Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Marriage and its Discontents

peaceman Wrote: Jun 22, 2014 7:25 AM
The argument for same-sex marriage has everything to do with equal rights under the law; it's not at all directed towards incest of any kind. Any "hatred" going on here is what you're spewing and most of what you write here is nonsensical and off the track re the issues that have been raised. Get a clue...
OK....John-boy has done it again. If you really take the time to think through this list, you might just realize that despite injustices (most are not as bad as some would like to believe) we've been witnessing from the Oval office for the past few decades, John's reference to O with this list is still absurd and way over the top. You may despise O but you need to get real here. John tends to overblow many issues and that's a disservice to everyone
Darby, president of the 'idiots club' for hair-brains...research has actually made it quite clear that children thrive under the roof of a loving household regardless of their parents being gay or heterosexual: http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/06/05/2106751/same-sex-parenting-study/ http://www.stanforddaily.com/2010/09/21/rosenfeld-elaborates-on-same-sex-parenting-study/ http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/06/12/497488/fraudulent-study-parenting/ Point again to make is that sexual orientation has been not to be environmental; either you are or you're not Like James says in the previous comment, "...born heterosexual" is where it sits just as it does "...born gay"
In response to:

Marriage and its Discontents

peaceman Wrote: Jun 20, 2014 4:13 AM
Gee, why don't just STEREOTYPE them because we're just better; we're not them...right??? The right to marriage is EVERYONE'S RIGHT, not just the 'church folk.' No one wants to force anything on you, like my daughter, they just want to have the same rights and move on with their life. There's no argument to be made otherwise. If you argue religious belief, you're certainly welcome to your belief, but don't have the right to continue to 'FORCE' others to accept it. Remember, our first amendment is for EVERYONE. The price of freedom is that you tolerate your neighbors to have their freedom, not be able to coerce them to your way of thinking...
(continued) aspects of the chemicals used that affect both humans and animals, and to include the poisoning of the well water and the aquifers, and then there is the rising phenomena of earthquakes. There is a literal ‘mountain’ of evidence that supports the dangers of fracking and it will overwhelmingly public not too long from now. Maybe that’s what it takes to wake up folks like you and realize that the ‘conservative media’ has done very little in your behalf.
Bush was a 'puppet' and easily persuaded by the neo-cons who love war. About Vietnam, blaming the press is complete BS; the war was run in a purely political way; remember the DMZ and not allowed to follow the VC into Laos??? Give me a break. "Pretty much had won Vietnam"???? Seriously that's just so idiotic. We became ineffective and the war was very expensive; the mood of the country was to get out as the war served no 'true' purpose and had nothing with liberating anyone. When I was there in 1968, I met a couple of Shell Oil managers who very clear as to why we were there; later met an Air Force Lt Col was none too polite about how he despised our presence there. There's absolutely NO comparison to WWII. Our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is all about the resources and establishing a presence to maintain control. Oh, let's not get too off the rails here about spewing talking points: the message from universities about the money was the misuse of it, not money itself...in otherwords, the misuse of power... Sad deluded diatribe?? So now we default to name-calling. Let’s get this straight; at 19 I had no “preconceived notion” regarding oil, etc. I received straight facts with reliable sources; what do you have to offer? Personal opinion?? Actually, there is a huge amount of factual evidence that supports each point I made and I didn’t find it in the media. Yes, Saddam used chemical weapons but the WMD’s is way overblown. Why? Because we really do have the technology to track them and nothing ever showed up. It was a ‘convenient fiction’ in order to justify an insane war. Now you’re tripping on the ‘voter fraud’ BS. Yes, the polls need to be cleaned up but even some R’s admitted to manipulating the voter laws to get Romney elected: http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/06/25/505953/pennsylvania-republican-voter-id-laws-are-gonna-allow-governor-romney-to-win/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/pennsylvania-admits-it-no-voter-fraud-problem/2012/07/24/gJQAHNVt6W_blog.html And saying that ‘progressives’ don’t want fair elections is complete BS, especially in light of the influence of ALEC with all the ‘red’ states attempting to disenfranchise people from their vote. It’s one thing to clean up ‘duplication’ issues and quite another to justify the restrictions that have been attempted. Seriously, fracking is a big issue and it’s by far not a clean technology as many states are beginning to discover. It’s a combination of pollutive...
Read my response to Ray...as always you never have anything of value to add to a conversation...just the usual mindless drivel with the name calling...really, how old are you???
...the money and ran... Englishlass...being an a**hole doesn't look good on anyone and apparently you have a reading comprehension problem. Counseling is a needed path for you...
You're right that the Fed's push for 'homeownership' was actually seriously taken advantage of by the banks, especially the big ones: Wells Fargo, BofA, Countrywide, etc. However, the what I've listed is quite accurate (though others here seem to be closing their eyes, but doesn't change the facts), and the trail of deregulation in the banking industry particularly with the use of 'derivatives' spun the market on its head. Some of the D's were out of touch just as the R's were and, for many I believe, took
Bush was a 'puppet' and easily persuaded by the neo-cons who love war. About Vietnam, blaming the press is complete BS; the war was run in a purely political way; remember the DMZ and not allowed to follow the VC into Laos??? Give me a break. "Pretty much had won Vietnam"???? Seriously that's just so idiotic. We became ineffective and the war was very expensive; the mood of the country was to get out as the war served no 'true' purpose and had nothing with liberating anyone. When I was there in 1968, I met a couple of Shell Oil managers who very clear as to why we were there; later met an Air Force Lt Col was none too polite about how he despised our presence there. There's absolutely NO comparison to WWII. Our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is all about the resources and establishing a presence to maintain control. Oh, let's not get too off the rails here about spewing talking points: the message from universities about the money was the misuse of it, not money itself...in otherwords, the misuse of power...
Review the history and you'll get a better picture of what was going on. The Bush tax cuts along with the 2 wars doubled our overall debt, but combining that with a collapsing economy and no effort to hold Wall St accountable (TBTF), the job losses were in the 100,000's roaring right into the first year of O. The D's took over Congress after the damage had been done and right into the Recession of which that had no way of stopping; neither did anyone else. It is argued well by economists that had the 'stimulus' been larger, the economy would have recovered a little more quickly but the issue of corp loopholes that spiraled the job losses sending so many overseas could not be overcome. And the R leadership stood fast together in blocking legislation that could have helped. And, so with these combination of factors including O's continuing the wars (some contribution here, though not overwhelming) have led to higher deficits. Now the deficit has been dropping since 2010 despite the conditions described though overall debt is still high; we need more revenues....not so much suggesting higher taxes for income earners (not a great impact here) but rather a closing up of unnecessary loopholes that have been provocatively lucrative for mega-corps
Previous 11 - 20 Next