Originally Posted by ^_^

I'm sorry, this is crap lol

Originally Posted by Nacht

it is crap. i could go down the list and put my opinions about each one...say why its false/why i dont believe it, and ill still tell you im a proud republican.

Originally Posted by drakesteakn

>Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:

>

>Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's
[color=red]THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS MY FRIEND, EVER HERD THAT PHRASE?[/color]

>daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him
[color=red]DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN BY BUSSINESS?[/color]

>and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden"
[color=red]HE'S ALLWAYS BEEN A BAD GUY, WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD SEE "THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS MY FRIEND" AND "THE FRIEND OF MY ENEMY IS MY ENEMY" [/color]

>

>

>Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade
>with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international
>harmony.

[color=red]FOR 1 CASTRO, FOR VIET NAMES SOLE BUSSINESS AND ENCONMOICS IS BASED AROUND THE MILLITARY AND WEAPONS (MAKEING AND SALES) WE NEED TO GET THEM AN OPTIN OR THIER GOV WILL COLLAPSE ON THEM SELFS PLUS WE NEED A WROKING RELATIONSHIP TO EASE TENTIONS OVER THIER WANTING TO SEEK TO MAKE NUKES[/color]


>

>The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our
>highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against
>Iraq.

[color=red]I GUESS TO BE A DEMOCRAT THEN YOU MUST BELIVE THAT IF THE CORRUPT $$$ UN DOESNT GIVE YOU PERMISSION THEN YOU CAN'T PROTECT YOUR SELFS? WHY WOULD WE BOTHER? COSINDERING PEOPLE WITH HIGH STAKES IN IRAQ OIL AND A OIL FOR FOOSD SCAM FUNNELING MILLIONS ILLEGALLY. THEY HAD A NICE LITTLE HUNNY POT THERE.[/color] [color=red]GARENTEEING THEY WOULD VETO ANY RESOULTION. DON'T FOGET WERE THE REASON THE U.N IS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE... WHAT A GEAT UN IRAQ IS ON THE DISARMORMENT COMETEE AND LIBIA ON HUMAN RIGHTS [/color]
>

>A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but
>multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind
>without regulation.

[color=red]wtf?[/color]

>

>Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals
>and Hillary Clinton.

[color=red]YOU FOR GOT BILL, SINCE THEY'VE BEEN OUT OF OFFICE THIER MOUTHS HAVN'T STOPPED FLAPPIN, #2 READ THE BIBLE SOMETIME[/color]

>

>The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in
>speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

[color=red]THE GOVERNMENT IS LIKE A BUSSINESS, AIRLINES ETC... DO THE SAME THING BECOUSE THE EXPENSES ESPECALLY WITH PEOPLE LIKE JHON KERRY crying about this $$$$[/color]

>If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't
>have sex.

[color=red]? NO THEY WILL HAVE SEX BUT PUTTING CONDOMS THERE FREE PROMOTES SEX, HELL YOU MIGHT AS WELL HAVE ORGY ROOMS TOO,,,,[/color]

>

>A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our
>long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and
>money.

[color=red]HMMM HOWS THAT? IRAQ AGAIN?[/color] [color=red]ARE YOU TALKING THE FRENCH, GERMANS, AND RUSSIANS? IT WAS THEY WHO SPAT IN OUR FACE...[/color]

>

>Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy.
>Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

[color=red]WHAT?[/color]
[color=red]#2 AGAIN WHAT? WE HAVE BILLS GO THROUGH THE HOUSE AMERICANS WHAT FREE HEATH CARE BUT WHAT TO PAY $0 FOR IT[/color]

>

>HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests
>of the public at heart.

[color=red]ROFL, THIER POCKETS, THE SYSTEM SUCKS BUT IT WRKS TO AN EXTENT AND WHAT WE HAVE[/color]

>

>Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk
>science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

[color=red]HMM.. IF THEY SAY THE TOBACCO CASUSES CANCER = THEN THEY HAVE TO BAN IT, THEN THEY HAVE TO ENFORCE IT. NOT TO MENTION THE BILLIONS THE GOVERMENT WILL LOSE FROM TAXES ON IT.[/color]

[color=#ff0000]CREATINISM NO, THE RUNNING AROUND AND REMOVEING ALL RELGIOUS SYMBOLS FROM THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS, CRESTS ETC... IS BAD THOUGH. THE CONSTSUTION WAS BASED ON RELEGIOUS BELIVES! THERE FOR SOM IS THE FOUNDADTION OF THE GOVERNMENT.[/color]

>

>A president lying about an extramarital affair is an
>impeachable offense.

[color=red]clintion lied an it not the first time, suposadly not the first affair either, he used 3 million tax payer dallors to help fund his run for office, he was even accused of rape, connections to wite watter and organised crime , attend parties were drigs and sex with minors was present and if you wactched "the clintion cronicals" you'd know that. [/color]

[color=red]i bet you guys belived every word of farenhight 9/11. lies deceptions and all...[/color]

A president lying to enlist
>support for a war in which thousands die is solid
>defense policy.

[color=red]thousnands? you mean 1,000 so for or iraq or afgansitan? becouse theat a connected but seprate war.[/color]


>

>Government should limit itself to the powers named in
>the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages
>and censoring the Internet.

[color=red]well i guess you must belive in higher taxes, and condoneing even promating gay marrange then. maybe gay should be a part of sex ed then huh?[/color][color=#ff0000]how can they be married in a relegion were being gay is a deadly sin? But i bet you support the ILLEGAL gay marrages in calafornia etc then huh... even though the state's mass magoitry people voted at the polls in the past againt allowing it/banning it with it was banned...[/color][color=red]you must also belive in one state's judge (as in one man) being able to make fedral law and laws for all 50 states...becouse thats whats happeing...[/color]

>

>The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle
>trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of
>our business.

[color=red]?[/color]

>

>Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime,
>unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an
>illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.

[color=red]what people are given a chance to get help ever herd of reablitation? no one docks you if you seek help, getting busted is another matter, possesio is another matter, same with selling etc...[/color]


>

>You support states' rights, which means Attorney
General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter
>initiatives they have the right to adopt.

[color=red]?[/color]

>

>What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital
>national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is
>irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Dom

The fact that Bush wants to ban gay marriage is false?

Originally Posted by The_Neon_Cowboy

nope thats true... and it should be put to a vote ....

the ability for one state to set the laws for all 50 states is unjust.

there are even some gays against gay marrage

they 99.9% of them are not after the titles married huband wife what ever they are afater the $$$ benifits and the $$$ aid, soclial securty benifits , death benifits etc.... nothing more

they already have civil unions

allowing garentees higher taxes and greather srain on solical securty

allwing it mean they condone it and they mucghjt as well promote it

Originally Posted by Dom

Banning gay marriage for any reason would be unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by ^_^

Agreed. It's the state's choice. I personally don't agree with the idea of calling it marriage, that's totally stretching a word for your own view. But I can't say that they shouldn't be allowed the legal benefits, nor can I say that they shouldn't be called a family.

Originally Posted by Dom

Oh, God, Neon. Thank God you aren't running for President (or any office for that matter).

Originally Posted by Dom

Oh, God, Neon. Thank God you aren't running for President (or any office for that matter).

Originally Posted by BWX

He would make a better president than Kerry. At least Neon isn't a two faced liar that changes his story every 5 seconds.. You know I'm right!

Originally Posted by OldBuzzard

"The mindset of the south"?!? I take it that you are ignorant of the Red State/Blue State maps.

Originally Posted by ToshiroOC

Lets not attack individual posters, ok? Prove him wrong if you disagree, but its his stance that you take issue with, not the person, right?

Originally Posted by drakesteakn

this is false, he was fighting for freedom from Russia in afganistan when he was young. he actually had freedom in mind before he lost interest when he had nobody to fight.

[color=red]Reagardless the man is a loon now[/color]

we make up the money that runs the UN. so does that mean we get money back from Oil for Food? so are we corrupt and making money somewhere? YES!!! we are.

[color=red]We started the un in the first place. It's the UN members cought up the the oil for food scandle not the USA. You know france, russia, germany those name familliar... 2 of those three are suspected i forget wich two.[/color]


they mean obortion(probably spelled it wrong.)
[color=red]I for abortion is your over 18, I'm againt letting a 10-17 year old to run have sex, get pregnanat and then choose to abort with out thier parents even knowing. The parent should be notified and even better a part of the decision.[/color]

just sounds like a excuse to me neon


that should keep u busy till i finish

[color=#ff0000]READ THE BIBLE SOMETIME, marriage is a "religious thing" so i guess other deadly sins should be allowed a promoted by the church huh [/color]

Originally Posted by Dom

More women marry men for benefits than gays
([color=red]just every single gay couple 99.9%[/color]) marry each other for them. I suppose you would also think that the victim's familes of 9/11 are also after money. [color=red]No[/color]

The fact is that if two people love each other and devote their lives to each other, as a woman and man would, then they should be allowed to marry and [color=red]collect benefits[/color]. Without those important benefits ANYONE whose spouse dies, etc., would be ruinned.

[color=red]But the wholew point of them wanting it is to collect those benifits.[/color] [color=red]Marage between a man and woman s something totally different. It more for being commited to each other, and in the eyes of relegion it's for life. there is no such thing as a devorse! really! devose was started by a king who started his own chuch to devorse his wife to marry another. [/color]

[color=red]the point is regardless the satas should have a say in what they do. when one state does something like this [/color]

[color=red]"THEN ALL 50 STATES ARE THEN FORCED TO "[/color]

[color=#ff0000]WERE IS THAT RIGHT? WERE IS IT WRITE THAT A JUDGE AN INGLE (MAN OR WOMAN) CAN SET LAWS FOR ALL 50 STATES MUCH LIKE A KING OR DICTATOR REGARDING SUCH MATTERS. [/color]

[color=red]EVEN WHEN 90% OF THIER STATE HAS VOTED TO BAN GAY MARRAGE AND IT WAS BANNED, AND A GAY MAYOR, A GAY JUDGE, AND CITY ALLOWED IT FOR WEEKS NO MATTER WHAT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE WANTED. NO MATTER WHAT THE LAW. SO YOUR SAYING GAYS ARE ABOVE THE LAW?[/color]

[color=#ff0000]#1 RESON GAY MARRAGE NEEDS TO BE BANNED BY THE ACTIONS THAT COUSE THE HUGE COMMOITION ABOUT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!![/color]

[color=#ff0000]UNLESS IT'S PUT IN THE CONSISTUITION THEN ANY CRACK POT, ELMER FUD JUDGE, CAN STRIKE IT DOWN.... [/color]

Banning gay marriage for any reason would be unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by pr0digal jenius

neon...i'm starting to think you'd vote for bush over Jesus if you had the opportunity

Originally Posted by The_Neon_Cowboy

...
[color=#ff0000]i'[/color][color=#ff0000]VE SAID IT BEFORE I'M JUST PICKING THE LESSER EVIL AND KERRY IS THE WORSE THING ON TWO LEGS FOR THE PRESIDENTAL SEAT. [/color]

Originally Posted by Dom

More women marry men for benefits than gays marry each other for them. I suppose you would also think that the victim's familes of 9/11 are also after money.

The fact is that if two people love each other and devote their lives to each other, as a woman and man would, then they should be allowed to marry and collect benefits. Without those important benefits ANYONE whose spouse dies, etc., would be ruinned.

Banning gay marriage for any reason would be unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by Dom

Neon, you make less and less sense each time you post. I do not know where you get your numbers and facts from, but I doubt they're anymore reputable than 9/11 conspiracy theory sites.

Marriage between a man and a woman is not different than a marriage between a gay couple. Men and women have equal rights. Men have the right to marry, as do women. Therefore, men can marry men, and women, women. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that gays are second-class citizens.

If marriage is a religious thing as you say it is, then no marriage should be performed by a state. Due to separation of church and state.

You have almost no basis for augment. If you don't think a judge has the jurisdiction to marry a couple regardless of state law, then you have either no respect or understanding of American law. Furthermore, to suggest that because a judge allows a gay couple to wed, he/she must too be gay is ignorant.

You also obviously don't understand that states can have different laws, such as the death penalty and three strike laws.

The fact is that if you actually did research you would find out that most divorces are between men and women. And that spousal abuse and infidelity are almost completely something that only straight couples do.

If you think we should amend the constitution to ban gay marriage, then perhaps we should amend it to ban certain types of firearms too. And make all laws the same in every state.

You cannot have one without the other, Neon.