QueenZone discussion #410875

Mr.Jingles79 wrote: I think that charles baer's posts are far more intersting and intelligent.

<font color ="midnightblue">ThomasQuinn wrote:

Brian_Mays_Wig wrote: FGT you really need to get a life. Cant you find another message board, a polital one, to bore everybody with your political views?? Every one of your threads bares a politcal meaning and its bollocks. I couldnt give a monkeys whats happening in America. I love American people and Im sure its a nice country but I think your posts need to go to another forum. And besides, your threads dont get that many replies do they?? Please accept my apologies if I offended!

Well I don't accept them! Politics in the States concern you too! If there's a trigger-happy fuck in the whitehouse (like right now), you're at risk of getting nuked 'cause he can't keep his hand off the button. So grow up and start caring!

Holly2003 wrote: "Dubya hardly "hates" John McCain. They were rivals in the 2000 primary and a lot of mudslinging goes on in elections. What happens in an election does not represent how someone feels for someone else - both sides are in it to win, not to invite people to their birthday party." A clearer case of wishful thinking would be hard to find. It's amusing how you shape the world to suit your politics. McCain despises Bush. It's an open secret in Washington and within the Republican Party. He's just being a "good German" right now because he has high hopes for 2008.

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: McCain is hardly the kind to whore himself out for someone he despises - if he had, he would have taken Kerry's offer to be VP. It would have made the election a clean sweep.

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: [/quotename] And I don't think McCain could have given that beautiful speech at the RNC about someone he hated...

Under Pressure wrote: Yeah, I'm bored by these threads too. Especially since, if I remember correctly, you're the idiot who thought that voting for Nader was a good way of getting Bush out of office.

geeks&geeks<br><font>God Empress</font> wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: [/quotename] And I don't think McCain could have given that beautiful speech at the RNC about someone he hated...

You sure about that? George Pataki and Rudy Giuliani are not men generally considered to be in Bush's pocket, yet they gave him glowing reviews. McCain was doing what politicians do - he was supporting the guy that his political party is endorsing for President. Bush, on the other hand, clearly has no love for McCain. This is, after all, the man who authorized push-polls against McCain which spread rumors that he's gay (he isn't), that his wife had outstanding arrest warrants (she doesn't) and that he had fathered an illegitimate black child (he hadn't, and this one is especially cruel, because he has an adopted daughter with dark skin). And don't even get me STARTED on Mike Fair. But yeah, I like John McCain.

Under Pressure wrote: Yeah, I'm bored by these threads too. Especially since, if I remember correctly, you're the idiot who thought that voting for Nader was a good way of getting Bush out of office. By the way, I have sex with camels.

Under Pressure wrote: And I don't see how a Freddie fan could support someone who wants to restrict the rights of gay people. What a hypocrite you are.

Under Pressure wrote: To tired to have manners about the issue ... how old are you? Is the election going to have any effect on your life? I doubt it. So I really don't care for your opinion on the matter, frankly. And I don't see how a Freddie fan could support someone who wants to restrict the rights of gay people. What a hypocrite you are.

Sir GH<br><font size=1>ah yeah</font> wrote:

Under Pressure wrote: And I don't see how a Freddie fan could support someone who wants to restrict the rights of gay people. What a hypocrite you are.

Agreed. Anyone who can label another person as being substandard to them either because of a life choice or a different orientation is clearly in need of a reality check, among other things.

Holly2003 wrote: "A life choice? How about the life choice of being a Republican? Is that protected? Obviously not." Well boo hoo for those poor Republicans. Whenever a "Gay Party" comes to power and bans marriage between two consenting Republicans, I'll start taking your arguments seriously.

Bush benefitted from "activist judges" who went against the wishes of the majority that voted for Al Gore. Now Bush wants to use the exact opposite argument to ban gay marriage. Not that it's ever going to happen of course. He's just pandering to an intolerant majority of his own support.

<font color=purple>Miss James wrote: "I think that charles baer's posts are far more interesting and intelligent." - Simply because you disagree with her political views, I'm assuming.

Holly2003 wrote: It's best if you argue with what I said, rather than what you think I said. However, I'm not going to spend hours explaining simple English to you.

Under Pressure wrote: "it seems there's so little wrong he's done in the past four years that it is necessary to bring up 2000." I would call you a bad name, but it's not even worth of you. THIS HAS BEEN THE WORST PRESIDENCY IN US HISTORY! Check your facts before acting like a dumbass! You are a narrow minded annoying little girl. Marriage is a RIGHT. Therefore disallowing marriage is, indeed, "restricting the rights of gay people." Why can't you get this through your pea brain? People like you piss me off to no end. You can't even give a real answer as to why you support Bush; you have no facts, just the bullshit propaganda he throws at us.

<font color=000000>Music Man</font> wrote:

I will not say whether or not this is the worst presidency in US history, but I will ask you one question. Why? As compared to other presidents, why is Bush worse? And if you have nothing nice to say, please keep it to yourself.

Economic Depression + Deficit + Unemployment + Removal of Rights (some forms of abortion, gay marriage proposition, revoke Roe v. Wade proposition, Patriot Act) + Not renewing Assault Weapon ban + IRAQ WAR + collapse of negotions in Israel + RELGIOUS emphasis (federal money goes primarily to faith based Christian charities, religious rhetoric,denouncing condom use in countries where AIDS is of epidemic proportions) + Attacks on Affirmative Action + Attacks on Educated Americans + Increase Class Gap + Virtually no relief for NYC after Sept. 11 ++++ the list goes on and on.
I'll ask this - what has he done RIGHT?

Under Pressure wrote: "it seems there's so little wrong he's done in the past four years that it is necessary to bring up 2000." I would call you a bad name, but it's not even worth of you. THIS HAS BEEN THE WORST PRESIDENCY IN US HISTORY! Check your facts before acting like a dumbass!

You are a narrow minded annoying little girl.

Marriage is a RIGHT. Therefore disallowing marriage is, indeed, "restricting the rights of gay people."

Why can't you get this through your pea brain?

People like you piss me off to no end. You can't even give a real answer as to why you support Bush; you have no facts, just the bullshit propaganda he throws at us.

<font color=000000>Music Man</font> wrote: I don't mean to be mean, but Holly does have some rational arguments with many points which remain to be rebutted, and Sara (is it?) is not doing a good job at explaining her position very well. I'm sure she has her reasons, and that they are all rational, but there is a popular saying here (and I'm sure several places elsewhere) concerning debates, which is "put down the shovel." What I am seeing a lot of, though, on BOTH sides are attacks upon not what people say, but the people themselves (yeah, I am often guilty of this, but I am working on it - just call me a hypocrite)...Come on, we're all friends here, or at least I would like to think so. We are all going to disagree, but a debate should be a friendly way to express your opinions in an intelligent manner. Also, it is very clear to me and I'm sure to many others that Holly is a great debater. This doesn't mean that Holly has better opinions than anyone else, but just a much better ability to argument and expression. That doesn't mean that other people don't have anything to say; they are just not as good at saying it.

geeks&geeks<br><font>God Empress</font> wrote: You know, guys, she's got a point. We liberals are supposed to be the tireless opponents of tolerance, and yet, when faced with someone who disagree with us, we go into a weeklong sliming snit. Could we please reserve the rage for the fucks who actually deserve it, like Ann Coulter and Grover Norquist? They're completely nuts. We don't need to bother listening to them. If you actually bother to have a conversation with Sara, you would realize that while completely perverted, she is not a Hannityesque psychopath. There are intelligent, sensible conservatives in the world. And Kerry IS against gay marriage. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I support him, but that doesn't change his being a weenie. Oh yeah, and I'm about as far left as they come, so anyone who accuses me of being a pawn for the right can just go fuck themselves. (John McCain? Sexy? You gotta be kidding me...)

Holly2003 wrote: You can't deal with opinions that contradict your own so you misrepresent what I say and make personal attacks on me and my family. Classic keyboard warrior stuff. However, I should know better than to argue with some of the teenagers on here, many of whom are so terrified of "losing face" in public that they resort to personal abuse in defence of their puny intellectual abilities.

geeks&geeks<br><font>God Empress</font> wrote: INtolerance! I meant INtolerance!

Grover Norquist is an uber-conservative, famous primarily for a quote in which he said he wanted to reduce government to the size where he could drain it down the bathtub. He's a psycho. He was also the primary fuel source of the Clintons-left-shits-in-the-White-House stories.

Under Pressure wrote: "[I] I [/I] was taught in school to be respectful of others, unlike YOU." "Why don't you get John Kerry's balls out of your mouth for a second" I'm glad I didn't go to your school. The more you say, the more ridiculous you sound. Kerry really isn't against gay marriage, you know. Kerry has been forced to say that for election reasons. And even so, he still says publicly that gay citizens are citizens nonetheless and deserve their rights, unlike Bush.

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

Under Pressure wrote: "[I] I [/I] was taught in school to be respectful of others, unlike YOU." "Why don't you get John Kerry's balls out of your mouth for a second" I'm glad I didn't go to your school. The more you say, the more ridiculous you sound. Kerry really isn't against gay marriage, you know. Kerry has been forced to say that for election reasons. And even so, he still says publicly that gay citizens are citizens nonetheless and deserve their rights, unlike Bush.

"forced to say that for election reasons"? Shouldn't a candidate say what is in their heart and not what will get them elected? And if you were to watch the third debate, Bush clearly states that he believes gay people deserve tolerance and kindness just like everyone else. Show me somewhere where Bush said that gay people are not citizens. You're making things up. If he felt that way, don't you think Cheney's daughter would be a bit uncomfortable?

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: A life choice? How about the life choice of being a Republican? Is that protected? Obviously not. Which proves my point that YOU don't give a shit who is judged as long as it benefits YOU

For how bad Bush apparently is, it seems there's so little wrong he's done in the past four years that it is necessary to bring up 2000.

Under Pressure wrote: Economic Depression + Deficit + Unemployment + Removal of Rights (some forms of abortion, gay marriage proposition, revoke Roe v. Wade proposition, Patriot Act) + Not renewing Assault Weapon ban + IRAQ WAR + collapse of negotions in Israel + RELGIOUS emphasis (federal money goes primarily to faith based Christian charities, religious rhetoric,denouncing condom use in countries where AIDS is of epidemic proportions) + Attacks on Affirmative Action + Attacks on Educated Americans + Increase Class Gap + Virtually no relief for NYC after Sept. 11 ++++ the list goes on and on. I'll ask this - what has he done RIGHT?

What a pathetic and typically conservative thing to say. Attacking the person, and not the problem. Just because someone brings up the past doesn't mean there aren't current problems. Did you happen to miss the part where it was said that there are an estimated 100,000 Iraqis dead, thanks to a decision by Bush?

War is bloody, but the end of a war brings hope, hope that the Iraqis never had when they were being oppressed by Hussein.

And if you were to watch the third debate, Bush clearly states that he believes gay people deserve tolerance and kindness just like everyone else.

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: "forced to say that for election reasons"? Shouldn't a candidate say what is in their heart and not what will get them elected?

Holly2003 wrote: "Go fuck yourself" and "Big time asshole" are two of Dick Chaney's favorite catch phrases.

Remind me again, what names did I call you exactly?

Have you done anything in your life yet that would convince me to take your advice on anything?

Sir GH<br><font size=1>ah yeah</font> wrote: I fail to see the major difference between then and now. They are still being terrorized, just by a different country.

The war could end tomorrow, but Bush insists the US continues, fully knowing they are still killing innocent people daily. And don't say "that's the way war is". Such a pitiful attempt at rationalization is only defering from the problem at hand.

Kerry is promoting such non-violent ways of solving this problem.

lifelong conservatives whose levels of cognitive development are still at stage one.

To war-obsessed Americans who have bought into Bush's scare tactics, which is a good percentage of them, war is the only answer. To truly compassion-literate Americans, war is not the answer. Read my signature below.

Speaking of saying things "for election reasons". By banning gay marriage, and quoting the bible on such matters, Bush has showed exactly what he thinks of gay people.

More than once I've seen Bush on TV saying a marriage should be between a man and a woman. Any Bush-voting conservative who calls Kerry a flip-flop is a hypocrite for the above reason.

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: They're being terrorized by the terrorists in their country! How can we pull out when the terrorists would overrun the country, since the Iraqi government is not stable enough yet?

With his "non-violent" approach, Saddam would still be in power, slaughtering his own people.

Lovely, so you resort to insulting us.

Do you plan to explain how Kerry's non-violent tactics would have taken Saddam out of power? Or do you feel we should have sweet-talked him as his sons raped 10 year olds?

... That he doesn't think they should be married... that doesn't mean he doesn't think they deserve respect and tolerance. He just thinks we shouldn't change the marriage laws.

Sir GH<br><font size=1>ah yeah</font> wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: They're being terrorized by the terrorists in their country! How can we pull out when the terrorists would overrun the country, since the Iraqi government is not stable enough yet?

USA to the rescue, killing 100,000 people. Hurrah!

With his "non-violent" approach, Saddam would still be in power, slaughtering his own people.

That is the past. We're talking about now.

Lovely, so you resort to insulting us.

Truth hurts, don't it?

Do you plan to explain how Kerry's non-violent tactics would have taken Saddam out of power? Or do you feel we should have sweet-talked him as his sons raped 10 year olds?

I'm not talking about Saddam. That was in the past. The problem is what is happening NOW. Stop changing the subject.

... That he doesn't think they should be married... that doesn't mean he doesn't think they deserve respect and tolerance. He just thinks we shouldn't change the marriage laws.

So Bush is showing tolerance by giving them less rights than heterosexual couples?

Under Pressure wrote: "I passed tenth grade, unlike you." Wow, you're just getting on my nerves now, and I'm not going to skirt around the issue anymore: you're a stupid bitch. You don't know anything. You're a parrot. "Saddam this, Saddam that!" That's right, just repeat whatever the fuck the Bush camp tells you to. Well you know what, fuckup? Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and "thaving Iraq" didn't help all the people who were and are STILL unemployed, who cannot feed their families, and who are moving into poverty. I have a sneaky feeling that the same amount of civilians are being killed NOW as they were under Saddam -- not to mention the fact that IT'S NONE OF OUR FUCKING BUSINESS TO GO INTO OTHER PEOPLE'S COUNTRIES! Going into Iraq didn't help MY city get out of it's debt -- despite Bush's nationalistic BS -- NYC has barely seen ANY federal aid, despite our being a figurehead for that goddamned asshole's campaign. Isn't it surprising how, after another Bin Laden tape appears, the Bush camp doesn't give a fuck? Don't you find that odd? No, I think you're too much of a MORON. You support a bigoted, racist, born-again lying son of a bitch. Someone whose party has been threatening black colleges, sending out flyers saying that Democrats are supposed to vote on Wednesday, and telling people that they can vote over the phone. I hate people like you. You are an ignorant, ignorant slob. Your parents must be horrible people to have raised you to be such a mindless dumbass. At this point, if I met you, I would consider beating the crap out of you. STOP HARASSING THE OTHER PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD WITH YOUR UNFOUNDED, CHILDISH INSULTS AND GODDAMNED RIGHT WING BULLSHIT. [/rant]

iGSM wrote: <<Shouldn't a candidate say what is in their heart and not what will get them elected?>> They SHOULD. But often don't. Meh, take that non-compulsory voting.

Under Pressure wrote: Bush might have won -- we all knew he would. This however, has no bearing on your being a dumb bitch, along with the apparent majority of this God-forsaken country.