Guest BengalBacker Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Oh but it is. You set aside the money you need to fulfill the different programs and to pay the federal employees troops and such. Then you determine you the amount of income you need to cover these. Bush may have done this but then he decided to give tax money back to the people(I liked that), cuts taxes(Liked that too), goes to war with Iraq with N.Korea was the bigger threat and then decides to spend 87 billion to build Iraq. The next thing I know Bush is $400 billion past his budget. By far the worst of any president in comparision with the standard of living for the others. It's just my opinion that Bush is mortgaging the future so that he can live with bottomless pockets. Oh by the way, Bush has spent more time in Camp David than anyother president! Why? Running from his responsibilities to manage a country? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're making my point for me. Tomorrow is election day and I'm sick of arguing Iraq versus North Korea. The threat, and the situation is apples and oranges, but I honestly don't feel like debating now. Maybe some other time. I'm sure he can run things just as well from Camp David as he can from the White House. Of course he isn't running from his responsibilities. I don't even waste my time any more arguing with such lame debating points. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiyall69 Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Ok, Im making your point? How is that? I must be right, now one wants to defend the Iraq war. You're right it is apple and oranges. N.Korea posed the bigger threat. But the White House is where he is suppose to be. Not at Camp David. Camp David is a retreat not the White House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAYCAT Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Would you like to explain that reasoning? Or are you just going to leave it like that? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Came home and started bad mouthing his fellow troops. There is no honor in him. He went over for his "tour" of 4 months and just happen to have a camera crew with him to film him in the bush carrying his rife. He has been setting this up from the time he went to haaavaad. Say's just what is needed in the moment to look good and then move on. Another thing his sorry ass is in the museum over there as a hero! That's my reason! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BengalBacker Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Ok, Im making your point? How is that? I must be right, now one wants to defend the Iraq war. You're right it is apple and oranges. N.Korea posed the bigger threat. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Trust me. I don't think you're right. Just not debating it tonight. I'd rather talk to Becky about sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiyall69 Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Came home and started bad mouthing his fellow troops. There is no honor in him. He went over for his "tour" of 4 months and just happen to have a camera crew with him to film him in the bush carrying his rife. He has been setting this up from the time he went to haaavaad. Say's just what is needed in the moment to look good and then move on. Another thing his sorry ass is in the museum over there as a hero! That's my reason! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No he bad mouthed the war, not the troops. Just like today. He supports the troops, but not the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiyall69 Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Trust me. I don't think you're right. Just not debating it tonight. I'd rather talk to Becky about sex. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well you go have your pathetic cyber sex. I'll go to the wife and get the real thing. I would like for one person to tell me why it was better to after Iraq rather N. Korea? A country that claims to have nuclear weapons, yet we don't go after them. We just talk. Just playing Devil's advocates. Kerry is not the right person but neither is Bush. Im sorry that I've said things that you don't want to hear. But I have given you facts that you can't deny or even response too. Lame debate points. Ok yeah, Camp David lame, but N. Korea, NO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAYCAT Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Just something I heard. Guy I know his son works at the place here that armoured hummers are made and they are changing paint from tan desert to green camo. For those who say we are neglecting N. Korea,just wait it's coming! They are making hundreds of them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiyall69 Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Just something I heard. Guy I know his son works at the place here that armoured hummers are made and they are changing paint from tan desert to green camo. For those who say we are neglecting N. Korea,just wait it's coming! They are making hundreds of them! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> OK, maybe if I understand this statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAYCAT Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 4 MORE YEARS 4 MORE YEARS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAYCAT Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 OK, maybe if I understand this statement. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Meaning: green camo is for the terrain they will be going to. Kerry keeps harping we neglected N. Korea....duh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BengalBacker Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Well you go have your pathetic cyber sex. I'll go to the wife and get the real thing. I would like for one person to tell me why it was better to after Iraq rather N. Korea? A country that claims to have nuclear weapons, yet we don't go after them. We just talk. Just playing Devil's advocates. Kerry is not the right person but neither is Bush. Im sorry that I've said things that you don't want to hear. But I have given you facts that you can't deny or even response too. Lame debate points. Ok yeah, Camp David lame, but N. Korea, NO! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hey FUCK YOU !!!! Nobody's having pathetic cybersex you self righteous piece of shit !!!!! It was a joke you asshole !!!! I'll be getting the real thing from my wife tonight too Congratulations to both of us. I said I didn't feel like debating it tonight, but you couldn't respect that. You had to put some lame ass slam on me. FUCK YOU !!!! Did North Korea invade Kuwait??? Did North Korea agree to resolutions as a condition of surrender??? Did North Korea ignore resolutions for 12 years??? I could go on but like I said, I don't feel like debating it tonight, so FUCK YOU !!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KYWHODEY Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 im gonna shut this board down if this crap continues.... buncha AM radio right wing beleive everything loud mouths tits say on the radio ass bastards.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Try looking up Senate vote records and newspaper articles quoting Kerry's statements. The man believes life begins at conception but supports federal funding of abortions. He says in the primary when Dean is eating his lunch that he is the "Anti-War Candidate", now he would have maybe, might have, probably, could have gone to war to remove Saddam as long as the French were behind it, probably... but done it smarter. Yeah he's no flip-flopper he is a weak kneed pansy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAYCAT Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Try looking up Senate vote records and newspaper articles quoting Kerry's statements. The man believes life begins at conception but supports federal funding of abortions. He says in the primary when Dean is eating his lunch that he is the "Anti-War Candidate", now he would have maybe, might have, probably, could have gone to war to remove Saddam as long as the French were behind it, probably... but done it smarter. Yeah he's no flip-flopper he is a weak kneed pansy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 wow...last time i checked this thread had about 40 replies. You guys have been busy. Not sure if i want to go back through and read all the posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Well you go have your pathetic cyber sex. I'll go to the wife and get the real thing. I would like for one person to tell me why it was better to after Iraq rather N. Korea? A country that claims to have nuclear weapons, yet we don't go after them. We just talk. Just playing Devil's advocates. Kerry is not the right person but neither is Bush. Im sorry that I've said things that you don't want to hear. But I have given you facts that you can't deny or even response too. Lame debate points. Ok yeah, Camp David lame, but N. Korea, NO! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If I'm not mistaken, there aren't any UN sanctions against N. Korea that they are thumbing their nose at. Invading Iraq was never stated to be about terrorism. It was about WMD's and SANCTIONS. Afghanistan was about terrorism, so people assumed Irag was. The government liked that people assumed it was about terrorism, because it gave them more leeway, but it was about sanctions. When the UN levels sanctions on N.Korea, they will be next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Well you go have your pathetic cyber sex. I'll go to the wife and get the real thing. I would like for one person to tell me why it was better to after Iraq rather N. Korea? A country that claims to have nuclear weapons, yet we don't go after them. We just talk. Just playing Devil's advocates. Kerry is not the right person but neither is Bush. Im sorry that I've said things that you don't want to hear. But I have given you facts that you can't deny or even response too. Lame debate points. Ok yeah, Camp David lame, but N. Korea, NO! Because Iraq demonstrated it's capability for using chemical weapons against it's own countrymen/Because Iraq belligerently flouted the UN sanctions put against it, by countries including France, Germany, etc (who are on the Security Council, I might add)/Because 9-11 happenend and we've decided not to kick back on our heels and wait for another attack, we're taking it TO WHERE THE TERRORISTS LIVE!!! And if they want to gather there to engage our highly trained, motivated, kick-ass, VOLUNTEER Armed Forces then I say GOOD. You can't pussyfoot around this war on terror. It is real. Whoever is President must make this a priority! Everything else in this nation (economy, health care, etc) depends on it!/ Because we believed intellegence reports from several worldwide agencies that agreed with our asessment---No Compliance=Deceive Inspectors=Enforcement Of Security Council Measures (France, Germany, Russia, China, USA)=USA response, despite later intelligence that WMD's were: destroyed, moved, hidden, didn't exist or were a fabrication=what we have now./ The very same countries that enacted these measures against Iraq prior to the US-led invasion were on the UN Security Council (China, Russia, France, USA, Germany) and voted FOR these enforcements of sanctions, but then decided against their enforcementand ( in light of the "oil-for-food" scandal, where it's been alleged France, Russia and Germany had vested interests/bribes in the outcome of Iraq's future, it's hardly a surprise) and let the US decide post-9/11 to make a choice. And we chose rightly!// OK, you asked about North Korea vs Iraq in terms of levels of threat: ok, how long has our military force been deployed into that area? Just because they have a few nukes, we should invade? Then we should have invaded the USSR during the Cold War! Or France-they have nukes but don't support our war-let's kill them! Can we trust Pakistan, our ally in THE WAR ON TERROR? They've got nukes (although they're pointed at India over Kashmir, but hey! India's got nukes too, I guess they're next??)/ The point is is that N Korea is an isolated Communist country that spends it's modest GNP solely on their military, thereby starving it's people. I'll express my liberal side and say I'd rather go kill the N Korean govt for starvation of it's own people than the acquisition of a few nukes...but I digress...They are sabre-rattling their nukes to try to gain worldwide attention to their plight, although it's self-imposed by the insane dictator leadership of Kim Jong Il, so they can get a sweet UN or "oil for food" deal from the world community so their crazy leader can propagate the "success" of communism with money he can't earn. There's your answer: Iraq was easy compared to what an unvasion of N Korea would have meant. Not to mention China, another Communist country that is just above N korea...you think gaining a foothold in The Middle East via Iraq was costly...comprehend the casualty list for a war against Korea, not to mention the money...we made the right choice, at least for now..stay tuned.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest oldschooler Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Oh but it is. You set aside the money you need to fulfill the different programs and to pay the federal employees troops and such. Then you determine you the amount of income you need to cover these. Bush may have done this but then he decided to give tax money back to the people(I liked that), cuts taxes(Liked that too), goes to war with Iraq with N.Korea was the bigger threat and then decides to spend 87 billion to build Iraq. The next thing I know Bush is $400 billion past his budget. By far the worst of any president in comparision with the standard of living for the others. It's just my opinion that Bush is mortgaging the future so that he can live with bottomless pockets. Oh by the way, Bush has spent more time in Camp David than anyother president! Why? Running from his responsibilities to manage a country? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> People fucking kill me. And yeah I cussed and no I`m not sorry. Did you not read what I said before about N Korea ? You didn`t reply back to me when I did say it. See this is what kills me about people that HATE Bush. They distort the FACTS. Here`s how it REALLY is/was. Try to follow along. We went to war with Iraq back in the early 90`s. We won...it was in all the papers and on the news everyday...I`m surprised you missed it. Anyway the whole world was on our side. And we ALL placed sanctions and resolutions against Saddam/Iraq. Those sanctions and resolutions were put in place to dismantle his war machine and tol limit his power. But WHILE those sanctions and resolutions were in place our "allies" were having backroom deals with this thing called the Oil for Food scandal. Saddam was making billions ...our allies were making money and the only people that were affected were the PEOPLE of Iraq. Also while those sanctions and resolutions were in place Saddam attacked the Kurds in the North of Iraq with Nerve Gas and killed thousands. All because they wanted freedom. He also tortured and killed 100`s of thousands innocent men, women and children because they didn`t live the way or support the things he wanted them too. He shot at our planes that were enforcing the "No Fly Zones" which was part of the U.N. resolutions. While all of this was going on, we made treatys with N Korea to halt their Nuclear programs. They signed them...took our money. And then went ahead with them anyway. Then came 9/11. We were already in a ressecion and the attacks were directed at the WTC which like Wall Street, is an icon of our capitalism. The attacks were supposed to affect our economy. And they did. We had to bail out the airlines. Create a Dept. of Home Land Security. Go to Afghanistan to fight the terrorist. Then Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors ...which was part of the resolutions that allowed him to stay in power. Hell he thought we were to busy to pay attention to him. He had our "allies" in his back pocket and knew that they`d NEVER come after him. We knew he HAD WMD`s and without weapons inspectors there...there was no way of knowing what he actually had and didn`t have anymore. Anyway we passed ANOTHER U.N. resolution in 2002. Over a full year AFTER 9/11. Every country in the U.N. signed it. When it came time to take action or just sign ANOTHER resolution (empty threat) Bush realized that AFTER 9/11 the way Saddam HAD to be dealt with had changed. So he went to our allies and told them to stand behind their own threats. He told them to honor their friendship to us and help us take out Saddam. They were making to much money from the Oil for Food scandal to ever do that. So they re-nigged and said the war was unjustified. So we went alone. Then we found out that even after N Korea signed a treaty saying that they would abandon their nuclear programs ...that they had instead went ahead with them and would honor the treaty they signed in the 1st place IF we paid them MORE MONEY. Get it ? ....of course you don`t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creechnasty Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Because Iraq demonstrated it's capability for using chemical weapons against it's own countrymen/Because Iraq belligerently flouted the UN sanctions put against it, by countries including France, Germany, etc (who are on the Security Council, I might add)/Because 9-11 happenend and we've decided not to kick back on our heels and wait for another attack, we're taking it TO WHERE THE TERRORISTS LIVE!!! And if they want to gather there to engage our highly trained, motivated, kick-ass, VOLUNTEER Armed Forces then I say GOOD. You can't pussyfoot around this war on terror. It is real. Whoever is President must make this a priority! Everything else in this nation (economy, health care, etc) depends on it!/ Because we believed intellegence reports from several worldwide agencies that agreed with our asessment---No Compliance=Deceive Inspectors=Enforcement Of Security Council Measures (France, Germany, Russia, China, USA)=USA response, despite later intelligence that WMD's were: destroyed, moved, hidden, didn't exist or were a fabrication=what we have now./ The very same countries that enacted these measures against Iraq prior to the US-led invasion were on the UN Security Council (China, Russia, France, USA, Germany) and voted FOR these enforcements of sanctions, but then decided against their enforcementand ( in light of the "oil-for-food" scandal, where it's been alleged France, Russia and Germany had vested interests/bribes in the outcome of Iraq's future, it's hardly a surprise) and let the US decide post-9/11 to make a choice. And we chose rightly!// OK, you asked about North Korea vs Iraq in terms of levels of threat: ok, how long has our military force been deployed into that area? Just because they have a few nukes, we should invade? Then we should have invaded the USSR during the Cold War! Or France-they have nukes but don't support our war-let's kill them! Can we trust Pakistan, our ally in THE WAR ON TERROR? They've got nukes (although they're pointed at India over Kashmir, but hey! India's got nukes too, I guess they're next??)/ The point is is that N Korea is an isolated Communist country that spends it's modest GNP solely on their military, thereby starving it's people. I'll express my liberal side and say I'd rather go kill the N Korean govt for starvation of it's own people than the acquisition of a few nukes...but I digress...They are sabre-rattling their nukes to try to gain worldwide attention to their plight, although it's self-imposed by the insane dictator leadership of Kim Jong Il, so they can get a sweet UN or "oil for food" deal from the world community so their crazy leader can propagate the "success" of communism with money he can't earn. There's your answer: Iraq was easy compared to what an unvasion of N Korea would have meant. Not to mention China, another Communist country that is just above N korea...you think gaining a foothold in The Middle East via Iraq was costly...comprehend the casualty list for a war against Korea, not to mention the money...we made the right choice, at least for now..stay tuned.... Holy shit folks.... Contest is over... We now have the winner for worlds longest paragraph... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Bush still hasn't managed this country. He has shown no management skills whatsoever. As president of the United States of America, you must show you can manage something. He hasn't managed anything in my opinion. He has ran first his oil business into the ground and now the decifit is getting larger. You're against gay marriage? (I married, straight marriage) Let me ask you something, how does two dudes getting married personally affect you as a hetrosexual? It sickens me too when two dudes kiss, but you know that's their choice. If they can get someone to marry them then so be it. The government should not push their personal beliefs on the rest of the country. This is suppose to be a free country, yet gays don't get the same rigthts as everyone else. They outcased by the rest of the country because people just don't understand. I place this issue along the same line as women voting issue in the early 1900s. Big controversy. When your generation dies off, you can pretty much garauntee gay marriages will be allowed and accepted. With each new generation there is more of a tolerance and understanding of homosexuality. I asked you a pretty big question about N. Korea and yet you didn't answer, does that mean that you agree with me on this issue. I never said anything about sending 10,000 troops into Tora Bora, just said that he should have gotten OBL first, or go after N Korea. N Korea poses the biggest threat. Can you explain the reasoning about that. Also, I would like to know why Bush declared war on Iraq because of WMDs and then declared mission accomplished when Saddam was captured? Obviously, mission isn't accomplished. Still no WMDs and there have been more troops killed after Saddam's capture than before. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> bush has gotten through a deficit (started by clinton, finished by bush), 9/11, corporate scandals, and the war on terror/iraq... find one president in history that would have a growth in the economy in less than 5 years after all that is done... bush is doing a GREAT job on the economy imo... gay marriage is wrong in my eyes... does that mean that every man that loves a man, or every woman that loves a women is wrong... no it doesn't, but i also don't think that they should recieve the same benefits of marriage that i do... the reason isn't b/c i hate them, but i don't want to open up the floodgates on marriage... you do realize that the pologimists are chomping on their corn right now in utah, waiting for this to come up, so these men can go ahead and marry their 20 wives... what might sound "ok" on the outside, isn't always the best thing... and how can u compare gay marriage to woman voting... they are apples and oranges and i don't even know where you are going w/ it... but your right, i don't understand the feelings they have, but that NOT the sole reason that i am opposed strongly against it... i am trying to protect my and your right to be married and for that to still mean something... if these men marry their 20 wives, then you are helping pay for those wives... DO YOU THINK THAT IS RIGHT??? I didn't avoid you question about north korea, i think its ridiculous... have they attacked their own people??? Have they ignored 17 resolutions??? Aren't the japenese, chinese, and russians putting pressure on them to disarm??? Wouldn't those powerful countries be EXTREMELY pissed off, if we tried to do this by ourselves??? We are having bilaterial talks right now w/ them and this is MUCH, MUCH further than the dictator, Saddamm Hussain was letting us get... and how can u ask, why go to iraq w/out having OBL... then the question is, "how could have bush gotten him" and the answer to that is Tora Bora... so, for you to ask the question you did, you better be ready to hear this response, b/c its the only way to prove your point... therefore, WOULD YOU HAVE SENT THOSE SOLDIERS IN TO A POSSIBLE MASSACRE???? bush had many, many reasons to go to war w/ iraq, but the one that democrats like to pick out is wmds... my answer to us not finding the wmds is "thank god..." they were waiting for the un to lift the sanctions and in 5 years we would have been in a much worse place... what we did to saddam was the equivalent of going into nazi germany in the 1930's... it COULD have saved a holocaust for our country... btw, bush declared victory for that crew for their mission... that is called inspiring the troops... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Holy shit folks.... Contest is over... We now have the winner for worlds longest paragraph... Thanks Creech! I hope my prize is four more years! LOL! Ahh, it was a late drinking, fragmented thought thing and I just decided to roll with it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BengalBacker Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 I'm off to vote for Bush and intimidate voters. Gonna see how many I can disenfranchise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 I'm off to vote for Bush and intimidate voters. Gonna see how many I can disenfranchise. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> give them hell BB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiyall69 Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Hey FUCK YOU !!!! Nobody's having pathetic cybersex you self righteous piece of shit !!!!! It was a joke you asshole !!!! I'll be getting the real thing from my wife tonight too Congratulations to both of us. I said I didn't feel like debating it tonight, but you couldn't respect that. You had to put some lame ass slam on me. FUCK YOU !!!! Did North Korea invade Kuwait??? Did North Korea agree to resolutions as a condition of surrender??? Did North Korea ignore resolutions for 12 years??? I could go on but like I said, I don't feel like debating it tonight, so FUCK YOU !!!!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah real mature. Way to get your point across! Typical average American. Can't get your point across, so you'll just curse me. Same with you oldschooler. and No I didn't see your reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiyall69 Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 gay marriage is wrong in my eyes... does that mean that every man that loves a man, or every woman that loves a women is wrong... no it doesn't, but i also don't think that they should recieve the same benefits of marriage that i do... the reason isn't b/c i hate them, but i don't want to open up the floodgates on marriage... you do realize that the pologimists are chomping on their corn right now in utah, waiting for this to come up, so these men can go ahead and marry their 20 wives... what might sound "ok" on the outside, isn't always the best thing... and how can u compare gay marriage to woman voting... they are apples and oranges and i don't even know where you are going w/ it... but your right, i don't understand the feelings they have, but that NOT the sole reason that i am opposed strongly against it... i am trying to protect my and your right to be married and for that to still mean something... if these men marry their 20 wives, then you are helping pay for those wives... DO YOU THINK THAT IS RIGHT??? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well then you limit it to be between two people if your worried about one man with 20 wives. Being gay or not shouldn't give you certain rights. Its not your place to say that gays can or cannot marry. Its not even my place to say so. If they can find someone to marry them, then let it be. Who cares? It doesn't hurt me, you anyone elses hetrosexuality. And yes woman rights and gay rights are the same subjects. Instead of it being a sexists issue its a gayist (sorry couldn't think of a better term) issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Well then you limit it to be between two people if your worried about one man with 20 wives. Being gay or not shouldn't give you certain rights. Its not your place to say that gays can or cannot marry. Its not even my place to say so. If they can find someone to marry them, then let it be. Who cares? It doesn't hurt me, you anyone elses hetrosexuality. And yes woman rights and gay rights are the same subjects. Instead of it being a sexists issue its a gayist (sorry couldn't think of a better term) issue. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> alright... where do i start... you say that EVERYONE should have their equal rights... EVERYONE does include... well, everyone... if you grant EVERYONE equal rights to marry, then joe blow can now legally marry his cow... and tom the petifile can marry his 10 year old girlfriend... the pologimists can marry their 20 wives and their donkey if they so desire... do you see my point yet??? equal rights means you have to allow ALL the dumb shit... i disagree it doesn't hurt my or your rights for the reasons i have posted... womens rights and gay rights are not the same b/c one allowed women to vote (which led to blacks and all americans to vote) this is a good thing... allowing gays to marry would lead to donkeys and cats getting married... that is a bad thing... do u think that joe blow should be able to marry his car if he wants to??? There is no line to draw if you allow gay marriage... point blank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.