|
|
#31
10-02-2007, 11:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Nightmare on Elm Street for the Dems
[ QUOTE ]
...or as naturally planned, what's the difference? Obviously the natural plan is for the nuclear family unit. [/ QUOTE ] The natural plan was also for you and your family to be naked eating berries in a cave. 
|
|
#32
10-02-2007, 11:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nightmare on Elm Street for the Dems
None of those statements will make me vote republican.
Since I am pro-environment,pro-choice,pro-universal health care,pro-automatic weapons ban, pro-renewable energy policy, pro-keeping social security out of the stock market, pro-removing tax breaks for the rich, etc I am voting democrat.
|
|
#34
10-02-2007, 12:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nightmare on Elm Street for the Dems
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] ...or as naturally planned, what's the difference? Obviously the natural plan is for the nuclear family unit. [/ QUOTE ] The natural plan was also for you and your family to be naked eating berries in a cave. [/ QUOTE ] But caves are so cold and stagnant.. Can I live in an adobe hut instead?
|
|
#35
10-02-2007, 12:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nightmare on Elm Street for the Dems
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] ...or as naturally planned, what's the difference? Obviously the natural plan is for the nuclear family unit. [/ QUOTE ] The natural plan was also for you and your family to be naked eating berries in a cave. [/ QUOTE ] The natural plan was also for gravity to work [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] OK, now that I guess we've got that cleared up...what point are you trying to make?
|
|
#36
10-02-2007, 12:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nightmare on Elm Street for the Dems
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that 2008 is up for grabs. I think the Republicans will make a big mistake if Rudy is the nominee. Any dividend they might be able to reap from Clintongate will be negated because of Rudy's own personal history. And if there are people who won't vote for a woman, there are also people who won't vote for someone named Giuliani. I can see Hillary winning some up-for-grab states that she wouldn't against somebody else--Florida, West Virginia, Ohio. Romney would be a much more viable candidate for the Republicans, it seems to me. [/ QUOTE ] You must be kidding. You equate an anti-Italian vote to the anti-woman vote? Especially a woman who is so shrill and divisive? And then on top of it you say Romney...a Mormon (read "cult", "polygamy", "Warren Jeffs"...is more viable on the bias scale? I agree Romney is a better candidate on the issues than Rudy, but he has no chance.
|
|
#37
10-02-2007, 12:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nightmare on Elm Street for the Dems
[ QUOTE ]
Hi Copernicus. The republicans have thier own nightmare. There are a lot of republicans, me for instance, who are disenchanted with their own party. Stu [/ QUOTE ] I agree...right now. But its a year away from the election and small victories compound to rally and unify any organization as effectively as major defeats.
|
|
#38
10-02-2007, 12:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nightmare on Elm Street for the Dems
[ QUOTE ]
pro-automatic weapons ban [/ QUOTE ] FYI, automatic weapons have been basically banned since the National Firearms Act of 1934. So I don't think this is really an issue... or did you mean something else? [ QUOTE ] pro-keeping social security out of the stock market [/ QUOTE ] I assume that's another way of saying you oppose letting individuals decide for themselves how they want to save/invest for retirement. [ QUOTE ] pro-removing tax breaks for the rich [/ QUOTE ] I'd wager you don't include yourself among those who are arbitrarily defined as "the rich." [ QUOTE ] pro-choice, [/ QUOTE ] Well, you are not "pro-choice" with respect to owning certain firearms, saving for retirement, and probably many other things. Anyway, unless Ron Paul is the Republican nominee, I'll probably vote Democrat, if I can do so without vomiting in the polling booth. That's only because the religious conservative Taliban has taken over the Republican party, and I'm pissed about the attempted internet gambling ban.
|
|
#39
10-02-2007, 12:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nightmare on Elm Street for the Dems
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously the natural plan is for the nuclear family unit [/ QUOTE ] This is not obvious to anthropologists, the "obvious natural plan" is a much larger extended family where children are raised by close friends and relatives living in close proximity. The American dream of Man, Woman and Kids (what most mean when they reference nuclear family) is very new to human society.
|
|
#40
10-02-2007, 12:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nightmare on Elm Street for the Dems
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] ...or as naturally planned, what's the difference? Obviously the natural plan is for the nuclear family unit. [/ QUOTE ] The natural plan was also for you and your family to be naked eating berries in a cave. [/ QUOTE ] The natural plan was also for gravity to work [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] OK, now that I guess we've got that cleared up...what point are you trying to make? [/ QUOTE ] That the argument that we should only allow heterosexual marriage because it's "natural" is ridiculous. Almost everything about our modern lives is unnatural. Practically nobody, however, is for banning those other unnatural things, nor should they support banning "unnatural" marriages. edit: this doesn't really help the dem vs. repub debate because neither is going to do anything to prevent a prohibition on gay marriage.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
