With heterosexual marriage, gay marriage, and interracial you have no disease, genetic disorders, violation of consent, etc. However, if you're arguing that if you should give this right and this right and this right in courts (it doesn't matter if it's gay or not) then why not give THIS right? Then I see your point. It's just when you are actually gay (which is not harmful) it's hard to NOT think the courts should legalize it.[/SIZE]
I truly could care less what the Gays think on this issue if they want it legalized that is fine. But do it the right way. The courts should not be in the process of legalizing Beastiality Marriage, incestrial marriage, Gay Marriage, or any other kind of marriage as it bypasses the legislature in a horrible abuse of power.
No, but marriage makes things official and is sentimental for a lot of people. No one wants to have a ceremony if there is nothing official or legal about it. It's hard to understand when you're not in love or in a relationship, which I am in neither of those.
That is fine but we were talking about the economy created by Gay Marriage. If it will be such a boost to the economy they can hold as many ceremonies as they want.
That is, if it's even a valid issue in late 2012...and if Palin can even get the nomination.
North Korea has been a valid issue since 2004, and with them beginning to rebuild their nuke reactors I could see them be a valid issue going into 2011. As for Palin's nomination that was what my whole point is about. The courts bipassing the legislature and the citizens by passing gay marriage in this state gives a major boost to religious conservatives when it comes to the Republican Nomination.
This is how I see it: The election may or may not be "close." It could be, but first it starts off depending on how each party does in 2010. If Democrats keep their strong hold, it could be an indicator that the election won't exactly be extremely close.
Not really, the Senate is on a 6 year cycle, meaning the Republican wins in 2004 will be up for election, meaning more Republican seats than Democrats are up for vote. Not to mention if the economy begins to slump again in 2011 as economists are predicting with Hyper Inflation, that could very well be a dagger in Democrat chances.
Let me ask you this? What will you say about the first four years of the Obama administration if...
By the next election the economy ISN'T in a tank, Iraq is relatively stable, we haven't had a terrorist attack...and our relations with other countries is relatively good. Then what will you say?
I will say that A: Our economy was destined to recover and that we should not have given away our Children's futures for a economy that already was going to recover.
B: George Bush and the surge stabilized Iraq, Obama played Russian Roulette with those gains when he shouldn't have.
C: We have gotten lucky seeing how he has weakened our defenses.
D: That would be great, but that is not worthy of our re-election. I also have to wonder at what price we would have to pay for it. We are already beginning to trade away our own safety to make Europe like us. North Korea, Guitmo, etc. If being liked comes at the price tags of human lives than it is not worth it, and would make Obama a President on par with the worst President of the last 50 years: Jimmy Carter.
Now I ask you the same question, what would you say about the first four years of the Obama Administration if
A: Our economy is going through Hyper Inflation
B: Iraq has destabilized into a war torn state by the pull back of forces.
C: We have experienced a terrorist attack on one major city because we were not able to get the proper intel because Obama weakened interrogation procedures
D: By placing our relationships with other countries over the overall good, Iran has nuclear missiles aimed at Israel, North Korea has successfully launched missiles that can carry a nuclear payload to the east coast. And we are viewed as weaker to the terrorist communities all around the world.
Obama allowing Cuban Americans to travel to Cuba as much as they want and to send money to their families as often as they want? Fine.
Cuba is a communist country, the money spent there won't go to the families but to Castro's murderous government. Do not confuse Cuba with Mexico.
Americans being allowed to travel to Cuba? Also, fine.
Directly funding Castro and the government? Heck no.
Those two are linked, as the money spent there will be going to Castro's Regime, or have you forgotten what a Communist Country is?
Turning a blind eye? Heck no we should never do that. I will say that Obama is in the wrong for not pouncing on North Korea and trying to get the rest of the world to say "NO" to the missile launch. I'm just saying for now with North Korea we should just be on the watch..but we shouldn't be in any serious worry until they build nuclear weapons and start threatening to use them.
Umm Carlisle just a update, they built their first Nuclear Weapon in 06, and they just shot a long range missile over Japan, and now they are rebuilding their nuclear plants, their missile that could in the end carry a nuclear payload to Japan, Hawaii, or Alaska.
They are threatening us.
Trading partners yes, but Syria or Iran going out of their way to join North Korea in war isn't going to happen.
Depends on what you mean by join. Iran and Syria have provided financial and military support to the Taliban in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, and to Terrorists in Iraq. I see no reason as to why they would do the same here.
Russia I can see changing something in the future, China will take a long time to change.
Both countries would more likely collapse before changing. Something that could be very close to happening for Russia at least.
If by good you mean we can get along and share mutual interests, then that's not impossible. No matter what country it is, there will always be negative feelings and jealousy toward America as long as we are the super power.
Well lets remember what Russia and China have been upto in the last few years. Russia has provided financial and military aid to Iran, who in turn has been providing financial and military aid to the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, while providing vailed threats by sending war ships to the Gulf of Mexico and hinting at rearming Cuba. And China has been providing financial and military aid to North Korea and the Genocide going on in Darfur by supplying Sudan. Do these really sound like countries in which we can get along with and share mutual interests in?
Also I would just like to make this statement to clear things up with some people: I do not think Obama is god nor will I ever. I simply feel that in these past few months he has been doing a decent job. I do not like the stimulus bill, I don't like media coverage of the our deceased troops, I don't like the talk about Rush Limbaugh, etc. I simply have optimism and some hope that things will work out for the better, with or without Obama.
Which is good to have, but it seems to almost blind you in your hope that he will do good, when he has been a utter nightmare so far, for those things you listed and more.
And really there should be a MASSIVE amount of things added to that list that Obama has done.
On the topic of the Bush administration I'll say it was fine during the first term, 9/11 was handled poorly,
Would you care to explain this?
However, Afghanistan was not done properly.
Outside of say the last year and a half of the war, I believe Afghanistan was called the "Forgotten War" not because Bush forgot it, but because the media did. Things were going so well in Afghanistan that the media had nothing to focus on except for "Good stories" which they dare not run. The rise in Violence in Afghanistan as violence in Iraq fell are not a coincidence.
Such as with issues in the environment, stem cell research, green technology, etc.
I believe that the subsidies for the failed Green Technology known as Ethonal happened under the Bush Administration. And that a Bi Partisan Agreement on Stem Cells was also reached under Bush. I see you forgot to mention that.
As for the Environment that is true that they were laxed on the Environment, but they were going into a horrible recession and unlike Obama had the smarts to realize that placing restrictive Environment laws on industries while the economy is tanking will only further hurt the economy.
You can't really deny that Bush and many other top officials were a bit too friendly with big oil.
When may I ask? The "Drill Here Drill Now" stuff? Or was it the Push for the Refineries? Both of them were placed when we were in a desperate time of needing oil and the Democrats gave the country the big middle finger.
Cheney on the other hand? Don't like the guy, and I believe he was pulling the strings much more often than Bush was and he just wasn't a nice guy and that he was in for self interest.
Of course you will have irrefutable proof of this, as well as a rebuttal to when Bush would not pardon Cheney's aide, which led to several Oval Office fights. I mean if Cheney was pulling the strings then this would not happen.
As for the Self Interest crap, I assume you are talking about Haliburton?
