Who said it....Ann Coulter or Adolph Hitler

[Hatfield]

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~jac3he/GiveUpQuiz/hitlercoulterquiz.html

I got 7 right...(but in fairness i got bored and guess on the last 3) :twinkies:

[crawfish]

I got 10 right.

In all fairness, Hitler could not have gained power had not SOME of his rhetoric had truth to it. ;)

[yermom]

the Hitler ones sound like they aren't for 3rd graders ;)

[Hatfield]

the options are who said this....

a crazy maniacal dictator or some broad that likes to spew hate to push a few books.

[JohnnyMack]

I got 11.

[C&CDean]

Oh goody. Another Johnny Mack and Tuba nip thread.

[Czar Soonerov]

10
not mine...

http://www.soundbitten.com/coulterthin.jpg
http://www.zenpickle.com/images/Coulter.gif

[Hatfield]

Oh goody. Another Johnny Mack and Tuba nip thread.

i think everyone is united in knowing what coulter is all about.

she is the great uniter.

[C&CDean]

Dude, I don't know **** about Ann Coulter.

But if she's a conservative, and doesn't like namby-pamby liberal politics, and thinks killing babies is wrong, and killing murderers is right, and thinks that two dudes marrying is wrong, and owning guns is right then she's OK by me.

I think Rush Limbaugh is a loudmouth jerk, but he's right. Maybe that's what ****es you guys off so much about him and people like him (Ann Coulter).

[FaninAma]

How shocking and original....... a liberal comparing a conservative to Hitler.:rolleyes:

[Ike]

ya know, I don't really like coulter that much either, but doesn't the fact that most people get significantly more correct than would be expected by chance seem to indicate that she is not very similar at all to Hitler....

Just sayin...



(I got 10 right, and really, it was pretty easy to seperate most of them...)

[Hatfield]

Dude, I don't know **** about Ann Coulter.

But if she's a conservative, and doesn't like namby-pamby liberal politics, and thinks killing babies is wrong, and killing murderers is right, and thinks that two dudes marrying is wrong, and owning guns is right then she's OK by me.

I think Rush Limbaugh is a loudmouth jerk, but he's right. Maybe that's what ****es you guys off so much about him and people like him (Ann Coulter).

interesting that you claim to not know anything about her but then profess to knowing all about her.

the fact is she is the jeaneanne garofalo of the right....way way out there that just stirs the water to sell books.

[Hatfield]

How shocking and original....... a liberal comparing a conservative to Hitler.:rolleyes:


not comparing her to hitler.....

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

She was just kidding Hatfield...it is her slick humor...she is going to be on Def Comedy Jam!!!

[Tear Down This Wall]

Dear Dean,
The reason liberals hate Ann Coulter is that she tells the truth about them in unflinchingly stark tones. She is pro-America, pro-baby, pro-gun ownership, pro-death penalty, and pro-traditional family defined as one man and one woman. In other words, she's your kind of gal.

Warmest Regards,
Tear Down This Wall

P.S. - The way she writes, you could take her name off the cover, replace it with "by C&C Dean", and no one would know the difference...except that you're not a leggy blonde.

[GrapevineSooner]

Hitler believed in gun control and universal healthcare. ;)

[C&CDean]

Dear Dean,
The reason liberals hate Ann Coulter is that she tells the truth about them in unflinchingly stark tones. She is pro-America, pro-baby, pro-gun ownership, pro-death penalty, and pro-traditional family defined as one man and one woman. In other words, she's your kind of gal.

Warmest Regards,
Tear Down This Wall

P.S. - The way she writes, you could take her name off the cover, replace it with "by C&C Dean" and no one would know the difference...except that you're not a leggy blonde.

Oh. So she's eloquent, well-learned, well-versed, classy, diplomatic, charming, elegant, and correct 99.9% of the time? And here I thought I was the only one.

In all seriousness, I've never seen her speak. I've never read one of her books. Everything I know about her has come from the libs on this board who seem to hate her guts. Which means she probably does tell the truth - because if you wanna get a bunch of liberals all hacked off, hit them right between the horns with the truth. The truth hurts.

[FaninAma]

not comparing her to hitler.....

I was talking baout the author of the little, cute quiz.

[NormanPride]

Well, this should be a cakewalk. One spoke in German and one speaks in English. Unless I'm hugely misinformed.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Also don't forget anti-women's voting rights...anti-Muslim right to live...Pro-Apartheid...and her other various "seriously she wasn't serious" moments.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Also if she could truly be replaced with Dean...does that mean Dean inherited lots of money...never worked a day in his whole life....seeing as she is the Paris Hilton of politics.

[soonerboy_odanorth]

Oh. So she's eloquent, well-learned, well-versed, classy, diplomatic, charming, elegant, and correct 99.9% of the time? And here I thought Lisa was the only one.


Fixed it for ya... :D

[C&CDean]

What do you really know about her Gandalf? Anything? Have you read her books? Do you listen to her spiel? I'd bet not. You're just parroting **** your side likes to parrot. You're just picking the tidbits out of context for ammunition.

Like I said, I don't know **** about her, but the fact she ****es you guys off so bad truly does warm the cockles of my dark, cold, calloused heart.

[C&CDean]

Fixed it for ya... :D

Sir Richard the Lionhearted! Where has ye been?

[NormanPride]

What do you really know about her Gandalf? Anything? Have you read her books? Do you listen to her spiel? I'd bet not. You're just parroting **** your side likes to parrot. You're just picking the tidbits out of context for ammunition.

Like I said, I don't know **** about her, but the fact she ****es you guys off so bad truly does warm the cockles of my dark, cold, calloused heart.

Dean, we all know you run on sunshine and puppies. Stop trying to fool everyone. :D

[C&CDean]

Dude, don't bring up the puppies. Johnny Mack ain't gonna like it.

[NormanPride]

Dude, don't bring up the puppies. Johnny Mack ain't gonna like it.

He's just cranky because his supply of thistles and thunderstorms is running low.

[etouffee]

Also if she could truly be replaced with Dean...does that mean Dean inherited lots of money...never worked a day in his whole life....seeing as she is the Paris Hilton of politics.
When you say (indirectly) that Ann Coulter "never worked a day in her life", can we assume you mean she "worked for several years as an attorney in both private practice and the public sector, published 5 books, and writes a syndicated column that appears in over 100 papers"?

Look, I can't stand Ann Coulter, but if you're going to bash somebody, at least have your facts straight. A lot of people would be pretty proud to have her resume.

[King Crimson]

You're just parroting **** your side likes to parrot. You're just picking the tidbits out of context for ammunition.


and that would be unique to the board politco discussions how?

[etouffee]

He didn't say it was unique, he just said you were doing it.

[Hatfield]

dean is so cute in his hypocritical love for ann coulter.

and when you wonder whatever it is i am talking about dean...look at your tone to gandalf indicating that he probably never read anything by her when you are simply taking the other side openly admitting you are in the same boat.

so carry on....

[Hatfield]

i think it is readily apparent that she isn't sincere in her beliefs. To me she takes the extreme edges and says outlandish things to keep her name in the news and her books selling.

that is why i don't like her.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Also if she could truly be replaced with Dean...does that mean Dean inherited lots of money...never worked a day in his whole life....seeing as she is the Paris Hilton of politics.

Dear Misinformed Ann Coulter hater,
It can hardly be said that Coulter never worked a day in her life. The graduated cum laude from Cornell and Order of the Coif from the University of Michigan Law School where she was editor of The Michigan Law Review. She then clerked for a judge on the 8th Circuit for U.S. Court of Appeals and worked in the Department of Justice as an attorney. She then worked Michigan Senator Spencer Abraham before moving on to become a litigating attorney for Center For Individual Rights.

Her original media job came in 1996, when MSNBC hired her as a legal correspondent. She was fired for belittling an anti-Vietnam group's president during an interview. Her career skyrocketed since then. Thanks, MSNBC, for firing her!

So, as you can see, even if she did "inherit lots of money" she didn't sit around drinking it away for decades like a Kennedy.

Love,
Tear Down This Wall

P.S. - I doubt Paris Hilton could get into Michigan Career and Technical Institute as an undergrad, much less U of Michigan's Law School. Suck it up, bubba, and face facts...Ann Coulter is your political momma!

[King Crimson]

He didn't say it was unique, he just said you were doing it.

that was my first post in this thread. try again.

[etouffee]

that was my first post in this thread. try again.I stand corrected. He didn't say it was unique, he just said the person he addressed his remarks to was doing it.

[King Crimson]

yes, but if that was a criteria for making or dismissing an argument re: politics on this board it would hardly be unique....it's well-practiced by "both sides". that's my point.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

First of all...hating Ann Coulter doesn't make one a liberal...I like Sean Hannity and I like Limbaugh. I voted for George Bush and i am a registered republican. Real Ann Coulter Quote ""I think [women] should be armed but should not vote...women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it...it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care." Also she told a disabled Vietnam Vet that people like him were the reason we lost the war.

[C&CDean]

dean is so cute in his hypocritical love for ann coulter.

and when you wonder whatever it is i am talking about dean...look at your tone to gandalf indicating that he probably never read anything by her when you are simply taking the other side openly admitting you are in the same boat.

so carry on....

Huh? Gandalf was yapping about apartheid, women's rights, etc. You know, specific things very obviously taken out of context from the original writings/speech?

Hypocritical love? Dude, if I gave her some Dean lovin' she'd be split in half.

[mdklatt]

Ann Coulter Quote "I think [women] should be armed but should not vote...women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it...it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."

Does she abstain from voting or does she not consider herself a woman?

[slickdawg]

Huh? Gandalf was yapping about apartheid, women's rights, etc. You know, specific things very obviously taken out of context from the original writings/speech?

Hypocritical love? Dude, if I gave her some Dean lovin' she'd be split in half.


That made me laugh out loud.

Fortunately, the secretary isn't in this second, otherwise, she'd be all up in here "what you laughing at"

[C&CDean]

Personally I think women should have a full 30-days to vote instead of a single day. That way they can time for those precious days between cycles where they're sane, rational, and semi-lucid.

[etouffee]

That made me laugh out loud.

Fortunately, the secretary isn't in this second, otherwise, she'd be all up in here "what you laughing at"and you could say "I just ate the last donut. PWN3D!!!!11!"

[Tear Down This Wall]

First of all...hating Ann Coulter doesn't make one a liberal...I like Sean Hannity and I like Limbaugh. I voted for George Bush and i am a registered republican. Real Ann Coulter Quote ""I think [women] should be armed but should not vote...women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it...it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care." Also she told a disabled Vietnam Vet that people like him were the reason we lost the war.

She's absolutely correct about the Vietnam matter. Vietnam protesters, including disabled Vets who opposed the war, were the mouthpieces for the Communists in America. And, she's probably right about women and voting, although her main point was that women focus on the wrong thing - in her opinion - when voting. She writes stuff like that in the vein of Jonathan Swift. If you don't like political satire and straightforwardness, you should stick with dimwitted pansies like Mike Gallagher.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Those were not taken out of context...she has said those things on more than one occassion...she seems rather proud of herself for those things...and by the way I am sorry I don't respect her degrees all that much and btw yes Paris Hilton could get into the undergraduate program...Bush wasn't the smartest cookie and look at where he went to school(btw not bashing Bush, I know he is a very smart guy(not Harvard smart))

[Tear Down This Wall]

And, she should say them over and over again to get women to think less emotionally when they vote....because it's her opinion that women should vote with their heads, not their hearts. It's really no simpler than that. She just says it in a very tough way. That's her style.

[C&CDean]

Besides, it's already been established that Dumbledore could kick Gandalf's narrow *** - with his wand hand tied behind his back.

[King Crimson]

Besides, it's already been established that Dumbledore could kick Gandalf's narrow *** - with his wand hand tied behind his back.

is that because Gandalf is semi-lucent?

;)

[C&CDean]

And, she should say them over and over again to get women to think less emotionally when they vote....because it's her opinion that women should vote with their heads, not their hearts. It's really no simpler than that. She just says it in a very tough way. That's her style.

You know, I had forgotten about a poll I saw when slick was in office. One of the questions asked of the female voters was "did you vote for Clinton because he was physically attractive to you?" A ridiculous percentage voted yes.

But I shouldn't be surprised. A ridiculous percentage of Americans hate Bush because he would get pwned in a 4th grade speech contest. Like being a polished speaker is a requirement for being the POTUS. Never mind values. Never mind character. Can dude speak in public? No? He sucks.

[C&CDean]

is that because Gandalf is semi-lucent?

;)

It was the crack talking......

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

First of all...Gandalf is the secret wielder of the Flame of Arnor. We would be having Dumbledore snack cakes if Gandalf got a hold of him.

[JohnnyMack]

:dean: loses ALL credibility in this thread when he starts his crazy Dumbledore over Gandalf crap.

[etouffee]

I don't respect her degrees all that much
Graduated Cum Laude from Cornell. Attended Michigan Law School (a top 10 law school), where she became a member of the Order of the Coif and was a Law Review editor.

I fail to see how you can not respect that, even if you hate her and her politics.


and btw yes Paris Hilton could get into the undergraduate program Paris Hilton dropped out of high school, eventually got a GED, but never attended college. She MIGHT be able get into an undergrad program somewhere, but it certainly wouldn't be at Cornell, unless her father pulled some strings for her. In any case, she sure as hell isn't law school material.

Remind me again why we're comparing Ann Coulter and Paris Hilton.

[soonerboy_odanorth]

Sir Richard the Lionhearted! Where has ye been?

Mostly stayin' on the down low... trying contribute only when I've got somethin' to say... Like this:

I'm-a gettin' hitched to the cute little red-headed girl down the street.

Please pass the salt.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

but it certainly wouldn't be at Cornell, unless her father pulled some strings for her Why thank you...I agree

[mdklatt]

she became a member of the Order of the Coif

What does her hair have to do with anything?

[Hatfield]

Besides, it's already been established that Dumbledore could kick Gandalf's narrow *** - with his wand hand tied behind his back.

not after book 6 he couldn't....

[Ike]

not after book 6 he couldn't....

dude, didn't you pay attention. Dumbledore is still alive....

[Scott D]

Remind me again why we're comparing Ann Coulter and Paris Hilton.

because both need to eat a sammich or 20? ;)

I've heard Ann Coulter speak..and I'd wager that her voice is deeper and more masculine than Dean's.

[Octavian]

Anne Coulter really isn't worth a comment but I would like to say that

JM's new avatar > Etouffee's new avatar

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Yeah a cup of water kicked Dumbledore's ***...even Stanley could probably beat him

[Hatfield]

gandalf was so tough he went through 3 movies of getting his *** kicked without defending himself without some much as even pulling a rabbit out of his hat to defend himself.

dumbledore could whip gandalf something fierce.*

*provided dumbledore wasn't dead....which he is.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Typical Lib Response!!

[C&CDean]

pffffft. There's a reason why there's a white gandolf and a grey gandolf. It's because some no-account wannabe killed off the white one.

Dumbledore will be back. Like last night's eggplant parmagiana.

[tbl]

First of all...Gandalf is the secret wielder of the Flame of Arnor. We would be having Dumbledore snack cakes if Gandalf got a hold of him.
Straying from the politics, I totally agree with Greyhame on this one. Any of the Potter characters are the succ compared to the Maiar.

[C&CDean]

Straying from the politics, I totally agree with Greyhame on this one. Any of the Potter characters are the succ compared to the Maiar.

Yeah, that's pretty much what all the homosexuals are saying.

[tbl]

pffffft. There's a reason why there's a white gandolf and a grey gandolf. It's because some no-account wannabe killed off the white one.

Dumbledore will be back. Like last night's eggplant parmagiana.
Radagast could beat down Dumbledore, and the squirells and birds wouldn't have to leave his head.

[/nerdargument]

[tbl]

Yeah, that's pretty much what all the homosexuals are saying.
ZING!!! :D

[mdklatt]

Yeah, that's pretty much what all the homosexuals are saying.

You know how I know you're gay? You know what a "Dumbledore" is. :D

[Stoop Dawg]

What I like to do in political debates is use gross, stereo-typical generalizations about my opponent and never talk details. I feel like it makes me look smart.

[NormanPride]

What I like to do in political debates is use gross, stereo-typical generalizations about my opponent and never talk details. I feel like it makes me look smart.

Welcome to politics! :D

[Stoop Dawg]

All you tree-huggin libz and redneck reps can kiss my ***.

That goes for you pansy-*** libertarians too.

(Am I doing this right?)

[Hatfield]

All you tree-huggin libz and redneck reps can kiss my ***.

That goes for you pansy-*** libertarians too.

(Am I doing this right?)

you need to throw in some pictures for dramatic effect otherwise you almost have it.

[etouffee]

prolly need to mentions fags somewhere in there too

[Ike]

All you tree-huggin libz and redneck reps can kiss my ***.

That goes for you pansy-*** libertarians too.

(Am I doing this right?)


3 words:

cut.
and.
paste.


because lets face it, somebody else already said it better...

[etouffee]

3 words:

cut.
and.
paste.


because lets face it, somebody else already said it better...Indeed. And if you're the risk-taking type, cut-n-paste stuff from articles and blogs without giving credit, as though you're the author. Odds are low that you'll get busted, but if you do... ouch.

[C&CDean]

Indeed. And if you're the risk-taking type, cut-n-paste stuff from articles and blogs without giving credit, as though you're the author. Odds are low that you'll get busted, but if you do... ouch.

the voice of experience....??:eddie:

[jeremy885]

Remind me again why we're comparing Ann Coulter and Paris Hilton.


Are they both dating Matt Leinart? :confused:

[etouffee]

the voice of experience....??:eddie:I've busted my share of cut-n-paste trolls in my day.

[soonerboy_odanorth]

No... Really... I'm getting married...

[C&CDean]

No... Really... I'm getting married...

To a woman this time? I bet Kelly is ****ed.:eek:

Dude, well then I guess congrats are in order. Are you gonna bring her down for a game?

[soonerboy_odanorth]

To a woman this time? I bet Kelly is ****ed.:eek:

Dude, well then I guess congrats are in order. Are you gonna bring her down for a game?

She will be when I tell her what you said... BWAHAHAHAHA! (Really, she's taking it pretty well. The boys have passed back to me that she gets "a little sad sometimes". Feel bad for her in a way... but then, she's the one that kicked me to the curb.)

Yeah... we're coming down for the opener and we'll be back for Washington the week after. We're going to have monkeys in tow for the opener. (Actually, you've met Amy twice now... the Texas Tech game in '04 and aTm last year.) Mikey and Dillon both have been on me all summer... "are you taking us to a game are you taking us to a game are you taking us to a game"....

I would be annoyed... but it's my fault, after all. You know, brainwashing etc.

[C&CDean]

Cool. And congrats again.

[TopDawg]

Looks like this thread was also C&CDean nip. ;)

[C&CDean]

Looks like this thread was also C&CDean nip. ;)

Hell yeah. I saw Hitler in the title.

[TopDawg]

Heh. Any chance you trim your stache for one of the non-conf. tailgates just for kicks?

[C&CDean]

Heh. Any chance you trim your stache for one of the non-conf. tailgates just for kicks?

None. Whatsoever. It's my Samsonstache. The secret to my other-worldly strength.

[TopDawg]

If your ability to trash talk texas fans falls under the category of other-wordly strength then I hope a blade never casts a shadow near it.

[Stoop Dawg]

None. Whatsoever. It's my Samsonstache.


I knew you and Kelvin Sampson were close.....

[PhilTLL]

and thinks that two dudes marrying is wrong, and owning guns is right then she's OK by me.

What about two women? Serious question. The argument always seems to be framed in terms of "two men," not the other 50% of gay people.

[etouffee]

is the ratio really 50/50? (serious question)

[PhilTLL]

is the ratio really 50/50? (serious question)

The statistics tend to measure homosexual behaviors and actions as opposed to "status," but the ratio seems to be about even. I'd have to think there would be more "outed" women than men, just because it's always been slightly less stigmatized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation

[Jerk]

Well, I got 9 right. I guess I need to go buy her book because the libs hate her. She's also against gun control. Hitler was for it. It's funny how that single issue can seperate people who love freedom from those who wish to live under oppression - whether it be from the extreme left or the extreme right.

[etouffee]

She's also against gun control. Hitler was for it. It's funny how that single issue can seperate people who love freedom from those who wish to live under oppression - whether it be from the extreme left or the extreme right.Wait-- are you saying people who favor gun control don't love freedom and wish to live oppressed?

[Jerk]

Wait-- are you saying people who favor gun control don't love freedom and wish to live oppressed?


Yes. I think they're the kind of people who will trade liberty for security. They would never say "I want to live oppressed and I hate freedom" and they probably don't want to live that way, but their agenda can bring it about. I'm speaking of the "we should ban all guns" type....not the person who believes in background checks. Whether they realise it or not, they're begging for a police state.

btw - I should have replied with the original intent of my last post. I am really talking about dictator types, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, that fat little punk who runs north korea. They don't want an armed populace. It's not good for their self-preservation.

I mean, my whole point is this: The fact that Ann coulter is against gun control and Hitler was for it, shows an immense difference as to how these two people view the world. Yes, National Socialism and American conservatism are a little different.

Bah..I'm going to bed. I'm done with these nasty agruments. They don't solve anything. The new Jerk is going to be alot less political. Except for guns. I love guns. guns are cool! goodnight!

[Jerk]

One last thing! No, wait. I'm going to bed.

[etouffee]

nm

[the_ouskull]

Dude, I don't know **** about Ann Coulter.

But if she's a conservative, and doesn't like namby-pamby liberal politics, and thinks killing babies is wrong, and killing murderers is right, and thinks that two dudes marrying is wrong, and owning guns is right then she's OK by me.

I think Rush Limbaugh is a loudmouth jerk, but he's right. Maybe that's what ****es you guys off so much about him and people like him (Ann Coulter).

For someone that I get along so well with, I sometimes wonder how. God bless beer. Lol.

Anyway, Dean, that's the problem, in my opinion... BOTH sides are right. BOTH sides present their facts and ignore their shortcomings. Nobody kicks back and talks about all of the things that THEY do wrong. They talk about what the OTHER side does wrong. I honestly feel that there are extremists on both sides (Limbaugh and Coulter for the Republican crowd) that make their side look almost as bad as the side that they're slandering, mainly due to the intensity of their hatred. I wouldn't LIKE Limbaugh or Coulter more if they were less abrasive; especially towards liberals, but, I'd at least try to give them a chance. And, even though I consider myself pretty liberal, I don't like the stereotypical "liberal media" crap either... I just think that both sides are full of themselves and doing and saying whatever they have to do to remain in the spotlight.

the_ouskull

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

.

in my opinion... BOTH sides are right. I honestly feel that there are extremists on both sides (Limbaugh and Coulter for the Republican crowd) that make their side look almost as bad as the side that they're slandering, And, even though I consider myself pretty liberal, I don't like the stereotypical "liberal media" crap either... I just think that both sides are full of themselves and doing and saying whatever they have to do to remain in the spotlight.

the_ouskull Please present an example or two that demonstrates slander by either Limbaugh or Coulter. Why do you think those two are extremists?

[the_ouskull]

If you REALLY have to ask why I think Ann FREAKING Coulter is an extremist, then you need to google her or something. I could start with her comment, referencing the OKC Bombing, in regards to the NY Times building... but honestly, you sound more like you're just looking to argue, and frankly (for once) I'm not. She's an extremist. Take it or leave it, but it is there.

the_ouskull

[C&CDean]

For someone that I get along so well with, I sometimes wonder how. God bless beer. Lol.

Anyway, Dean, that's the problem, in my opinion... BOTH sides are right. BOTH sides present their facts and ignore their shortcomings. Nobody kicks back and talks about all of the things that THEY do wrong. They talk about what the OTHER side does wrong. I honestly feel that there are extremists on both sides (Limbaugh and Coulter for the Republican crowd) that make their side look almost as bad as the side that they're slandering, mainly due to the intensity of their hatred. I wouldn't LIKE Limbaugh or Coulter more if they were less abrasive; especially towards liberals, but, I'd at least try to give them a chance. And, even though I consider myself pretty liberal, I don't like the stereotypical "liberal media" crap either... I just think that both sides are full of themselves and doing and saying whatever they have to do to remain in the spotlight.

the_ouskull

Danny,

Sorry amigo, but wrong answer. Both sides do NOT present their facts. One side is very clear, concise, and structured. The other side really can't present a clear, concise case because they're doing nothing but condemning the folks on the other side for being nazis. There's a reason why all the talk show folks are conservatives (except for your boy Franken and that dildonic Mahr). Know what it is? They've got the truth on their side. They've also got the majority of Americans who believe like they do.

If everybody in this country was a liberal, we'd all be working in camps giving all our money to the government and having them decide how much we should eat, who we should marry, and how many babies we could have. And chances are, we'd be speaking some language other than AMERICAN galdamn it.

Nobody likes a loudmouth bitch, but you guys need to really take a step back here. Your side judges people cosmetically. You hate Bush because he sounds like a numbskull when he speaks - but you try and rationalize your hatred by calling him a liar (the last guy was the convicted liar, BTW). You hate Coulter cause she's brash, and kicks y'all in your collective nuts - over and over and over again. Perhaps y'all shouldn't dangle your nuts out there for kickage?

[etouffee]

If everybody in this country was a liberal, we'd all be working in camps giving all our money to the government and having them decide ... who we should marry..."

Seems the conservatives have that particular market cornered. Just sayin'.

[Hatfield]

and dean people like you can't see more than 2 types of people (con and lib)

people that are free to admit mistakes on both sides freak you out and you throw them in the lib category...all the while ignoring everything they have said.

the fact that you believe the conservatives have a stranglehold on the truth is quite telling in your ability to see without blinders on.

there is typically only 1 type of politician and it is neither repub or dem...it is self-serving.

[fadada1]

i got 13/14 and was just skimming. that scares me some.

[Hatfield]

there are little tales in most of the statements that help you figure it out.

[C&CDean]

and dean people like you can't see more than 2 types of people (con and lib)

people that are free to admit mistakes on both sides freak you out and you throw them in the lib category...all the while ignoring everything they have said.

the fact that you believe the conservatives have a stranglehold on the truth is quite telling in your ability to see without blinders on.

there is typically only 1 type of politician and it is neither repub or dem...it is self-serving.

Who's talking politician? I'm talking people.

You see Hatfield, I was a liberal's liberal back in the day. Could not stand conservatives. Who the **** did they think they were with all their righteousness?

Today, I am a middle-of-the-road conservative. Why? That's right, because I WAS able to see the truth. I WAS able to see my mistakes. It's called evolution. Or in simpler terms, growing up.

If I had never lived the other side, then I would have to agree with you about walking around with blinders on. But us ex-libs are just as bad as us ex-smokers. You wanna see a militant anti-smoking person, look no further than an ex-smoker.

The years I've spent working, paying taxes, raising babies, and simply existing have taught me much. But, alas, some people never grow up. There's nothing sadder to me than an old liberal. They're pathetic. You can see it in their eyes when they're out there marching in a gay parade cause their kid died of AIDS, or hanging down at the Starbucks with their sandals and wool socks and their electric car in the parking lot with the Greenpeace and John Kerry bumper stickers. They remind me of jellyfish. Of hollow people. Of lifeless people. Of spineless people. A strong wind would blow them over. It's quite sad.

[Hatfield]

with your sunny outlook on life no wonder you go around killing puppies. ;)

[C&CDean]

with your sunny outlook on life no wonder you go around killing puppies. ;)

Dude, I am the happiest mother****er you would ever meet. Ask anybody who knows me. The truth has set me free........

[JohnnyMack]

If everybody in this country was a liberal, we'd all be working in camps giving all our money to the government and having them decide how much we should eat, who we should marry, and how many babies we could have. And chances are, we'd be speaking some language other than AMERICAN galdamn it.

That's just this side of retarded.

[etouffee]

well, at least the "government deciding who we should marry" part is. we've got that now. if everyone was liberal, we probably wouldn't have that.

[the_ouskull]

With the possible exception of Bill Clinton, W. is one of the largest nut-hangers I can ever remember in office. I have found a list of roughly 1000 mistakes that he's made in office, ranging from Women's Rights issues (go Dubya!!! j/k) to issues with his general attitude.

http://www.thousandreasons.org/reasons.php

The problem with a list like this is that it's likely created, once again, by a liberal, which is my initial point. Both sides are capable of making lists like this... Both sides DO make lists like this, be they tangible or not... and that's one of the biggest problems that I have with the US government right now. For quite some time now, it has appeared, to me at least, that both factions (as if there are actually only two) would rather make themselves look good by slandering the other side than by concentrating their efforts towards getting things done for the greater good. It's an issue of, "imagine what we could get accomplished if nobody cared about who got the credit."

Instead we get NOTHING productive accomplished because both sides spend the greatest part of their days slinging the blame back and forth like a freaking hot potato(e). (Sincerely, Dan Quayle)

In the meantime, I'll leave you with this Bushism... He's not the Dali Lama of dumb, but he's getting there... and don't get me wrong on that either. I don't think that his inability to speak properly... ever... over-writes his ability to govern our country, necessarily. I just think that it's part of the reason that he is not, and never will be, taken completely seriously; within or outside of the United States.


"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

the_ouskull

[C&CDean]

well, at least the "government deciding who we should marry" part is. we've got that now. if everyone was liberal, we probably wouldn't have that.

Weak. Sauce. So, now the government is setting up marriages huh?

I know you're referring to the gay thingio, but again, weak. Go ahead and **** a chicken for all I care, but legally recognizing a union between you and the fowl doesn't cut it. So, I guess I gotta agree with the gov on this one.

[C&CDean]

That's just this side of retarded.

Really? Your side of retarded, or my side?

[JohnnyMack]

Really? Your side of retarded, or my side?

From the way you type you're not too far from a crash helmet, some mittens and cup of pudding for snack time.

[C&CDean]

From the way you type you're not too far from a crash helmet, some mittens and cup of pudding for snack time.

From the way you type, you're not too far from a deadly dose of HIV.

[JohnnyMack]

From the way you type, you're not too far from a deadly dose of HIV.

Weak. Sauce.

Try harder old man.

[C&CDean]

OK. Blow me, punk.

[JohnnyMack]

OK. Blow me, punk.

Stop using your glory hole pick up lines on me. I'm not interested.

[White House Boy]

This thread is quickly becoming must see SO.

It's comedic gold, I tell ya.

[etouffee]

Weak. Sauce. So, now the government is setting up marriages huh? By telling people who they can't marry, they're essentially telling them who they can, so yes.


I know you're referring to the gay thingio, but again, weak.Really? Why is it weak? You said we'd have the government telling us who we can marry, and I've illustrated that we've already got that.
Doesn't sound weak to me.
Go ahead and **** a chicken for all I care, but legally recognizing a union between you and the fowl doesn't cut it. Ahhhy yes, the standard wingnut "I don't have a coherent argument so I'll just parrot the slippery slope crap about sex with animals" strategy. Well played. I guess.:rolleyes:

[C&CDean]

Stop using your glory hole pick up lines on me. I'm not interested.

What? You want more? I'll give you so much more you'll choke to death.

[C&CDean]

By telling people who they can't marry, they're essentially telling them who they can, so yes.

Really? Why is it weak? You said we'd have the government telling us who we can marry, and I've illustrated that we've already got that.
Doesn't sound weak to me. Ahhhy yes, the standard wingnut "I don't have a coherent argument so I'll just parrot the slippery slope crap about sex with animals" strategy. Well played. I guess.:rolleyes:

OK. You're right, and I'm wrong. The government says it's not going to recognize gay marriage - and somehow I'm supposed to equate that to them telling me who I can marry. Stupid me, I should have known.

And I don't care who you are, deviant sex is deviant sex. Call it whatever you want. No standard wingnut for me. And my argument is as coherent as it can be. It's based on plumbing. Hardware. Pretty simple to me.

[White House Boy]

Ahhhy yes, the standard wingnut "I don't have a coherent argument so I'll just parrot the slippery slope crap about sex with animals" strategy. Well played. I guess.:rolleyes:

Waitaminute... when did we start discussing Tommy Tuberville in this thread??? :confused:

[JohnnyMack]

What? You want more? I'll give you so much more you'll choke to death.

Once again, speaka da Engrish, save your bathroom stall poetic carvings for another forum.

[C&CDean]

Yes Dean, I can't hold your jock.

True dat.

[yermom]

OK. You're right, and I'm wrong. The government says it's not going to recognize gay marriage - and somehow I'm supposed to equate that to them telling me who I can marry. Stupid me, I should have known.

And I don't care who you are, deviant sex is deviant sex. Call it whatever you want. No standard wingnut for me. And my argument is as coherent as it can be. It's based on plumbing. Hardware. Pretty simple to me.

ahh, the old plumbing argument

so heterosexual couples shouldn't perform oral or anal sex then either?

[Hatfield]

not unless they have paid extra

[C&CDean]

ahh, the old plumbing argument

so heterosexual couples shouldn't perform oral or anal sex then either?

Probably not.

I've already stated that I don't care who/what you ****. Just don't ask me to recognize your union legally. Keep it in the bedroom like you claim you want to. Is it so much to ask?

[SCOUT]

Ahhhy yes, the standard wingnut "I don't have a coherent argument so I'll just parrot the slippery slope crap about sex with animals" strategy. Well played. I guess.:rolleyes:
From 2001
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/04/01/world/main283071.shtml

(AP) The Netherlands' gay community rejoiced with tears and whoops of exultation Sunday over the world's first same-sex marriages recognized under a new law.

From 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/outcry-over-launch-of-dutch-pedophile-party/2006/05/31/1148956392681.html


Dutch pedophiles are launching a political party to push for a cut in the legal age for sexual relations to 12 from 16 and the legalisation of child pornography and sex with animals, sparking widespread outrage.

It might be a little slippery ;)

[JohnnyMack]

True dat.

You're really having an off day, having to rely on too many old standbys.

I'll give you an out for the rest of the day. Come back next Monday all rested up and let's try this again.

[mdklatt]

ahh, the old plumbing argument

so heterosexual couples shouldn't perform oral or anal sex then either?

Not if they want to get/stay married. Sticking it in the wrong hole apparently voids the warranty, so to speak.

:twinkies:

[mdklatt]

From 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/outcry-over-launch-of-dutch-pedophile-party/2006/05/31/1148956392681.html



It might be a little slippery ;)



Dutch pedophiles are launching a political party to push for a cut in the legal age for sexual relations to 12 from 16 and the legalisation of child pornography and sex with animals, sparking widespread outrage.


Maybe not.

[OklahomaTuba]

http://blamebush.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/godless.jpg

You did a good job with this hat.

[Hatfield]

you know i didn't do that so why lie?

according to dean you and your side have been set free by the truth.

[C&CDean]

Not if they want to get/stay married. Sticking it in the wrong hole apparently voids the warranty, so to speak.

:twinkies:

edit: :O pwned. You know who I meant to quote.

Yeah, that's what everybody says who has just had their narrow *** handed to them.

I'll be in DC next week, and then Baltimore the week after. Come up and I'll take you to dinner at Della Notte. We can have sex later. Assuming you're not on your period and all.

[OklahomaTuba]

you know i didn't do that so why lie?

according to dean you and your side have been set free by the truth.

:D

[Scott D]

Dean....Ann Coulter's probably got a bigger **** than you ;)

[C&CDean]

Dean....Ann Coulter's probably got a bigger **** than you ;)

Well, big hands, big feet, big ego, big .............

[Hamhock]

Do you guys not think it is best for a child to be raised by two parents, one male, one female?

[yermom]

how often does that actually happen anymore anyway?

[Hamhock]

how often does that actually happen anymore anyway?


do you always answer a question with a question?

;)

[yermom]

do you?

;)

[mdklatt]

Do you guys not think it is best for a child to be raised by two parents, one male, one female?

Where did this come from?

All other things being equal, yes. But all other things are never equal. Are two gay parents automatically worse than one single parent? Or abusive parents? Is living in a foster home or orphanage better than being adopted by a gay couple?

[Hamhock]

Where did this come from?

All other things being equal, yes. But all other things are never equal. Are two gay parents automatically worse than one single parent? Or abusive parents? Is living in a foster home or orphanage better than being adopted by a gay couple?


It came from the conclusion that in addition to recognizing their marriage, homosexuals also want the same adoption rights as heterosexual couples.

You can hypothetical all day long about whether the "perfect" homo couple is better to raise a kid than a sexually abusive single crack mom. My opinion is that it is best for a child to be raised by two parents of opposite sex and government/society shouldn't encourage anything less.

Why do you think it is best for a child to be raised by two parents of opposite sex?

[Hamhock]

do you?

;)


I do when I asked the first question and it is answered with a question.

;)

[etouffee]

My opinion is that it is best for a child to be raised by two parents of opposite sex and government/society shouldn't encourage anything less.

Why do you think it is best for a child to be raised by two parents of opposite sex?

You go first. Why do YOU think that?

[Hamhock]

You go first. Why do YOU think that?


I think you KNOW why I think that, but wish to immediately dismiss my reasoning because you find it illogical.

So, let's start with a few thousand years of human civilization as a model.

[Hatfield]

Do you guys not think it is best for a child to be raised by two parents, one male, one female?

that is a horribly phrased question.

but my answer is no....i look to the love and attention given to the child more than the sexual pref of the parents.

Which is better ham, a child is raised by a homosexual couple or a child that is raised by an abusive straight couple?

edit: i see you have "addressed" this...so i would ask why it is better to be raised by a straight couple that is abusive than to be raised by a homosexual couple thereby giving the child no chance to catch "the gay"

[etouffee]

So, let's start with a few thousand years of human civilization as a model.Not sure what that has to do with anything, frankly. Surely you've got a better argument than "that's just the way we've always done it".

[Hamhock]

that is a horribly phrased question.

but my answer is no....i look to the love and attention given to the child more than the sexual pref of the parents.

So you don't believe that both sexes have a unique contribution to raising a child?



Which is better ham, a child is raised by a homosexual couple or a child that is raised by an abusive straight couple?

I think they are both less than desirable options. But, since the immediate, physical welfare of the child is in jeopardy, I'd go with the homo couple.



edit: i see you have "addressed" this...so i would ask why it is better to be raised by a straight couple that is abusive than to be raised by a homosexual couple thereby giving the child no chance to catch "the gay"

i don't think i've ever said i'd rather a child be beaten than raised by a homosexual couple. I just think it is an extreme example to be championing the issue. your question presupposes that the only two options for an abused child is an abusive couple or a homo couple.

a child should be raised by two parents, of opposite sex and the gubm't/society shouldn't ecourage anything less.

[mdklatt]

You can hypothetical all day long about whether the "perfect" homo couple is better to raise a kid than a sexually abusive single crack mom. My opinion is that it is best for a child to be raised by two parents of opposite sex and government/society shouldn't encourage anything less.

From where I sit in the real world--as opposed to Conservative Fantasyland--this not a hypothetical situation. Since we're no longer in the Garden of Eden (the Bible will back me up on this) I want the government to actually fix problems instead of focusing on an unattainable ideal.

Sorry, Timmy, back to the orphanage. It turns out that the couple that wanted to adopt you was gay. Too bad you're not a cute Chinese baby that are all the rage these days.



Why do you think it is best for a child to be raised by two parents of opposite sex?

It's best for the child to be raised by it's own parents as a matter of personal responsibility--their kid, their problem. Aside from that, I'm sure there's value in being raised with both a female and male influence. This can be and often is accomplished without two cohabitating legal guardians of the opposite sex, though.

[etouffee]

a child should be raised by two parents, of opposite sex and the gubm't/society shouldn't ecourage anything less.There's a difference between encouraging and allowing, you know. The government should encourage smoking, either. You want them to constitutionally prohibit it?

[Hamhock]

Not sure what that has to do with anything, frankly. Surely you've got a better argument than "that's just the way we've always done it".


that's not my argument at all. my argument is that societies have not been able to succeed when deviant sexual behavior, specifically homosexual relationships, are encouraged.

i would think the evolution/natural selection theories would support that heterosexual relationships are preferable.

and the argument that it should be allowed, just because that is what the couple wants, ignores the existence of any absolute truth, which is why we'll never agree on this topic.

[Hamhock]

There's a difference between encouraging and allowing, you know. The government should encourage smoking, either. You want them to constitutionally prohibit it?


you argue that the government is not actively discouraging smoking?

[SCOUT]

Dutch pedophiles are launching a political party to push for a cut in the legal age for sexual relations to 12 from 16 and the legalisation of child pornography and sex with animals, sparking widespread outrage.


Maybe not.

I think the point that most people are trying to make with the slippery slope argument is the gradual nature of the change. If gay marriage advocates had formed a politcal party 50 years ago it would have resulted in "widespread outrage."

As we have moved down that slope that concept has become normalized and more mainstream. Therefore, the new fringe is no longer such a stretch. Sure there is "widespread outrage" today but that is because it is new. In fifty years, should things continue down this slope, this nutjob party will be mainstream too and the fringe will be something even further out there.

So I will stick with, "maybe it is a little slippery ;)"

[mdklatt]

that's not my argument at all. my argument is that societies have not been able to succeed when deviant sexual behavior, specifically homosexual relationships, are encouraged.


Queers is what brought down Atlantis. :texan:

[Hamhock]

Queers is what brought down Atlantis. :texan:


there you go. point proven.

[mdklatt]

I think the point that most people are trying to make with the slippery slope argument is the gradual nature of the change. If gay marriage advocates had formed a politcal party 50 years ago it would have resulted in "widespread outrage."


The formation of the NAACP 100 years ago would have outraged people. (Hell, it still outrages some people.) Change is not always bad.

If there's a victim, it should be illegal. Gay couples: no victim, nobody else's business. With beastiality, pedophilia, and everything else some people think is the same as a consensual act between two adults--it's rather frightening that they can't tell the difference--there is a victim.

[Hamhock]

The formation of the NAACP 100 years ago would have outraged people. (Hell, it still outrages some people.) Change is not always bad.

If there's a victim, it should be illegal. Gay couples: no victim, nobody else's business. With beastiality, pedophilia, and everything else some people think is the same as a consensual act between two adults--it's rather frightening that they can't tell the difference--there is a victim.


so, is there a victim in a gay couple adopting a child?

[mdklatt]

so, is there a victim in a gay couple adopting a child?

I don't think there are any studies that conclusively answer that, but I don't think it can possibly be worse for a kid than a number of the alternatives.

[Hatfield]

i never said that they didn't. I do however feel it is healthier for children to be in a situation where they are loved by 2 people that want them than for the children to remain in the custody of the state.

look no further than annie....that little orphan wanted out

[jk the sooner fan]

how often does that actually happen anymore anyway?

much more than you give credit for

but the media wont recognize the normal majority


they play up the abnormal minority and make us all believe they're a majority

there are lots and lots of kids being raised by 2 traditional parents

mine for instance, even though their mother and i are not married, we're still very much involved in their lives, on a united front

[jk the sooner fan]

why are those in favor of gay marriage, whether it be passively or actively, so opposed to the whole issue being put to a vote?

my guess is that they know there's a larger majority of voters who want to keep marriage defined as it has been in the past...between a man and a woman

[Stoop Dawg]

why are those in favor of gay marriage, whether it be passively or actively, so opposed to the whole issue being put to a vote?

Because this country doesn't run on absolute majority rule?

[jk the sooner fan]

oh i bet if they thought they had an absolute majority on that, they'd be jumping up and down screaming for a vote

[Stoop Dawg]

and the argument that it should be allowed, just because that is what the couple wants, ignores the existence of any absolute truth, which is why we'll never agree on this topic.

I'd just like to point out that this isn't true. It only proposes that YOU don't have a monopoly on "absolute truth", not that "absolute truth" does not exist. It may very well be that "absolute truth" dictates that homosexual unions are fine, and YOU just don't know what the REAL "absolute truth" even is.

[Stoop Dawg]

oh i bet if they thought they had an absolute majority on that, they'd be jumping up and down screaming for a vote

Of course. The majority always wants a vote and the minority always wants a court case. People are selfish and want to take whatever course of action leads to fulfillment of their own desires. That much is obvious.

[C&CDean]

Absolutely a child is better off being raised by two parents of opposite sex.

I was a single father. Had custody of my 3 boys. I was the world's greatest dad, but I was one seriously ****ed up mom. My kids suffered because of it. Yes, they have grown up to be very independent, tough, no nonsense men - but I'm sure the lack of "let mommy fix your boo boo" instead of "quit your damn crying and get back out there" does have an effect on their psyche.

Of course if one of the queers raising a kid plays the mommy part, and one of them does all the daddy things then they might be OK. But Rosie and her dyke bitch are both daddies. Poor little ****s she's raising ain't got a mom. They're gonna grow up all ****ed up.

As long as we keep ****ing with God's plan, we're gonna get **** for results.

[mdklatt]

As long as we keep ****ing with God's plan, we're gonna get **** for results.

Sometimes, God's plan is not a viable option.

[Stoop Dawg]

So you don't believe that both sexes have a unique contribution to raising a child?

Doesn't this put single parents in the same category as homosexual parents? This line of reasoning has "danger" written all over it.


i don't think i've ever said i'd rather a child be beaten than raised by a homosexual couple. I just think it is an extreme example to be championing the issue. your question presupposes that the only two options for an abused child is an abusive couple or a homo couple.

a child should be raised by two parents, of opposite sex and the gubm't/society shouldn't ecourage anything less.

I think the point of the question is really "what's the problem? homosexuality or bad parenting?". If you want to solve the problem of bad parenting, let's focus on bad parents - not sexual orientation.

[C&CDean]

Sometimes, God's plan is not a viable option.

Remind me to never hang around you in a thunderstorm.

Everything wrong in this world stems from us ****ing with God's plans.

[Stoop Dawg]

Absolutely a child is better off being raised by two parents of opposite sex.

I was a single father. Had custody of my 3 boys. I was the world's greatest dad, but I was one seriously ****ed up mom. My kids suffered because of it. Yes, they have grown up to be very independent, tough, no nonsense men - but I'm sure the lack of "let mommy fix your boo boo" instead of "quit your damn crying and get back out there" does have an effect on their psyche.

Of course if one of the queers raising a kid plays the mommy part, and one of them does all the daddy things then they might be OK. But Rosie and her dyke bitch are both daddies. Poor little ****s she's raising ain't got a mom. They're gonna grow up all ****ed up.

As long as we keep ****ing with God's plan, we're gonna get **** for results.

I agree 100%. It's not the "homosexuality" that's the problem, it's the lack of male AND female influence. As Dean (probably inadvertantly) pointed out, single parents and homosexual parents are in the same boat.

[mdklatt]

Remind me to never hang around you in a thunderstorm.

Everything wrong in this world stems from us ****ing with God's plans.


Is it God's plan for kids to grow up in ****ty orphanages and foster homes?

[etouffee]

you argue that the government is not actively discouraging smoking?It's not trying to constitutionally prohibit it. It's also subsidizing tobacco farmers.

[SoonerInKCMO]

Everything wrong in this world stems from us ****ing with God's plans.

That's just what the churches tell everybody to keep 'em coming back and filling up the collection plate.

[mdklatt]

I agree 100%. It's not the "homosexuality" that's the problem, it's the lack of male AND female influence. As Dean (probably inadvertantly) pointed out, single parents and homosexual parents are in the same boat.

Exactly.

Also, keep in mind that a father or mother figure doesn't necessary have to be the father or mother. Maybe that's not ideal (or maybe it doesn't make a difference), but outside of Conservative Fantasyland and Liberal Fantasyland we don't have the luxury of ideal.

[Stoop Dawg]

That's just what the churches tell everybody to keep 'em coming back and filling up the collection plate.

Dean don't do church.

[etouffee]

that's not my argument at all. my argument is that societies have not been able to succeed when deviant sexual behavior, specifically homosexual relationships, are encouraged.

Examples? And please make sure your examples are societies that failed BECAUSE of homosexual behaviour, not just societies that failed where homosexual behaviour happened to be present, or even prevalent.

[SoonerInKCMO]

Dean don't do church.

Oh, I know. He's been before though - probably long enough ago that that's all he remembers. ;)

[Stoop Dawg]

Examples? And please make sure your examples are societies that failed BECAUSE of homosexual behaviour, not just societies that failed where homosexual behaviour happened to be present, or even prevalent.

Sodom. Gomorrah. Need more? ;)

[C&CDean]

Is it God's plan for kids to grow up in ****ty orphanages and foster homes?

Of course not. Why do you think it's ****ed up?

One man. One woman. Together raising their children with balance. That's the plan. Leave it to us to **** it all up.

[etouffee]

Sodom. Gomorrah. Need more? ;)Yes, I was thinking more along the lines of verifiable history, not faery tales about p1ssed off deities.

[Stoop Dawg]

Oh, I see. Well, that may be a little more difficult.

[yermom]

much more than you give credit for

but the media wont recognize the normal majority


they play up the abnormal minority and make us all believe they're a majority

there are lots and lots of kids being raised by 2 traditional parents

mine for instance, even though their mother and i are not married, we're still very much involved in their lives, on a united front

a "broken" home isn't quite the same... and i'm not basing anything on the media... i do have eyes, i know more people with divorced parents that without

[mdklatt]

One man. One woman. Together raising their children with balance. That's the plan. Leave it to us to **** it all up.

Now that it is ****ed up, we can't just stick our heads in the sand and hope for a magical solution. If abortion does become illegal, there are going to be a lot more unwanted kids. In Conservative Fantasyland, every child leaves the maternity ward in the hands of Ozzie and Harriet, but I don't think it works that way in the real world. It doesn't make sense to arbitarily knock suitable parents out of the adoption pool.

Speaking of God's plan, where does it address adoption by gay couples in the Bible?

[etouffee]

In Conservative Fantasyland, every child leaves the maternity ward in the hands of Ozzie and Harriet,And here I was thinking it was Ward & June. I gotta brush up on my reading.

[JohnnyMack]

Now that it is ****ed up, we can't just stick our heads in the sand and hope for a magical solution. If abortion does become illegal, there are going to be a lot of dead mothers in addition to dead babies because making abortion illegal will simply make the problem go away. :rolleyes: In Conservative Fantasyland, every child leaves the maternity ward in the hands of Ozzie and Harriet, but I don't think it works that way in the real world.

Speaking of God's plan, where does it address adoption by gay couples in the Bible?

Just because I'm pro-life doesn't mean I'm naive enough to think that outlawing abortion will stop it from happening.

[Hatfield]

I agree 100%. It's not the "homosexuality" that's the problem, it's the lack of male AND female influence. As Dean (probably inadvertantly) pointed out, single parents and homosexual parents are in the same boat.


did you just roundabout call dean gay?? i think you did.

nttawwt

[mdklatt]

And here I was thinking it was Ward & June. I gotta brush up on my reading.

No way man, Ward had a quick temper. It was hard to tell because of the black and white picture, but you could see the fear behind June's forced smile.

:D

[Hamhock]

Doesn't this put single parents in the same category as homosexual parents? This line of reasoning has "danger" written all over it.






yes, neither should be encouraged by society/government

[Stoop Dawg]

did you just roundabout call dean gay?? i think you did.

nttawwt

I've called him worse. :D

For some reason, I seem to get a "Dean pass" around here. I like to think he respects me, but I have this nagging feeling he just feels sorry for me. Either way, I'm good. :)

[Fugue]

I've called him worse. :D

For some reason, I seem to get a "Dean pass" around here. I like to think he respects me, but I have this nagging feeling he just feels sorry for me. Either way, I'm baned. :)

:texan:

[mdklatt]

Just because I'm pro-life doesn't mean I'm naive enough to think that outlawing abortion will stop it from happening.

And...?

We already have more kids up for adoption than people willing to adopt. Any decrease in the amount of abortions is going to increase the disparity, as will improving fertility treatments, and the explosive growth of cute and cuddly third-world babies. Shouldn't we be trying to exapand the pool of suitable parents?

[Stoop Dawg]

Doh!

[mdklatt]

yes, neither should be encouraged by society/government

So should we make it illegal to be a single parent, since making something legal is apparently tantamount to encouraging it?

[Hamhock]

So should we make it illegal to be a single parent, since making something legal is apparently tantamount to encouraging it?


nope

[TUSooner]

I got 13! The two wrong were Hitler's that I attributed to Coulter. The problem is that they only used Hitler's "good" quotes. ;)

But seriously...What annoys me about the whole Liberal vs Conservative thing is that (1) it falsely divides the complex world into only 2 things, and (2) each group of dividers uses straw men to make easily hateable caricatures of the other. At these two things both Coulter and Hitler excel. And before you Rushophiles start b*tching at me, I KNOW there are beaucoup lefties (probably Democrats in the House of Reps) who do the same thing, and who maybe even almost match the straw man caricature of liberals bashed by C&H, but I just can't think of any right now because I am Tragically Uninformed. OK?!

[mdklatt]

nope

What's the difference? Neither is "ideal", and thus should be actively discouraged by Big Government.

[FaninAma]

Now that it is ****ed up, we can't just stick our heads in the sand and hope for a magical solution. If abortion does become illegal, there are going to be a lot more unwanted kids. In Conservative Fantasyland, every child leaves the maternity ward in the hands of Ozzie and Harriet, but I don't think it works that way in the real world. It doesn't make sense to arbitarily knock suitable parents out of the adoption pool.

Speaking of God's plan, where does it address adoption by gay couples in the Bible?

No, but it's not unreasonable to expect people to be responsible for the children they bring into this world. Having children should not be a right...it should be a privilege and society should take every step possible to make sure parents are able to take care of their kids.

Bringing children into the world you can't support financially or emotionally is reckless behavior. Society regulates almost all other forms of reckless behavior.

If you have one child and require welfare asistance for more than 6 months then you should not be allowed to have other children until you can prove you can take care of them.

[mdklatt]

No, but it's not unreasonable to expect people to be responsible for the children they bring into this world. Having children should not be a right...it should be a privilege and society should take every step possible to make sure parents are able to take care of their kids.

Bringing children into the world you can't support financially or emotionally is reckless behavior. Society regulates almost all other forms of reckless behavior.

If you have one child and require welfare asistance for more than 6 months then you should not be allowed to have other children until you can prove you can take care of them.

Okay...but what does this have to with gay adoption?

[Hamhock]

What's the difference? Neither is "ideal", and thus should be actively discouraged by Big Government.


i agree. situations/environments that create single parents should be discouraged by the government/society.

you don't think so?

[FaninAma]

Okay...but what does this have to with gay adoption?

Actually it doesn't specifically address that. My statement was intended to be a reply to the more general consensus from the left that after-the-fact solutions like abortion and promotion of gay adoption were reasonable solutions. They're not. They're more like putting bandaids on severed carotid arteries to stop a person from hemorrhaging to death. In other words, they're worthless solutions intended to make those who espouse them feel better without doing a damn thing to really address or correct the underlying problem(s).

[mdklatt]

i agree. situations/environments that create single parents should be discouraged by the government/society.

you don't think so?

Depends on what you mean by discourage. Why should gay adoption be illegal if single parenthood isn't? What's the difference?

[Hamhock]

And...?

We already have more kids up for adoption than people willing to adopt. Any decrease in the amount of abortions is going to increase the disparity, as will improving fertility treatments, and the explosive growth of cute and cuddly third-world babies. Shouldn't we be trying to exapand the pool of suitable parents?


are there currently more infants up for adoption than people willing to adopt? i know there is a shortage of people willing/able to adopt dysfunctional teens, but I assume that a non-aborted child would be given up for adoption at birth. so, do you assert that there is a disparity between people (I'll even go as far as to say, married, heterosexual couples) wanting to adopt and infants available for adoption?

[mdklatt]

Actually it doesn't specifically address that. My statement was intended to be a reply to the more general consensus from the left that after-the-fact solutions like abortion and promotion of gay adoption were reasonable solutions. They're not. They're more like putting bandaids on severed carotid arteries to stop a person from hemorrhaging to death. In other words, they're worthless solutions intended to make those who espouse them feel better without doing a damn thing to really address or correct the underlying problem(s).

Gay adoption may not be the best solution, but it's better than some of the alternatives. Isn't gay adoption better than abortion? Since we don't live in Conservative Fantasyland, we have to do something to deal with the kids who aren't being raised by both biological parents in a house with a white picket fence.

[Hamhock]

Depends on what you mean by discourage. Why should gay adoption be illegal if single parenthood isn't? What's the difference?


the main difference is that gay adoption can be stopped before it is ever started.

i also think it should be harder for a couple to divorce and we as society should discourage situations that create single parent hood.

[Hamhock]

Gay adoption may not be the best solution, but it's better than some of the alternatives. Isn't gay adoption better than abortion? Since we don't live in Conservative Fantasyland, we have to do something to deal with the kids who aren't being raised by both biological parents in a house with a white picket fence.


absolutely, imo

[Stoop Dawg]

Actually it doesn't specifically address that. My statement was intended to be a reply to the more general consensus from the left that after-the-fact solutions like abortion and promotion of gay adoption were reasonable solutions. They're not. They're more like putting bandaids on severed carotid arteries to stop a person from hemorrhaging to death. In other words, they're worthless solutions intended to make those who espouse them feel better without doing a damn thing to really address or correct the underlying problem(s).

I'm assuming that the underlying problem is unwanted pregnancies? And your solution appears to be making it illegal for anyone who has been on any form of state aid for more that 6 months to become pregnant? Just the mothers, or the fathers too? How are you going to find these people? What will you do when you find them? Throw them in jail? How much money are you going to spend enforcing this solution and where are you going to get that money?

[FaninAma]

Gay adoption may not be the best solution, but it's better than some of the alternatives. Isn't gay adoption better than abortion? Since we don't live in Conservative Fantasyland, we have to do something to deal with the kids who aren't being raised by both biological parents in a house with a white picket fence.

I don't oppose gay adoption. It is better than abortion. However, if society is to truly correct the problem of unwanted children then the behavior of certain segments of the population will need to change and that change isn't going to magically happen by rewarding the worst offenders like the left wants to do by increasing social spending.

[Stoop Dawg]

I don't oppose gay adoption. It is better than abortion. However, if society is to truly correct the problem of unwanted children then the behavior of certain segments of the population will need to change and that change isn't going to magically happen by rewarding the worst offenders like the left wants to do by increasing social spending.

So you entered a moral debate on gay adoption to espouse your views on social spending?

FWIW, I'm all for reducing social spending by the govt. And for allowing civil unions between homosexuals (equal to marriage under the law). I'm just crazy like that!

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Let's face it there is no such thing as God's plan. Lets face it God was bored one day and decided to build an ant farm except he is all powerful so he creates a planet with this living creature. Well for like a few weeks this seemed all cool and all but then he was "what the hell...this is boring as ****" So then he think...ahh i will add someone for my man to interact with...again this lead to even more boredom. So he is like holy hell....umm let's see...."oh a tree has been put in the middle of your garden but you can't eat the fruit...tee hee tee hee" Unfortunately man and women were so ignorant they listened to him so God was still incredibly bored. So then he says hell, let me send this little serpent down here and see what type of mischied he can ensue. And ever since then, it has been a Heaven RatingPalooza!!!

[Jerk]

I got 13! The two wrong were Hitler's that I attributed to Coulter. The problem is that they only used Hitler's "good" quotes. ;)

But seriously...What annoys me about the whole Liberal vs Conservative thing is that (1) it falsely divides the complex world into only 2 things, and (2) each group of dividers uses straw men to make easily hateable caricatures of the other. At these two things both Coulter and Hitler excel. And before you Rushophiles start b*tching at me, I KNOW there are beaucoup lefties (probably Democrats in the House of Reps) who do the same thing, and who maybe even almost match the straw man caricature of liberals bashed by C&H, but I just can't think of any right now because I am Tragically Uninformed. OK?!

Sure there are many different belief systems but the fact is that the liberals control the democratic party and the conservatives control the Republican party. Conservatives and Liberals put together may not even make up 60% of the population, but they each control one party in a system that doesn't allow for more room than 2. Therefore, when it comes to government, you're either going to have one or the other in charge of each branch. So afterall, it is liberal vs conservative, until things change.

I'm looking forward to the day when there are no more liberals and every election is Republican Party versus Libertarian Party versus Constitutional Party. I pray for the day when canidates debate over who will cut taxes the most, cut gov't spending the most, etc. Maybe one day they'll pass a law that says if you're not disabled and you're on welfare, you can't vote - because when politicians figured out that they could sell a peice of the treasury in exchange for votes is when the whole system started going to sh*t.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Sure there are many different belief systems but the fact is that the liberals control the democratic party and the conservatives control the Republican party. Conservatives and Liberals put together may not even make up 60% of the population, but they each control one party in a system that doesn't allow for more room than 2. Therefore, when it comes to government, you're either going to have one or the other in charge of each branch. So afterall, it is liberal vs conservative, until things change.

I'm looking forward to the day when there are no more liberals and every election is Republican Party versus Libertarian Party versus Constitutional Party. I pray for the day when canidates debate over who will cut taxes the most, cut gov't spending the most, etc. Maybe one day they'll pass a law that says if you're not disabled and you're on welfare, you can't vote - because when politicians figured out that they could sell a peice of the treasury in exchange for votes is when the whole system started going to sh*t.Correct, sir!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

In conclusion, Ann Coulter's Luftwaffe(sp?) may prove to be more powerful than Hitler's propoganda machine ever was.

[etouffee]

dude, did you have to bring up her luftwaffe (sp?) ??? I just ate.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

dude, did you have to bring up her luftwaffe (sp?) ??? I just ate.DAYUM, could be we're envisioning different pictures!

[FaninAma]

I'm assuming that the underlying problem is unwanted pregnancies? And your solution appears to be making it illegal for anyone who has been on any form of state aid for more that 6 months to become pregnant? Just the mothers, or the fathers too? How are you going to find these people? What will you do when you find them? Throw them in jail? How much money are you going to spend enforcing this solution and where are you going to get that money?

How does society stop any behavior detrimental to society? You pass laws that discourage the behavior. How do we discourage drunk driving? How do we discourage speeding? How do we discourage white collar crime?

And yes, if a parent that keeps having kids on welfare refuses to voluntarily use a non-permanent verifiable form of birth control then I would fine them or throw their *** in jail and make them do the jobs illegal immigrants are doing now. I would use DNA testing to find the father and put some teeth in the child support laws. Everybody is allowed some leeway and one mistake but repeatedly having kids that have to be supported by society indicates that the parents are either stupid and shouldn't be reproducing or totally irresponsible and shouldn't be reproducing.

So now you're going to cry me a river about how unfair this is and that all the prisons would be full of deadbeat dads and moms. So what. Is it any cheaper for society to keep paying for unwanted kids and promoting a problem that keeps getting bigger and bigger every generation than to break this cycle of more and more illigitimate unwanted kids being supported by society? I guarantee you that the behavior that is leading to this problem would cease pretty quickly if people knew they would be held responsible for the kids they produce.

Allowing stupid people who can't support their kids to keep having kids is neither compassionate or intelligent although I know it is a popular way for liberals to feel they are helping and a way for liberal politicians to keep getting elected.

Don't have kids if you can't support them. How freaking hard is it to understand and follow that simple piece of advice?

[FaninAma]

So you entered a moral debate on gay adoption to espouse your views on social spending?

FWIW, I'm all for reducing social spending by the govt. And for allowing civil unions between homosexuals (equal to marriage under the law). I'm just crazy like that!

Not really. I'm just pointing out how dumb it is to get worked up about gay adoption when the facts indicate that if every gay couple in the country adopted an unwanted child it wouldn't make much difference in the overall problem. Pointing to the opposition of gay adoption as being a major problem in helping children get out of foster care or off of welfare is a strawman created by the left.

[Scott D]

we don't discourage white collar crime...we discourage being caught with your hand in the cookie jar committing white collar crime.

[lefty]

Don't have kids if you can't support them. How freaking hard is it to understand and follow that simple piece of advice?

Good advice Fan. However, the evidence is muddled, at best, as to whether the receipt of welfare has ever been a significant factor in the decision of persons to have kids. Undoubtedly, some woman somewhere made such a decision. Nevertheless, suggesting that persons make fertility decisions solely, or primarily, on the basis of increases in governmental support is difficult to substantiate. See for example the following:

http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/2004kearney.pdf

[etouffee]

the only thing difficult to substantiate is how widespread it is. it definitely happens. i've heard it openly discussed by people who've done it on several occasions.

[lefty]

the only thing difficult to substantiate is how widespread it is. it definitely happens. i've heard it openly discussed by people who've done it on several occasions.

That is the point. Some folks, somewhere, sometime, do pretty much everything. However, most folks, everywhere, don't. Just as we don't jump to the conclusion that all corporations are fraudulent because Enron, Tyco, and Worldcom were, we shouldn't assume that because a few women have made such a decision then all women must make the same decision. I don't have the specific data at hand (I do in my office and I don't want to spend all night trying to find it in the census data or national health data) but in general, the fertility rate of women on welfare is no different than those not on welfare. That was the only point I was trying to make. I do not intend to defend the behavior of anybody. But if we are to make rational public policy, it seems to me we ought to know what the heck is going on.

[etouffee]

but in general, the fertility rate of women on welfare is no different than those not on welfare. ok, but that fact by itself misses the point. women on welfare are generally not in a position to support children, from a financial standpoint or a maturity/responsible behaviour standpoint. therefore, if the fertility rate is anywhere close to the rate for non-welfare receipients, that's a huge problem. people who can't afford to support themselves should be having far less kids than people who can, but that's not what's going on.

[lefty]

There is no disagreement with the point of irresponsible behavior. A lot of folks who can afford to have kids shouldn't. Nevertheless, to argue that welfare, in and of itself, results in more kids than would otherwise be the case is hard to "prove."

[SCOUT]

There is no disagreement with the point of irresponsible behavior. A lot of folks who can afford to have kids shouldn't. Nevertheless, to argue that welfare, in and of itself, results in more kids than would otherwise be the case is hard to "prove."

I think this circles back around to Fan's point that we regulate all kinds of irresponsible behavior. Why not this one?

[Vaevictis]

I think this circles back around to Fan's point that we regulate all kinds of irresponsible behavior. Why not this one?

Actually, IIRC, the Supreme Court has ruled that procreation is a right.

See Stanley v. Illinois, the court summarizes its own past findings by saying:

"The rights to conceive and to raise one's children have been deemed 'essential,' 'basic civil rights of man,' and 'rights far more precious... than property rights.'"

There's a little more to it than that, obviously, but there you go.

[FaninAma]

Actually, IIRC, the Supreme Court has ruled that procreation is a right.

See Stanley v. Illinois, the court summarizes its own past findings by saying:

"The rights to conceive and to raise one's children have been deemed 'essential,' 'basic civil rights of man,' and 'rights far more precious... than property rights.'"

There's a little more to it than that, obviously, but there you go.

Yes, but the SCOTUS also puts limits on those rights. We all have freedom of speech but we can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. We all have the right to keep and bear arms but society has ruled you can't keep a bazooka.

I agree you have a right to have children but along with that right comes responsibility and I think it is within a society's discretion as to whether irresponsible people have abused that right and should lose the right or otherwise be reigned in. When individual rights practiced in excess run counter to the welfare of a society then I think it is the duty of that society to step in and correct the problem.

[Stoop Dawg]

Not really. I'm just pointing out how dumb it is to get worked up about gay adoption when the facts indicate that if every gay couple in the country adopted an unwanted child it wouldn't make much difference in the overall problem. Pointing to the opposition of gay adoption as being a major problem in helping children get out of foster care or off of welfare is a strawman created by the left.

I believe mdklatt was simply countering the arguement that gays don't make suitable parents by indicating that they make more suitable parents than many hetero's do.

Your stance that all bad parents (regardless of sexual orientation) should be taken to task is at least consistent, if unrealistic.

[Ike]

I'm really disappointed with all of you. Having a political argument/discussion without a whole lot of cutting and pasting. you've all lost your touch.

[sitzpinkler]

Who's talking politician? I'm talking people.

You see Hatfield, I was a liberal's liberal back in the day. Could not stand conservatives. Who the **** did they think they were with all their righteousness?

Today, I am a middle-of-the-road conservative. Why? That's right, because I WAS able to see the truth. I WAS able to see my mistakes. It's called evolution. Or in simpler terms, growing up.

If I had never lived the other side, then I would have to agree with you about walking around with blinders on. But us ex-libs are just as bad as us ex-smokers. You wanna see a militant anti-smoking person, look no further than an ex-smoker.

The years I've spent working, paying taxes, raising babies, and simply existing have taught me much. But, alas, some people never grow up. There's nothing sadder to me than an old liberal. They're pathetic. You can see it in their eyes when they're out there marching in a gay parade cause their kid died of AIDS, or hanging down at the Starbucks with their sandals and wool socks and their electric car in the parking lot with the Greenpeace and John Kerry bumper stickers. They remind me of jellyfish. Of hollow people. Of lifeless people. Of spineless people. A strong wind would blow them over. It's quite sad.

yeah, 'cause all liberals wear sandals and hang out at Starbucks

what a pathetic statement

I'd really like to know what this "truth" is that you know that us liberals are missing out on

[Vaevictis]

Having children should not be a right...it should be a privilege ...

Just because I'm a general PITA...

China agrees with you, 100%.

And if people think abortion in the States is bad now, just wait until you have abortions due to incorrect sex prior to birth for the rich folk, and paid baby killers -- after birth -- to achieve the same effect for poor people who can't afford ultrasounds.

[SicEmBaylor]

That is the point. Some folks, somewhere, sometime, do pretty much everything. However, most folks, everywhere, don't. Just as we don't jump to the conclusion that all corporations are fraudulent because Enron, Tyco, and Worldcom were, we shouldn't assume that because a few women have made such a decision then all women must make the same decision. I don't have the specific data at hand (I do in my office and I don't want to spend all night trying to find it in the census data or national health data) but in general, the fertility rate of women on welfare is no different than those not on welfare. That was the only point I was trying to make. I do not intend to defend the behavior of anybody. But if we are to make rational public policy, it seems to me we ought to know what the heck is going on.

A rational public policy would be to eliminate all Federal public assistance and allow the states to create whatever public assistance they want (hopefully none) that best fits the needs of their citizens. Creating an indefinite Federal entitlement program is not rational.

[SicEmBaylor]

Sure there are many different belief systems but the fact is that the liberals control the democratic party and the conservatives control the Republican party. Conservatives and Liberals put together may not even make up 60% of the population, but they each control one party in a system that doesn't allow for more room than 2.

This is supposedly true, although, I take issue with the idea that conservatives control the Republican Party. Conservatives don't even control the conservative movement.


Therefore, when it comes to government, you're either going to have one or the other in charge of each branch. So afterall, it is liberal vs conservative, until things change.

Having different movements control different branches of the government is preferable.

[quoteI'm looking forward to the day when there are no more liberals and every election is Republican Party versus Libertarian Party versus Constitutional Party. I pray for the day when canidates debate over who will cut taxes the most, cut gov't spending the most, etc. Maybe one day they'll pass a law that says if you're not disabled and you're on welfare, you can't vote - because when politicians figured out that they could sell a peice of the treasury in exchange for votes is when the whole system started going to sh*t.[/QUOTE]

That's absolutely correct. And that happened as a result of several factors including, but not limited to:
1)Stripping away the rights and power of the individual states
2)Allowing people to vote directly for their US Senator
3)Giving people the notion that simply "voting" equals good citizenship. We should not be encouraging every jackass and yahoo to run out and vote; especially when they can't name a single candidate involved or give you any background information on any issue being discussed within a campaign.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I support like a 2 years of support idea. You can recieve 2 years of welfare but if by those end of the two years you haven't shown any progress the state should take away any kids and give them to gay couples and Mormons!!

[SicEmBaylor]

I support like a 2 years of support idea. You can recieve 2 years of welfare but if by those end of the two years you haven't shown any progress the state should take away any kids and give them to gay couples and Mormons!!
Only if it's a state program...

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Thunderdome...two women enter..only one leaves with welfare!!!

[the_ouskull]

Part of the problem with the current welfare situation is that, in a number of states that DO have limitations on the amount of time which you can receive public assistance. There are just sooo many loopholes. (WARNING: The following is NOT the best argument in the world, but it IS a very "real" part of the world, like it or not...) Also, we need to keep in mind what can (and will) potentially happen when we take away people's free money. Crime will skyrocket. These have already proven to be people who will take things into their own hands, especially regarding their work to income ratio. Why do we (naively) believe that they won't just resort to crime to supplement the difference in their income?

the_ouskull

[Jerk]

Part of the problem with the current welfare situation is that, in a number of states that DO have limitations on the amount of time which you can receive public assistance. There are just sooo many loopholes. (WARNING: The following is NOT the best argument in the world, but it IS a very "real" part of the world, like it or not...) Also, we need to keep in mind what can (and will) potentially happen when we take away people's free money. Crime will skyrocket. These have already proven to be people who will take things into their own hands, especially regarding their work to income ratio. Why do we (naively) believe that they won't just resort to crime to supplement the difference in their income?

the_ouskull

This is what the police, courts, and prison system are for.

I'm not all for paying people off because they don't want to work.

[soonerjoker]

what happened to annie & hitler ???

i like annie.

i never cared for hitler.

[crawfish]

It's interesting to ignore a thread for four pages and see where it goes.

Sometimes. :)

[soonerjoker]

yep, i only read part of page 1. i mite take a whole day & read the rest.
NOT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

what happened to annie & hitler ???

i like annie.

i never cared for hitler.I offered an "in conclusion" post a while back, and the thread soon parted from Ann and Adolph. Maybe it's ripe for Kim Jung Il.

[JohnnyMack]

Bump for this:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/07/08/adam-carolla-hangs-up-on-coulter/

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

HAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHH Adam Corolla is alot cooler in my book now ;)

[FaninAma]

Just because I'm a general PITA...

China agrees with you, 100%.

And if people think abortion in the States is bad now, just wait until you have abortions due to incorrect sex prior to birth for the rich folk, and paid baby killers -- after birth -- to achieve the same effect for poor people who can't afford ultrasounds.

Nothing like a cup full of shrill hyperbole to get your Monday morning off to a good start.

As

[FaninAma]

Just because I'm a general PITA...

China agrees with you, 100%.

And if people think abortion in the States is bad now, just wait until you have abortions due to incorrect sex prior to birth for the rich folk, and paid baby killers -- after birth -- to achieve the same effect for poor people who can't afford ultrasounds.

Nothing like a cup full of shrill hyperbole to get your Monday morning off to a good start.

As far as solving the problem of people having children they can't support, we all would like to help but stupidity usually can't be fixed......especially if the stupidity is rewarded financially by the dough brains on the left.

[Stoop Dawg]

This is what the police, courts, and prison system are for.

Will you spend more beefing up your police force, court system, and prison system - or paying welfare? Just asking.


I'm not all for paying people off because they don't want to work.

I agree.

[Hatfield]

this has been one strange thread.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Can't we all just agree that Tanya Memme is super hot and the thing that makes her super hot is that she moves heavy furniture around?

[yermom]

well, i'm thinking she could help me move my furniture ;)

[mdklatt]

well, i'm thinking she could help me move my furniture ;)

Post reported to somegrl.


And :dolemite:.