Bad time's are back?

[night]

After all that i have been reading in the newspaper's and watching on tv it seem's to me that alot of people are starting to have bad feeling's toward's gays/lesbian's could this lead to a problem like in the 70's?

[EinBebop]

Three's Company always made me laugh.

[Ryoutarou]

I gess something like what she said might happen but then again in today's america......look's at what he just said..........Nevermind something like this has a big chance of happening.

[Sublime420]

After all that i have been reading in the newspaper's and watching on tv it seem's to me that alot of people are starting to have bad feeling's toward's gays/lesbian's could this lead to a problem like in the 70's?

That's why you shouldn't watch the news.
But develope superpowers just in case.

[Ryoutarou]

Okay..but just being serious could this happen?

[night]

It can and will...

[BrendaBat]

Okay..but just being serious could this happen?
If Bush gets re-elected :(

[Ryoutarou]

He wont
7
8
9
10

[EinBebop]

The only way things could get serious is in the case of a public backlash. Why would the public backlash, you ask? The public will backlash if gays continue to win their "rights" through judicial activism rather than through the Democratic process. It reinforces the perception (true or false) that the majority of Americans are against these rights, otherwise these matters would and should be handled in the legislative arena.

[Zach Logan]

If Bush gets re-elected :(

Yep, gotta agree. Bush will make the situation much graver.

[Tienshin]

I disagree, if anything I would say the trend towards acceptance is moving in the right direction. All the talk now revolves around politics and conservative bible based values over more liberal trends in thinking. This of course is natural, but in no way is an indication of a public backlash. The fact that the Supreme Court voted the way they did in the case over gay and lesbians the legality of laws that prohibit their sexual business is proof of that. The majority of Americans may feel disinclined to empower full marital status but that’s another topic.

This line of reasoning would be akin to saying the renewed debats over affirmative action are indicative of a backlash against the progress of race relations in America, which isn’t true. There are some core values that people feel need to be discussed and will continue to do so with regard to the various “alternative lifestyle issues” but debate does not constitute a reversal of progress made.

[Ryoutarou]

No the accptence of gay's/lesbians in most place's has gone down and even more in where i live, white/redneck america!

[EinBebop]

I disagree, if anything I would say the trend towards acceptance is moving in the right direction. All the talk now revolves around politics and conservative bible based values over more liberal trends in thinking. This of course is natural, but in no way is an indication of a public backlash. The fact that the Supreme Court voted the way they did in the case over gay and lesbians the legality of laws that prohibit their sexual business is proof of that.I'm not clear on exactly what you think it proves. I point to it as a specific example of the judicial activism that I spoke of (I'll resist the urge to take this off-topic by arguing the Court's role) which resulted in a lot of people angry. Why don't the leaders of the gay community start propositions in their respective states? Because they're afraid they won't win. I believe that even here in California, they'd have trouble winning. And think what a loss would mean- a public statement that a majority of voters in a given state do not support these rights. That would really hurt the movement. There's an image at stake here: that only Bible-thumping conservatives and bigots oppose gay rights, and not average citizens.

The political pendulum at the point has swung conservative, and so the fight has gone to the last bastion of liberality: the judicial system. Democrats are fighting fiercely to hang onto their courts right now, blocking votes on judicial appointments for as long as they can. Conservative America sees this and knows this. Californians in particular have seen the will of the voters overturned in the courts, so we know that they don't tend to work in the interests of the people.

The result of all of this is resentment. And that resentment could lead to backlash.


This line of reasoning would be akin to saying the renewed debats over affirmative action are indicative of a backlash against the progress of race relations in America, which isn’t true. There are several other factors in play there that you're overlooking, not the least of which is that the vast majority of Americans support minority equality, so much so that the voters of the United States even passed a Constitutional amendment. Many would agree that for the most part, the gay community is only seeking equality-- but a significant number of Americans are still against that. Affirmative Action, on the other hand, is viewed by many to be an inequality. So not only are you dealing with apples and oranges here, but you're also in denial if you think that affirmative action isn't hurting race relations in America at all. It's just not a situation conducive to a backlash.


There are some core values that people feel need to be discussed and will continue to do so with regard to the various “alternative lifestyle issues” but debate does not constitute a reversal of progress made.Progress is in the eye of the beholder. To others, it is a mistake made by a rogue court system.

[Chris Wood]

ANOTHER gay thread? This board has one serious fetish. How about something about Native Americans or the handicapped or Scientologists for a change? Use your imagination.

[Tienshin]

Einbebop

To expound, I think that in a lot of instances “the average citizen” is not going to put into place certain laws that they believe corrupt their value system, namely that of a mother and a father at the top of a household. Regardless of whether or not they are bible thumpers or not, most people recognize the traditional family as the template they wish to raise a family, and by extension want their kids to respect and follow. This does not make them bigots or backwater types. Homosexuality to many people whether they are tolerant or not of it is weird, it doesn’t make sense…whats the point in other words. I know many people that are not religious types, but want to raise a family have two and a half kids, that will give them grandchildren. Are these people to be vilified?

More to the point, I believe progress is not measured in huge sweeps, but gradual process. And from where I stand legislation in favor of equality of homosexuality have steadily progressed over the years. To expect a huge leap ahead the sentiment of the average citizen is unrealistic. No major equality movement had that luxury.

The political pendulum is not any more conservative than it was during the Clinton years. Its give and take, no president can have it his way, and Bush is no different. More importantly, name a single piece of federal legislation that has set back the efforts of the homosexual community. As far as judicial appointments go, the cycle continues from administration to administration so you will always seem a changing balance, Frankly I don’t want a Supreme Court full of conservatives OR liberals. As it stands they actually do work in the interests of the people, because America is not one way or the other.

I still can’t wrap my head around your argument that this situation hurts race relations, and perhaps it was a bad analogy on my part. In any case, if you are saying that so many Americans support minority equality but are opposed to AA then one thought cancels out the other. Americans say they want minority equality, as long as it doesn’t affect their bottom line. Money, education, etc and thus the backlash against AA, though admittedly that system needs to be adjusted. And yet I digress. I am not in denial, I choose to see the positives, and recognize that progress is made in steps not bounds.

[Catlover]

This country is more liberal than ever before, so to ansewer the main question, bad times are not back.


It can and will...

No, it can't & won't.


If Bush gets re-elected

Bush won't hurt anything.


He wont

He will!


Yep, gotta agree. Bush will make the situation much graver.

No he won't. Bush is NOT a power hungery monster like Bill Clinton. Bush is not out to make a legacy like Bill Clinton was.


ANOTHER gay thread? This board has one serious fetish. How about something about Native Americans or the handicapped or Scientologists for a change? Use your imagination.

Yeah, I'm kinda' geting tired of this. If we have one more gay thread I'll scream!

[EinBebop]

To expound, I think that in a lot of instances “the average citizen” is not going to put into place certain laws that they believe corrupt their value system, namely that of a mother and a father at the top of a household. ... Are these people to be vilified? If you're asking me, no, of course not. :) But we had a debate about this a few weeks back. Now if I followed the logic correctly.... Despite the fact that I address homosexual issues without hate or without fear, and interact with the homosexuals in my daily existence likewise, it is apparently impossible for me to take an opposition stance without some level of fear. Because you only fear what you don't understand, and I obviously don't understand homosexuality or I wouldn't be opposed to it. So I'm a homophobe. Or at least, that's what I'm told. :D

Point being is that the people you speak of are vilified, whether or not they deserve to be.


In any case, if you are saying that so many Americans support minority equality but are opposed to AA then one thought cancels out the other. Americans say they want minority equality, as long as it doesn’t affect their bottom line. I can see why you got lost- you're obviously very pro-affirmative action. I won't debate that here. I just think you should realize that there are many conscientious people of all colors who find affirmative action to be a racist practice, even if the intent is the opposite.

[Sailor Chibi Otaku]

*sees the homosexual American men and women come to Canada* They're allowed to get married in various places here.

I'm heterosexual, but I'm behind them 100%, more so now. I have a gay uncle and he has my full support. I also have a gay friend. He's really sweet. I love him and my uncle, of course. ;)

My Mother doesn't believe in marriage between two gay people. She wants it to be called a union and she's against them having a family. I disagree with her on those two points harshly.

A few things bother me:

homophobes

homophobic religious people (let's face it: those who go by the "book" are homophobic: "it's wrong in the "bible"!! They are going straight to hell!!" *insert swearing here*)

the American government wanting to pry on homosexual's private lives

[EinBebop]

A few things bother me:

homophobes

homophobic religious people (let's face it: those who go by the "book" are homophobic: "it's wrong in the "bible"!! They are going straight to hell!!" *insert swearing here*)See what I mean, Tienshin? And she's one of the straight ones! :D

[Tienshin]

If you're asking me, no, of course not. :) But we had a debate about this a few weeks back. Now if I followed the logic correctly.... Despite the fact that I address homosexual issues without hate or without fear, and interact with the homosexuals in my daily existence likewise, it is apparently impossible for me to take an opposition stance without some level of fear. Because you only fear what you don't understand, and I obviously don't understand homosexuality or I wouldn't be opposed to it. So I'm a homophobe. Or at least, that's what I'm told. :D

Point being is that the people you speak of are vilified, whether or not they deserve to be.

I can see why you got lost- you're obviously very pro-affirmative action. I won't debate that here. I just think you should realize that there are many conscientious people of all colors who find affirmative action to be a racist practice, even if the intent is the opposite.

Very creative use of the points I raised. You left out the meat. Agenda pushing. Good for you.

[EinBebop]

Very creative use of the points I raised. You left out the meat. Agenda pushing. Good for you.Aww... such villifying words. You didn't hit every single one of my points, but I didn't make an issue of it. Can't we all just get along? http://www.smilies.okipages.com/s/otn/ez/ezpi_lovesick.gif

Fine, let's see what I left out...


More to the point, I believe progress is not measured in huge sweeps, but gradual process. And from where I stand legislation in favor of equality of homosexuality have steadily progressed over the years. To expect a huge leap ahead the sentiment of the average citizen is unrealistic. No major equality movement had that luxury.

...More importantly, name a single piece of federal legislation that has set back the efforts of the homosexual community. As far as judicial appointments go, the cycle continues from administration to administration so you will always seem a changing balance, Frankly I don’t want a Supreme Court full of conservatives OR liberals. As it stands they actually do work in the interests of the people, because America is not one way or the other.Since you limited the focus to Federal law, the only legislation for or against that I'm aware of is homosexuals being included in the controversial "hate crimes" law, and Bill Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". A quick google search didn't turn up anything else that caught my eye one way or another, but feel free to correct me. But really, save for Constitutional amendments, these laws are the kind of laws that should be made at the state level.

As far as the Supreme Court goes, it will be interesting to see how things go the next time someone retires. Anyone who doesn't support the liberal stance of abortion rights has been promised a filibuster. I imagine that an anti-homosexual would be subject to the same treatment. So much for maintaining a liberal/conservative balance. And what about the interests of the people? As I said before and you ignored (PUSHING AN AGENDA! PUSHING AN AGENDA! Hey.. that is kind of fun. No wonder you like it so much! :p), the interests of the people mean nothing when the will of millions of voters can be overturned by a handful of people. And when the courts are making decisions that basically create new law based on outlandish interpretations of documented law, they are far overstepping their bounds. And it's by these means that homosexuals. Recent decisions in the Supreme as well as federal courts have shown that we really need to start holding our judges more accountable for their actions using the guidelines set down in the Constitution. The court system needs a shaking up, but in the meantime these unchecked powers remain unchallenged. This is my last word on the Supreme Court/federal courts in this forum, because I'm really trying to stay on topic.

I remain firm on my original point: winning rights judicially rather than legistlatively creates resentment in those who feel that their voices are being ignored. But that number of people opposed is very significant, and that's why the battle is being fought in the courts rather than on state ballots.

Tien, I skip stuff all the time. Sometimes a debate comes down to a question of personal philosphies, and I let it go because I have nothing new to add. Sometimes I don't have enough information to continue debating a point and/or just don't find it interesting enough to continue. Sometimes, the other person ignores a key point of my argument, and if I'm not feeling too confrontational, I'll chalk it up to a silent victory. Sometimes a point of conversation is just going too far off topic, and I try to let it drop.

I suggest that the next time you don't feel your points of argument are adequately addressed, try to refocus the debate, challenging your opponent to answer the specific points that you want addressed. If instead you continue to puff your chest out and taunt me for not addressing every inconsequential letter of your argument, I'm going to take my ball and go home.

[Tienshin]

Aww... such villifying words. You didn't hit every single one of my points, but I didn't make an issue of it. Can't we all just get along?

Me? Get along with you? NEVER! *just kidding*

Ein, I think what is my sticking point is that I think these kinds of laws should be passed at a federal level, so that they apply universally to all states, rather than say Vermont allowing civil unions but everyone else being SOL.

As far as the Supreme Court is concerned any landmark decisions they make will go against the will of SOME people. I can’t imagine everyone in the country was dancing in the streets when Roe v Wade was enacted. And regardless of whether or not rights are obtained Judicially or Legislatively, someone is going to feel left out, if their opinion loses, that’s how things work, so I don’t buy your argument of potential resentment since it would happen in either case.

And I wasn’t puffing my chest. *indignantly typing* In fact it t’was a small lighthearted attempt to get you to come back and touch on the other things, which you did. (Thanks BTW) But in my defense it was late, Adult Swim late. Now its early, I need more coffee early.

But you were right to call me out on the remark, god knows I would have you had made it :)

[EinBebop]

Ein, I think what is my sticking point is that I think these kinds of laws should be passed at a federal level, so that they apply universally to all states, rather than say Vermont allowing civil unions but everyone else being SOL.That would be the easiest way to go. But I would really rather that Congress stick to the powers given to them by the Constitution and let the states deal with social issues, as it was meant to be. Of course, a Constitutional amendment would settle the dispute really fast.


And regardless of whether or not rights are obtained Judicially or Legislatively, someone is going to feel left out, if their opinion loses, that’s how things work, so I don’t buy your argument of potential resentment since it would happen in either case.Because people do not see the judicial system as an instrument of democracy. People watch Court TV and see all of the games that lawyers play; and the law is their toy with all kinds of loopholes to exploit. The slickest tongue wins if the judge isn't imposing his will on the proceedings. I acknowledge that to be a very intentionally dark, slanted view. But few people would read that and not agree with some part of it.


But in my defense it was late, Adult Swim late. Now its early, I need more coffee early. I blame FLCL.

[Tienshin]

I blame FLCL.

So do I. That and society.

[Zach Logan]

This country is more liberal than ever before, so to ansewer the main question, bad times are not back.
This nation has never been more CONSERVATIVE before, it does not take an idiot to see that. The senate is becoming more and more republican, and even some of the democrats, like Liberman, vote as conservatives. The house at this point is now conservative, and our executive and judicial branches are completly conservative. This in itself will bring corruption and 'bad times,' with the whole "right wing conspiracy" ready for action.



No he won't. Bush is NOT a power hungery monster like Bill Clinton. Bush is not out to make a legacy like Bill Clinton was.



Bill Clinton brought us 8 years of peace and prosparity, he was not at all power hungry, and had no power over his own congress, which at the time was mostly Republican, which was the main reason he got impeached, not because he lied about his personal affairs. Bush has outrightly lied about an important thing. He said he KNEW that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and that he knew the intellegence was not reliable and was possibly flawed, which it was. How could a president thrust us into a war with NO real evidence. Bush is the man who will bring bad times, Bush is the corrupt, power driven one. Just look, its plain and simple.

[RKillian]

Fatal execution error caused a rewrite...


This nation has never been more CONSERVATIVE before, it does not take an idiot to see that. The senate is becoming more and more republican, and even some of the democrats, like Liberman, vote as conservatives. The house at this point is now conservative, and our executive and judicial branches are completly conservative. This in itself will bring corruption and 'bad times,' with the whole "right wing conspiracy" ready for action.

It's amusing how the same people who think Bush has the IQ of a potted plant still try to push this grand right wing conspiracy theory. Thanks, Mrs. Clinton. We missed your special brand of humor.



Bill Clinton brought us 8 years of peace and prosparity


Did you forget Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia? Or the first WTC bombing?

Have you ever stopped to think that, just maybe, the economy reacted slowly to the 12 previous years of Republican efforts? And, let me ask you, are our manufacturing and steel industries more prosperous after Clinton's NAFTA? We now have about half a dozen domestic steel companies left, with many more having closed their doors during the "glorius" Clinton years.


he was not at all power hungry, and had no power over his own congress, which at the time was mostly Republican, which was the main reason he got impeached, not because he lied about his personal affairs.

No, he got impeached because he was a liar. And then he bombed an aspirin factory to distract us. Looks like the plan worked?


Bush has outrightly lied about an important thing. He said he KNEW that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and that he knew the intellegence was not reliable and was possibly flawed, which it was.

He never said any such thing. The most I've heard is, after later inspeciton, the evidence _could_ have been faulty. Everything else is liberal spin designed to make him look worse in comparison to his spiteful, answerless opponents. What would be nice, for a change, is if liberals would offer a viable solution instead of resorting to Bush bashing.

I mean, really, do the dangerously liberal do anything at all besides moan and point fingers at everyone else?


How could a president thrust us into a war with NO real evidence.

The point is that it doesn't matter now so much as the signifigance it had then. The exact same people would be screaming at the top of their lungs if he ignored it and Saddam launched a nuke our way. I repeat, do liberals do anything but moan and point fingers? Why is Bush even bothering to humor these people...


Bush is the man who will bring bad times, Bush is the corrupt, power driven one. Just look, its plain and simple.

Your right, I feel so terrible living under a president who believes in God and wants to protect us from terrorists. I felt much safer under a president who spent most of his time screwing an intern and dismantling our overextended military while sending it on increasingly stupid errands. Oh, and his socialist agenda, aimed at destroying all business large or small, sure helped alot.[/sarcasm]

If I were to be worried about anyone, it would be John Ashcroft and Joe Lieberman. They're both a serious threat to personal liberty and using Bush (who I think really is a good person) as a distraction.

[Zach Logan]

Fatal execution error caused a rewrite...
It's amusing how the same people who think Bush has the IQ of a potted plant still try to push this grand right wing conspiracy theory. Thanks, Mrs. Clinton. We missed your special brand of humor.
Did you forget Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia? Or the first WTC bombing?
Have you ever stopped to think that, just maybe, the economy reacted slowly to the 12 previous years of Republican efforts? And, let me ask you, are our manufacturing and steel industries more prosperous after Clinton's NAFTA? We now have about half a dozen domestic steel companies left, with many more having closed their doors during the "glorius" Clinton years.
No, he got impeached because he was a liar. And then he bombed an aspirin factory to distract us. Looks like the plan worked?
He never said any such thing. The most I've heard is, after later inspeciton, the evidence _could_ have been faulty. Everything else is liberal spin designed to make him look worse in comparison to his spiteful, answerless opponents. What would be nice, for a change, is if liberals would offer a viable solution instead of resorting to Bush bashing.
I mean, really, do the dangerously liberal do anything at all besides moan and point fingers at everyone else?
The point is that it doesn't matter now so much as the signifigance it had then. The exact same people would be screaming at the top of their lungs if he ignored it and Saddam launched a nuke our way. I repeat, do liberals do anything but moan and point fingers? Why is Bush even bothering to humor these people...
Your right, I feel so terrible living under a president who believes in God and wants to protect us from terrorists. I felt much safer under a president who spent most of his time screwing an intern and dismantling our overextended military while sending it on increasingly stupid errands. Oh, and his socialist agenda, aimed at destroying all business large or small, sure helped alot.[/sarcasm]
If I were to be worried about anyone, it would be John Ashcroft and Joe Lieberman. They're both a serious threat to personal liberty and using Bush (who I think really is a good person) as a distraction.
You are even more idiotic, I really shouldnt even waste my time responding, but I will because I have just that much time.

First of all the prosparity in the 90s was a cause of what Bill Clinton did, his economic policies are the ones that benefitted this nation, he got rid of hte deficit, and brought about a surplus we hadn't seen the likes of in DECADES. When Bush took over, immediately the economy dropped. George Bush also OUTRIGHTLY said at his most recent speech at the Rose Garden that he knew the information from British intellegence could have been flawed. How good could a president that leads our nation to war on evidence that may not exist, that is truely purgury at its worst.

Your right, I feel so terrible living under a president who believes in God and wants to protect us from terrorists. I felt much safer under a president who spent most of his time screwing an intern and dismantling our overextended military while sending it on increasingly stupid errands. Oh, and his socialist agenda, aimed at destroying all business large or small, sure helped alot.[/sarcasm] Okay, this is what scares me. I do not feel safe under a president who bases his political beliefs on religious beliefs, I explained why in the Gay thread. Clinton spent most of his time helping this country, not ****ing an intern. His administration helped our nation, and brought about the beginning of the third industrial revolution, and the computer age. Not only that but we saw the end of the national debt, and the virtual end to unemployment. In my history book, the title for the chapter that covers the '90s is titled "Peace and Prosparity" Clinton helped put an end to the conflicts around the world, helped halt conflict in the middle east (until the Bush Administration took over) and kept our nation safe. I do not feel safe with our current leader, and I dont at all see any of your logic.

Oh, and I am working for Senator Clinton as an intern now.

[RKillian]

You are even more idiotic, I really shouldnt even waste my time responding, but I will because I have just that much time.

Yeah, I know, arguing against facts you don't like must suck. Way to go with the gradeschool insult too.

In the rewrite, I forgot to mention that economy was started on it's nosedive a year before Bush took office. Nothing just suddenly "happens" in the economy.


he [clinton] got rid of hte deficit

Oh, and the 6 trillion just magically reappeared?

That's also an imaginary number, which would be much larger if politicians of all persuasions would stop leaving IOUs in the Social Security fund.


and brought about a surplus we hadn't seen the likes of in DECADES.

Right, show me some figures of this huge drought of surpluses. It took Clinton almost two whole terms to bring about his measly surplus. If government spending would follow the rules of fiscal responsibility, then we'd always have surpluses. Unfortunately, every decade or so we get these tax, spend, and spend more types in office.


When Bush took over, immediately the economy dropped.

Lie.


George Bush also OUTRIGHTLY said at his most recent speech at the Rose Garden that he knew the information from British intellegence could have been flawed.

COULD have been flawed. You _could_ die at the hospital, so does that mean you should never go? You can't predict the future without uncertainty, so why crucify him for a judgement call. Does the liberation of Iraq and deposal of Saddam mean _nothing_ to you? It sure means alot to Kurds and Iraqis who were tired of having their "suspicious" relatives murdered left and right.


Okay, this is what scares me. I do not feel safe under a president who bases his political beliefs on religious beliefs, I explained why in the Gay thread.

I stopped reading the gay thread after the 3rd page or so. Arguing on the internet is pretty stupid to begin with, and trying to convince hypocrits of anything is downright impossible. To that end I should've known better than to bother. As such I probably haven't read a word you typed and don't care to either.


Clinton spent most of his time helping this country, not ****ing an intern.

Bombing aspirin factories in the middle east, gutting our blue collar industries with NAFTA, destroying our faith in the presidency by lying (about facts he KNEW from personal experience) on national television, sending more undertrained Americans to "help" worthless countries that didn't want their interference, etc? Those sure were helpful!


His administration helped our nation, and brought about the beginning of the third industrial revolution, and the computer age. Not only that but we saw the end of the national debt, and the virtual end to unemployment.

Computers existed before 1993 yknow. The national debt _never_ ended so don't even start.


In my history book, the title for the chapter that covers the '90s is titled "Peace and Prosparity" Clinton helped put an end to the conflicts around the world, helped halt conflict in the middle east (until the Bush Administration took over) and kept our nation safe.

Oh, that's right. There weren't any suicide bombings in Israel back then. Wait, yes there were.

What about the WTC bombing? What about the embassy bombings? What about the USS Cole bombing? What about the sanctions on Iraq he didn't bother to fight?

And about ending conflicts all over the world? Please. We're still in Bosnia. I remember it was supposed to be a 6-month mission. We just left Somalia and Rwanda without doing much. Genocide continues all across Africa. Ended conflists my arse.


I do not feel safe with our current leader, and I dont at all see any of your logic.

Sorry you won't see the logic. Can you provide any pictures of your smoldering office building or tortured relatives? Don't you have any faith in other Americans or are you being biased against conservatives?


Oh, and I am working for Senator Clinton as an intern now.

Now I undertstand everything. It's actually I who shouldn't waste time debating with you. Arguement over.

[Zach Logan]

Let me summarize my argument:
1) The nation is in the economic state it is in now because of Bush and 9-11
2) The nation did not need to go to war. Two reasons why not, firstly Bush presented no reason for it, secondly the information given to him was flawed
3) Bush has not at all helped this nation in any way or form. Even if your argument IS correct, Bush is the one who caused the economy to drop even more with his outrageous ill-founded tax cuts
4) The Bush Administration has prevented people from expressing their basic freedoms in the Patriot Act, and has expressed his disapproval of homosexuals, and bases his political policies on religion, which should have nothing to do with policies.

This is not an argument of Bush Vs. Clinton, its an argument that Bush is not at all a good leader for these great United States. I agree with the Europeans who said from the beginning that Iraq never had WMD nor should we have been so impatient to go to war with no factual evidence. Your argument is flawed, and even though there was an economic drop in 2000, it started to decrease more in 2001, and even more so then earlier in 2002 and 2003. Bush is not a good president, and even if you don’t like Clinton, this should be apparent.

One more thing, if my admittedly stupid remark was so 'grade-school' then why did you, yourself, use it.

My argument is closed.

[BrendaBat]

Okay, this is what scares me. I do not feel safe under a president who bases his political beliefs on religious beliefs, I explained why in the Gay thread.
I agree. Bush's faith has already made it easier for people to discriminate against Jews in hiring (more on that later) and his recent comment about homosexuals really worries me.
Bush's faith-based inisitives(sp?) allow religiously owned places (including hospitals) to exclude certain applicants based on religion and/or sexual orientation. One of my grandfathers friends lost a psycology job because his application was trashed on account of him having a "Jewish name" :mad: [/QUOTE]


If I were to be worried about anyone, it would be John Ashcroft and Joe Lieberman. They're both a serious threat to personal liberty and using Bush (who I think really is a good person) as a distraction.
No one said that Bush is a bad person. I'm sure that he's a relatively nice guy. I'm a nice person, too. But that doesn't mean I'm qualified to be president :p

[Psycho Fox]

It's amusing how the same people who think Bush has the IQ of a potted plant still try to push this grand right wing conspiracy theory.

Nixon wasn't that swift and almost turned the US presidency into a monarchy. Remeber Nixon abjection to releasing the white house tapes was a US president was a king elected for 4 years.

[Psilon]

Reagans economic policies are joke.
Trickle down is hardly prescribed by even conservative economists.
Bush Sr. called it voodoo economics.

[wonderfly]

AAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!


Lack of...clear topic...and focus...in this thread....DRIVING...ME...INSANE!!!!

:p :rolleyes:

[supermonkey]

I remain firm on my original point: winning rights judicially rather than legistlatively creates resentment in those who feel that their voices are being ignored. But that number of people opposed is very significant, and that's why the battle is being fought in the courts rather than on state ballots..

Very interesting. It makes a lot of sense. I personally would add that effecting the courts has long-term value that doesn't exist as much in the political arena, so politicians push for change in the courts hoping to create an agenda that lasts far beyond their years when the pendelum swings back (both conservatives and liberals)