Topic awaiting preservation: Distraught Democrat Commits Suicide at Ground Zero

It had to happen sooner or later. Good grief.

quote:

---

Distraught over the re-election of President George W. Bush, a Georgia man traveled to New York City, went to Ground Zero and killed himself with a shotgun blast, police said yesterday. Full Story

---

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 11-07-2004 07:51)

What a senseless act of violence.

How anyone can make excuses for it is depressing me! He was only 25 and he threw his life away for no good reason. If he felt that strongly about the election he could have redoubled his efforts and worked for Hillary. I suspect he had some other problems than just being bummed over this election.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 11-07-2004 09:37)

make no mistake, this act had a real strong sense for him to trigger his weapon. And the place where he did it, increase the symbolism of his act and denote his will.

He must have felt doomed and therefore unable to focus and redouble of efforts.
Another act with strong symbolism, and less destructive, he could have done is to move to a country opposed to the war in Iraq and ask the status of refugee.

I have already said, the US is POLARIZED over this election, the divides are very, very deep. I think Bugs and Ram are living in denial, if they don't recognize this! Wake up, you two! It is a serious issue.

There are now Americans, prominent Americans, who are LEAVING the US! Robert Redfork, Jennifer Aninison and Brad Pitt, and others are leaving the States. Many are going to Canada.

I don't think that the Extreme Right in America really realizes what is happening, or wants to. Mr. Bush shows no sign of wanting to curb this gap, this divide. Instead, he is showing every sign of making it worse.

There are those who voted, they expressed their will in their vote. It didn't happen. The next method, is to leave. Only those like me, who are willing to fight, stay. And I will be avoiding the US for the next 4 years, anyway.

It is tragic that someone felt that they had to take their life, though.

WS, what exactly makes you think either I or Ram are in denial that there is a serious divide in the country? I've never said that at all. I know it exists.

There are some who say that we are actually experiencing a civil war in the US. Not with guns and militia of course, but a war all the same because the divisions run very deep. I tend to agree with that view.

So your solution to this divide is what exactly?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

I think that Mr. Bush needs to realize, that he is President (and representative) of a country, and not just a party. Second, I would hope that those who are leaving, who instead stay and fight. I don't mean fight with arms, but with will. Running from a problem is not a good solution, IMHO.

I'm also glad to see, that you Bugs realize that there is this divide, and that it is serious.

It sort of reminds me of the Vietnam era...and I personally find that scary. It is bad enough, that we have enemies without...we surely don't need enemies within.

Well, there are always going to be divisions in a large country like this one, and it is a shame that someone threw away his life because he thought things were over. There are going to always be divisions in a large country like America because a) there are many people with many different minds and thoughts who wnat to voice their opinions b) there is the freedom of speech for them to do that and try to conscript new recruits into their faction. I love freedom, but it does come at the cost of factions. I do not think that freedom should be taken away. Like the author of Federalist #10 said:

quote:

---

Just because air is needed for fires, and if there was no air for fires they would be non-existant, that doesn't mean we should get rid of air.

---

There are major issues in America, but those issues are just another result of freedom, just like being able to say that your president is stupid and not get shot. Those issues will always be there, but that is no reason to take your life.

quote:

---

Without life there is no hope. As long as you still have life, you have hope.

---

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

I think that Mr. Bush needs to realize, that he is President (and representative) of a country, and not just a party.

---

Likewise for the opposition who bash him on a daily basis. It takes two to tango. He has reached out, you just do not want to see it. To you reaching out means bending over backward and comprimising core values, which is the exaxt opposite reason the majority of Americans voted for him. He has extended a hand since being relelected, I think now we have to wait and see how the other side reacts to it. We already know he has been dismissed by Chirac, no surprise there.

As far as the couple Brad Pitt/Jennifer Aniston, and Robert Redford leaving the country, I could care less and hardly consider them prominent Americans. They are only celebrities, what the hell makes them so much better than the rest of us? Let them go if they want to, they have that right. The fact that they are running shows me that they have little faith in their country anyway. One can only hope they will take that wretched fat lying excuse for a human, Michael Moore with them. In the end it is they who will be on the wrong side of history. If we had this leftist movement during WWII, Europe would probably have gone it alone.

quote:

---

It sort of reminds me of the Vietnam era...and I personally find that scary. It is bad enough, that we have enemies without...we surely don't need enemies within.

---

Too late. The divide has been and will always be there, it is part of democracy. It is not solely becuase of this election, the war in Iraq, or the War on Terror. It is a culture-gap between cities and rural areas. It is a gap between values and what we envision America to be. The election showed us that in the end, the most important issue turned out to be values. Those on the left are out of touch with mainstream America, not I or Bugs.

We don't have to agree, and don't have to worry about recriminations for that disagreement. The only way to get rid of that divide is through force, are you willing to endorse a dictatorship to get rid of it? Do you really think that John Kerry or any other person taking office is going to make that divide in core values disappear?

Oh, and by the way, before you say it, I know, I am clueless and stupid. Just trying to same you from wasting your breath because I know how much you like to restate that in every thread.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 11-07-2004 20:59)

quote:

---

I suspect he had some other problems than just being bummed over this election.

---

you think?! ;(

I actually heard today, talk of secession, and by inference or maybe just a connotation or vibe I got, civil war (McLaughlin Group). I'd say that's serious. To me it's a hard thing to talk about (the war, the divide) because it's so emotional with the loss of lives of soldiers and native civilians, I can see the "liberal side" of the isssue in regards to that and sympathize with it in a huge way, but I also lament the apparent waning of our national fortitude, idealism and righteous indignation that this country was built, and made great on. It's hard to be willing to lay down your life for a cause that you don't believe in however, I pray that that's the case with all the naysayers and not just that we're becoming a nation of comfortable, selfish pansies, lacking the courage to fight for our convictions. Worse than that, we'd become a nation that abandons our convictions due to popular opinion or external pressure.

It's truly a shame that this guy killed himself and to me it's indicative of a big problem I see festering in this country, a "Game Over" mentality, a "Give Up/Give In" mentality (see "prominent" people leaving the country). If we lose a battle we can still fight another day, we should never give up, and we should never give in to popular opinions that go against our convictions becaus eit's easier, or because it's popular.



(Edited by JKMabry on 11-08-2004 03:15)

quote:

---

As far as the couple Brad Pitt/Jennifer Aniston, and Robert Redford leaving the country, I could care less and hardly consider them prominent Americans. They are only celebrities, what the hell makes them so much better than the rest of us? Let them go if they want to, they have that right. The fact that they are running shows me that they have little faith in their country anyway. One can only hope they will take that wretched fat lying excuse for a human, Michael Moore with them. In the end it is they who will be on the wrong side of history. If we had this leftist movement during WWII, Europe would probably have gone it alone.

---

What the hell makes Michael Moore so much worse than the rest of us? He's only a celebrity, after all.

How can one be on the wrong side of history? Do you mean not being on the winners side, since they get to write it? Well then, yeah, in general those with the most money *do* tend to win at most things..

quote:

---

What a senseless act of violence.

---

Yeah.. Kinda like that war thingy they've got goin on down there...

In other news; (averages)
1-2+ GI's died in Iraq today. About 10+ Iraqi *civilians* died for each of those GI's.
And countless others died due to cancer, aids, air pollution, hunger...
and that's not even scratching the surface.

-Xel

[quickpost]

quote:

---

Ramasax said:
We already know he has been dismissed by Chirac, no surprise there.

---

Over here it's been said that Chirac has sent a warm and welcoming letter to congratulate Bush for his victory and kinda invited him for less heated discussions in the future. But I've seen no mention about a clear reply from Bush in the medias neither a clear mention about an extended hand toward the French government. I've only heard about his will to rally the Democrats and Independents behind him for the next 4 years. [/quickpost]

A couple of little notes, half of the American voters voted for Bush, only 20% of the total population voted for Bush, and 20% even your 51% is by no way mainstream. It was a significant win, but was not a mandate, nor does that signify any kind of political capital. This is just the start of the war at home, and will only worsen as bush continues down his choosen economic path. The wars oversea are convenient because they allow bush to near freely push his economic reforms.

The divide is very apparent between those with strong religious beliefs and who vote according to only those issues and those who vote based on humanistic ideologies. We are clearly polarized by the great destroyer, a lack of understanding. Because we are so different we are unable to even sit down and discuss these issues. Logical discussion is often called for by the humanists, but they fail to understand that it is not possible to discuss logically, because the issues are beyond the abilities of only logic.

Following this, it is not Bush or the right that needs to lean towards us, but the left that needs to try to understand them. Until that happens we will stay devided. To us lefties you on the right are Religious Extremist, very similar to what those of the Muslim variety. And what is beginning is the feelings that if our single life can mean freeing others we will spend it. Us elitist lefties are waking up, and some of us will die for our causes.

This death was not senseless, it was full of meaning, he died for his cause, just as Tibetan monks burn themselves for theirs. Do not disgrace the memory of Andrew Veal, he died willingly for his beliefs, without it costing the life of another.

Dan @ Code Town

(Edited by WarMage on 11-08-2004 06:42)

errr..., be it martydom, radicalism, or any other name, suicide is suicide. I, nor anyone else for that matter, CANNOT "disgrace" his memory. He has done that himself.

It is ludicrous that someone would kill themselves over an election in America.
{[edit]Eek! a typo![/edit]}
This is not a political issue at all, it is a mental health issue.

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

(Edited by UnknownComic on 11-08-2004 07:13)

WarMage: This act, reminded me the Tibetan monks too.

UnknownComic: I'd rather use the word "serious" rather than "ludicrous". And if this person killed herself for political reason, which seems to be the case, then it is also a political issue.

I don't know... A tibetan monk maybe I could buy it as political.... I've seen the "Free Tibet" bumper stickers and understand it takes quite a bit of instruction to be come a monk.

But an American? I'm not buying it. There are so many options here, moreso than almost anywhere else on the planet.

Disclaimer; "Almost anywhere else on the planet." does not imply there is no place better than america, we have all the answers, or any other kind of psuedo egoism someone may wish to bash my opinion with.

People regularly, give up evrything they have to come here for opportunity. Most immigrants are amazed at the sheer number of options we Americans take for granted.

A lonely individual killing themselves does not add up to political martydom of and by itself.

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

UnknownComic, you are really proving yourself to be unknowing. In and of itself, the suicide is as you portrait it - a young life gone. Tragic and senseless. I would not say that it is a disgrace. I would say that it is alarming.

You hit the nail on the head with this

quote:

---

A lonely individual killing themselves does not add up to political martydom of and by itself.

---

But you shy away from connecting it to this incidence. It doesn't really matter, why the young man commited suicide. It only matters how it is perceived. And I think the Left might just perceive this as something more than just a suicide.

As a moderate Republican, this incident alarmed me. I see my own party hijacked by the Extreme Right, and now I see the Extreme Left rallying (in a way) around this incident, and others fleeing the land (and contrary to whatever passes for brainmatter in Ramasax's head, it does matter when stars do something. Fame, power and money do have influence, you nut, otherwise such people would not be used to sell stuff in commercials, etc).

What I don't see, is Mr. Bush reaching a hand out to us moderate Republicans, not to mention out to the Left. But then I mentioned that before, that he would be too incompetant to do it, instead, he would just make it worse.

Once again WebShaman, you prove yourself to be just as ignorant and intolerant as you accuse me of being.

We on what you call exteme-right are supposed to have toleration of everything the left pushes at us, socialist economics, gay marriage, partial-birth abortion, humanistic values, the list goes on and on. When resistence is met we are called bigots, rednecks, stupid, ignorant, you name it. Where is the tolerance on the left of our views? There is none and the double-standard is getting really fucking old. Let civil war come if it must, but I am not going to change who and what I am and what I believe to please others.

Stars may be important to shallow people, but not to me. There is nothing special about them and their views, regardless of what side they take, are no better than mine or yours. Stop with the insults please, or can't you make your point without them?

quote:

---

What I don't see, is Mr. Bush reaching a hand out to us moderate Republicans, not to mention out to the Left.

---

You are not paying attention then.

Ramasax

Why should I show respect to someone who thinks that not supporting bush makes me a "dumbass college kid" or not by not supporting your superstition and "I will burn in hell forever" ?

Ramasax,
There is no double standard (at least with the social issues you mentioned.)
The right (by and large) wants to use the force of law to force people to live according to certain religious beliefs.
The left (by and large) does not wish to be compelled by law to live according to somebody else's religious beliefs.

The left (again, I'm speaking in generalities) does not wish to force you or anybody else to live according to any particular principles, ideologies, or dogmas.

There is nobody calling for you to be forced to be united with a gay man.
There is nobody calling for you to be forced to abort a pregnancy.
There is nobody calling for you to be forced to hold some "humanistic values".

Though gay marriage/civil unions do not hurt you, you wish to prohibit someone else from doing them. Though someone else having "humanistic values" does not hurt you, you wish to prohibit others from having such values.
The right-wing of this country wants to prohibit actions and thoughts based on their own idealogies. The left has no such desire.

That is why there is no double standard.


Ruski,
You should be respectful, even to Ramasax, because never hurts to be respectful, and it might actually help achieve decent conversation and sharing of ideas.

Sad to hear indeed. Perhaps this person was looking for any reason to do it.

Cripple Need Cane
www.CNCROCKS.com

Ram, the reason I tread on you so harshly? Because I tried to have a clean, intelligent conversation with you before, and you rejected it, just as you have rejected everything that does not fit into your view of things. I am not alone. Many others have attempted it, as well. I assume most have just given up, and are ignoring you. Some, like mobrul continue to communicate with you in a civilized, intelligent manner. For all the good it will do. You demonstrate no ability to be able to communicate back in the same fashion.

quote:

---

here is none and the double-standard is getting really fucking old. Let civil war come if it must, but I am not going to change who and what I am and what I believe to please others.

---

This represents you to a tee. Intolerant of others, unable to admit when you are wrong and proven wrong, again and again and again.

quote:

---

Stars may be important to shallow people, but not to me. There is nothing special about them and their views, regardless of what side they take, are no better than mine or yours.

---

Irregardless of how you or I may perceive them, they do impact on the masses. And what they do, what they wear, and what they say does get noticed.

quote:

---

They are only celebrities, what the hell makes them so much better than the rest of us?

---

Who said they were better? I said they were celebrities. When they do things, people sit up and take notice. Again, you demonstrate those attributes which I ascribe to you.

quote:

---

To you reaching out means bending over backward and comprimising core values, which is the exaxt opposite reason the majority of Americans voted for him.

---

Don't assume you know what I think. You have no idea what I think. I never, ever suggested something like that, and I never will. You again reinforce my view of you.

quote:

---

In the end it is they who will be on the wrong side of history.

---

Hehe...man, that is funny. Now you can see the future. So many said the same thing in Vietnam. Guess what? The opposite came true. Such a statement is just assinine. Neither you or me know how this is all going to come out, or end up being perceived by history.

Show me examples of Mr. Bush reaching out.

Go read mobrul's post, and cringe. How often does someone have to whip you like a curr, before you actually begin to perceive something? Obviously attempting to reason something out with you is a waste of breath and time, as has been proven time and again on this board. Your knee-jerk reactions demonstrate time and again exactly this point, and what passes for logic and understanding in your posts are sad, misconceived notions of reality.

quote:

---

Once again WebShaman, you prove yourself to be just as ignorant and intolerant as you accuse me of being.

---

Yes, it is well known on this board that I am like this. In fact, I never apologize or admit that I am wrong. Nope. Not me. Oh wait...I have been known to, on occasion. Ok, where someone has made a good point, I acknowledge it as well. I, umm...heck, I even say nice things when someone posts something that I find interesting. I must be having a relapse!

Lessee...did I ever accuse someone of being a redneck, or because of their Race, or Origin single them out for intolerance? Well, I did bring to attention that the Europeans that came to America slaughtered my ancestors, surely I am guilty of that. But I think most already know that.

quote:

---

Stop with the insults please, or can't you make your point without them?

---

The point is, I have made them often enough without.

No double standard coming from the Left??? I cannot agree to that. The Left may not be driven by a traditional religion in imposing their views on the country, but many on that side hold every bit as fanatically to secularism as any religious zealot on the Right.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Far as I can see, The Left holds secularism fanatically, up until the point that their beliefs start dictating the freedoms of others.

Back in the day, there was this phrase: The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Right seems to want to not allow some liberties that the Left would rather everyone else could make their own choices on, and seems to want others to only pursue happiness in the ways that they see fit.

That's not to say that the Left wouldn't just as soon deprive the Right of other things, but I for the life of me can't come up with anything just as extreme to mirror those sentiments.

A question for the Righties in here, though:
What would allowing gay marriage (or at the very least, civil unions with equal rights under the law) deprive you of?

The argument I hear all too often is that "it would mean the destruction of the familial unit", and so forth. How can you possibly know this? How can others possibly know it wouldn't? The only example I can see that would shed any light on the scenario is that of when interracial marriages were considered just as taboo. Did anything bad come of that? How can this be argued with simply theoretical bas(es?..er, plural anyone?) More importantly, *why*? Don't we have the freedom to practice whatever religion we choose, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others? Aren't the (generic) Christian Righties infringing on others rights by dictating what they can and cannot do?

Regardless of whether or not gay marriage would mean the destruction of the familial unit and whatnot, how is that anyones place to deny the right to *do* that, as long as it doesn't infringe on any of your rights?

Sigh.

Rhetorical question rant /off...

-Xel

I used to know a whole lot of secular extremists, but I don't know any anymore. That is because most of them eventually grow up. They find that other peoples view are just as valid as thier own, others even pick up a religion. Extremism and fanatisism is something for the youths who are still trying to find themselves.

As for a Andy Veal being troubled person looking for any reason to do it. I can not buy that at all. He was a research worker, enguaged to be married, avid cyclist, the people he worked with say he was very positive. This doesn't sound like a really troubled individual. It would appear rather the oposite.

Andy Veal took the time to go to New York from Georgia! Managed to break into Ground Zero and then to take his own life. I don't think this can be taken as anything but a protest. It is not even that I agree with this type of action, it is that if we ignore this action for what it is we will be ignoring a tide that is running through America. It is a scary time and everyone needs to pay attention.

Dan @ Code Town

I shy away from political undertones in this case because it should be viewed as mental illnes. And quite frankly, it is a disgrace. It is disgraceful that this person was not able to get the professional help they needed to survive. Depression and suicide are medical issues that can be treated quite well. They are also symptons of other mental illnesses that too often go untreated because of ignorance.

Not backwoods ignorance, but simple uninformed ignorance.

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

No suicide note...how did they tell he was commiting suicide over the re-election?

-----------------------------------------------------
funny websites | funny signatures | funny jokes

Ozone Asylum KILLED my inner child.

UnknownComic, you view it as a disgrace. I view it as a viable option for someone to use, if they so choose. You view it as mental illness, it doesn't mean that it should be viewed as mental illness.

quote:

---

Depression and suicide are medical issues that can be treated quite well.

---

Depression can, yes, and on that I agree with you. But the option of suicide can be based on other things, as well, and is not necessarily a medical issue. Whether or not that applies to this case, I do not know. But to stamp something like this with a broad label and absolutes may not be the correct approach. I think we need more information, before making such a decision.

And we need to wait and see what the Left decides. Even if what you say is true, if it is perceived differently and enough support it, then for all intents and purposes it becomes a real issue.

from the source linked at top;

quote:

---

A source said Veal may have been suffering from some personal problems, though his family has told authorities that he was very upset about the war in Iraq and President George W. Bush's re-election.

---

But another story has a tad more info;
http://www.walb.com/Global/story.asp?S=2537005&nav=5kZQSsyD

Interesting enough, there was bottle of Jack Daniels as well.

Alcohol? Dating two women? And Depression?

I guess more will be revealed. But it seems to me that this is very much a tragic statement more about mental health issues than politics.

WS? You may have an opinion of me showing unknowingness, however I do have some knowingness related to the difficulty people have getting help with Mental Health issues. I am seeing daily the sneers for the mentally unbalanced and the bellicose denial of those who believe it is not in their world.

Two factors that lead to ignorance {Not Mightier Than Thou "ignorance" but ig·no·rance: The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed} are denial and fear. No one wants to talk about the crazy aunt or sad cousin, but they are there and can be helped.

Please dont belittle this by turning it into a political arguing point. This tragedy has very little to do with politics and everything to do with "Mental Health".

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

quote:

---

WS? You may have an opinion of me showing unknowingness, however I do have some knowingness related to the difficulty people have getting help with Mental Health issues. I am seeing daily the sneers for the mentally unbalanced and the bellicose denial of those who believe it is not in their world.

---

Please read my post closely. I am not disagreeing with Mental Health issues, and I am certainly very well aware that Depression is a sickness, sometimes a very serious one and no laughing matter. When one talks of Suicide, however, one has to be careful. This is what I am pointing out.

I am certainly not making a political issue about it. Why should I? I find it a tragic incident, because I believe that if one wants to change something, one should fight for what one believes. Suicide is not an option for me.

I however hesitate to speak for others. I certainly balk at calling it a disgrace. I have no idea, what was going through that young man's head. And should the Left make a political issue out of it, then irregardless of why the young man did what he did, it then becomes a political issue. Don't you see this?

quote:

---

Please dont belittle this by turning it into a political arguing point. This tragedy has very little to do with politics and everything to do with "Mental Health".

---

Again, I intone, that I am not making a political issue of it. Read the above posts. All I am saying, is that I find it alarming. You should be aiming such comments at those who ARE making it a political issue.

(Edited by WebShaman on 11-09-2004 13:57)

quote:

---

No double standard coming from the Left??? I cannot agree to that. The Left may not be driven by a traditional religion in imposing their views on the country, but many on that side hold every bit as fanatically to secularism as any religious zealot on the Right.

---

In the first sentence you state your thesis - that there is a double standard coming from the left. Then you go on to say that "many on that side hold every bit as fanatically..."

Holding strong to one's beliefs and having a double standard are two very different things.

I think if you look at the left's position (and, I'm speaking here in generalities. Certainly one can find an anecdote or 4 for every wacko position conceivable.) you'll find no desire whatsoever to prohibit you from going to church, reading your Bible, taking your communion, or praying to your God.

The left's position (with regard to social issues - the only issues from Ramasax's post I addressed) is largely consistant with the spirit of our founding fathers and the enlightenment/neo-classical ideals upon which they founded this country.
You have a right to practice your religion however you wish, until it interferes with the rights of others. You have the right to do damn well whatever you wish, until it interferes with the right of another.

Allowing homosexuals to have civil rights does not deny you yours.
Allowing someone else to abort their pregnancy does not force you to do the same.
Someone else NOT going to church on Sundays does not prohibit you from doing so.

Ramasax's statement about having tolerance for the intolerance of the right is similar to the argument of the slave owners of the south some 150 years. They all were in an uproar that the liberal abolitionists weren't tolerant of their 'right' to own slaves.

Same argument, different time.

One more thing, Unknowncomic. I am somewhat insulted, that you somehow think that I am making a political issue out of this Suicide . Look at the title of the thread!

quote:

---

Distraught Democrat Commits Suicide at Ground Zero

---

Now, WHO posted this thread?

You will notice that that is a politically loaded title, don't you think? If it was just about the suicide, then it wouldn't matter what political party the young man belonged to, right? Then why mention it in the first place?

Why point your finger at someone who hasn't decided to make a political issue of it, and not at those who have or are?

Nice post mobrul.

quote:

---

Xel said:

The argument I hear all too often is that "it would mean the destruction of the familial unit", and so forth. How can you possibly know this? How can others possibly know it wouldn't? The only example I can see that would shed any light on the scenario is that of when interracial marriages were considered just as taboo. Did anything bad come of that? How can this be argued with simply theoretical bas(es?..er, plural anyone?) More importantly, *why*? Don't we have the freedom to practice whatever religion we choose, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others? Aren't the (generic) Christian Righties infringing on others rights by dictating what they can and cannot do?

---

(Note - I usually avoid political and religious debates/threads like the plague, they really serve no purpose besides arguing on the internet.)

The biggest threat to the "familial unit" isn't 2 men or 2 women being allowed to marry (or whatever the hell you want to call it), it's divorce. It's the easy impression that there are no repurcussions to one's actions that is destroying the family, and in an extended way, society itself.

People refusing to take responsibility for their actions and the results thereof. Feel like sleeping around? No worries, take the pill, or have an abortion (yes, yes, the abortion one is an extreme case. Abortion is a completely different discussion atm). Get drunk and get married in Vegas? Hey, just get a quickie divorce or pay for an annulment in the religious institution of your choosing and all will be alright! Didn't study and failed all your tests, flunking your senior year of high school? That's OK! Teachers can't fail you or hold you back because mommy and daddy will take them to court for emotion/esteem issues, and you'll be A-OK!

I have been married now for 11.5 years, and the sad thing is, according to statistics, that is on the way of being an anomoly. My parents have been married for 43 years this coming January. We aren't the norm anymore, we are becoming exceptions. Having stable marriages of any sort is good for kids, not ones where mommy and daddy just take care of whatever their desires of the moment are. Growing up is hard folks, and I was taught that there are reactions to my actions. So many kids these days aren't taught that, in school or at home.

When San Fransisco started issuing marriage licenses, the first couple in line had been together for 51 years! That is rare even among hetero couples these days, yet that sort of dedication to another person is going to "mean the destruction of the familial unit"? Get real. Until basic moral values of any sort begin to be taught to the kids of today, we are going to end up with adults who fail to accept their responsbilities for what they are. Doesn't matter if these values are religious based, secular based or just plain common sense (which is in very short supply), just teach kids right and wrong, responsbility for your own actions and the strength to do what is right in the long term, not just for the pleasure of the moment or the very near future.

/end soapbox.

_____________________

le coeur du feu
Qui sème le vent récolte la tempête!

*salutes Rhyssa*

*Joins Mahjqa*

WS, you were the only one who addressed my comments by name. I'll have to admit I've just been scanning the responses... and I'll bet we see this situation in a lot closer terms than this discussion may intuit to the outside observer.

I just want to reititerate that suicide, in America, is more about mental health than it is political ideologies. Tibet and immolating monks may be a different case, but this thread isnt about them.

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

quote:

---

I just want to reititerate that suicide, in America, is more about mental health than it is political ideologies.

---

If you had said that before, instead of speaking in absolutes, I wouldn't have addressed your post, UC. I quite agree with that.

mobrul, I have begun typing a reply to you 4 times now. I cannot get out all I want to say to you, there is just too much. I have had a few rules for myself in the Asylum since I joined. One of them is that the best way to defeat bad ideas is to proffer better ideas.

I do very much believe there is a double standard coming from your side of the political spectrum but I wish to leave the details of that to another time. It comes down to a question of just how prevalent that double-standard is. As you say, anecdotes abound.

I will answer your questions and then tell you exactly what I think about same sex marriage.

quote:

---

mobrul said:

Allowing homosexuals to have civil rights does not deny you yours.
Allowing someone else to abort their pregnancy does not force you to do the same.
Someone else NOT going to church on Sundays does not prohibit you from doing so.

---

Homosexuals deserve every civil right that any other American enjoys.
Abortion is not that simple and you know it. It is human rights versus womans rights.
I'm not sure why you mention the third one to me. Who is suggesting mandatory religious service attendance?

I will outline *my* views on same sex marriage when I come back from dinner.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

The *only* reason marriage rises to the level of interest for the government is that it is the best way to raise the next generation of citizens. Yes, that means that I don't think people should expect to get marriage certificates from the government who aren't going to be raising families. They should fall under whatever civil union standard we end up with in the next few years.

If two men, or two women, or two men and one woman, or a brother and a sister, or one man and 40 women want to have relationships together then the government neither has an interest in sanctioning it nor prohibiting it.

When one or more parties stand to be harmed in such arrangements then that must be examined to see whether government laws may apply to protect individual rights. At least for now, most people agree these types of relationships must not include minors and I agree with that.

I also favor extending benefits to gay couples in a way that does not impede their relationships. In other words, partners should be able to have visiting rights, leave inheritances, etc. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, in my opinion, and I believe the majority of Americans will vote for such benefits in the near future.

Regardless of what the people (not judges!) decide to do on this issue, it will not harm my marriage in any way shape or form. My interest in this issue is for our society as a whole. It is my right and my duty to vote for policies that will make this society better and whether that vote is informed by my religious beliefs or your secular ideals makes no difference whatsoever. We are both full citizens of this country and we are to vote as we each see fit.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Bugs, but so many "next generation" citizens are raised by single parents, or barely any parental involvement. Kids are raised in slums, ghettos, hilly billy redneck farms etc. I don't see how will that differ at all, whenever you allow or not gay people to marry.

People change and society changes, and so those people change values...

to quote Nietzsche a bit, it just some how seems to fit this thread...IMO....

quote:

---

Whoever has overthrown an existing law of custom has always first been accounted a bad man: but when, as did happen, the law could not afterwards be reinstated and this fact was accepted, the predicate gradually changed; - history treats almost exclusively of these bad men who subsequently became good men!

---

quote:

---

What is new, however, is always evil, being that which wants to conquer and overthrow the old boundary markers and the old pieties; and only what is old is good. The good men are in all ages those who dig the old thoughts, digging deep and getting them to bear fruit - the farmers of the spirit. But eventually all land is depleted, and the ploughshare of evil must come again and again.

---

Bugimus.
this:

quote:

---

Yes, that means that I don't think people should expect to get marriage certificates from the government who aren't going to be raising families.

---

Are you serious, or am I misreading this?

What I see reading this part is that you should not be allowed to marry unless you intend to start a family, ie. producing children. I'm not sure if you imply that this only goes for relationships that cannot produce children because the parties are same sex or if it covers "normal" people who cannot have children on account of a physical defect or similar.

As far as I've learned and also the way I see it, a marriage is a union of love between 2 persons with the agreed intention that you should live together and share life however it turns out.
Done in church you make this promise to god and eachother, done outside of the church you promise each other. Then since this is "the" way to establish a permanent relationship you also get the judicial things that comes with marriage.

No matter how I twist and turn this I cannot see how childbearing is a requirement here. It's more often than not a natural result of it, but there are married people who do not raise children, both by choice and not.

And if producing children is not a requirement for marriage the argument against same sex marriage sort of falls flat on it's face, doesn't it... At least for the "out of church" version of marriage.

/Dan

{cell 260} {Blog}
-{ ?Computer games don?t affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we?d all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music.? (Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989.) }-

^and what he said...*stupid me...why didnt I think of it*

exelent point Dan.. =)

DmS: Since marriage is an union of love between 2 persons, I don't see how even the Church could refuse any couple, same sex or not, to promise love and support whatever happens.

poi, I think the major reason why church doesnt support gay marriage is becasue in old testament there seems to be strong prejudice towards homosexuals, as it is told in story of Sodom

here is a link that supposedly verifies that story of sodom has nothing to do with gays or lesbians, but rather rape.

random link




added:


http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_aog.htm

here is more issues concerning why christians dislike homosexuals.

btw..i don't remember where, but I definately remember passage where there was saying something like "If man is found sleeping with man, they shall surelly be put to death"

(Edited by Ruski on 11-11-2004 20:03)

quote:

---

Ruski said:

...so many "next generation" citizens are raised by single parents, or barely any parental involvement. Kids are raised in slums, ghettos, hilly billy redneck farms etc. I don't see how will that differ at all, whenever you allow or not gay people to marry

---

You're right, those are two separate issues. I don't see how same sex marriage affects the multitudes of problems we have with marriage as it is now. Children being raised in loving families consisting of a father and a mother is the ideal. The government has an interest in fostering the ideal. If it didn't involve the raising of the children the government would have no serious need to be involved.

DmS, the question that needs to be answered is at what point should the government interfere with the personal relationships of consenting adults. Does that help in understanding more of where I'm coming from on this issue?

quote:

---

poi said:

Since marriage is an union of love between 2 persons, I don't see how even the Church could refuse any couple, same sex or not, to promise love and support whatever happens.

---

When has that been the definition of marriage? We're talking about redefining marriage when we include same sex unions. What the church says about it is the church's business, I'm concerned with what the government is going to say about it.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 11-11-2004 20:27)

oops, wrong thread
[edit2] Ruski, you're following me, don't you [/edit2]

(Edited by poi on 11-11-2004 20:53)

(Edited by poi on 11-11-2004 21:17)

fuck...err ^what he said..nevermind

(Edited by Ruski on 11-11-2004 21:12)

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

DmS, the question that needs to be answered is at what point should the government interfere with the personal relationships of consenting adults. Does that help in understanding more of where I'm coming from on this issue?

---

Umm. Never? Personal relationships are just that: Personal. They don't have to do with you, anyone else besides the partner(s), or the government. Or at least they really shouldn't. I don't know anyone who could possibly tolerate anyone else telling them what they can and can't do in their personal relationships (assuming consent from all parties).

-Xel

Bugs, I have to say, DmS has made an excellent post. I would very much like to see you expand on this

quote:

---

Yes, that means that I don't think people should expect to get marriage certificates from the government who aren't going to be raising families.

---

I don't remember anything about having children or raising a family in the vows I took. In fact, I don't remember the government in any way, shape, or form requiring anything of the sort. My vows were strictly between me and the person I was marrying. I think there may be some religious weddings that do, but I am not that familiar with them. Are the Jewish vows so? Don't they mention Prosper in them?

Other than the government officially as a witness recognizing my union, I most certainly don't want them intruding any further into what I feel is a very private area.

quote:

---

Are you serious, or am I misreading this?

What I see reading this part is that you should not be allowed to marry unless you intend to start a family, ie. producing children. I'm not sure if you imply that this only goes for relationships that cannot produce children because the parties are same sex or if it covers "normal" people who cannot have children on account of a physical defect or similar.

---

I would like you to answer to this, Bugs. I don't see how the government will seperate the two without being prejudiced. After all, adoption IS a legitamate way of raising a family. In fact, I do think that it is one of the ways suggested by Anti-Abortionists. Or would you then refuse to let same-sex partnerships adopt?

Is that the key? Not letting them adopt, so then they can't raise a family, therefore, they shouldn't be allowed to marry? What about Lesbian couples that let themselves be impregnated? In other words, then, only male-male couples would be out of luck?

That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, to me.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Other than the government officially as a witness recognizing my union, I most certainly don't want them intruding any further into what I feel is a very private area.

---

Why do you need the government to officially recognize your marriage, WS? I don't want them intruding into this area unless they have a very good reason for doing so. I don't know how else to expand on what I've already said above about why I think the government has a legitimate reason for regulating how children are raised.

DmS and WS, I am talking about a mother and a father raising children as a family. If a couple wants to live together for their own love and support, that's great. But if they do not intend to raise children, then I simply don't see why the government should be involved. I don't know how much more clearly I can state it.

Also, most certainly adopting children is a perfectly legitimate way of raising a family.

So then the issue shifts to whether arrangements other than a mother and a father wanting to raise children should be recognized by the state. In my view, all things being equal, it is better for children to be raised by a mother and a father in a stable loving family. If that condition does not exist, then a loving mother-mother, father-father, single mother, single father, polygamous, etc. family should be allowed.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Why do you need the government to officially recognize your marriage, WS?

---

So that it is legally recognized, and legally binding. This has a lot to do with property rights, etc, in the case that I should die, or my spouse, etc. If one is legally married (recognized by the government), then there are certain laws that govern such. Without such, the laws are much more vague, to non-existant.

Civil union legislation could cover those types of issues and we wouldn't have to redefine marriage thereby creating a win-win situation.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

and here comes the fear of gays/lesbians...

you do seem to have some sort of fear for letting two loving ladies to raise a child...dont you?

Or let's say...men?

Bugimus:

quote:

---

Children being raised in loving families consisting of a father and a mother is the ideal. The government has an interest in fostering the ideal. If it didn't involve the raising of the children the government would have no serious need to be involved.

---

Being a family man for 15 years and a father of three I really must disagree with that...
The first half of the first sentence is absolutely 110% correct!
For a child to be raised in a situation where he always, no matter what he does, knows he is loved, forgiven and welcomed is the most important thing that exists to a child. Period.

If this situation consists of one or 2 biological parents or is based on an adoptation or whatever doesn't really matter. Fact is that a couple that by any reason cannot produce offspring of their own that adopt or similar would probably be better suited to produce a loving enviroment than a family started "because it just happend".

quote:

---

I am talking about a mother and a father raising children as a family. If a couple wants to live together for their own love and support, that's great. But if they do not intend to raise children, then I simply don't see why the government should be involved. I don't know how much more clearly I can state it.

---

Here we go again... But if they do not intend to raise children... Well, what if they do intend to raise children but happen to be same sex, can't they marry? What I'm feeling here is that the problem isn't really about marriage or not, it's the norm set in society today over what we generally should accept or not.

One big part of this is the fact that if we only "allow" children to grow up in biological families that fit into the norm, we are actually reinforcing the lack of tolerance for other peoples preferences.
Granted, there has to be limits. These limits should imho be set on the basis on not hurting or forcing other people. I don't see that problem with same sex marriage, after all gay people aren't diseased and they can't "spread it", nor are they "sex maniacs". It's just two people that love each other and generally wants to share everything, just as any other couples.

Gay or not, that just happens to some people, I'm 100% sure that it's not a result of being "exposed" to gay people while growing up...
(please note that I never said that any of you did say that, it's simply something that is a common argument in debates like this.).

Next, "Kids will get hurt and teased if they have 2 dads, or 2 mums..."
Well, yes, in some cases, but that's because we, as parents give them the perspective that this is odd, unusual and generally not really ok. We teach them that.

Let's just face it, gay people has been around forever and they will not go away. If we as adults openly and officially give equal rights and standing to ALL types of persons in our society this will stop being a problem to most people and it will help our children to grow up as tolerant human beings.

That can't be all bad, can it?

Oh, almost forgot.
Marriage is to most people a very strong symbol of a union between two people, in fact a lot stronger than a legally equal partnership, so no, I cannot see it as a "win-win" situation where some people are allowed both the symbolic value of marriage and the legal benefits and others just get the legal benefits.
/Dan

{cell 260} {Blog}
-{ ?Computer games don?t affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we?d all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music.? (Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989.) }-

(Edited by DmS on 11-12-2004 10:08)

quote:

---

Civil union legislation could cover those types of issues and we wouldn't have to redefine marriage thereby creating a win-win situation.

---

Re-define marriage? I don't see marriage being redefined. I see it being opened.

If you want your view of marriage, I'm sure we can keep the original marriage how it is, allowing everyone to legally bind themselves to others in Marraige, and your Church can "sanction" your type of Marriages however they want.

I feel THAT is the best solution. You get to keep yours, others get to keep theirs, and those wanting to marry may, and have it be legally recognized.

Nobody gets ANYTHING forced upon them, and all partys retain what they want.

Bugimus:

quote:

---

When has that been the definition of marriage? We're talking about redefining marriage when we include same sex unions. What the church says about it is the church's business, I'm concerned with what the government is going to say about it.

---

Actually this is the definition of marriage for the government. Ok, I certainly went too fast to apply that to religious standards. Let's consider it as another thing I'll never understand with religious views.

quote:

---

Why do you need the government to officially recognize your marriage, WS? I don't want them intruding into this area unless they have a very good reason for doing so. I don't know how else to expand on what I've already said above about why I think the government has a legitimate reason for regulating how children are raised.

---

WebShaman's answer apply 100% for same sex unions.

Reading you questions about the reasons to legally recognize an heterosexual marriage makes me wonder even more why you're against same-sex marriage. Gays and lesbians just want the same rights and duties. It would be completely dumb to create a civil union that is EXACTLY like marriage at the only exception that it specify that the difference of sex of the 2 persons is not a requirement. What a waste of time. What an open minded solution.

quote:

---

DmS said:

If this situation consists of one or 2 biological parents or is based on an adoptation or whatever doesn't really matter.

---

DmS, it would seem we agree that a two parent loving famliy is best suited to raising children. We disagree about whether a two parent loving family consisting of a father and a mother is even better suited. I think it does matter. All things being equal, the best family consists of one man and one woman for the purposes of raising a child. That is the reason why the government should encourage and foster that family arrangement for society and hold it up as the ideal. I am not saying that is the only way to raise a child, that should be obvious.

I can assure you that my motivations for this position has nothing to do with a fear of gays and lesbians. I'm sure there are many who are motivated by that, however. I am only speaking for myself as usual. I am looking at this issue objectively and applying what I view as best for society. On a personal level, I tend to agree more with the rest of you on this. On an intellectual level, I simply cannot agree there is equality in any and all family arrangements.

If same sex marriage is approved does it mean that society will disintegrate overnight? The idea is absurd. There are so few gays and lesbians compared to the rest of the population that just isn't the issue. In fact, there are so many problems in the heterosexual world of families that are far more problematic. The government should be far more concerned about the deterioration of the family unit that already exists. Opening the definition of marriage would just add one more problem to the mix.

I know for a fact there are many very capable and loving gay couples who raise kids. I know for a fact that many of those families do a very good job compared to all the terrible heterosexual families out there. But that is not the point, is it? I hope this will become clearer about my position, the government should hold up an ideal family model to society and foster it by giving that arrangement preference. It should *not* prohibit all other family arrangements. Notice I am not referring to gays only in that last statement. Gays are not the only one asking for an opening of the definition of marriage.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

If you want your view of marriage, I'm sure we can keep the original marriage how it is, allowing everyone to legally bind themselves to others in Marraige, and your Church can "sanction" your type of Marriages however they want. I feel THAT is the best solution. You get to keep yours, others get to keep theirs, and those wanting to marry may, and have it be legally recognized.

---

Again, how this turns out does not change my marriage. It does not threaten my marriage. It has nothing to do with my marriage. If the state decided not to recognize my marriage, I would be relieved of one more government intrusion on my life.

If this was purely a question of personal choice on an individual level, then there would be no reason for all the fuss. Everyone would just do what they wanted. In fact, that is what I'm proposing. You are the ones who are saying the government needs to be *more* involved in our personal lives. As long as the government doesn't block inheritance, visiting rights, etc. for families then I would prefer to keep government intrusion at a minimum.

quote:

---

poi said:

Gays and lesbians just want the same rights and duties.

---

I understand your position. For you this is simply a question about equal rights. In all other areas of our society where it involves only each of us on an individual basis, I agree. None of us require government approval to marry. As stated by WS, I can still marry in my church but so can everyone else. That is the way it should be. We do what we want according to our own individual beliefs and the government should stay the hell out of it unless it has a good reason to intervene.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Bugs,
First, let me apologize. I somehow missed your response to me WAAAY back there. I'm a little slow in my old age, I guess.

I understand your position on gay marriage/union/civil rights/etc. very clearly. At least I think I do. We've had several comprehensive discussions on the issue.
I also understand that, among the right - especially the so-called "religious right" - you are an exception. You're a heathen, with barely a right to call yourself Christian, in the eyes of the "norm" of that wing of the conservative movement in the US today.
You are the anecdote.

Where I live, on the metaphorical buckle of the Bible belt, being openly gay can (and often does) result in the loss of employment and housing. I'm not talking about some wacko hillbillies. I live in an urban area, which happens to be right in the middle of the "red states" - the religious-right's base.
In some of the suburbs here around the city, we had prosecuters, sheriffs, councilmen and women and state senators and representatives running on platforms (and many were elected on platforms) that included such things as:
"Cracking down on sodomites"
"Stopping the gay agenda"
"Enforcing the state's sodomy laws"
"Keeping gays out of our schools"
etc.
In one local 4th of July parade, a GLBT group signed up to be in the parade. They were accepted, by the parade's organizers, to march with everyone else. A group of cops at the parade, right in the middle of the parade, stopped the parade and arrested most of the members of the group. They were held for 24 hours and let go, without charge. Why? Because they could.
Where I live, this "civil union" thing of which you speak, is the far left.



On the issue of abortion, I do "know it's more complicated than that".

Still, I disagree that it is a "human rights vs woman's right" thing. There are people, significant numbers of people, who think that a fetus is not human. There is no ultimate, undeniable definition of "human". The Jewish faith (again, speaking in generalities) says that a human doesn't exist until the first breath. Even simple nervous system functions don't occur until sometime around 20 weeks. The fetus can not sustain itself (with medical help or otherwise) outside of the womb until at least that point (and probably much later). Some Christians point to conception as the beginning of life. Some point before that and say that sperm and eggs are potential life, thus have the same rights - human rights.

This is a huge conversation, but ultimately the issue comes down to religious/philosophical doctrine. Christians (or Muslims or whomever) can not prove when a life begins any more or less than anyone else can. To then claim an exclusive right to do so is arrogant and irresponsible.
It is a personal issue; between a woman and her god (if she has one).



I mentioned the church on Sunday thing in response to Ramasax's assertion.

quote:

---

We on what you call exteme-right are supposed to have toleration of everything the left pushes at us, socialist economics, gay marriage, partial-birth abortion, humanistic values, the list goes on and on.

---

I wished to address the social issues, which, in order, were "gay marriage", "...abortion", and "humanistic values".
Going to church on Sundays was the only thing I could think of at the moment to address "humanistic values". Perhaps it wasn't the best example.

In retrospect, I could have addressed the teaching of evolution, gravity, thermodynamics, and other scientific theories in public schools. Or maybe I could have written about forcing Jewish students to pray to Jesus. Or...
There were a hundred things I could have chosen. I chose poorly.



My thesis, however, remains - that is, (with regard to social issues) there is not a double standard on the left.
The left, by and large, are happy to let you marry whomever you want, have as many children as you can support, teach them to pray before their tests, in whatever school you'd like.
The left only has a problem when you try to force your beliefs on me and mine.
(Of course, by "you" I don't specifically mean Bugimus, but anybody. And by "me", I don't specifically mean "mobrul", but anybody.)

(Edited by mobrul on 11-12-2004 19:27)

Bugs mobrul has exelent point...

when are humans will be able to live as humans? not man or woman, not black or white, not gay or straight, but humans?

A man himslef has invented an image of woman and woman follows so...this has been going to through history...man made up himself a religious system which dictates what woman is and what she does and what she should do and shouldnt do.
Same concept applies for view on homosexuals, view on marriege, and any other different people and things.

When are people going to be viewed equaly? I mean, during 1960s black people were still linched in USA. In 50s they still were not allowed to use same bathrooms, sit in the same public chair...all becasue of the color of their skin.
We have similar problem going on with homosexuals nowdays...11 states banned gay marriege, you can still get fired becasue of your sexual preference, governmet should keep them from raising children... blah blah blah neverending religious fear. as if society should live according to majorities religious believes, because it's "normal" or "righteous" in the 'eyes of magical being"
(remeber bugs, I am not talking about you here, just pointing out general view of prejudial homophobe. )

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

There are now Americans, prominent Americans, who are LEAVING the US! Robert Redfork, Jennifer Aninison and Brad Pitt, and others are leaving the States. Many are going to Canada.

---

I just received this via email and it confirms this disturbing trend.

quote:

---

Illegal Immigrants in Canada

The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has
intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop
the illegal immigration.

The re-election of President Bush is prompting the exodus among leftleaning
citizens who fear they?ll soon be required to hunt, pray and agree with Bill
O?Reilly.

Canadian border farmers say it?s not uncommon to see dozens of sociology
professors, animalrights activists and Unitarians crossing their fields at
night.

??I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood
producer huddled in the barn," said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose
acreage borders North Dakota.

The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry.

??He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken. When I
said I didn?t have any, he left. Didn?t even get a chance to show him my
screenplay, eh?"

In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences,
but the liberals scaled them. So he tried installing speakers that blare
Rush Limbaugh across the fields.

??Not real effective," he said. ??The liberals still got through, and Rush
annoyed the cows so much they wouldn?t give milk."

Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near
the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons, drive them across
the border and leave them to fend for themselves.

??A lot of these people are not prepared for rugged conditions," an Ontario
border patrolman said. ??I found one carload without a drop of drinking
water. They did have a nice little Napa Valley cabernet, though."

When liberals are caught, they?re sent back across the border, often wailing
loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors have been
circulating about the Bush administration establishing re-education camps in
which liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer and watch NASCAR.

In the days since the election, liberals have turned to sometimesingenious
ways of crossing the border.

Some have taken to posing as senior citizens on bus trips to buy cheap
Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half-dozen young vegans
disguised in powdered wigs, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping
buses and quizzing the supposed senior-citizen passengers.

??If they can?t identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we
get suspicious about their age," an official said.

Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating
an organic-broccoli shortage and renting all the good Susan Sarandon movies.

??I feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can?t
support them," an Ottawa resident said. ??How many art-history majors does
one country need?"

In an effort to ease tensions between the United States and Canada, Vice
President Dick Cheney met with the Canadian ambassador and pledged that the
administration would take steps to reassure liberals, a source close to
Cheney said.

??We?re going to have some Peter, Paul & Mary concerts. And we might put
some endangered species on postage stamps. The president is determined to
reach out."

Joe Blundo is a Dispatch columnist

---

I have no idea the source, I thought it was pretty funny though.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

^^
Heh.

The source.. http://www.dispatch.com/default.php?story=dispatch/columnists/columnists-main.php#blundo

For my part, I think this guy's got it about right:

quote:

---

Something to keep in mind, post presidential election, is that in the long run conservatives always lose. If this statement were not true, we would still be living in caves. We wouldn't have cell phones, vaccines, and rockets. Conservatives will never go to the stars. They are too busy trying to hold society back.

Every new idea that is introduced is liberal at first. The idea that the Earth is round and revolves around the Sun was denounced by conservative leaders at the time. Fact-based evolution is currently being denounced and taken out of some school curriculums, to be replaced, or taught side-by-side, with faith-based creationism. Faith has it's place for some people in society, but it didn't get us to the moon and beyond.

-- Roger Nygard

---

Here ya go Bugs, Lesbian couples raise well-adjusted teenagers

quote:

---

I can assure you that my motivations for this position has nothing to do with a fear of gays and lesbians. I'm sure there are many who are motivated by that, however. I am only speaking for myself as usual. I am looking at this issue objectively and applying what I view as best for society. On a personal level, I tend to agree more with the rest of you on this. On an intellectual level, I simply cannot agree there is equality in any and all family arrangements.

---

Irregardless of the best of intentions, Bugs, a law cannot be based on what you have just said. The constitution says that we are all created equal and deserve to be treated so. Since marriage is a legal institution, it must be open to all.

quote:

---

If this was purely a question of personal choice on an individual level, then there would be no reason for all the fuss. Everyone would just do what they wanted. In fact, that is what I'm proposing. You are the ones who are saying the government needs to be *more* involved in our personal lives. As long as the government doesn't block inheritance, visiting rights, etc. for families then I would prefer to keep government intrusion at a minimum.

---

This is simply not true! That is not what I am saying! The institution of marriage is a legal institution, Bugs! No-one here made it that way. Since that is so, it should include all people, not just heterosexuals. I see no-one here saying that the government should become "more" involved. I see the opposite - that more are saying, that the government should become less involved, by opening the legal aspect of marriage to homosexuals, as well!

Whoa! Who hijacked the thread?

I cant possibly read all that's above... personal obsessions are diluting my attention span right now.

Can someone do a rough sketch of what went zig or zag here?

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

*breaks out blue crayons*

Is it alright if I do it with mah feeties?

aha! Blue crayon, you say?

So you're the one responsible for the grafiti http://www.ozoneasylum.com/5067

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

"Hey look! There is a lever! I think I'll pull it!"

*Whoooosh!*

*WebShaman waves good-bye to Unknowncomic*

*UC smiles as lever snaps back and pokes WS's eye out..then he takes out his remote control and hits a series of buttons and a large hole opens in the ceiling and a huge net wisks UC out of the air and brings him safely to the ground*

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

*WebShaman camly puts the eye back in, and observes UC disappearing into the distance*

"Should have warned him about that Automatic Net Retrieval System!...Oh well. The Tentacle porn was getting lonely, anyway...hehe."