Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Some parts of him are pretty dense, but some others are jiggily.

And when I laugh my belly shakes like a bowl full of jelly. Nice going, Hank. You've outed Santa Claus. Quick, take it to the Kiddie boards.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
In my experience, gay people are marginally smarter than straights with similar backgrounds and education, probably because they spent their entire adolescence thinking more and harder about more difficult things that the rest of us do. As a result, very few of them are dumb enough to think that such a thing is possible.

Could you imagine the names AG would have called me if I said I thought straights were smarter than gays and then gave a lame reason like that to explain why? LOL!!!

There is no evidence at all you scientific-illiterate that thinking "more" and "harder" about "difficult" things has any effect on intelligence in normal people. The only things that correlate with intelligence of all kinds are genetics and certain environmental conditions in utero and during early childhood development when the brain is growing (i.e., lack of oxygen during birth or lack of iodine in your diet when you are a baby makes you stupid). And sitting around thinking about whether you want to stick your dick in an ass or in a vagina doesn't qualify as "difficult" thinking anyway.

No, AG, you are a hypocrite of the worst kind. You think it is perfectly fine to say gays are smarter but would start hurling insults if someone said that about straights. And you defend the one of the sickest belief systems around (i.e., Islam).

FYI Mr. Science retard - there is some evidence that in alzheimers patients or in the elderly, those who do tasks requiring them to use their memories will experience less decline of their short term recall capabilities. But that isn't intelligence. That is memory.

[Not Me]

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040918_959.html

• A retired Texas National Guard official mentioned as a possible source for disputed documents about President Bush's service in the Guard said he passed along information to a former senator working with John Kerry's campaign.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Is that really what patriotism is? Agreeing with you? Or even, for that matter, agreeing with the Republican Party?

Whatever happened to democracy, Bilmore? What about the ability to dissent? Does your worldview no longer allow for a loyal opposition?

I'll give you a chance to rethink this and restate what you meant before I go further, because I suspect this isn't really what you meant to say.

I'm sure he meant something other than one he said.

I've always viewed patriotism as a love for country so strong that one was willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice. Kerry has demonstrated his patriotism. On this board, and in this administration, however, patriotism is more of a theoretical concept.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I've always viewed patriotism as a love for country so strong that one was willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice. Kerry has demonstrated his patriotism.

You can't be talking about Vietnam. Do you mean his charging up the hill to his massive electoral defeat in november? "someone had to do it, and damnit, I'm not passing the buck."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
It was a mean spirited attack on gays. Give me one good reason with which you personally agree that justifies the introduction and passage of DOMA.

You still haven't responded to my post, which made his actual position abundantly clear. You're afraid gay people think Kerry favors some kind of federal approval of gay marriage? Then you're nuts. In my experience, gay people are marginally smarter than straights with similar backgrounds and education, probably because they spent their entire adolescence thinking more and harder about more difficult things that the rest of us do. As a result, very few of them are dumb enough to think that such a thing is possible. They will vote en masse for Kerry because he's the candidate who won't actively try to stab them in the back. Okay, poor choice of words. Some will vote for Nader, but Kerry can't get those people by promising them federal gay marriage.

DOMA was a symbolic stupid act. But K. opposing Gay marriage is much worse. If you're going to pander to Neaderthals- pander. I don't get why he would because the flip side of your "do you really think gays will vote for Bush" is that anyone would oppposes gay marriageain't voting for John John anyway. You speak alot about what disappoints you in the Reps. to me the failure to really stand up for what they believe disappoints me in the Dems. I feel gun control to make handguns much rarer would be very good. You know Gore/Kerry both agree. Their campaigns are all about what great hunters they are- they ain't going take your guns! Do you really think they will get a single vote out of this?

Gays seem smarter because the people who recognize they're gay are introspective enough to think about the question. The dumber queers haven't the brains to think through the question.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
to me the failure to really stand up for what they believe disappoints me in the Dems.

2.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Gays seem smarter because the people who recognize they're gay are introspective enough to think about the question. The dumber queers haven't the brains to think throughthe question.

Alot of the dumber queers end up in jail from what I hear.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040918_959.html

• A retired Texas National Guard official mentioned as a possible source for disputed documents about President Bush's service in the Guard said he passed along information to a former senator working with John Kerry's campaign.

OK, Not_Me has me and Hank on ignore. Anyone else?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
It was a mean spirited attack on gays. Give me one good reason with which you personally agree that justifies the introduction and passage of DOMA.

You still haven't responded to my post, which made his actual position abundantly clear. You're afraid gay people think Kerry favors some kind of federal approval of gay marriage? Then you're nuts. In my experience, gay people are marginally smarter than straights with similar backgrounds and education, probably because they spent their entire adolescence thinking more and harder about more difficult things that the rest of us do. As a result, very few of them are dumb enough to think that such a thing is possible. They will vote en masse for Kerry because he's the candidate who won't actively try to stab them in the back. Okay, poor choice of words. Some will vote for Nader, but Kerry can't get those people by promising them federal gay marriage.

I responded via my post to Wonk. When you speak to a gay audience and tell them that DOMA is a mean spirited attack on them, the impression you are leaving is that you back their right to marry. To then later come out and say you are against gay marriage leaves your initial stance disingenuous.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
DOMA was a mean-spirited attack on gays. It's also, in my view, unconstitutional. What,are you saying, that Kerry was obligated to say, "Oh, by the by, I'm opposed to gay marriage?"

Have you lost the ability to recognize that it's possible, sometimes even desirbale, to hold two opposing ideas in your head at the same time? Is everything now a litmus test?

See my post to AG

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I responded via my post to Wonk. When you speak to a gay audience and tell them that DOMA is a mean spirited attack on them, the impression you are leaving is that you back their right to marry. To then later come out and say you are against gay marriage leaves your initial stance disingenuous.

Arrrgh! Why do you leave no room for the possibility that Dems might genuinely think that, as a matter of con law, states can do things the federal government can't, or shouldn't? Sure, I only made this discovery in 1994 when we lost Congress in the midterms, but the lesson has certainly stuck with me for the past 10 years.

It's possible to believe DOMA was a mean-spirited attack on gays, even if you personally don't believe gays should marry, because other people in your state might disagree with you and you might think living with that result is better than having Frist and Hastert decide.

Also, it's entirely possible that Kerry thinks the feds should live with whatever the states decide about which of their citizens can marry because defining familial relations on biblical and "traditional" principles isn't an enumerated power of Congress.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Give me one good reason with which you personally agree that justifies the introduction and passage of DOMA.

The more evidence that the US public opposes gay marriage, the more difficult it will be for left wing judges to frustrate the will of the people by legalizing gay marriage by forcing states or recognize it or by legalizing the export of gay marriage by misreading the full faith and credit clause.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Arrrgh! Why do you leave no room for the possibility that Dems might genuinely think that, as a matter of con law, states can do things the federal government can't, or shouldn't? Sure, I only made this discovery in 1994 when we lost Congress in the midterms, but the lesson has certainly stuck with me for the past 10 years.

I don't doubt some DEMs believe this. But I'm not talking about them as a groupl, I'm talking about the tall, lanky, french looking one.

It's possible to believe DOMA was a mean-spirited attack on gays, even if you personally don't believe gays should marry, because other people in your state might disagree with you and you might think living with that result is better than having Frist and Hastert decide.

Is it? Would Bill Clinton really sign a mean spirited act?

Also, it's entirely possible that Kerry thinks the feds should live with whatever the states decide about which of their citizens can marry because defining familial relations on biblical and "traditional" principles isn't an enumerated power of Congress.

Kerry believes whatever is politically expedient. He is like many other politicians in this regard, but he's not as good at masking it.

[Not Me]

Ok, so in your mind, it is not as credible as a blog, but it is your liberal paper of record:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/20/po...rint&position=

So was it really Bush who lied? LOL!!!!!

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
Ok, so in your mind, it is not as credible as a blog, but it is your liberal paper of record:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/20/po...rint&position=

So was it really Bush who lied? LOL!!!!!

From the article:

>>Yesterday, Emily J. Will, a document specialist who inspected the records for CBS News and said last week that she had raised concerns about their authenticity with CBS News producers, confirmed a report in Newsweek that a producer had told her that the source of the documents said they had been obtained anonymously and through the mail<<

I don't buy into the whole Rove thing, but I've gotta wonder if the anonymous mail was postmarked GA (i.e., maybe 4 hours was a bit quick... I'm dying to see if anyone knows how quickly the documents were even made available for inspection over the internet). It looks like the two positions are dovetailing nicely, for the moment. As a guess at the broader picture though, I'd suggest the evidence only implicates Burkett in the end.

Hello