2.0 on Nov 4, 2008 8:49 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

I forgot about how many Republicans are in Orange County...

but it doesn’t matter, cuz thanks to the electoral college, California goes to OBAMA

The time is out of joint; oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.

by chairmanofthebar on Nov 4, 2008 8:59 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

thats fine if obama wins and if you support him

but your argument sounds idiotic when you start comparing republicans do nazis. no different than when republicans compare obama with several notable communists.

by NoDakHalo on Nov 4, 2008 9:02 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

My favorite

Was the Republican-sponsored flyer in Pennsylvania that went out to Jewish voters: “Don’t make the same tragic mistake your ancestors in Germany did.” It’s on the web somewhere, just too lazy to look it up, GA-style.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 9:33 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, well that's what it feels like...

You know how the fundamentalist Christians are supposed to love and forgive? Well it seems like that faction has dominated the Republican party and their message has turned from love and acceptance into hate and oppression. I could care less either way what your religious or political views are, I just think that the McCain campaign has made this election into something else. Total hate and smear tactics. I, for one, am tired of American citizens civil liberties being trampled on.

The time is out of joint; oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.

by chairmanofthebar on Nov 4, 2008 11:51 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I mean like GAY PEOPLE not getting the same rights as EVERYONE ELSE.

Wake up

The time is out of joint; oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.

by chairmanofthebar on Nov 4, 2008 3:24 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

ROFL

You do know that gays can marry in CA and several other states legally right now don’t you? Not that the President has much say over state’s rights in this area, but you do know that this all happened under Satan himself, GW Bush, right?

Is that the best you can come up with?

by Ajax on Nov 4, 2008 4:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Did you forget

that Bush wanted to make a US constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?

The time is out of joint; oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.

by chairmanofthebar on Nov 4, 2008 5:43 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Wanting and "trampling" are 2 different things

If you want to see an example of “civil rights getting trampled,” look into Afghanistan under Taliban rule, China, Iran, and North Korea.

You, on the other hand, can do pretty much what ever the hell you want.

Any other examples?

by Ajax on Nov 4, 2008 8:05 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I live in the USA

I’m more worried about our civil rights.

The time is out of joint; oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.

by chairmanofthebar on Nov 4, 2008 8:07 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yet you cannot identify any of YOUR civil rights...

…that are being or have been “trampled.”

Feel free to give an example anytime now…

by Ajax on Nov 4, 2008 8:11 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It's ok if you want to not agree with anything I've said...

This forum is basically gonna be red vs blue, and we all know that neither one of us are going to agree on anything. And now it doesn’t matter. Bush will be out soon and Obama will be in.

The time is out of joint; oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.

by chairmanofthebar on Nov 4, 2008 8:14 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I can't disagree with you if you don't give any examples

Spewing liberal talking points isn’t enough.

Anyway, looks like BHO has wrapped it up. Hopefully you will get all of your civil rights back and BHO can halt the descent of US into a Nazi Germany.

Peace.

by Ajax on Nov 4, 2008 8:48 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, stupid liberals

Maybe they should all die in a fire

The time is out of joint; oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.

by chairmanofthebar on Nov 4, 2008 3:24 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Very big of you

I bet you live in Newport Beach

The time is out of joint; oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.

by chairmanofthebar on Nov 4, 2008 3:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Where's the fun in that?

The time is out of joint; oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.

by chairmanofthebar on Nov 4, 2008 3:42 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

what, you wanna have a room in my newport house or something?

I’m sure that’s one of the “ideals” of Obama’s socialism. Hardworking wealthy Americans being forced to house the homeless / “less fortunate”.

by BoulderBrian on Nov 4, 2008 9:58 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, that's totally the plan...

Why don’t you go drive around in your Hummer and then beat your wife.

The time is out of joint; oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.

by chairmanofthebar on Nov 4, 2008 10:11 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Well, you should at least look up SOCIALISM in an encyclopedia

And stop buying into the Republican bullshit.

The time is out of joint; oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.

by chairmanofthebar on Nov 4, 2008 10:42 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

im a freaking econ business major

you should go get an education, you might learn what the electoral college is and how it has nothing to do with “… thanks to the electoral college, California goes to OBAMA.”

And about socialism:
“a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society,”

that is exactly what Obama wants if you happened to hear anything he has said in the last year. Even tonight, he said we need to come together to work for the common good, which is what an egalitarian society is all about. And lastly, you might want to get your head checked, there is no vast right wing conspiracy. Here is a link to help you find a psychologist.

by BoulderBrian on Nov 4, 2008 11:09 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You have that all stored in your head?

Or did you need to find it online. You make me laugh. Bitter and defeated is what you are.

Because of the electoral college, OBAMA WINS CALIFORNIA. THAT’S THE WAY IT WORKS. He won the majority.

Any of you idiots who think Obama wants a socialist America are RETARDED. Way to warp the things a smart man says.

Oh yeah, you live in a blue state, in case you forgot. If you wanna make a difference, go move to Ohio.

The time is out of joint; oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.

by chairmanofthebar on Nov 4, 2008 11:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

"better and defeated is what you are"

what do you think you are yoda or something? Yoda didn’t type in caps. Oh, and I don’t live in California Yoda.

by BoulderBrian on Nov 4, 2008 11:38 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yes, I'm Yoda

Thank God you don’t live in California. Your vote wouldn’t have mattered anyway.

The time is out of joint; oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.

by chairmanofthebar on Nov 5, 2008 8:47 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You too

Can suck it.

The time is out of joint; oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.

by chairmanofthebar on Nov 4, 2008 10:11 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Totally

The time is out of joint; oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.

by chairmanofthebar on Nov 4, 2008 10:43 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Do you recall the origins of Nazi Germany?

A young, charasmatic, well spoken politician promised “change” to an economically struggling Germany.

by Ajax on Nov 4, 2008 1:50 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

oh please, you can't even START to compare Hitler to Obama

that’s insanity

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 1:55 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

But OP can basically compare McCain to Hitler?

“I’m tired of the USA slowly turning into nazi Germany.”

by Ajax on Nov 4, 2008 2:00 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

In general I think it’s a lousy comparison, but it didn’t state McCain was Hitler

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 2:03 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

So then you agree...

…that the “US is slowly turning into Nazi Germany?”

by Ajax on Nov 4, 2008 2:19 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Just for the record...

…it was chairmanofthebar’s analogy.

by Ajax on Nov 4, 2008 4:40 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I said it was a bit extreme

Didn’t know everyone was going to get all crazy over it. :P

The time is out of joint; oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.

by chairmanofthebar on Nov 5, 2008 10:58 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not comparing McCain to Hitler

I’m comparing the oppression this country is starting to feel to that of nazi controlled Germany. And yes, it’s a little extreme of a comparison. I’m just pissed off about the way things have been.

The time is out of joint; oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.

by chairmanofthebar on Nov 4, 2008 2:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Just out of curiosity...

…how have you personally been “opressed?”

by Ajax on Nov 4, 2008 2:11 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

really?

In what ways has the government made your life harder? and how have you felt oppression?

by UCIHalo on Nov 4, 2008 2:12 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Unwarranted wire tapping of US citizens just for one.

And you would not know it unless the CIA came knocking at the door, then it would’nt matter.

Recipient of the 2008 "The Iron Man" award from scottnak of Halos Heaven!

by 44FAN on Nov 4, 2008 2:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You really should provide context

Do you mean that Big Brother can just listen to your phone conversations for fun?Or is it a method the government can utilize to prevent future terrorist attacks?

by Ajax on Nov 4, 2008 2:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It really seems like you guys are all responding to my remarks

with the same robotic statements you hear from all the Republican pundit a’holes. How has the gov’t made my life harder? Are you serious? First of all, they have entered us into an unjust war and let thousands of people die, the unemployment rate is skyrocketing, they’ve let the cost of gas balloon like never before and now the economy is failing. If you still back the GOP and President Dumbf**k, then you really need to take a step back and look at the big picture. They’re screwing us all over, not just one or two of us.

The time is out of joint; oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.

by chairmanofthebar on Nov 4, 2008 3:22 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

jews

not to get all pc on you because i am not that kind of person…but being a jew and havinf family not make it out of germany i think its a little harsh to compare our country to nazi germany…..dont get me wrong bush and his friends are the devil…..but they arent putting me in a camp and making a lamp out of my family

by surfpunk on Nov 4, 2008 3:29 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yes, it's a little extreme

I apologize. But we need to take the country back. Country of the people, by the people, and for the people? Not when the president starts a war without the consent of Congress. Who knows what the future would hold for us all if McCain got elected?

The time is out of joint; oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.

by chairmanofthebar on Nov 4, 2008 3:37 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Get a f'n clue man

Bush had the consent of Congress to invade Iraq (albeit under questionable pretenses), which, you may or may not realize includes Democrats.

by Ajax on Nov 4, 2008 4:30 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Uh, no he didn't

and he invaded a sovereign nation.

The time is out of joint; oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.

by chairmanofthebar on Nov 4, 2008 5:46 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

and he lied about the facts

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 6:20 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

A bit of a simplification, but OK

Hence my qualification. (That’s what I meant by “questionable pretenses”)

by Ajax on Nov 4, 2008 7:35 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You should just stop now

House Vote

Senate Vote

(The House and the Senate are the two parts of Congress)

by Ajax on Nov 4, 2008 7:34 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

(The House and the Senate are the two parts of Congress)

do NOT be so damned patronizing

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 7:39 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Why do you feel compelled to defend this guy?

Or did you also believe that Congress did not vote to invade Iraq?

by Ajax on Nov 4, 2008 7:44 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not defending anyone

I just think it’s stupid to feel you need to define Congress as the House of Reps and the Senate.

No one is saying Congress didn’t vote to invade. The problem is they LIED about the alleged ‘weapons of mass destruction’. They completely fabricated crap and used Colin Powell and others as their war bitches and then got caught in their web.

They used false and misleading information so Bush could avenge Daddy’s attempted murder. He came into office in 2000 vowing to be the war president. He got his wish.

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 7:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Look up

charimanofthebar posted that Bush did not have Congressional approval to invade Iraq. It wasn’t directed at you. For his stupidity and ignorance, he earned my patronizing post.

I agree with almost everything else you said though. I disagree that BHO is the answer. We’ll find out starting tomorrow.

by Ajax on Nov 4, 2008 8:00 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, I must be a horrible person...

No one should have a different opinion then you or try to stand up for me.

The time is out of joint; oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.

by chairmanofthebar on Nov 4, 2008 7:59 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Want to change your answer...

…about Congress approving the Iraq invasion?

by Ajax on Nov 4, 2008 8:01 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Nope

Want to stop defending a retarded war criminal?

The time is out of joint; oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.

by chairmanofthebar on Nov 4, 2008 8:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Reading is fundamental

Nowhere have I defended GWB. In fact, I despise him for what he has done to the R party.

ROFL—so you still believe that Congress did not authorize the invasion?

by Ajax on Nov 4, 2008 8:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I believe what was proposed then...

Is way different then where we are now. Let’s just agree to disagree. GO OBAMA!

The time is out of joint; oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.

by chairmanofthebar on Nov 4, 2008 8:12 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Nonsense, but whatever

You win. The Devil has been deposed.

by Ajax on Nov 4, 2008 8:50 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Ajax

as I said before, the guy is an idiot. Don’t even bother debating. You presented him with straight-up facts backed up by documentation and he is still in denial. Let the asshole have the last word. It’ll just prepare you for the insane barrage of arrogance you’ll witness tomorrow when Obama is declared Chairman.

by Higz on Nov 4, 2008 8:20 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Oh so bitter

You can suck it

The time is out of joint; oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.

by chairmanofthebar on Nov 4, 2008 8:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Robotic remarks?

Too funny.

You are the one comparing the US to Nazi Germany and claiming opression and that your civil rights are being trampled. However, you have failed to provide one concrete example of any of the foregoing—just ad nauseum regurgitation of the political talking points that are woven into the scripts of network TV shows.

If you are OK with a president that sat in a congregation presided over by an anti-American, racist reverend for 18 years, that’s cool.

G-damn AmeriKKKa, right?

That’s the “change” we need!

by Ajax on Nov 4, 2008 4:38 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I think I've presented plenty of examples...

You’ve just refused to accept them. And I am perfectly fine with him sitting in that congregation. I don’t give a damn about religion and it has no place in politics. What excuses will you bring up now? You still wanna hide behind your faith?

The time is out of joint; oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.

by chairmanofthebar on Nov 4, 2008 5:48 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

McCain 2000

McCain 2008 is too busy s—ing off the special interests he used to fight…

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 9:34 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Er

That is to say, McCain 2000 would have agreed. And I would have voted for him (maybe).

The 2008 sell-out version, not so much.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 9:34 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Obama = 2nd biggest recipient of Fannie Mae $

You have to start with the premise that both candidates are bought and sold by lobbyists then go from there.

by Ajax on Nov 4, 2008 1:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

links? facts?

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 1:59 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

My bad

He was #3.

Not that it matters….

by Ajax on Nov 4, 2008 2:07 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I hardly think a 19yr span is accurate

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/us/politics/10fannie.html

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 2:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Thanks for the link
Mr. Obama, his Democratic rival from Illinois, is second among members of Congress in donations from the firms’ employees and political action committees.

Beyond the antilobbyist message, Mr. Obama also indicts the Bush administration and the Republicans who controlled Congress for a dozen years until 2007, including Mr. McCain.

He blames them for lax regulation that freed the companies to go deep into debt to buy the mortgages that crushed them as the housing crisis persisted. Yet his fellow Democrats in Congress have been well known as enablers of the two companies for years, protecting the firms’ dueling responsibilities to support affordable housing as well as to maximize shareholder profits.

I acknowledged that both canddiates are bought and sold by lobbyists, and you asked for a link, which I provided. Your very own link supports my premise.

Like I said, not that it matters…

by Ajax on Nov 4, 2008 2:36 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Intelectually Honesty People

While some of what you stated is true, the fact of the matter is that both political parties are screwing us and gradually taking away our rights/civil liberties in the name of one thing or another. Once people can Objectively listen to both sides and sift thru the bullshit then they will realize that Both Big Political Parties are SCREWING YOU AND ME. If you are Democrat who is passionate then it really feels good to blame the Repulbicans and if you’re a Republican it feels good to point the finger at the Dems.

So depending upon what side of the political aisle you are on, if your party isn’t in charge, then the country is cirlcling the drain. But what most people fail to realize is that the country IS circling the drain because of Both parties.

When I'm not at the stadium, I'd rather be watching my Halos back in Costa Rica!

by Dono Romantico on Nov 4, 2008 3:11 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Amen

We need a viable 3rd party

by Ajax on Nov 4, 2008 3:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Then we need a whole new government as the system we have now is basically a two party system.

Even as it stands now, the few independents have to caucus with one of the two parties to pass legislation.

Recipient of the 2008 "The Iron Man" award from scottnak of Halos Heaven!

by 44FAN on Nov 4, 2008 3:24 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Perhaps we need to use that second amendment

Its been alot longer than 20 years since the last rebellion and you gotta believe old Jefferson would be ashamed of all the flag toting patriots that have taken over this country.

by Wytelitning on Nov 4, 2008 3:30 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Lobbyists are the root of all evil

We need to rid the system of lobbyists somehow.

by Ajax on Nov 4, 2008 4:42 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Good Luck

Obviously Obama is going to win, so congratulations to him.

But I see disturbing similarities between Obama, Castro, Peron and other “cult of personality” leaders. I hope I’m wrong, but if I’m not, I would hope everyone who voted Obama admits their mistake a few years from now. He promised so many things impossible to do at once that I’m amazed he didn’t promise a cape so everyone can fly.

Now THAT should start a flame war.

P.S. Bush is an A-hole, and I meant to vote for Ron Paul’s endorsed candidate, but I did not see him listed at the machine.

by elricsi on Nov 4, 2008 9:12 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Reagan

Reagan, you probably remember, was also all about the cult of personality. As was Palin, at first.

Somehow you don’t see conservatives saying that was a bad thing.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 9:35 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

obama all the way..

i feel like a little kid waking up on christmas morning. QUESTION: how can a candidate be an elitist, socialist and terrorist all at the same time? if rush, o’reilly and hannity say so then it must be true. stop drinking the kool-aid whether it’s red or blue. truth over team, country over party. and to all you righties out there, WHEN obama is elected, get down from the ledge, it’s going to be all right.

by thejd on Nov 4, 2008 9:22 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

HA

The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, Specializing in maniac-ball since 2000

by halofan4life on Nov 4, 2008 9:23 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Except Franken

Is soon to longer be a political pundit….but a United States Senator! Thereby increasing his credibility a thousand-fold…;-D

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 10:38 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

you forgot Marxist

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 10:39 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

VOTE MCCAIN!!!

…and yes on 8.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 9:35 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

LOL

i knew you would post something like that….i did the same thing.

by SCHalo on Nov 4, 2008 9:49 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

:)

hahaha

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 10:23 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

yay for traditional marriage!!!!

yay for the biggest backers of this propostion coming from the mormon church, since they’ve always believed in traditional marriage!!!

jon stewart got it best.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=189782&title=i-now-denounce-you-chucklarry

by linkbruin on Nov 4, 2008 2:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Damn that was funny!

Especially that weird looking chick and the last guy! LOL

by stolenbases on Nov 5, 2008 4:57 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Screw 'em both

Vote third party

Angels fan since '67

by red floyd on Nov 4, 2008 9:38 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

I wonder what Wicked E's going to say

when Obama wins.

Hostility abounds on Halos Heaven

by thrill000 on Nov 4, 2008 10:16 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I was wondering why Nader isn't getting any play this election

I think either its a tired story and the media is tired of it
or
it’s a subconscious effort to keep him from causing trouble like he did in 2000
probably the former, but you never know.

by UCIHalo on Nov 4, 2008 10:39 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

What's a limited-government type of voter to do?

I voted for Barr.

The '56 LA Angels (PCL) cap logo...a classic.

by MurrietaMick on Nov 4, 2008 4:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Ditto.

Registered Libertarian and all that.

Angels fan since '67

by red floyd on Nov 7, 2008 9:05 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

To the "yes on 8"

Can someone explain to me how two gays getting married threatens your marriage?

IMHO, if that’s the case, your marriage has bigger problems…

Angels fan since '67

by red floyd on Nov 4, 2008 9:38 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

you don't want gay marriage, don't marry the same sex

don’t tell me it affects our kids.

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 9:40 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

look at the examples

and then we can talk.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 9:41 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

examples of what?

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 9:45 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

the Mass. schools

and what’s already happened in this state

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 10:24 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Oh, you mean

The falsified tripe the yes on 8 ads have been spewing?

Show me the money.

I want links.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 10:34 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

falsified trip?

i saw the story when it first came out.

LINK TO TRIP STORY

or how about this one?

LINK TO OTHER STORY

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 10:55 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

And your point?

Doesn’t look to me like that teacher said “Oooooh gay marriage, Ima gonna indoctrinate my students! Let me find me a wedding somewhere that I can take them to!”

No, she was getting married, thought her kids could watch if they wanted to.

More importantly, it was HER INDIVIDUAL DECISION. NOT THE SCHOOL’S. NOT THE STATE’S.

Look, I’d be somewhat disturbed if my kids (should I someday have them) were taken to such a wedding, without my permission. I’d want to talk to them about it, afterward, so make sure they understood what was going on and what it meant. That might be called, you know, responsible, involved parenting (I’m not making any claims that I will, in fact, be a responsible parent, but the point still stands).

But the simple fact is, the state is not going to mandate that your kids have homosexual marriages, or that they be taught about it in schools.

Nice try.

Funny how I wouldn’t see you complaining if that teacher had taken her kids to see her get a heterosexual marriage.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 11:08 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

AND

EVERY single kid who attended that event had his/her parents’ EXPRESS, WRITTEN CONSENT

California law is different than Mass. law. Marriage is not “taught” in schools in California, whatsoever. Prop 8 does not change one thing about the state education code. Its sole purpose is to force a religious viewpoint on everyone, and take away a fundamental right held by all citizens.

What’’s next? The Irish can’t own property? Jews can’t vote?

by jjackflash on Nov 4, 2008 3:29 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

what's next? Roe v Wade

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 3:30 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I think the next logical step

should be separate gay drinking fountains, so I don’t get indoctrinated with their PRO-GIVING-AIDS-WITH-DRINKING-FOUNTAINS agenda.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 3:48 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

gay marriage is legal now in California

the effects are staggering

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 10:36 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

what are the effects?

seriously. i’m curious.

by NoDakHalo on Nov 4, 2008 12:55 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I was being sarcastic to howie's comment

the Mass. schools

and what’s already happened in this state

I wanted to know what’s happened in this state….

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 1:03 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Point about Marriage

Andrew Sullivan (Blogger for the Atlantic) makes a very strong argument with this fact hauldog. Sullivan argues that with our current society no longer condemning single parents and single parent households, there should be something appealing to conservatives that homosexuals want to uphold the sanctity and privilege of marriage.

by HaloFanInDC on Nov 4, 2008 12:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'd like to know what you think will happen if Prop 8 passes

The time is out of joint; oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.

by chairmanofthebar on Nov 4, 2008 11:53 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Do you think gay people will stop being gay?

Or maybe they and the supporters of civil rights will fight harder than ever.

The time is out of joint; oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.

by chairmanofthebar on Nov 4, 2008 11:54 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I almost missed the validity in your second point

because your first point was so silly.
No, gay people will continue to be gay. and yes it will only be a matter of time before something passes that allows gay people to marry. In my opinion,
However people still have the right to vote how ever they want in this election.

by UCIHalo on Nov 4, 2008 12:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Silly?

It’s a legitimate question. I really don’t understand why people want to eliminate gay marriage. It just makes no sense to me. BTW, the CA economy went way up when gay people started getting married out here.

The time is out of joint; oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.

by chairmanofthebar on Nov 4, 2008 12:24 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

whatever happened to voting what you believe in?

personally, i believe homosexuality is wrong (not a bash… just my beliefs). so, I don’t want my state to tolerate and celebrate (like it has been recently). therefore, i’m voting against it.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 9:41 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

yup, let's teach kids intolerance

what if one of your kids is gay?

hate to remind you, but gays had heterosexual parents and still grew up to be gay. It’s not contagious

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 9:48 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

wait, you cant use logic with homophobes

they prefer to keep it good and ignorant. probably bummed blacks, latinos, and asians are allowed to marry his white women too.

by ihearhowie2.0 on Nov 4, 2008 9:50 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

can I say then

don’t ram your religious beliefs down my throat and make the state constitution a religious document?

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 9:52 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

i don't think he was ramming anything down your throat

he was simply stating his position on the measure.

by NoDakHalo on Nov 4, 2008 10:19 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

"your" was the general 'your' not howies

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 10:37 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Let's take religion completely out of it.

The bottom line with the Homosexuality issue is that IT IS NOT NORMAL to be GAY.

Allow me to explain: If it were meant for us by NATURE/SCIENCE to be GAY then how would we reproduce. So the problem some people have with Homosexuality is that it is not natural. As for how people become gay. Some, I believe were born that way, but I also beleive it was a small percentage. The rest I believe, had something happen to them when they were very young by their parents. Something tramatic.

Let’s also get this clear. I have nothing against Gays. I have friends who are gay. So what. But as I have said to them, don’t tell me your lifestyle is normal because it is not. Again, nobody has to make anyone else accept them for who they are or what they believe in. It goes both ways.

As for the marriage issue, since the inception of the definition of Marriage, it has always been between one man and one woman. That is how it was originally defined, and if it so happens to have been by a religion, than deal with it. They were the first to define it. Facts are Facts.

When I'm not at the stadium, I'd rather be watching my Halos back in Costa Rica!

by Dono Romantico on Nov 4, 2008 3:22 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

By this logic

we shouldn’t allow marriage rights to anyone with any type of genetic abnormality that goes against productive evolutionary trends.

Or maybe we should also just take them away from people that don’t reproduce?

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 3:26 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I like the logic here.

HOWEVER, A MAN WHO IS GAY CAN REPRODUCE IF HE WERE TO HAVE SEX WITH A WOMAN.

When I'm not at the stadium, I'd rather be watching my Halos back in Costa Rica!

by Dono Romantico on Nov 4, 2008 3:31 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You don't get points, do you?

You’re saying that marriage shouldn’t be given to gays because…it goes against evolutionary trends?

Okay, then don’t allow marriage to anyone with a defect, and don’t allow it to a man with a narrow urethra, or a woman with dysfunctional ovaries.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 3:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Or to Old People

In fact, let’s declare null and void the marriages of everyone over child-bearing age.

by jjackflash on Nov 4, 2008 3:57 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

well

if you want to get all historical, originally when a woman married a man, she became his property. She was considered legally dead. Everything she owned became his. I guess you agree with all of that.

Society evolves. People evolve, and become more enlightened.

Why must you TAKE AWAY people’s rights?

What will you think when they come to take away your rights?

by jjackflash on Nov 4, 2008 3:30 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

"gay" is not a 19th century invention. It has ALWAYS existed

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 3:32 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

TRUE

When I'm not at the stadium, I'd rather be watching my Halos back in Costa Rica!

by Dono Romantico on Nov 4, 2008 3:32 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

i have no problem with gay marriage

but since when are those who are against it automatically homophobes?

by NoDakHalo on Nov 4, 2008 10:20 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

well...

If they’re not, why do they care?

by dmhead on Nov 4, 2008 10:41 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

thats a rather narrow sense of thinking...

you can have gay friends but still be against gay marriage, to put it in the most basic way.

by NoDakHalo on Nov 4, 2008 10:52 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

which is exactly where i am

i have no problems with the person, i just don’t agree with what they’re doing.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 10:56 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not afraid of people who CHOSE to drink and drive

but I don’t think that they should have the rights/License to drive. Perhaps those that are against Homosexual Marriage Believe it sets a BAD EXAMPLE.

When I'm not at the stadium, I'd rather be watching my Halos back in Costa Rica!

by Dono Romantico on Nov 4, 2008 3:26 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Drunk driving infringes on your rights

mainly, your right to life should their actions directly lead to your death or liberty as they have in thousands of cases.

On the other hand, gay marriage does nothing to infringe on your rights, nor is there a legitimate argument that proves that it does.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 3:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

AIDS

When I'm not at the stadium, I'd rather be watching my Halos back in Costa Rica!

by Dono Romantico on Nov 4, 2008 3:33 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

what about AIDS?

it’s an auto-immune disease that didn’t start because someone was gay. Should we exterminate all Africans since that is where it originated?

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 3:36 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

UH.....I DON'T THINK SO ! ! !

When I'm not at the stadium, I'd rather be watching my Halos back in Costa Rica!

by Dono Romantico on Nov 5, 2008 10:47 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

...and what I mean is

I don’t think we should exterminate all Africans. HOW STUPID !

When I'm not at the stadium, I'd rather be watching my Halos back in Costa Rica!

by Dono Romantico on Nov 5, 2008 10:47 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

In the US, AIDS is perceived as a "gay disease"

This is not the case in the rest of the world.

AIDS is not the result of homosexuality. This is an ignorant stance. HIV is a virus that crossed over from chimps to humans. How it jumped is still unclear. What it from having sex with chimps? Was it from eating chimps? I don’t know.

What I do know is it didn’t happen from men having sex with other men.

Hostility abounds on Halos Heaven

by thrill000 on Nov 4, 2008 3:50 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Nobody here is arguing about WHERE

AIDS came from. And to the other point someone else made, perceived in the USA is all that matters where I live (USA) not in Africa where AIDS IS NOT A HOMOSEXUAL PROBLEM as much as REAL MAJOR PROBLEM to all due to lack of EDUCATION and Sexual Promiscuity (which is not an issue for Responsible Humans). But back to REALITY in the USA: AIDS is, whether you want to admit it or not, primarily a disease that is Clearly more of a problem with GAY MEN. Just look at the numbers. The majority of humans living in the USA that have AIDS are GAY MEN. Just as it is correct for those who call Lung Cancer a Smoker’s Disease, even though people can get Lung Cancer without ever smoking or being around second hand smoke. The numbers don’t lie.

Bottom Line: The Majority of people with AIDS in the USA got it because of THEIR CHOICE OF LIFESTYLE ! ! ! Drug Users, Gay Men, Straight People with Multiple Partners who happen to be Current or Past Bi-Sexual Men or Current and/or Past Needle Using Druggies.

When I'm not at the stadium, I'd rather be watching my Halos back in Costa Rica!

by Dono Romantico on Nov 5, 2008 10:46 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

being gay was not what transmitted the disease

you said it. it was their lifestyle. Not a gay lifestyle, but having unprotected sex lifestyle. Believe it or not there are straight people with the same lifestyle that have AIDS!

This is a lame argument. I just can’t believe the ignorance you are spewing.

Hostility abounds on Halos Heaven

by thrill000 on Nov 5, 2008 5:53 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Interesting

I always thought that allowing an institution that would promote monogamous relationships between consenting sexual partners would be GOOD for slowing the spread of AIDS.

But that’s crazy old me.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 5:02 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

silly man

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 6:20 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Crazy Silly Ol' You...

First of all, Gay or Straight: Marraige (unless both parties getting married stick to the VOWS), does NOT gaurantee monogamy !

Second: The majority of GAYS, don’t want to get married. For Example, GAY MEN. News Flash !!!! Gay or Straight, Most MEN do have one thing in Common, we are wired in a way that makes Most men want to have sex with whatever we find attractive (depending upon your sexual orientation. Since women are not wired the same way as men when it comes to sex, guess who is getting more of it, staight men or gay men?? Gay men. The choice of whether a human chooses to be monogamous is based upon their own CHOICE to be for their own reasons. With all of that being said, the lifestyle of Gay men leads to more sex with more partners and also increases the chances of the spread of diseases, such as AIDS.

When I'm not at the stadium, I'd rather be watching my Halos back in Costa Rica!

by Dono Romantico on Nov 5, 2008 11:04 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

minor correction on your constitutional analysis

Just as a small constitutional note on the equal protection clause under the14th, and one that is probably more related to immigration issues than anything else (which has admittedly not been as big of an issue as I somewhat expected prior to the economic issues), but equality is not just a fundamental right to “All U.S. Citizens,” but rather “Any person” within US Jurisdiction. There is a constitutional recognition that legal and even illegal aliens deserve the protection.

And I would simply like to echo your sentiments Clutch about the need to not pass prop 8

by HaloFanInDC on Nov 4, 2008 11:40 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Thanks

I was focusing on the equal protection part and trying to summarize the rest of the 14th amendment.

Though, on looking back at the 14th Amendment, the opening does say: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” We could parse commas all day, but I interpret that as saying the jurisdictional element comes in after meeting the “born or naturalized” prerequisite.

But that might not matter, as the precursor to the specific equal protection phrase at the end of Section 1 says “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction.” So that could be interpreted more broadly.

Again, I’m a 1L, and haven’t formally taken formal Constitutional Law yet, so I’m just basing this on linguistics and other historical understanding.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 11:44 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Privilege and Immunites clause versus EP and Due Process

I was simply trying to highlight that under the first part of the second sentence in section 1, you have a clear delineation that “No State….of citizens”, while the second half of the second part pertaining to equal protection and due process only speak in terms of “any person.” So a legal alien would not be afford protection by the first part of the sentence, they would clearly qualify for equal protection and due process.

And an OT note, unless your school is different than mine (2L currently) you’ll have to take Con Law II before you get into any of the interesting 14th Amendment stuff. Con Law I was all about separation of powers, Judicial Review and the more basic structural stuff (i.e. a hell of a lot more boring)

by HaloFanInDC on Nov 4, 2008 12:00 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Ah

Well that sucks. But yeah, I think we’re in agreement on the point about the EPC, above.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 12:01 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

because conservatives arent content living their own life

they have to regulate how others live theirs too. and theyd prefer to raise their kids to be homophobic and hateful of people different than them rather than raise them to be tolerant and accepting

by ihearhowie2.0 on Nov 4, 2008 9:42 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

i love how it's okay for you to have a certain set of beliefs that i should conform to

but not the other way around.

really tolerant and accepting, huh?

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 9:43 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

im not asking you to marry a man

im saying you shouldnt have any say in determining whether a homosexual is equal to you. tell me how does it effect you other than you dont agree with it? I dont agree with owning a gun but i dont see that as a reason why you shouldnt be able to. I worry about myself, not telling you what you can do

by ihearhowie2.0 on Nov 4, 2008 9:44 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

that's the beauty of this country

if you don’t believe in something, you can vote against it. it sounds like you don’t want me to vote for this measure because YOU don’t like my stance.
I don’t have to justify my stance to you… I plan on following my convictions and beliefs and voting in such a manner.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 10:26 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

no you don't have to justify anything

you just have to live with it

I refuse to allow religious holy rollers to teach my children intolerance and discrimination

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 10:39 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

religion has no place in a state constitution

isn’t there such a thing as separation of church & state?

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 10:48 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm religious

Some might say very much so.

I don’t have a family, yet. But when I hopefully someday do have a family, I do NOT want other people in other denominations telling my children what they must believe and that the way I’m raising them is wrong.

In high school, I was told by a teacher or two that I was going to H-ll for being of my denomination (which is, in fact, one of the largest Christian denominations in the country). It was a private, religious HS, so that was to be expected.

But I will NEVER tolerate that happening to my kids. Especially in a public school.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 10:48 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I totally agree

And I’m a Christian!

And just for the record intolerance and discrimination are at odds with Jesus’ teachings, yet Christians are the worst offenders! Oh the hypocrisy!

No on 8.

Hostility abounds on Halos Heaven

by thrill000 on Nov 4, 2008 10:48 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

hypocrisy?

maybe you should read Bible before you call me a hypocrite.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 10:58 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You're saying

That intolerance and discrimination ARE in the Bible?

Which version are you reading, exactly?

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 10:59 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I read the Bible

Tell me what book Jesus says to hate?

Hostility abounds on Halos Heaven

by thrill000 on Nov 4, 2008 11:00 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Can you disagree

without infringing on the rights of others?

Hostility abounds on Halos Heaven

by thrill000 on Nov 4, 2008 11:03 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

who decides what is someone's right

courts? Society? we know its not God?

by UCIHalo on Nov 4, 2008 11:04 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

good question!

pretty muddy waters huh?

Hostility abounds on Halos Heaven

by thrill000 on Nov 4, 2008 11:05 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

hate?

nowhere near it.

i never ONCE said i hate homosexuals. i plainly stated that i DISAGREE with it. that’s a LONG WAY OFF from hate. so don’t give me that.

Love the sinner, hate the sin.

tell me what the book or Romans says about homosexuality. How about 2 Timothy? (or maybe it’s 1 Timothy… i don’t remember which one it is)

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 11:02 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I need to look into Timothy

But Paul was talking about pederasty in Romans in my opinion.

Maybe hate was a bit hyperbole? :)

Hostility abounds on Halos Heaven

by thrill000 on Nov 4, 2008 11:04 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

how is pederasty not homosexuality?

and yes, hate was a far stretch.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 11:06 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Having just done a thesis on this topic...

I can tell you that if Paul was talking simply about pederasty, he would have almost certainly used a different greek word.

by S0uthie on Nov 4, 2008 4:55 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

where does it say they shouldn't?

:)

Hostility abounds on Halos Heaven

by thrill000 on Nov 4, 2008 11:10 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

not sure where

but the Bible certainly has issues with homosexuality. maybe not the words of Jesus, though…

by NoDakHalo on Nov 4, 2008 11:14 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It all comes down to the translation from the original language

People can make pretty strong arguments that the Bible isn’t as anti-homosexual as perceived.

Hostility abounds on Halos Heaven

by thrill000 on Nov 4, 2008 11:22 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

people can make pretty strong arguments

that the sky is actually purple, too.

doesn’t mean it’s true. =D

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 11:25 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yes, but those are very weak arguments.

by S0uthie on Nov 4, 2008 4:56 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Sorry, but...

The Bible cannot be the basis for any laws.

See the First Amendment and the Fourteenth (which extended it to the states).

Or… perhaps we should outlaw eating pork?

Angels fan since '67

by red floyd on Nov 4, 2008 11:33 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

but it can be the basis for my beliefs.

which is what i stand on.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 11:39 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Here's my question to

How is it that your beliefs are “better” for the people as a whole that you would say that a pair of consenting adults can’t marry.

by Seik1177 on Nov 4, 2008 2:35 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Blind Faith

Because it’s written in his Bible so that makes it so. If there is any doubt, his pastor will “interpret” the Bible to remove any such doubt. This is a religious war, nothing more nothing less, otherwise all those christians would accept a Supreme Court decision and move on. After all they will always have their abortion issue to spend their time and money on. Bucnch of Haters.

Recipient of the 2008 "The Iron Man" award from scottnak of Halos Heaven!

by 44FAN on Nov 4, 2008 2:43 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

* Bunch

Radical Christians just are’nt happy unless they have someone or a group to persecute all the time. They can’t exist without a devil figure to point too nad identify themselves as “the good” and the object of their hate as “the evil.”

Recipient of the 2008 "The Iron Man" award from scottnak of Halos Heaven!

by 44FAN on Nov 4, 2008 2:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

so in your mind

it is between what is naturally right and good and insane radical, religious people.

by UCIHalo on Nov 4, 2008 2:52 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The Bible says a lot of things. Here's a pretty topical quote from West Wing

Bartlet: “I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.”
Jacobs: “I don’t say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.”
Bartlet: “Yes it does. Leviticus.”
Jacobs: “18:22.”
Bartlet: “Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here’s one that’s really important because we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing: while you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.” – The West Wing

by linkbruin on Nov 4, 2008 2:26 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

nice

Hostility abounds on Halos Heaven

by thrill000 on Nov 4, 2008 2:29 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Oh yes the hypocrisy

How about the $25 million offered up by the Mormons to foot the bill for Prop. 8. Imagine an entire group of people forced to settle out in Utah partly because the government would not recognize their polygamous marital practices trying to alter the constitution to enforce marriage between one man and one woman in California.

The beautiful hypocrisy.

by Wytelitning on Nov 4, 2008 11:01 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Leviticus 20:13,10,15

13 " ’If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

It also Says……..

10 " ‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

 15 " ’If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal.

If you are no on 8, what would be your stance if people want to marry animals? I voted Yes on 8 because of my beliefs and the way I was raised, therefore I am also against adultery and relationships with animals.

And whats with the equal rights thing? WE ALL HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS. We are all free to marry a woman, and we are all not able to marry our same sex, so whats the problem?

Sorry if any of this sounds stupid, its just my view and I dont mean to offend anyone. I dont have anything against gay people, but I do not agree with their life style. I have 2 friends from highschool that are gay and still talk to them. When I found out they thought that I was not going to talk to them anymore. I told them, “Look your still the same person that I was friends with so why would I stop talking to you. If you choose to be with a guy, thats your choice. Just dont act any different around me, and I wont act any different around you.”

Put Kendry Morales at 1B, and move Sean Rodriguez to 3B......NOW LETS GO WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by acuda27 on Nov 4, 2008 6:55 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Animals can't give informed consent.

We are all free to marry a woman

Women aren’t.

Angels fan since '67

by red floyd on Nov 5, 2008 8:29 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

elaborate, then.

What exactly are your beliefs? What specifically is it about gay marrige that threatens you so?

by dmhead on Nov 4, 2008 10:40 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

here's my guess...tell me if i'm wrong, howiestheman

two guys don’t make a baby
two girls don’t make a baby

the guy goes to church, the church preaches the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman and the importance of family. if families were meant to be made between two men and two women, then they would be able to. the fact of the matter is that the higher being, be it science or some sort of God, made it so that a man and a woman are meant to reproduce and raise children. that simple.

i don’t think he is threatened by gays or gay marriage, i don’t think he hates gays, i don’t think he is homophobic. the guy simply believes that marriage is something that was meant for a man and a woman to share. nothing more, nothing less.

disclaimer (again): i could care less if gays get married, but just because other people have personal feelings for being against it DOES NOT MAKE THEM HATEFUL OR HOMOPHOBIC.

by NoDakHalo on Nov 4, 2008 10:50 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Did you know

That there are gay animals?

http://www.livescience.com/animals/080516-gay-animals.html

And look! Those penguins raised a baby penguin! Too bad that egg couldn’t have just been left out to rot without any other willing or viable parental options.

I’ll bet they “choose” that lifestyle, too.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 10:54 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

thats all fine and well

But why are you speaking for him? All he says is “its against my beliefs” which is fine, believe whatever you want. But this is a basic human-rights issue. I don’t believe in marrige, period. But I’d never vote on a measure to ban marrige, because it would deny others of their own rights to engage in that ritual. Gay marrige hurts NO ONE, and in my mind that should be the only driving force. So if its not a homophobic issue, if its not a tolerance issue, then speak up and say it. Otherwise, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…

by dmhead on Nov 4, 2008 10:56 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

i'm speaking for him because people are putting words in his mouth

and accusing him of being things that he isn’t. that doesn’t allow for very intelligent debate.

by NoDakHalo on Nov 4, 2008 10:59 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

thanks NoDakHalo

i just got back from voting, so i didn’t have a chance to respond to everything.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 11:00 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Agree

The only intolerance I see here is those who disagree with howiestheman.

by Higz on Nov 4, 2008 11:41 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

please

you’re logic is ridiculous.

i believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. plain and simple. if there’s something that i can vote on to make sure that remains the same, then i am going to vote on it. plain and simple.

is that so hard to understand?

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 11:00 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

so would it be fair

if we voted on whether religious wackos belonged in jail or not? i suppose i’d probably vote yes… would you be ok with that going on the ballot?

by Of Angels and Angles on Nov 4, 2008 11:03 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

not even close to the same thing

but i appreciate the title of “religious wacko”. thanks.

and by all means… vote away.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 11:04 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

how is it not the same?

today we vote on an issue that affects (hypothetically) 10% of the population. i could swap out “religious wacko” with “redheads” or “people in wheelchairs.” it would still be ridiculous and wrong.

by Of Angels and Angles on Nov 4, 2008 11:06 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

some religious wackos should be in jail, of course

but i don’t think this measure is threatening to throw gays who marry in jail. it just doesn’t make it possible.

by NoDakHalo on Nov 4, 2008 11:10 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It isn't the same

Or maybe it is.

It would be an even more egregious contradiction into the Constitution, which, you know, gives freedom to everyone’s religious views, regardless of how “wacked out” some other people might think they are.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 11:10 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I understand that you do believe that

My question is why? You have the right to believe what you want, but why should it be a law? I wouldn’t want my own personal beliefs to be law, because it would be unfair to those who don’t share those beliefs. I’m honestly not trying to attack you here, but I can never get a straight answer out of anyone other than “its my beliefs”. I want to know what it is that you think makes gay marrige so bad.

by dmhead on Nov 4, 2008 11:06 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

so it's okay for your beliefs to be a law, but not mine?

isn’t that unfair to me?

once again, it’s the beauty of democracy. majority rules (in theory).

we’ll find out tonight what the majority in California is.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 11:08 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It sounds like

your beliefs are what would become law, not his

The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, Specializing in maniac-ball since 2000

by halofan4life on Nov 4, 2008 11:09 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

depends on what happens with the vote.

right now, his beliefs ARE the law.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 11:10 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

nobody cares what your beliefs are

i’m assuming you are not gay, so… WHY DOES IT MATTER?

by Of Angels and Angles on Nov 4, 2008 11:32 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

in this context

clearly you DO care what my beliefs are. that’s the only reason i’m in this discussion

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 11:40 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

sure i care

but only because your beliefs infringe upon the rights of millions. the beliefs opposing prop 8 on the other hand have absolutely no effect upon yours. other than that you might hate for gay people to be happy.

by Of Angels and Angles on Nov 4, 2008 11:46 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

did you even read what I wrote?

I just said I DON’T want my beliefs to be law, out of fairness. I’m genuinely curious as to where this stance comes from, if its not homophobia. Or rather, what harm will come of two men or two women getting married and living their life together? Isn’t that what this country is all about?

by dmhead on Nov 4, 2008 11:11 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Panther

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 9:59 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You are a mormon

That seems to be a good place to start in explaining the Yes on 8

Teixeira............Everything else can wait.

by hauldog on Nov 4, 2008 10:52 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

nope

not mormon

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 10:59 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I was speaking in generalities not calling you a mormon

The Mormons have rolled a ton of cash into this ballot measure and similar ones in other states

Teixeira............Everything else can wait.

by hauldog on Nov 4, 2008 11:07 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Read my post above

It’s pretty obvious why people have a problem with this.

by Wytelitning on Nov 4, 2008 11:15 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

He didn't say it bothered him

Seems to me it was an observation that a particular group has infused the most cash into the Yes campaign. So it might be logical to infer that a person strongly supporting the measure might belong to that particular religious group.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 11:15 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

out of state organzations throwing a lot of money at another state's matter

just like t. boone pickens prop….i have problems with these.

by linkbruin on Nov 4, 2008 2:29 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Disenfranchised

Re-registered in LA, in September. Received my sample ballot and everything.

Showed up to the polls this morning, and I wasn’t on the rolls. Not even the updated ones. I still got to vote—

Provisionally. So it won’t count unless John McCain suddenly surges ahead in CA…or maybe if 4 and 8 are REALLY, EXTREMELY close.

Yay f—-ed up CA bureaucracy!

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 9:41 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Soth as VP?

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 9:50 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Love the thread.

Wanted to talk politics at OTM, but the mods weren’t approving.

I did some mock MVP ads in the style of the campaign ads a while back. Might be amusing.
Quentin
Morneau

"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.

by 0157H7 on Nov 4, 2008 10:46 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Nice

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 10:50 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Go obama

Go gettem next year, what have we got to lose--Frankie?

by AnaheimHalos61 on Nov 4, 2008 10:51 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

I am voting today...at Orange HS in Orange, in case anybody wants to get wasted while waiting in line with me.

I guess I’ll throw this out there:

I’m voting for Obama and No on 8.

To be honest, I’m still on the fence about Prop 4. It’ll probably be a gametime decision.

Whatever dude.

by Mayheminthehood on Nov 4, 2008 10:56 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

What's Prop 4 about

I’ve caught the jyst of what Prop 8 is

The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, Specializing in maniac-ball since 2000

by halofan4life on Nov 4, 2008 11:05 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Don't parents have to be present for that anyway???

I thought it was illegal for doctors to perform ANY kind of procedure on a minor without the parent or guardians consent

The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, Specializing in maniac-ball since 2000

by halofan4life on Nov 4, 2008 11:08 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

apparently not.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 11:09 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

no, this was on the ballet a few years ago and failed then too.

I’m on the fence too because there are so many “what if” cases.

Hostility abounds on Halos Heaven

by thrill000 on Nov 4, 2008 11:11 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

ballet? BALLOT!

Hostility abounds on Halos Heaven

by thrill000 on Nov 4, 2008 11:11 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

lol

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 11:13 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

it's a nice idea but this prop is poorly written

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 1:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

agreed

i just left it blank

by linkbruin on Nov 4, 2008 2:30 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Abortion

I think that’s probably a more touchy subject then Gay Rights.

could be just me, because homosexuality doesnt bother me.

The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, Specializing in maniac-ball since 2000

by halofan4life on Nov 4, 2008 11:12 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

both are quite touchy

but this isn’t about legalizing abortion… it’s just about making sure the parents know.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 11:12 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

A HA

I see, sounds like a slam dunk vote to me then, but out here in PA I don’t have to worry about it.

The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, Specializing in maniac-ball since 2000

by halofan4life on Nov 4, 2008 11:13 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Slam dunk

The voters didn’t think so the last two times this prop came up. The idea is that social conservative turn-out will be higher this time around.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 11:14 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I was more referring

to what others had said about them not knowing until they get to the polls, IMO it’s a slam dunk, I would immediately vote that the parents would have to be notified. B/c if my daughter was gonna have an abotion I sure as shit would want to be notified.

The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, Specializing in maniac-ball since 2000

by halofan4life on Nov 4, 2008 11:16 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

yeah

i don’t understand why this one would fail either.

man, our state sucks… :P

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 11:17 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I would agree with you, but you're obviously a good parent

I think the problem is the shitty parents that are abusive. I think that’s what those against it are saying.

Hostility abounds on Halos Heaven

by thrill000 on Nov 4, 2008 11:18 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

what are the What if's you were referring to above.

The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, Specializing in maniac-ball since 2000

by halofan4life on Nov 4, 2008 11:22 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

the people that say vote no on 4

ARE COMPLETELY OUT OF THEIR MIND

OK, maybe not out of their mind, but how in the hell are you protecting a teen by not informing the parents. I understand, abusive parents, little girls should think about that when they’re not being safe. the only thing this prop is protecting is a doctor’s ass.

The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, Specializing in maniac-ball since 2000

by halofan4life on Nov 4, 2008 11:35 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Well...

The strongest valid argument I’ve seen on the No side is that there ARE cases in which the pregnancy results from the parent raping the teen. But again, there are exceptions within Prop 4 for this sort of thing.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 11:46 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Protection of the teen

The “No” argument is that if a teen knows she will be forced to reveal her sexual activities, and consequently pregnancies, because of this notification, the teen will not go see a doctor and either attempt a self-abortion, threatening not only the babies, but her life as well, or will have the child and then get rid of the child in a dumpster. The point of the prop also has to do with the doctor/patient privilege and knowing that you can trust your doctor. If that trust is not there, then the doctor can’t treat you to her best ability because you’ll be afraid that she’ll reveal things that you don’t want known

by HaloFanInDC on Nov 4, 2008 11:51 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

This is all well and good

If the person in question is a legal adult and entitled to make legal, adult decisions. Which is why I pretty much don’t support limiting abortion in such a way in other contexts (i.e., spousal notification—I should certainly hope that spouses would be open enough to each other to discuss these things, but legally that’s not my call).

It bewilders me that we’re not willing to let teens decide whether to get certain vaccinations or go on overnight school trips without their parents—yet we’re willing to let them make a fundamentally life-altering decision without it.

Again, if Prop 4 passes, there must be a well-publicized effort to let teens know of the (many) exceptions. Obviously nobody wants to see back-alley abortions (and I admit, that prospect made me go back and forth on the issue for a bit)—but I don’t see this as a truly legitimate concern should Prop 4 pass.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 11:55 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

starts with W

OR in the middle

ends in D

by Seik1177 on Nov 4, 2008 2:43 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I would, too

And for those raising concerns about shitty parents as a reason to vote no, keep in mind that there are PLENTY of exceptions to combat this very thing.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 11:24 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

didn't pass a few years ago...

Hostility abounds on Halos Heaven

by thrill000 on Nov 4, 2008 11:14 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'll agree with you there.

That’s the one I said yes on.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 11:13 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

that was on the ballot back in late 04

during the special election. it didn’t pass then.

by UCIHalo on Nov 4, 2008 11:14 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

girls being to required to notify their parents to get an abortion, in a nutshell.

But only if they get their abortion literally inside a nutshell.

Whatever dude.

by Mayheminthehood on Nov 4, 2008 11:07 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Anyone else see

that CNN pretty much condemned McCain last night?

Go gettem next year, what have we got to lose--Frankie?

by AnaheimHalos61 on Nov 4, 2008 11:06 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

lol

good point

Go gettem next year, what have we got to lose--Frankie?

by AnaheimHalos61 on Nov 4, 2008 11:08 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

This post is great

shows us how people with drastic viewpoints can still gather as one and root for a common goal (the Angels).

Maybe a good example for the world?

Hostility abounds on Halos Heaven

by thrill000 on Nov 4, 2008 11:09 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

the world needs to be Angels fans.

plain and simple.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 11:11 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

True that!

Hostility abounds on Halos Heaven

by thrill000 on Nov 4, 2008 11:12 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Anyone who votes yes on 8

is a vile, despicable, horrible, disgusting human being.

The fact that this is even allowed on a ballot repulses me to an extent that I can’t even articulate.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 11:09 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

wow.

thanks.

i’m glad you can hold certain beliefs, but i can’t.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 11:11 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Didn't say you couldn't hold a belief

just that this is tantamount to Arkansas putting a proposition on the ballot in the 1950s to try to overturn Brown v. Board of Education.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 11:14 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

you called me a

“vile, despicable, horrible, disgusting human being” for holding my belief.

but I’M the one that hates, right?

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 11:15 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

How long have you posted here?

and during what percentage of that time have I used hyperbole?

But that aside: “Man should never become so tolerant as to tolerate intolerance.”

You’re allowed to hold whatever belief you want. Someone hating you for holding that belief does nothing to disrupt or dispute your right to hold it.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 11:17 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

doesnt yes on 8

still allow them the rites of other couples, just not officially calling them “married”?

Go gettem next year, what have we got to lose--Frankie?

by AnaheimHalos61 on Nov 4, 2008 11:11 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Maybe

But maybe not.

More importantly, as I was trying to articulate above (but didn’t make the final leap therein), it takes away the basis for those rights. So as soon as you write this into the Constitution, it’s not hard to take away those equal measures.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 11:12 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Brown v. Board

“separate but equal is inherently unequal.”

It’s not an equal right if its a segregated right.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 11:15 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Which makes the Yes on 8 side all the more pathetic

WE DON’T CARE THAT THEY’RE EQUAL, WE JUST WANT THIS TOTALLY ARBITRARY WORD THAT WE HAPPEN TO LIKE THE SOUND OF TO NOT LEGALLY BE ALLOWED TO BE ASSIGNED TO THESE PEOPLE OVER HERE.

Give it the fuck up.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 11:37 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yes there is

like, say, telling a gay person “you can’t be like the rest of us and use that word because of who you are” causing them the psychological harm inherent in any form of segregation.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 11:53 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

thats funny

you call it pathetic to argue over the meaning of words then say that they have psychological harm. Which is it?

by UCIHalo on Nov 4, 2008 12:10 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Because

in this specific case there is no psychological harm capable of being brought upon the ‘yes on 8’ people by losing their battle. they won’t be labeled second class citizens, end of segregated from “normality,” or unable to do the things everyone else is allowed to do. they’ll merely have to sit on their couch and stew about how horrible their lives are now that some word can’t be used.

the ‘yes’ side is attempting to use such a word to promote separation (which in and of itself is not equal) between two groups in society, giving it a powerfully divisive connotation that it does not have should it be applicable to all groups equally. i’m not saying that words don’t have meaning (though frankly, since i don’t find myself offended more than once a century by anything, ever, i can’t relate to people who get hung up on them myself), i’m just saying that in this specific case one side is attempting to give this word, “marriage,” a new, divisive meaning.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 2:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

No

there are significant differences between marriage and domestic partnerships.

And even if there weren’t, is it OK to have separate schools for whites & blacks? Separate drinking fountains?

by jjackflash on Nov 4, 2008 3:38 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

oh man

I voted no on 8. But this kind of speech is why people get entrenched in their positions and why the country gets so divided.

Hostility abounds on Halos Heaven

by thrill000 on Nov 4, 2008 11:17 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Tolerating and being 'nice' about people who are trying to discriminate

and not calling a spade a spade is what’s wrong with this country.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 11:18 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The problem is

anyone calling another person a “vile, despicable, horrible, disgusting human being” is in fact a vile, despicable, horrible, disgusting human being.

shit, now I’m a vile, despicable, horrible, disgusting human being!

Hostility abounds on Halos Heaven

by thrill000 on Nov 4, 2008 11:20 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Well, no

if someone is committing what could be considered a vile act, there’s nothing wrong with calling them on that,

And from where I sit, voting to deprive individuals of fundamental rights based on lifestyle choice (if you’re naive enough to think homosexuality is a choice), or on the way they were born is pretty disgusting and vile.

The yes on 8 ads are flat-out lies used to manipulate voters into thinking this is something it’s not: it’s simply an attempt to use a constitution to deprive individuals of rights for the first time ever. It’s a short-sighted measure aimed at thwarting any future attempts for our society to come around on its same-sex marriage view by writing it permanently into a constitution, making many legal bodies powerless to challenge it.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 11:24 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

RE: if you’re naive enough to think homosexuality is a choice

have they ever found that allusive little gay gene?

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 11:32 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: your post

(circa 1400)

have they ever found that elusive point at which the world connects to the other side of the planet, making it round?

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 11:35 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Haha beautiful...

“Or can some scientist please explain the banana being perfectly made by god to fit into our hands. It’s proof that evolution is false!”

Amazing that this stuff still goes on.

by Wytelitning on Nov 4, 2008 11:40 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Naive

Are you too naive to understand how science works? Not everything that occurs naturally is triggered by a specific gene.

Gosh, they haven’t found that ellusive little autistic gene. I guess those severely autistic kids must choose that hellish life.

:-p

This is well documented. Homosexuality is triggered by a number of factors. Most basically: (a) the brain is wired “incorrectly” during pre-natal development with certain factors that (b) when triggered by some uncontrollable factor in the environment, © result in homosexuality.
    I believe there are a number of genes that combine, here, as well.

Does that mean that there aren’t any gay people who, for some reason or another, have ostensibly chosen to be gay, outside of any natural causes? Of course not. I know several of them.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 11:36 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

keep making excuses.

whatever helps you sleep at night. :P

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 11:44 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Excuses?

Yeah, it sure helps me to sleep at night that stay up telling myself the world is round, that the Earth isn’t the center of the universe, and that there is such a thing as evolution, even though I know there’s no real basis for it.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 11:47 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

give me a break

“(b) when triggered by some uncontrollable factor in the environment,”

THAT is a horrible excuse. “Oh, it’s not their fault they’re poor! Oh, it’s not their fault they’re a murder!”

all the same stupid crap. you DO have a choice. you CAN choose what you do with your life and the actions you take.

it’s called free will.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 11:49 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The idea that every single failure in life

is a reflection of the individual that failed is the biggest fallacy ever made by anyone.

It’s bullshit.

As is the assertion that the entire homosexual population of the world is willfully making the choice to live a life of hardship, hate, segregation, violence, and discrimination simply because they want to.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 11:52 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

um yeah

Being irresponsible financially and murder are JUST LIKE taking one up the poop shute.

by dmhead on Nov 4, 2008 11:52 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Always with the gay-male jokes

I think more people would support gay marriage if they could just successfully frame the issue as allowing hot women to wed.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 11:55 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

What the hell?

Are you fucking kidding me?

I’m sorry, but now you’ve pushed me over the line. I’m trying to engage in an honest back and forth here.

If someone’s born into poverty, as many are, that sucks, obviously. I’d be seriously concerned about you if you thought it didn’t suck.

But as we’ve seen, nearly any man or woman can pull himself up by the bootstraps with enough dedication and get himself where he needs or wants to be. I look to my grandfathers (one raised dirt poor in rural Idaho and became one of the most well-respected pathologists in the U.S.) and to my mother as perfect examples of that.

But SEXUALITY IS ENTIRELY FUCKING DIFFERENT.

    The ONLY choice involved there is how open to be about it.

Imagine if someone told you you couldn’t be straight anymore. That it wasn’t allowed and just wasn’t natural.

Would you hide your straightness? I know it would be damn near IMPOSSIBLE for me to do so. I could strain to repress my heterosexual urges forever, but it wouldn’t ever work.

How DARE you compare gays to murderers. How DARE YOU.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 12:00 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

way to flip out.

“But SEXUALITY IS ENTIRELY FUCKING DIFFERENT. The ONLY choice involved there is how open to be about it.”

according to you, maybe.

this country is intent on coddling everything and telling you that’s “it’s not your fault… blah blah blah”.

you CAN make a choice. YOU CAN. don’t tell me otherwise… it’s a load of crap.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 12:03 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

What the hell

Are you talking about—that was my question.

Explain to me how murder and homosexuality are logically related to each other.

True—if you’re homosexual, you can make the choice not to have a same sex partner, not to have gay sex, etc.

BUT YOU DON’T CHOOSE WHO YOU’RE NATURALLY ATTRACTED TO.

I love the implication that rational human beings make the voluntary choice to subject themselves to a lifetime of hate and discrimination.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 12:32 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

i have to vehemently disagree here

people do not entirely have a choice. your choices are merely the ones you are dealt, which often does not include all the options.

there are cycles of poverty. there is no poverty gene. its nice to think its all hunky dorey and people can always just rise up, but thats not the case. there are environmental factors; thats not the whole story, you still do have choices in the matter. but you cannot simply ignore environmental factors.

by linkbruin on Nov 4, 2008 2:36 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Good for you

You shouldn’t be worried about getting shit for saying what you said. Anyone who would do that on here is an ignorant POS. It sickens me that Prop 8 is passing. It’s the destruction of civil rights in this country.

The time is out of joint; oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.

by chairmanofthebar on Nov 5, 2008 8:51 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Toleration Does Not Equal ACCEPTANCE.

Discrimination is a ridiculously overused word. When you marry or date someone over another, you discriminate! If you don’t hang out with KKK members because they are ignorant racist idiots, you are discriminating who you choose to assosiate with. If you find Latina women more attractive than White women and only date Latinas, you are choosing to discriminate against white women because of the color of thier skin. I am NOT saying that you will treat white women with disrespect because you choose not to date them, that would be wrong. But just the same, you are discriminating. WE ALL DO IT to some degree or another.

The real problem here is that most people who are for Gay Marriage are against religion being taught in school or anything that they find offensive and choose to DISCRIMINATE against. Truth be told, everyone and everything should be allowed to be legal and taught in school so as not to DISCRIMINATE against someone and their beliefs.
Discrimination Exists and Always will and depending the situation, there is nothing wrong with it. Just take a look at Nature if you want to see examples to prove eitheir side of the arguement.

When I'm not at the stadium, I'd rather be watching my Halos back in Costa Rica!

by Dono Romantico on Nov 5, 2008 11:16 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

lmao

rec’d.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 11:18 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Don't worry

I thought that about you long before this thread.

:-D

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 11:18 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

well, as much as i enjoyed this... uhm... love fest

i gotta take care of some stuff.

see you kids tonight!

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 11:22 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

I can't imagine...

simply because it would require someone to admit discrimination without having any anything to hide behind.

Similar to being racist, that is just an asshole being ignorant because someone is different.

by Wytelitning on Nov 4, 2008 11:35 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

No on 8

-because you can’t choose whether you’re gay
-because the government has no business defining marriage, straight or gay
-because it’d be nice if we stopped caring more about sexual orientation than what type of person someone is

I want this election to be over. It’s not really going to make an enormous difference in my life regardless of who wins.

http://inplaynoouts.blogspot.com/ - A blog about teams I like, written by me.

by Carl Johnson on Nov 4, 2008 11:33 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

My position on 8

As long as state and federal law provides benefits to those who are married (tax, inheritance, etc..), then civil gay marriage should be allowed.

Under the First Amendment, I can’t see the state forcing a church to perform a gay marriage. But why, for goodness sake, should it be illegal for two people of the same sex to go down to City Hall and have a judge perform a marriage?

Angels fan since '67

by red floyd on Nov 4, 2008 11:37 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

wow, very interesting take!

I’ve never heard this opinion before.

Hostility abounds on Halos Heaven

by thrill000 on Nov 4, 2008 11:45 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

this is JUST to Gorbachav5

“Everyone sins in some way or another.”

didn’t Jesus say to go and sin no more? all this does is make another excuse to keep on sinning.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 11:45 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

That's nice that Jesus said that and all

too bad this isn’t the United Jesus States of Jesus.

I think there’s something in the constitution about keeping religion and law separate, but maybe I haven’t read the thing in a while.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 11:50 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

that's funny

because the constitution says NOTHING about that, moron.

it was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in the 1800’s.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 11:56 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

What the f?

Funny how

“Congress shall make NO LAW RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RELIGION”

Seems to imply that Casey is correct.

Funny.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 12:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

that's not seperation

that’s making sure we didn’t get another Church of England.

next?

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 12:05 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You amaze me.

It’s so refreshing to see how everything can be so simplified to conform to your narrow little view of the world.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 12:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Point it out to me

Where have I twisted something?

I’m sorry, but backing up arguments with evidence and rationality does not constitute “twisting words.”

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 12:12 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

how exactly do you interpret

“Congress shall make NO LAW RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RELIGION” as “we need to keep religion and law seperate”?

that says that Congress can’t ESTABLISH a religion (IE CHURCH OF ENGLAND).

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 12:14 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Dear lord

Whatever genius logical leap you’ve just made is clearly beyond my simpleton capacity.

There’s more than one way to ESTABLISH religion.

Try reading about the writing of the constitution and the fundamental concerns that went into it. Let me spell it out: Our founding father’s DIDN’T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TELLING PEOPLE WHAT TO BELIEVE OR HOW TO PRACTICE THEIR OWN BELIEFS. ANY law that translates religious belief into enforceable legal authority was considered suspect.

DC, would you mind helping out here? Where’s cardinalwraith when you need him…

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 12:24 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

well.....

On one hand….Howies rather simply statement is true. There is validity that a Church of the United States was what the founder’s feared when they wrote the Constitution. BUT clearly it has been recognized that the government can pressure citizens through invidious measures that, while not openly apparent on its face, do indeed “establish” a religion. All of the cases dealing with the 10 Commandments and Christmas displays on government property are clear examples where it has been interpreted of government endorsement of religion, which the Constitution forbids.

by HaloFanInDC on Nov 4, 2008 12:35 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Thank you

Much clearer than I could apparently state it.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 12:36 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

HAHAHAHAHA

Oh please tell me where you heard that.

by Wytelitning on Nov 4, 2008 12:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Crux of the argument

This is where the constitutional arguments are. It is clear that congress could not establish the Church of the United States, but it is unclear of how far the government can go to endorse or support religion before it becomes some dominant so as to supersede all other religions.

by HaloFanInDC on Nov 4, 2008 12:39 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

no, the word separation does not appear in the constitution (I fail to see how this makes me a moron?). However, it is implicit within the writing of it, anyway.

A law banning gay marriage for the reason that it is sinful would be a law respecting the values of one religion over another, ergo it would be establishing one as more important than another.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 12:42 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Rofl

Way to pervert the words…

Christ also said “Be Perfect as I am Perfect.” Yet He said elsewhere that it is IMPOSSIBLE for humans be Perfect, and that our salvation comes only through His grace and the grace of the Holy Spirit. I believe His point is that we must strive for perfection with the recognition that we will fail—thus acknowledging and reinforcing our dependence on Him.

I’m not here to debate theology, so I’ll shut up now.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 11:51 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I did, actually

“Go and sin no more” is NOT stated with an expectation that we will suddenly all be completely perfect and that we’d go straight to Hell with no chance of Salvation thereafter should we ever sin again, as you imply.

It is stated with the expectation that we will strive to be Perfect as Christ is Perfect, with the acknowledgment of our sin and our dependence on His grace.

If the world was without sin everafter Christ came to us, why’s He waited 1,973 years to return?

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 12:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

there's a difference between "falling into sin" and "living in sin".

and as i said earlier, there is NO WAY to make you understand this, so i am going to stop trying.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 12:11 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Really

Gosh, I’m such a fucking simpleton.

Gosh, I never knew that all that religious study would just result in furthering my ignorance.

Gosh I never knew I’d need someone like you—whose authority is “I think something is wrong, therefore it IS”—to come and clarify the world for me.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 12:14 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

i didn't say that.

but there comes a point where you’re “casting your pearls before swine.” (I’m not calling you swine… it’s a figure of speech).

we’ve reached that point. you hate everything i say, and don’t share my beliefs. therefore, we WILL NOT be on the same page.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 12:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I hate everything you say?

Again, I’m loving the logical leaps. They’re astounding. One might even say luminous.

I think you’ll find at the end of the day that we hold the same fundamental theological viewpoint and that we’re rooting for the same “team,” so to speak. I just happen to interpret things a bit more broadly than you apparently do.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 12:25 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

the logical steps...

are no worse than the ones you take in saying that because he doesn’t support gay marriage he therefore “hates gays”, is “homophobic”, is “hateful”, “is a fucking moron” because he disagrees with you, etc…

by Neo8234 on Nov 4, 2008 1:19 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Excuse you

Please COPY AND PASTE THE POSTS WHERE I SAID THAT.

That’s what I thought.

Thank you.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 6:33 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Jesus did say that...

right after sending all of those not worthy of judging away. Jesus is the only one that can judge, no one else.

Hostility abounds on Halos Heaven

by thrill000 on Nov 4, 2008 11:55 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

i'm not judging anything

not even close.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 11:55 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

no

it’s voting based on my beliefs and convictions.
get over it.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 11:58 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

No, you're not

You’re judging homosexuality to be sinful and therefore that homosexuals should not get married. You’re making the judgment that because of their sexuality, they don’t get equal rights.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 12:05 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

there is really no way to make you understand this

so i’m going to stop responding now.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 12:07 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Your vote

deprives another of equal rights, when the equal right they would obtain would in no way infringe on your own rights.

Civil rights should not be a voting issue. It’s that simple.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 1:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

no no no, I'm not saying that!

I’m just giving the reason why that passage isn’t totally usable in Gorbachev’s situation.

Hostility abounds on Halos Heaven

by thrill000 on Nov 4, 2008 11:57 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Another excuse to keep on sinning?

The sinning was happening anyway. Voting yes on Prop 8 won’t make gay people un-gay. They’ll just be gay AND angry that they can’t legally get married.

All sin is equal in the sight of God. It’s the sin that needs to be addressed, not the manifestations of the sin.

I feel the need, the need...for speed!

by Gorbachav5 on Nov 4, 2008 12:03 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

i'm well aware all sin is equal

and i’m a sinner just like everyone else.

BUT “no on 8” is just accepting the sin as normal and right, and i can not, in good faith, do that.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 12:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Also, for the record

Christianity—or at least Catholicism, one of the more conservative interpretations out there—does not consider the state of homosexuality in and of itself to be sinful.

It is the homosexual ACT (that is, you know, the part where one engages in anal reactions) that is considered sinful.

I’d find it in the Catechism for you but am not familiar with its on-line archives.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 12:11 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Now I know you're shitting me

Try again when you’ve crawled out of the cave you’ve clearly been living in for the last 2000 years.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 12:14 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

qualification

I think you would have to say that Catholicism is socially conservative. I don’t presume to interpose on what Clutch is saying, but I find it tough to argue that Catholicism is less conservative than many of the protestant denominations

by HaloFanInDC on Nov 4, 2008 12:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

from Clutch's post

“does not consider the state of homosexuality in and of itself to be sinful.”

that’s more liberal than many other denominations.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 12:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Taken as whole

yet unlike other denominations, Catholicism refuses to allow for female priests, recognition of gay priests and has taken a sharp stance of traditional social issues like abortion and marriage. When view in the pantheon of all the other forms of Christianity, Catholicism far more conservative, when evaluated on all positions, than most protestant faiths.

by HaloFanInDC on Nov 4, 2008 12:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The Catholic church

At bottom, has one of THE STRICTEST interpretations of Scripture out there.

Remember, it took the Vatican until at least 1990 to admit it was wrong about Galileo. And it’s only in the last twenty years or so, I think, that it’s recognized evolution, either.

So I’m pretty sure if said Vatican finds no scriptural basis for the proposition that merely having homosexual urges (thus the “state of being homosexual”) to be sinful—but rather the state of acting on those urges to be sinful—it’s likely that that’s the case…

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 12:29 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

There is nothing in the Prop that says "normal" or "right"

It allows homosexual couples to get married – that’s all. Also, even if it were considered “normal” or “right,” I would have a problem with it in as much as I believe that lifestyle is sinful, but Jesus was markedly counter-cultural. Christians maintain their faith outside of politics, and this is one more way to do that.

There is no point for people to stop sinning unless they know Jesus. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but I believe we need to get to the root of this sin before we try to eliminate the effects of it. In other words, all people need to be loved and need to know Jesus before it makes any sense to work on the sin.

I feel the need, the need...for speed!

by Gorbachav5 on Nov 4, 2008 12:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not a sinner

because I don’t subscribe to that book you read.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 12:39 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Nice......

all of this finger pointing saying you’re a sinner becuase you’re gay is bullshit. Same goes for the “If you don’t believe in my God/Church” crowd. What a bunch of crap.

When I'm not at the stadium, I'd rather be watching my Halos back in Costa Rica!

by Dono Romantico on Nov 4, 2008 3:44 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Do you believe prostitution and drugs should be legal too?

And do you believe that Religion and GOD should be taught in public schools too?

Because it seems to me that most people who don’t want this kind of stuff taught to their children in schools are against it because they would like the issues they consider contraversial to them not taught to their children. This goes for those who don’t want GOD or Religion taught in schools. If you allow one and not the other, you are saying one is right and the other is wrong

When I'm not at the stadium, I'd rather be watching my Halos back in Costa Rica!

by Dono Romantico on Nov 4, 2008 3:40 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

or just doesn't exist

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 3:44 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I think if you're Yes on 8, you'd probably enjoy your life more if you lived somewhere in the Bible belt. California is a cool place because, while we're thought of as kooky sometimes by the rest of the country, at least we are forward thinking(for the mo

I’m not going all “like it or geeeeeet out” but seriously, if you want to live in states wherever one is going to be thinking whatever the bible tells them, you could do better for yourself somewhere else.

Whatever dude.

by Mayheminthehood on Nov 4, 2008 11:44 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

I'm a Christian

And enjoy living here just fine, but I still voted no on 8.

I feel the need, the need...for speed!

by Gorbachav5 on Nov 4, 2008 12:05 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

besides

there is hardly unity on the meaning of the bible. wouldn’t work anyway.

by UCIHalo on Nov 4, 2008 12:35 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Irony

Has anyone noticed that this whole prop 8 battle has done more to expose children and the next generation to the issue of homosexuality? By giving highlighting the issue, the Yes on 8 supporters have brought discussion and discourse of the issue to the forefront and ultimately, i believe that this exposure will eventually result in acceptance of homosexuality.

by HaloFanInDC on Nov 4, 2008 11:47 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Wrong

Most kids don’t give a shit about politics or news.

Watching a few hours of TV will familiarize a child with homosexuality more than a ballot measure.

by Higz on Nov 4, 2008 12:00 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I love Three's Company

Hostility abounds on Halos Heaven

by thrill000 on Nov 4, 2008 12:02 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I heard you resemble Mr Roper.....

 * giggle *

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 1:37 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

:-) mmmmmm could be!

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 1:43 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Obama...

…is the trendy, MTV vote. I’m voting for McCain, but I think Obama will win.

I love how people just eat up this nebulous message of “change.” What exactly is involved with this change he speaks of? I mean, is there anything specific? Maybe if all of you trendy voters had actually got off your asses to vote in 2000 and 2004, you wouldn’t have had Bush for 8 years to cause you so much grief.

by Higz on Nov 4, 2008 11:56 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

well said, Higz

it’s trendy to hate all things conserative… that’s it.

people have been spoon-fed so much crap, that they’ll eat up anything in the opposite direction of what we have now, even though it’s a very, VERY dangerous route to take.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 12:00 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Gotcha....the liberal media strikes again........

and how is this a dangerous route to take? What has been proposed by Obama that threatens the country any worse than where it’s at right now?

by HaloFanInDC on Nov 4, 2008 12:05 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

how about the analysts saying that taking the ultra-liberal route right now

would kill the economy/country?

you can’t go from one extreme to another every 4 (or 8) years. there’s no stability.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 4, 2008 12:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Staying the course

Yet following the “conservative” route, which has only expanded government spending beyond any liberal policy measure and precipitated a recession is really the way to go? And clearly there’s a huge amount of stability going on right now with wild swings in the stock market, countries going bankrupt and trillion dollar bailouts going on around the world.

by HaloFanInDC on Nov 4, 2008 12:14 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Blame economic woes on Bush and the Republicans

Even though Congress is Democrat-controlled.

by Higz on Nov 4, 2008 1:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You're funny

I like you.

Did you black out from 2000-2006…you know, that whole period where Republicans controlled the Executive and the Legislature?

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 1:39 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I thought the economic crisis

was caused by greedy, misleading leaders and misinformed and foolish home buyers. But hey its easier to blame the government and then demand that they fix it.

by UCIHalo on Nov 4, 2008 2:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

this is the best summation I have seen of the whole debacle

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/700_billion_blame_game.html

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 2:34 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

whoa. big typo here

I meant lenders not leaders. my bad

by UCIHalo on Nov 4, 2008 2:37 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The Democrats have a simple majority caucusing with them

unless you have a veto-proof majority, it’s completely worthless to be pointing out that someone has a control of the house and senate if the president is still of the other party. nowhere is this more apparent than in the fact that president bush’s use of veto-power since democrats took over is currently being used at a rate THIRTY-SIX TIMES what it was during the years with a republican congress.

so, despite having the legislative branch, they don’t have any real power unless they can get 67 votes every time. your point is moot.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 2:09 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Bush proposed a huge regulatory overhaul in 2003 to prevent the crisis

Guess who blocked his efforts?

So, no, my point is not moot.

by Higz on Nov 4, 2008 2:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Guess who blocked his efforts?

My guess is not the democratic party, since if the Republican party, with their republican president, and their republican finance committee couldn’t defeat a minority, it sounds like there wasn’t much cohesive effort on ANYONE’S part to see through to the end such important legislation.

The difference here is you seem to be spinning everything back around to be the democrats’ fault, despite 8 years of a republican president and 6 of a republican congress…whereas i’m not necessarily blaming one side more than the other, so much as just saying your broad assertion that BARNEY FRANK SINGLE-HANDEDLY DESTROYED THE ECONOMY is a load of shit.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 2:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not saying anyone is immune from culpability.

But the policies that brought us to this point generally seem to have been effected when a Democrat was in charge of the Banking Committee.

Shit, we can trace this back to Carter and Clinton too. Clinton even played the race card to get banks to lend to unqualified borrowers.

by Higz on Nov 4, 2008 2:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

And again

the mortgage crisis is merely a piece in the puzzle of this crisis.

You could make cases for any number of other components playing a role in this economic downfall. Frankly, I don’t think even the “experts” know everything that’s gone into creating this downturn, nor will we ever. The mortgage crisis is just the most frequently referenced and easily identifiable.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 2:38 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

it's more frequently referenced because it 'appeals' to the masses

most people don’t understand the buying on speculation, loans, funding the loans etc etc

(like me)

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 2:39 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Only if it was a MAJORITY of the problem

and not the PLURALITY that it more likely was. There are other comparable pieces. I think our dependence on oil, for example, when it rose to levels that were infringing on American spending habits in various other sectors of the economy, played a heavier role in damaging the dollar and wounding us than anyone has really stated to this point. The ripple effect from it may very well be massive.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 2:43 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

HUH????

the price of oil has been dropping like a rock. Why, because those who control it know that the only way they are going to sell more is when people can afford it. Seeing the US economy ADJUST (A,K.A.: Tank) I find it intersting that the prices have dropped.

Maybe you lost me.

When I'm not at the stadium, I'd rather be watching my Halos back in Costa Rica!

by Dono Romantico on Nov 4, 2008 3:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Uh

don’t post in here anymore. For your sake.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 5:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

you funny man

When I'm not at the stadium, I'd rather be watching my Halos back in Costa Rica!

by Dono Romantico on Nov 5, 2008 11:18 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

considering how many people involved with foreclosures

it’s that one thing that either people are experiencing or know someone

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 2:44 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Good logic

Why don’t you look into how the parties have voted regarding bank regulations. Specifically Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Teixeira............Everything else can wait.

by hauldog on Nov 4, 2008 1:25 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

that part was Bush & Barney Frank

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 1:29 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Really?

Clinton relaxed regulation. Specifically lending practices.

Teixeira............Everything else can wait.

by hauldog on Nov 4, 2008 1:34 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

In response to Bush

Teixeira............Everything else can wait.

by hauldog on Nov 4, 2008 1:37 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

yes, that too

it was a total clusterf* of non-attention, deregulation etc until it hit the fan. Then all of a sudden everyone predicted it and were warning the world.

Everyday peeps are to blame too. They got greedy

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 1:38 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Ok we are on the same page here.

I get tired of people blaming the entirety of the economic woes on bush.

Teixeira............Everything else can wait.

by hauldog on Nov 4, 2008 1:40 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't think he helped

he had his head in the oil well as much as anyone.

This was a collaborative pile up. Some helped by doing, some helped by looking the other way.

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 1:42 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Can't disagree with that at all.

Teixeira............Everything else can wait.

by hauldog on Nov 4, 2008 1:46 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

If they were such horrible, sorrowful, dangerous policies

it certainly didn’t occur to Bush anywhere in the SIX YEARS he had before the Democrats came in to do anything about it.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 1:52 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Again really?

In September 2003, Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the Republican-led Financial Services Committee, opposed Bush administration proposals for increasing oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by creating an independent agency to supervise

Teixeira............Everything else can wait.

by hauldog on Nov 4, 2008 2:12 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, and?

One man, all by his lonesome, in the house of representatives, delivered 218 votes there, and 51 in senate to defeat bush’s efforts? and this within a republican-controlled committee?

he had majorities then, and he got nothing done? it sounds more like there wasn’t much done to stop it…like maybe it wasn’t a priority.

which says nothing of the fact that the whole economic crisis we’re in right now being simplified to FANNIE AND FREDDIE is just ignorant.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 2:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I am not doing that.

Thanks for pointing out my ignorance though.

Teixeira............Everything else can wait.

by hauldog on Nov 4, 2008 2:19 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

was that the same time Barney was getting his Frank on with Herb Moses?

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 2:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

A terrorist attack and the burst of the tech bubble

Really were a good way for Bush’s first term to kick off as well. They did not hurt the world economy at all.

Teixeira............Everything else can wait.

by hauldog on Nov 4, 2008 2:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I did. You responded to me.

Why don’t you read the chain and see where the conversation was going before jumping down my throat.

Teixeira............Everything else can wait.

by hauldog on Nov 4, 2008 2:23 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I did read the chain

All I asked was you not respond to me to inform me that bush did not have GREAT CONDITIONS FOR A GOOD ECONOMY FROM THE GET-GO when I did not say or imply such a thing.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 2:25 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Well I pointed out Bush tried to regulate those two entities

After you stated:

 If they were such horrible, sorrowful, dangerous policies

it certainly didn’t occur to Bush anywhere in the SIX YEARS he had before the Democrats came in to do anything about it.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 1:52 PM PST

The economic conditions were a follow up to my post directly above it.

Carry on.

Teixeira............Everything else can wait.

by hauldog on Nov 4, 2008 2:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Right, but 9/11 doesn't really play into this anymore

7 years out, if 9/11 is the cause of this recession, then it might as well be blamed for any recession ever.

I’m not blaming Bush for the economy, PER SE, but I CERTAINLY don’t buy that two years of veto-able control of congress over 8 years has somehow led us to this point, either.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 2:34 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

boo

its trendy to want to get out of iraq, its trendy to want to have equal human rights? its trendy to want everyone to get health care?….maybe you should think about the good of the country not if you are going to have to pay a few extra bucks in taxes……i bust my ass and have the paycheck to show it…..but i also understand that there are people who work harder then me and longer hours but make 1/4 of what i make….. and if need to chip in a little more to make sure they get proper health care or better schools then why not….its time to stop being selfish and think about others

by surfpunk on Nov 4, 2008 12:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Amen

I wholeheartedly agree.

I feel the need, the need...for speed!

by Gorbachav5 on Nov 4, 2008 12:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

rebuttal

How does a vote for McCain endanger “equal human rights”?

Government-run health care is a horrible idea. You think it’s expensive now, wait until the government runs it.

America is the most charitable nation on Earth. We give PLENTY of money to those who are less fortunate. And we don’t even need the government to tell us to do so!

I don’t make very much money, and I’ll tell you right now – I don’t want your money or anyone else’s money.

by Higz on Nov 4, 2008 1:14 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

"If you think it is expensive now, wait until the government runs it."

That is such a pure bullshit Republican argument. The government ALREADY runs the largest healthcare system in the country, enjoyed by every member of congress including the hypocritical republicans that want to deny it to everyone else, every federal government employee, ciivil servants, and all active and retired military personnel. It is a good system that works well. Obama’s plan is to allow everyone else to buy into this same system.

When John McCain was asked during the campaign why he did’nt think it was a good idea to allow all americans to buy in to the health system he already enjoys, he had no answer. His only reply was, “that is a good question,” and gave his stupid crooked old man smile.

Recipient of the 2008 "The Iron Man" award from scottnak of Halos Heaven!

by 44FAN on Nov 4, 2008 2:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Let's see...

universal heath care would add like over 200 million people to the government system. You don’t think funding that is going to be incredibly expensive?

by Higz on Nov 4, 2008 2:35 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

of course it will be expensive

but buying into health insurance is also expensive. i had to buy into a shitty HMO because i can’t afford anything better and it still costs alot. and under obama’s plan it would add around 40 million to the government system. there is currently just over 40 million americans with no health coverage at all.

by Of Angels and Angles on Nov 4, 2008 2:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Maybe you should shop around.

That’s the beauty of a free market.

I cannot believe that you would have so much faith in the government to run an effective and affordable health care system.

Name ONE FUCKING SYSTEM that the government actually runs well.

by Higz on Nov 4, 2008 3:03 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

their own personal payroll department?

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 3:05 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

shop around

the point is most people are living paycheck to paycheck and to ask them to take $300 a month out of there paycheck to pay for health care is not fair……we should just pick up the tab and have business help pay for there employees.

by surfpunk on Nov 4, 2008 3:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

If it were only this simple...
we should just pick up the tab and have business help pay for there employees.

by Ajax on Nov 4, 2008 3:23 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

This is true

no one in the world is actually voting for Obama because they feel he’s the better candidate, it’s all because MTV TOLD THEM TO DO IT.

This is as lazy a generalization as me saying that you’re voting for McCain because you could pass for an extra from “Deliverance.”

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 1:56 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You forgot trendy too.

Obama is clearly much cooler. He can dance, he knows more slang, he’s younger, and wowie-wow he’s a really good speaker.

by Higz on Nov 4, 2008 2:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

He also plays the b-ball and probably listens to the hip-hop

do kids listen to THE HIP-HOP these days? I bet that’s why they like them!

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 2:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I like him

because he supports a playoff system over the BCS

by UCIHalo on Nov 4, 2008 2:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

although I did not vote for him

however, after he wins I will take comfort that after we have come together in favor of a playoff system, maybe there are other policy concerns we can work on together.
Hooray for bipartisanship

by UCIHalo on Nov 4, 2008 2:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

vote for the RALLY RAT!

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 2:30 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I went around 10:30....no wait. Obama & NO on everything else

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 1:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

NO on 8

CUZ homosexuals should have every right to fuck up the “institution” of marriage as badly as heterosexuals have…unfortuately though, fear tends to work and since the 8 proponents are blanketing the state with the idea of kindergarten kids being taught gay sex I think it’s gonna pass maybe with a wide margin; SAD.

Registered D since I’ve been able to vote but will vote Palin today, voted Hillary in the primary and there’s NO WAY IN HELL I can vote Obama. This guy is being pampered and coddled right into the White House without having made one tough decision of any kind, he’s just gone right along with whatever flow pushes him further along his path of … D E S T I N Y…whatever. If he gets in there no despair from me, apropos to this guy I will just HOPE he does the right things for us since it’s in all of our best interests that no matter who gets in there, they are able to turn things around…to me though the indicators are Obama will be ineffective at best, maybe so ineffective that Hillary can take a run at him in 2012. I HOPE I’m wrong and that he actually would bring the CHANGE we need that so many believe in.

That being said, um…
SIGN TEX NOW.

by LUVtheLAA on Nov 4, 2008 12:15 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Vote for Palin?

How is Palin not being coddled to the White House. She’s the most inexperience and anti-intellectual candidate out there, including the Green and Libertarian parties. Palin has had to be handled beyond anyone in the history of the modern presidency because of her lack of knowledge of any thing of substance beyond special needs children (which I might add there are questions about her medical records) and energy.

by HaloFanInDC on Nov 4, 2008 12:19 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

And she has been allowed to get away without giving a single press conference during the campaign.

Recipient of the 2008 "The Iron Man" award from scottnak of Halos Heaven!

by 44FAN on Nov 4, 2008 12:20 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

How Palin is NOT being coddled

Palin: Has faced FIERCE and UNRELENTING criticism since her arrival on the scene;

Obama: Has not only faced ZERO real criticism of any kind but instead is hailed as some kind of messiah and that this whole “election” thing is a mere formality since his arrival on the scene;

See the difference?

by LUVtheLAA on Nov 4, 2008 12:24 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Bil Ayers, a racist priest, and supposed ties to islamic extremists.

Not too mention, some people saying he shouldn’t be allowed to run for Pres. b/c his dad was Kenyan, so they are arguing that he is not a natural born citizen.

sounds like harsh criticism to me

The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, Specializing in maniac-ball since 2000

by halofan4life on Nov 4, 2008 1:19 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Points that are made by conservatives...

But are largely ignored in the mainstream media. Obama only faces harsh criticism from the people who vehemently oppose him, but compare the coverage in the supposedly unbiased mainstream media of Obama to Palin or McCain…

If you truly look at this objectively you will see that all of the information or stories critical of Obama are suppressed or buried by the mainstream media but anything critical of Palin or McCain is covered repeatedly as a headline or front page story.

by Neo8234 on Nov 4, 2008 1:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Maybe you're right

Maybe because I am not being objective (since I am an Obama supporter) towards this. And on stations like MSNBC I’m sure they probably do bury those stories. But Fox News has done everything they can to try and bury Obama with these stories. I think maybe CNN is the only station that has covered all this mudslinging “fairly,” if that’s even the right word for it.

The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, Specializing in maniac-ball since 2000

by halofan4life on Nov 4, 2008 1:31 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Kudos, halofan4life

A lot of Obama supporters will not tolerate any kind of even sensible reservations about their candidate let alone outright criticism so even this small allowance by yourself that there may be some media bias is really really welcome. I guess the bias goes both ways in that the media has pushed the more fervent of his followers which is to the detriment of supporters like yourself since I probably have been guilty of thinking a lot of his supporters are fainting, rapturous groupie types; stupid of me I think, surely the vast majority of us all have taken a good look and made the best decision we can. I also had not really seen this bias but this election year the handling of Obama and Hillary and then Palin has really illustrated it to me…

by LUVtheLAA on Nov 4, 2008 2:10 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Relative to the gross inadequacies of her resumé for the presidency

yes, she has been coddled.

I don’t think it can properly be overstated how horribly unqualified the woman is for the presidency. By her own admission, she reads almost no news sources. She has/had no understanding of the economic crisis facing our country. She has little understanding of the dynamics of our numerous foreign relations, past or present. She doesn’t know the actual role of the vice president in this country. She has little understanding of the system of checks and balances in this country. She has little capability of rationally explaining her position of matters of social importance, and at least appears capable of little more than using religion as a fall-back point for her position on any social issue. She’s a walking soundbyte, handled by individuals who are TERRIFIED to put her in front of a camera without spending two days cramming for her ‘exam’ in front of television audiences. The little competence she has shown on any matter have been the product of her, effectively, being given a ‘cheat sheet’ the night before an event, and reciting what she knows. She said in as many words during her debate that she didn’t want to address the questions she was asked when she didn’t have pre-rehearsed answers given for them.

Her ignorance of politics isn’t endearing or respectable…or at the very least, certainly isn’t when you’re RUNNING FOR VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. An average American woman like her I would think nothing of, other than “I wish they’d spend more time interested in politics.” But as a vice presidential candidate, we should all be INSULTED and BAFFLED that there are individuals who really think the best interests of the country are being served by allowing her to be in a position to lead this nation. She is in no way, shape, or form, qualified for this position. That she is as close as she is right now is DISGRACEFUL for this country.

And frankly, there isn’t enough negative that can be said about her candidacy. It’s almost impossible for the media to NOT coddle her without collectively demanding her immediate removal from the ticket…or actively engaging in activity that would lead to it.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 2:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I Will respect WISDOM over Intellegence anyday.

When I'm not at the stadium, I'd rather be watching my Halos back in Costa Rica!

by Dono Romantico on Nov 4, 2008 4:00 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Her supposed thinnest of resumés is at the bottom of the ticket;

Obama’s just-as-thin-or-thinner resumé is at the top.

by LUVtheLAA on Nov 4, 2008 4:41 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You lost me

can you find the quote where I said Obama was more qualified? Or the part where I said her INEXPERIENCE was at issue here?

Which, of course, says nothing of the fact that at least Obama has shown a grasp on UNDERSTANDING the issues.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 5:05 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Point to you

you did not say Obama was more qualified, however “gross inadequacies of her resumé” does imply inexperience to me. I don’t even disagree with you, obviously she’s “handled” and due to her late entry into the game she’s extremely handled, but they’re ALL “handled” to varying degrees.

by LUVtheLAA on Nov 4, 2008 5:22 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

If we're going straight off in terms of intellect and understanding

Obama beats the living shit out of Palin. So if their experience is comparable (and I would agree, SORT OF), their grasp of NATIONAL and FOREIGN issues is vastly different…and their intelligence I don’t think can be compared.

Mind you, I don’t particularly like Obama.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 6:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Right again, CKD

right now Obama does beat the living sh!t out of Palin. Of course since becoming a senator from Illinois he has dutifully served the people of that state by …running for President, replete with a mob of intelligentsia advising him on what to think about Things Presidents Gotta Know, so he being an intelligent guy (writes his own speeches!) he damn well better have a better grasp of those issues than Palin. Did I cringe watching her in the circumstances you detailed? Absolutely. But, as Alaska Governor, she’s been …governing Alaska, not being meticulously prepped to be President. Give her the same time and resources and I think she would be at least the equal to Obama being “qualified” for the position. It’s very possible that he is smarter than her…although the media is of course bent on showing her in the worst possible light AND the McCain campaign also did her absolutely no favors and the candidate herself could have done a better job, all adding up to her appearing dumber than she actually is…(I think).

by LUVtheLAA on Nov 4, 2008 7:42 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It's not just his handlers

look at his background. A Harvard educated editor of the law review their, a constitutional scholar, attorney.

She went to the university of idaho, transferred half a dozen times, and got a B.A. in fucking journalism before becoming a sports anchor.

She didn’t know anything about this issues because she isolated herself in her corner of the world, and willfully denied herself access to information about the whole world. Obama has been immersed in these issues AT LEAST since his college days, and has, if nothing else, the educational background to suggest an immersion in politics not EVER evident in Palin’s life, and in fact, as she has said, not something she has ever read up on.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 7:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

she needs to use one of her lifelines

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 7:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yes, his background

is like that of, I dunno, most every president we’ve had I think. If you aspire to the presidency you’re pretty much going to Ivy League schools and/or Stanford AND be an attorney, so while there’s no question it’s impressive it’s not unique to Obama. Anyway, it’s all moot at this point, we’re getting President Obama and since you also don’t particularly care for him I guess I join with you in hoping this guy’s education, life experience and intelligence is going to serve us all well.

by LUVtheLAA on Nov 4, 2008 8:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yes

you’re right, they’re not unique to Obama. But they are GOOD attributes, and important ones.

And something that is HORRIBLY lacking in every possible way about that dumb bitch who just lost.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 8:58 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I wouldn't say

That the college she went to defines her experience and-or intellect.

It’s her fundamental incuriousity about the world and her disdain therefore.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 11:26 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Agree on the intelligenc; disagree on experience

Teixeira............Everything else can wait.

by hauldog on Nov 4, 2008 12:40 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Coddled

She has ANSWERED none of the criticism and questions posted to her and had to be sheltered and coddled and hidden from public scrutiny for fear of being exposed as she was in her limited interview time with Couric and Hanity. She’s been coddled because she’s been given lines to recite and rote party answers that indicate nothing of ability to lead the country or about her positions (probably because she’s never had to actually develop a policy on them) that affect the country

by HaloFanInDC on Nov 4, 2008 12:28 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Fun Times

Enjoyed the discussion folks….this is what makes politics fun. Anyhow, I’m off to get drunk with some of the DC liquor lobbyists. Drink for Democracy!

by HaloFanInDC on Nov 4, 2008 12:48 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Be safe!

And go ahead, vote Palin!

by LUVtheLAA on Nov 4, 2008 12:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Vote Palin is pretty weak

She is not running for the office of the Presidency.

Teixeira............Everything else can wait.

by hauldog on Nov 4, 2008 12:59 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

it's a bit of a joke

I voted Hillary therefore I don’t have great choices. Of the four major principles involved, Palin is the most interesting to me.

by LUVtheLAA on Nov 4, 2008 1:05 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Have fun!

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 12:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Great Thread

I’ve seen some pretty evil threads of late over politics, but this thread is informative and often hilarious. I’m pretty new to Halos Heaven, but I already love this place.

Like some others, 2000 McCain was my kind of guy. The shell we call McCain in 08 is not a man I want to be president, and Palin is not qualified WHEN McCain falls ill and/or passes away.

The way I see it, we had Pubs work it for 8 years and the bottom fell out. Let’s try something different. And the argument that McCain is different doesn’t hold much water.

by Kernel on Nov 4, 2008 12:58 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

my question to everyone who wants change and something different:

Is there such thing as too much change?

I’d love to hear if and where some people draw the line.

by NoDakHalo on Nov 4, 2008 1:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't know about too much change vs. just right

But I do know that we can’t afford more of what we’ve got right now.

Let’s talk about this in a year or so, if Obama gets elected.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 1:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

bite your baseball bat

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 1:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

that one was hilarious

McCain would have had more of a running chance in my book if he hadn’t picked Palin.

Hell, Tina Fey would have been a better choice

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 1:20 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Indeed

I would’ve been truly frightened for Obama’s choices had McCain picked Romney or Ridge (Lieberman, not so much)—but I at least would have felt OK with it, in that the country would be in capable hands if and when something happened to McCain and Romney or Ridge took over. Palin….no.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 1:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

LMAO....after this was shown, the Asian markets did take a dive the next day!

Will has DA POWAH!!!

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 1:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

the political skits lately ARE funny. The rest, I agree with Higz...it's lost it's magic

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 1:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

pew pew!

== Resident Point Tallier ==

by scottnak on Nov 4, 2008 1:29 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

My problem with the "let's try something different" argument is...

that everybody assumes raising taxes and growing the government is a good thing simply because they feel its the opposite of what the republicans stand for. All we have to do is go back to the Hoover era, or Carter, or even Clinton to see that what Barack proposes isn’t going to fix anything.

He’s not going to cut anybody’s taxes if you look at history, Bill Clinton promised he would to get elected and didn’t. He led from the extreme left for the first two years and felt the backlash and I imagine Obama will do the same thing because history repeats itself.

You cannot cut taxes for the poor, create jobs, grow the government, and balance the budget. Somebody is not going to get what they want and its going to be the lower income folks.

by Wytelitning on Nov 4, 2008 1:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Um

Maybe, but he ain’t gonna RAISE them on the majority of Americans, either, despite what McCain may say…

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 1:22 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not going by what McCain says...

I’m going by what Barack and his party believes. He’s going to raise taxes to pay for additional programs, health care, balance the budget, etc.

A year from now democrats will make excuses for him by saying that “we all need to pay our fare share” and “Bush left too big a whole” when you don’t get the tax cuts that were promised.

Where are Clinton’s tax cuts? Still waiting for those?

by Wytelitning on Nov 4, 2008 1:30 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

So tell me where he specifically said or implied that

And I could give a sh*t about Clinton’s tax cuts because I wasn’t getting one anyway—last time I checked he wasn’t giving them to 8-15 year olds…:-D

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 1:38 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Again you are overlooking that fact that I don't care what HE or McCain says...

I look at history and actions not words. I would have voted for Obama if words were all that mattered. “Balanced budget, new jobs created, socialized healthcare for everyone, tax cuts for the lower class while we stick it to the fat cats.”

It all sounds great but cannot be done together. McCain WILL cut taxes not because he says it to get elected but fundamentaly understands the need for it to stimulate the economy. That is something proven, and not “hoped” for.

by Wytelitning on Nov 4, 2008 1:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It's kind of funny

Twenty-eight years later and people are still buying the BS that cutting taxes for the super-rich will result in a trickle-down prosperity for everyone.

Notice how Bush cut taxes for the highest brackets TWICE and where are we left?

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 4:55 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

We were left with a booming economy

as a result of those very cuts. Ah so soon we all forget.

by Wytelitning on Nov 4, 2008 5:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Here you go...

Since the last tranche of Bush’s tax cuts in May 2003, real GDP has grown 13 percent — or a bit more than 3.2 percent a year.

Before that, from President Clinton’s final year in office, growth averaged 1.5 percent; it basically doubled after the tax cuts.

Now if you want to have a discussion about spending or a crash as a result of subprime lending than I’ll probably agree with you on a lot of things.

by Wytelitning on Nov 4, 2008 5:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Hey guys!

There’s a new thread. Please join us in the lounge for cigars and brandy, OK?

by Higz on Nov 4, 2008 5:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Ok, so here's what I don't get

When had our boom in the 1990s, ten years after Reagan, Republicans/conservatives gave Reaganomics all the credit.

Then when the GDP went up three years after Clinton, Bush—the current president—got all the credit.

How does that make any sense at all?

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 4, 2008 5:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'll help you get it.

We have had just about 25 years of virtually uninterrupted prosperity as a result of lower taxes, deregulation, and disinflation that came directly from Ronald Reagan. He changed the economy from a government-run disaster into a free market, capitalist one that has shown remarkable stability.

Obama just ran and won with Jimmy Carter’s economic agenda. I understand that Bush was an awful president and had to go, but it is as easy as studying a little history to understand what works and what doesn’t.

by Wytelitning on Nov 5, 2008 12:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yup, well said.

Since Ronald Reagan, every income tax raise has been followed with a down turn in the economy. Bush Sr. raised taxes, and we had a recession in 1990-1991. Clinton raised taxes, and we had a recession that officially started in the last months of his term from 2000-2002. While this current recession is not a result of a tax increase, but rather horrible liberal policies that let anyone with a shirt on their back get a mortgage for a house they could not afford, raising taxes like what Obama says he is going to do will devastate our economy, sending it into further a deeper recession. It only takes a couple of economics courses to see this effect, but I guess for Obama, “fairness” trumps a succeeding economy.

by BoulderBrian on Nov 5, 2008 12:44 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

considering there are a few legal eagles on HH, I hope you are wrong

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 1:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

ummm...

scroll up for in-depth constitutional discussion. :P

by S0uthie on Nov 4, 2008 5:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Hillary Clinton prefers McCain

Hillary plainly stated during the primaries that (paraphrased) “John McCain would be a much better president than Obama because McCain has actual experience to look back on, but Barack Obama could only look back on ‘some speech he made in 2002’”

Has Obama’s experience changed significantly since then?

by Neo8234 on Nov 4, 2008 1:29 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

All I have to say on the matter...

…is please don’t fuck it up for the rest of us. Again.

You guys owe us (the rest of the world) BADLY for 2000 / 04.

I see red people

by The Limey on Nov 4, 2008 1:43 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Wow

So Britain’s problems are the U.S.’s fault now?

by Higz on Nov 4, 2008 1:45 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

No, our problems, the ones we can do something about are our own...

…it’s the one’s (named Bush) that we can’t do anything about that I object to

I see red people

by The Limey on Nov 4, 2008 2:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Please be more specific.

I’m still trying to figure why we owe you “BADLY”

by Higz on Nov 4, 2008 2:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

you silly Americans

you just don’t understand

by UCIHalo on Nov 4, 2008 2:15 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Not following this.

Teixeira............Everything else can wait.

by hauldog on Nov 4, 2008 2:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Simpsons.

== Resident Point Tallier ==

by scottnak on Nov 4, 2008 2:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Awesome

Nice Simpsons pull

Hostility abounds on Halos Heaven

by thrill000 on Nov 4, 2008 2:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Alriiight!

Someone got it. Probably woulda been better if The Limey did it, but I couldn’t waste this grand opportunity! :P

== Resident Point Tallier ==

by scottnak on Nov 4, 2008 2:20 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

If you didn't write it

I would’ve! It was just too good!

Hostility abounds on Halos Heaven

by thrill000 on Nov 4, 2008 2:22 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

with Osama in Afghanistan. Think anyone can find it now?

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 2:00 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Locked away in a drawer with Sarah Palin's medical history.

Recipient of the 2008 "The Iron Man" award from scottnak of Halos Heaven!

by 44FAN on Nov 4, 2008 2:01 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

that got released today

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring".
Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Nov 4, 2008 2:02 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

His mother was an American citizen

so you know it doesn’t matter where he was born.

But then again, the more important answer is that it’s right here:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/13/bobirthcertificate.jpg

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 2:12 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Can we have a 15 minute moratorium on posts in this thread

while I update my shit list to reflect what’s happened so far in this thread?

Thanks.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2008 3:01 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

No.

Recipient of the 2008 "The Iron Man" award from scottnak of Halos Heaven!

by 44FAN on Nov 4, 2008 3:03 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Gotta work everything on the fly!!

Part of the fun with a political clutersf…

== Resident Point Tallier ==

by scottnak on Nov 4, 2008 3:10 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Is there an election happening or something?

What are gays?

White trashin' the 909

by Red114 on Nov 4, 2008 3:33 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed

<