Religions > Atheism > Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote.
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Randy Jabsco" |
| Date: |
12 Dec 2003 03:02:24 PM |
| Object: |
Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
Hey, I thought you faggots said that people were "accepting" you now.
What's this all about? I thought you faggots said that "ignorance to old
beliefs are making way". Come on faggots, explain this... I don't
understand. If people love faggots so much, why would over two-thirds vote
otherwise? Why is there currently 38 states with anti-gay marriage laws,
all properly voted for by the public? I am having troubles understanding
why the only way faggots can appear to be accepted is by finding a
sympathetic judge to scratch out laws for them. Can't you get the
"accepting" public to vote for them for you? Why isn't it that the faggots
aren't putting these issues on the ballets rather than taking it to
sympathetic judges and congress men?
===
Ohio House passes anti-gay marriage bill
COLUMBUS -- Gay marriage would be banned and state employees could not
obtain health insurance and other benefits for unmarried partners under a
bill passed by the Ohio House on Wednesday.
The measure, approved by a 73-23 vote, would recognize marriage as a union
"between one man and one woman" and declare that extending benefits for
unmarried partners to state employees, whether of the same or opposite sex,
is against state policy.
Supporters of the measure point toward the possibility of other states
approving homosexual unions as the impetus for Ohio to set its own standards
for marriage.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court last month declared that state's
gay marriage ban unconstitutional and ordered lawmakers to extend the legal
benefits of marriage to domestic partners.
But opponents called the bill discrimination.
House minority leader Rep. Chris Redfern, D-Catawba Island, said committee
hearings on the bill were filled with "hate filled language and bigoted
comments" about homosexuals.
"I cannot allow myself to be aligned with that," he said. "I have respect
for my fellow members ... but I don't want them to be the morality police."
Redfern added that considering society's 50-percent divorce rate, it's hard
to argue that the issue is about upholding the sanctity of marriage.
.
|
|
| User: "Jefferson Brady" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
12 Dec 2003 05:59:48 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:57:21 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Bob:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Earl Camembert:
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:1071265668.9910.0@nnrp-t71-01.news.clara.net...
Bob wrote:
Jefferson Brady wrote:
Gay marriage
That phrase contradicts itself.
Not for long, it would seem.
If the Supreme Court permits homosexuals to marry (I doubt the will)
there will be a constitution amendment proclaiming a marriage is between
a man and a woman.
What happens when one or both have a sex change operation?
A eunuch can't be a a parent, hence no consummation of marriage.
Since when is parenthood a requirement for marriage?
That has always been the meaning and purpose of "marriage." If you
don't have a child you can have it annulled because it never happened.
That's ridiculous.
Bob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Jabsco" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
12 Dec 2003 07:44:59 PM |
|
|
Please post historic proof that what he said is not so.
"Jefferson Brady" <rightiswrong@home.org> wrote in message
news:3fdb5674.15871156@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:57:21 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Bob:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Earl Camembert:
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:1071265668.9910.0@nnrp-t71-01.news.clara.net...
Bob wrote:
Jefferson Brady wrote:
Gay marriage
That phrase contradicts itself.
Not for long, it would seem.
If the Supreme Court permits homosexuals to marry (I doubt the will)
there will be a constitution amendment proclaiming a marriage is
between
a man and a woman.
What happens when one or both have a sex change operation?
A eunuch can't be a a parent, hence no consummation of marriage.
Since when is parenthood a requirement for marriage?
That has always been the meaning and purpose of "marriage." If you
don't have a child you can have it annulled because it never happened.
That's ridiculous.
Bob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Haute Bebe" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
12 Dec 2003 09:07:06 PM |
|
|
"Randy Jabsco" <RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:brdqsn$2eq$0@pita.alt.net...
Please post historic proof that what he said is not so.
"Jefferson Brady" <rightiswrong@home.org> wrote in message
news:3fdb5674.15871156@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:57:21 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Bob:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Earl Camembert:
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:1071265668.9910.0@nnrp-t71-01.news.clara.net...
Bob wrote:
Jefferson Brady wrote:
Gay marriage
That phrase contradicts itself.
Not for long, it would seem.
If the Supreme Court permits homosexuals to marry (I doubt the
will)
there will be a constitution amendment proclaiming a marriage is
between
a man and a woman.
What happens when one or both have a sex change operation?
A eunuch can't be a a parent, hence no consummation of marriage.
Since when is parenthood a requirement for marriage?
That has always been the meaning and purpose of "marriage." If you
don't have a child you can have it annulled because it never happened.
That's ridiculous.
Bob
A marriage may be annulled if it is not consummated. But "consummating" is
not synonymous with "begetting."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
12 Dec 2003 11:22:13 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:44:59 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Please post historic proof that what he said is not so.
When my wife and I married we were too old to have children, but the
law allowed us to marry. That's proof that the claim that "parenthood
is, and always has been, the purpose of marriage" is wrong.
Also, there's no requirement for the couple to show proof that they're
fertile and there's no requirement that they plan to have children.
Those are further proofs.
That some Church considers the sole purpose of marriage to be to
produce children has nothing to do with those who don't believe that
Church's edict.
--
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but
not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."
-A. Einstein (1929 -- Einstein Archive 33-272)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
13 Dec 2003 12:56:14 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:57:21 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
snip
Since when is parenthood a requirement for marriage?
That has always been the meaning and purpose of "marriage." If you
don't have a child you can have it annulled because it never happened.
Nonsense. The test (where it is law) is consummation not the birth of
children.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 07:00:41 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:56:14 +0100,
posted in alt.atheism:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:57:21 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
That has always been the meaning and purpose of "marriage." If you
don't have a child you can have it annulled because it never happened.
Nonsense. The test (where it is law) is consummation not the birth of
children.
And it's only enabling legislation. There's no law, in any
jurisdiction, that requires that a marriage be annulled if there is no
issue.
Henry VIII, anyone? (So much for the Church demanding issueless
marriages be annulled.)
--
"Christianity has already had the chance to govern
the world according to its own ethical standards.
It was called the "Dark Ages".
- Bill, The Avender
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
12 Dec 2003 09:38:51 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:57:21 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Since when is parenthood a requirement for marriage?
That has always been the meaning and purpose of "marriage."
Sorry. Wrong. Entirely wrong, I'd like to add. A marriage is a legal
contract. No more no less.
If you
don't have a child you can have it annulled because it never happened.
Since when? And in which countries? Certainly not in the western
world.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 10:33:10 AM |
|
|
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Bob:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Bob:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Earl Camembert:
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:1071265668.9910.0@nnrp-t71-01.news.clara.net...
Bob wrote:
Jefferson Brady wrote:
Gay marriage
That phrase contradicts itself.
Not for long, it would seem.
If the Supreme Court permits homosexuals to marry (I doubt the will)
there will be a constitution amendment proclaiming a marriage is
between a man and a woman.
What happens when one or both have a sex change operation?
A eunuch can't be a a parent, hence no consummation of marriage.
Since when is parenthood a requirement for marriage?
That has always been the meaning and purpose of "marriage." If you
don't have a child you can have it annulled because it never happened.
Bob
*****, Bob.
If my wife and I tried for 35 years to have children, then I decided to
call it splits, do you think the courts would not kill me with alimony on
my assertion that "it never happened"?
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
______________
The fool says in his heart "there is no God".
The wise man says it to the world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 12:55:28 PM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
If my wife and I tried for 35 years to have children, then I decided to
call it splits, do you think the courts would not kill me with alimony on
my assertion that "it never happened"?
If you had a wife (instead of your parade of rump rider buddies) your
nonsense would not be paraded all over the net.
Bob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 07:29:19 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:55:28 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> posted
in alt.atheism:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
If my wife and I tried for 35 years to have children, then I decided to
call it splits, do you think the courts would not kill me with alimony on
my assertion that "it never happened"?
If you had a wife (instead of your parade of rump rider buddies)
The Green Monster rears its ugly (and intolerant) head.
--
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 07:35:31 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:gi3qtvko9v7u19d6hj595rohml12gvp0f4@Pern.rk...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:55:28 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> posted
in alt.atheism:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
If my wife and I tried for 35 years to have children, then I decided to
call it splits, do you think the courts would not kill me with alimony
on
my assertion that "it never happened"?
If you had a wife (instead of your parade of rump rider buddies)
Damn, there we go with the 'rump rider' thing again.
It's beginning to lose its comic value.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 01:12:02 PM |
|
|
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Bob:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
If my wife and I tried for 35 years to have children, then I decided
to call it splits, do you think the courts would not kill me with
alimony on my assertion that "it never happened"?
If you had a wife (instead of your parade of rump rider buddies) your
nonsense would not be paraded all over the net.
Bob
Bob, you're such a bigot you can't even imagine someone not thinking as you
do. I'm not gay, but I don't have a problem living and letting live.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
______________
The fool says in his heart "there is no God".
The wise man says it to the world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "A. Lincoln" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 01:27:11 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 13:12:02 -0600, (Vic
Sagerquist) wrote:
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Bob:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
If my wife and I tried for 35 years to have children, then I decided
to call it splits, do you think the courts would not kill me with
alimony on my assertion that "it never happened"?
If you had a wife (instead of your parade of rump rider buddies) your
nonsense would not be paraded all over the net.
Bob
Bob, you're such a bigot you can't even imagine someone not thinking as you
do. I'm not gay, but I don't have a problem living and letting live.
But by your own admission you also lack any morals or rectitude of
conduct. You have nothing to bind you to honoring any commitment.
IOW - You are not trustworthy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 07:32:38 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 19:27:11 GMT, A. Lincoln <alin76@tera.news.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
But by your own admission you also lack any morals or rectitude of
conduct. You have nothing to bind you to honoring any commitment.
IOW - You are not trustworthy.
You're Christian?
Then you have horrendous morals. You believe in stoning recalcitrant
children, owning slaves, in killing anyone who so much as picks up a
stick on Saturday, in owning women and children, in raping
girl-children - read your bible, Sir. It's full of things, commanded
by your god, that would land a man in prison for life if committed
today.
A man with morals from almost any other source is a far more moral
person.
--
"If we really know Truth, we do not fear hearing falsehoods or half-truths; if we are not sure of the truth - we shudder and try to shout down every utterance." - A. J. Mims
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 02:35:28 PM |
|
|
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach A. Lincoln:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 13:12:02 -0600, (Vic
Sagerquist) wrote:
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Bob:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
If my wife and I tried for 35 years to have children, then I decided
to call it splits, do you think the courts would not kill me with
alimony on my assertion that "it never happened"?
If you had a wife (instead of your parade of rump rider buddies) your
nonsense would not be paraded all over the net.
Bob
Bob, you're such a bigot you can't even imagine someone not thinking as
you do. I'm not gay, but I don't have a problem living and letting
live.
But by your own admission you also lack any morals or rectitude of
conduct. You have nothing to bind you to honoring any commitment.
IOW - You are not trustworthy.
I'm not religious, if that's what you mean. I don't require a belief in
religious fairytales (which are actually pretty immoral in themselves) to
keep me from killing, raping and plundering.
If you can't place trust in a person at face value, instead making a
utopian prejudgement based on your own values, how can you call yourself
trustworthy?
Define morals as they should apply to an entire population. What a boring
place this planet would be if everyone was the same.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
______________
The fool says in his heart "there is no God".
The wise man says it to the world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 06:49:26 PM |
|
|
"Vic Sagerquist" <> wrote in message
news:94518EC77blastfemur@127.0.0.1...
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach A. Lincoln:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 13:12:02 -0600, (Vic
Sagerquist) wrote:
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Bob:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
If my wife and I tried for 35 years to have children, then I decided
to call it splits, do you think the courts would not kill me with
alimony on my assertion that "it never happened"?
If you had a wife (instead of your parade of rump rider buddies) your
nonsense would not be paraded all over the net.
Bob
Bob, you're such a bigot you can't even imagine someone not thinking as
you do. I'm not gay, but I don't have a problem living and letting
live.
But by your own admission you also lack any morals or rectitude of
conduct. You have nothing to bind you to honoring any commitment.
IOW - You are not trustworthy.
I'm not religious, if that's what you mean. I don't require a belief in
religious fairytales (which are actually pretty immoral in themselves) to
keep me from killing, raping and plundering.
Not only are you not gay, Vic, you _also_ don't believe in their imaginary
diety! Don't you realize what a mess it's going to make here when their
little heads explode?
BTW, if Boob follows true to form, in a few more posts he'll call you a
'rump rider [with a] gay agenda.'
If you can't place trust in a person at face value, instead making a
utopian prejudgement based on your own values, how can you call yourself
trustworthy?
Define morals as they should apply to an entire population. What a boring
place this planet would be if everyone was the same.
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
15 Dec 2003 09:27:03 AM |
|
|
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Dennis Kemmerer:
Not only are you not gay, Vic, you _also_ don't believe in their
imaginary diety! Don't you realize what a mess it's going to make here
when their little heads explode?
BTW, if Boob follows true to form, in a few more posts he'll call you a
'rump rider [with a] gay agenda.'
Heh - read on....
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
______________
The fool says in his heart "there is no God".
The wise man says it to the world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
15 Dec 2003 01:54:21 PM |
|
|
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:94524A826blastfemur@127.0.0.1...
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Dennis Kemmerer:
Not only are you not gay, Vic, you _also_ don't believe in their
imaginary diety! Don't you realize what a mess it's going to make here
when their little heads explode?
BTW, if Boob follows true to form, in a few more posts he'll call you a
'rump rider [with a] gay agenda.'
Heh - read on....
Too late, Boob's in my killfile.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 01:52:15 PM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Bob:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
If my wife and I tried for 35 years to have children, then I decided
to call it splits, do you think the courts would not kill me with
alimony on my assertion that "it never happened"?
If you had a wife (instead of your parade of rump rider buddies) your
nonsense would not be paraded all over the net.
Bob
Bob, you're such a bigot you can't even imagine someone not thinking as you
do. I'm not gay, but I don't have a problem living and letting live.
Funny how that's what they all say on the net, deny their rump riding.
They must be so ashamed.
Bob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 07:34:04 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:52:15 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> posted
in alt.atheism:
Funny how that's what they all say on the net, deny their rump riding.
They must be so ashamed.
Is that what drives your homophobia, Boob? Shame that you and Daddy
like a pommel when you ride? Some of us prefer the handles to be
further up.
--
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them."
-Isaac Asimov
&
There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence.
- (Will Rogers)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jefferson Brady" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 02:06:42 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:52:15 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Bob:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
If my wife and I tried for 35 years to have children, then I decided
to call it splits, do you think the courts would not kill me with
alimony on my assertion that "it never happened"?
If you had a wife (instead of your parade of rump rider buddies) your
nonsense would not be paraded all over the net.
Bob
Bob, you're such a bigot you can't even imagine someone not thinking as you
do. I'm not gay, but I don't have a problem living and letting live.
Funny how that's what they all say on the net, deny their rump riding.
They must be so ashamed.
Wow, just when you think bob has reached the pinnacle of ignorance ,
he surprises you.
Bob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 07:34:47 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 20:06:42 GMT, (Jefferson
Brady) posted in alt.atheism:
Wow, just when you think bob has reached the pinnacle of ignorance ,
he surprises you.
You'd never make it in sales - you underestimated his ignorance.
--
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains
premature today."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
14 Dec 2003 02:19:20 PM |
|
|
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Bob:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Bob:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
If my wife and I tried for 35 years to have children, then I decided
to call it splits, do you think the courts would not kill me with
alimony on my assertion that "it never happened"?
If you had a wife (instead of your parade of rump rider buddies) your
nonsense would not be paraded all over the net.
Bob
Bob, you're such a bigot you can't even imagine someone not thinking
as you do. I'm not gay, but I don't have a problem living and letting
live.
Funny how that's what they all say on the net, deny their rump riding.
They must be so ashamed.
Bob
What's the matter, Box-o-rox, run out of words? Afraid to admit you're
wrong? Your Red Herring tactics only display your lack of ability to
concentrate on the matter at hand. We were discussing marriage and the
supposed "requirement" to reproduce. Remember?
Go back, re-read my post in context, then respond. Running away spouting
ad-hom racist remarks only shows you're about as intelligent as that
cucumber up your *****.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
______________
The fool says in his heart "there is no God".
The wise man says it to the world.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Blade" |
|
| Title: GOP Celebrates! (was Re: Another...) |
13 Dec 2003 02:17:56 PM |
|
|
WASHINGTON (AD) -- President Bush says he's not yet begun
campaigning, despite his more than $200 million in fundraising,
during a campaign speech last Saturday, arguing he has led "a
year of accomplishment" on the bad economy, destruction of
Medicare, the war on personal freedom and a host of other issues.
"We worked with Congress to take action in a number of areas
on behalf of the American corporations and special interest
groups," Bush said in a weekly radio address devoted to himself.
"We created problems with personal corruption and partisan sniping.
Yet our work is not done."
Voters, meanwhile, were flabbergasted at the miserable failures
that Bush said were worthy of praise. Many patriotic Americans
felt that the looting of Medicare, tax give-aways to the rich and
anti-freedom measures pushed by Republicans have fallen well
outside of sanity.
"When we believed that Republicans were trying to steer the
country in the wrong direction, running it into the ground, we
offered another choice," said one disheartened patriot. "Many
Americans once wondered if it really matters who's in charge.
Bush's miserable failure, on the heals of Clinton's unprecedented
success, proves that it really does matter."
The president admits to having raised a minimum of $112 million
for his reelection, though the actual figure was reported to be much
higher than that more than a year ago, prior to Bush annual month-long
fundraising-dubbed-vacation last summer. Bush is know to have
appeared at 42 fund-raisers since May. He always tells those
invitation-only audiences, made up of Partisan Republican and big
ticket GOP contributors, that he is only "loosening up" for a campaign
against the working men & women.
But in his address and a six-page list that accompanied it, all written
in crayon & sporting numerous spelling errors, Bush trumpeted
numerous ways he said his administration has helped make the nation
safer for major polluters, more prosperous and more compassionate
towards the big businesses exporting jobs - despite the continuing
slaughter in Iraq and a soaring federal budget deficit.
Receiving top billing was a new Medicare law that, as unbelievable as
it sounds, throws 25% of seniors off of coverage, forbids negotiating for
lower drug prices all while shovelling $400 billion into the coffers of
private insurance companies whose executives contributed heavily
towards Bush's re-election campaign. With his political advisers eager
to score points with big business, an issue long associated with the
GOP, Bush installed a rider into the Medicare bill that postpones any
new benefits until 2006, while begining payments for those benefits
sometime early next year.
"The destruction of Medicare, and the looting of the treasury, was one
milestone in a year of accomplishment," Bush told the special interest
groups that he panders to.
Bush also credited his tax give-away to the rich as pushing the
economy toward more positive footing, ignoring the hundreds of
billions of dollars in new spending that he pumped into the economy.
"Ignore all those hundreds of billions in new, highly inflationary,
economically destabalizing spending," he insisted. "If you've got a
job than thank the 1% of Americans who got 40% of my tax cut."
On international issues, Bush touted his effort to cut spending to battle
AIDS in developing countries, which, through a shameful accounting
scheme that would make his pals at Enron proud, he had the unmitigated
gall to refer to as an "increase." his administration's diplomatic
blundering on the North Korean nuclear standoff, and the unnecessary
war to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein where also misrepresented.
"On behalf of all American polluters, crooked CEOs, corrupt politicians,
oil companies and other special interested groups, I thank the Republican
controlled Congress for a productive year," he said.
In his address, Bush stressed above all else the unnecessary war to end
of Saddam's regime, the deforestation legislation and took credit for
a campaign finance law upheld this week by the Supreme Court.
But he admitted that the new Medicare law did not allow the government
to negotiate for lower prices, that the tax give-away for the rich excluded
all of the most deserving and criticized his own deficit spending.
"We'll work to create millions of jobs by creating a police state and an
unprecedented demand for body bags -- instead of just waiting for the 3
million jobs destroyed by this administration to magically reappear," he
said.
"We'll be vigilant in guarding the privacy and civil liberties of
American corporations and major polluters-instead of sacrificing
huge profit margins, serious health issues and birth defects in the name
of a whining citizenry that needs to be taught to not questions its betters.
And we'll punish NATO and the rest of our allies for not following
orders and going along with my invasion of Iraq-instead of building a
real coalition against terrorism that wouldn't leave American soldiers to
die by the hundreds."
Defending realistic and sensible alternatives to Republican efforts,
patriotic Americans said they were "troubled by the way this
administration brands true Americans who disagrees with its insane
policies as 'unpatriotic."'
Bush's first TV ad of the 2004 race, which aired in Iowa last month,
accused unnamed critics of "attacking the president for attacking the
terrorists," in reference to the war on Iraq, though even the CIA says
there was no Iraqi/Al Qaida connection.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
13 Dec 2003 12:56:06 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:35:28 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jefferson Brady wrote:
Gay marriage
That phrase contradicts itself.
No it doesn't; it merely contradicts what you like.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
12 Dec 2003 09:38:48 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:35:28 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jefferson Brady wrote:
Gay marriage
That phrase contradicts itself.
It certainly does. Just like: free black people. Or: women voting.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Ruskai" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
12 Dec 2003 04:58:12 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:02:24 -0800, Randy Jabsco wrote:
Subject: [snip] passes by over 75% of the vote
understand. If people love faggots so much, why would over two-thirds vote
75% is two thirds? I think that says quite enough about your thinking
skills.
--
- Mike
Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Smeth" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
12 Dec 2003 05:21:39 PM |
|
|
Mike Ruskai wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:02:24 -0800, Randy Jabsco wrote:
Subject: [snip] passes by over 75% of the vote
understand. If people love faggots so much, why would over two-thirds vote
75% is two thirds? I think that says quite enough about your thinking
skills.
Dealing with fractions when you have a fraction of a mind is hard.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Jabsco" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
12 Dec 2003 07:57:23 PM |
|
|
Our state had a two-thirds vote. If you small brain did not notice that I
said 'over' two-thirds, then I will point it out for you. Here you go, it
says 'over' right there, see it now?
If you want to get technical, that particular vote was three-quarters, which
makes the ***** agenda no better off. Our vote in our state was
two-thirds. Still 'over' two-thirds, I might add.
"Mike Ruskai" <spamten.knilhtrae@begonedynnaht.net> wrote in message
news:gunaalqrneguyvaxarg.hpt15p2.pminews@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:02:24 -0800, Randy Jabsco wrote:
Subject: [snip] passes by over 75% of the vote
understand. If people love faggots so much, why would over two-thirds
vote
75% is two thirds? I think that says quite enough about your thinking
skills.
--
- Mike
Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
13 Dec 2003 12:01:11 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:57:23 -0800, "Randy Jabsco"
<RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Our state had a two-thirds vote. If you small brain did not notice that I
said 'over' two-thirds, then I will point it out for you. Here you go, it
says 'over' right there, see it now?
If you want to get technical, that particular vote was three-quarters, which
makes the ***** agenda no better off. Our vote in our state was
two-thirds. Still 'over' two-thirds, I might add.
Which has what to do with which?
Whatever your state voted for, federal law prevails, and federal law
will eventually legalize homosexual marriage. If your state wants to
secede it has enough precedent to study.
--
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains
premature today."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
