Jump to content

Things i dislike about george w bush


Saintsfan

Recommended Posts

they better stop letting anyone that's not irish march in the parade tool, huh?

LOL

Those are politicans and they are always phony in parades any way.

ecyclopedia.gif

www.sportsecyclopedia.com

For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at

http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com

champssigtank.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 164
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I am tired of being force-fed gayness through the media and pop culture. You wanna stick your dick in some dudes ass, fine, i just don't wanna know about it. I don't go flapping my wang about saying "Hey man, i stick this in vaginas!!!"

You're gay, fine, keep it in the bedroom cheif.

Stay Tuned Sports Podcast
sB9ijEj.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am tired of being force-fed gayness through the media and pop culture. You wanna stick your dick in some dudes ass, fine, i just don't wanna know about it. I don't go flapping my wang about saying "Hey man, i stick this in vaginas!!!"

You're gay, fine, keep it in the bedroom cheif.

but 90% of the advertising on television is all about trying to get some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Know what, JQK.. for once.. i agree. I dont wanna know about ANY of it...

Thats why when Will and Grace (or the Man Show for that matter) comes on, we are all free to either tune in, or turn off the TV

NCFA Sunset Beach Tech - Octopi

 

ΓΔΒ!

 

Going to college gets you closer to the real world, kind of like climbing a tree gets you closer to the moon.

"...a nice illustration of what you get when skill, talent, and precedent are deducted from 'creativity.' " - James Howard Kunstler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Know what, JQK.. for once.. i agree. I dont wanna know about ANY of it...

Thats why when Will and Grace (or the Man Show for that matter) comes on, we are all free to either tune in, or turn off the TV

It shouldn't be on the TV to begin with....

You wanna but that crap on HBO, or Showtime, whatever, fine, because that's pay cable, you have the choice of seeing it there or not. Broadcast TV isn't the place to air that crap...

Stay Tuned Sports Podcast
sB9ijEj.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, when do we get to make heterosexuals stop flaunting their sexuality in the media, eh?  Is a gay kiss any different from a straight kiss?

Buy some t-shirts and stuff at KJ Shop!

KJ BrandedBehance portfolio

 

POTD 2013-08-22

On 7/14/2012 at 2:20 AM, tajmccall said:

When it comes to style, ya'll really should listen to Kev.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My view: Welcome to the mainstream...I hope you know a good divorce lawyer.

You don't have to call it marriage, but there should be some sort of universally recognized legal status for 'permanant' homosexual relationships. At the same time, they should have to be 'married' in order to enjoy the same benefits as married heterosexuals.

Right now, a lot of things that have been put into place to protect homosexuals from discrimination are pretty much unfair because they don't apply equally to unmarried heterosexual couples.

Specifically, I don't like the fact that many companies allow gay people to get insurance for their partners, but straight people can't unless they are married. It's unfair that they can have the benefits of marriage without the responsibilities that come with it.

facebook.png twitter.pngblogger.pngflickr-1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The entire notion that the government should have any say in what constitutes a "marriage" is absolutely assenine.

My marriage was - in fact, is - the sanctified religious commitment in which my wife and I have pledged ourselves to each other before God. The government has nothing - NOTHING - to do with that commitment. It cannot add legitimacy to the sanctity... it cannot take legitimacy away from what we have commited to in the eyes of our God. "What God has joined, let no man put asunder." No man, and no earthly governmental authority.

What government CAN regulate with regard to a couple's domestic commitment to one another are various legal issues arising from said commitment: i.e. ownership of property, access to benefits, etc. That is not "marriage". Ironically enough these government regulations define a "civil union". The various legal forms that federal, state and local governmental bodies have you fill out prior to commencing with a religious marriage commitment might say "Marriage Certificate" at the top, but in reality they should read "Civil Union Certificate"... regardless of whether or not the couple is straight, gay or asexual. Why? Because, these forms - and the laws they pertain to - deal with the CIVIL nature of a couple's commitment to one another... not the SACRED.

Added to this is the fact that in the United States we supposedly live in a society where there is a separation between church and state. Therefore, how does the state, via it's governmental bodies, presume to tell me what constitutes a "marriage", if I feel that my marriage is a sanctified religious commitment before God? Frankly, under our system, it shouldn't.

I also can't understand the argument that allowing homosexuals to enter into "marriage" somehow demeans the sanctified commitment between God, my wife and I. As long as we're committed to each other, I don't care what other "marriages" or "civil unions" - straight or gay - are doing. What makes our marriage legitimate is our state of commitment to one another before God. I truly feel sorry for those people who are apparently more caught up in, and concerned with, defining what "marriage" is for others, rather than simply finding strength and taking solace in their own commitment to one another. It's sad. My wife and I didn't get married thinking that we needed a government body or agency to legitimize our union. We didn't get married thinking that anybody else's partnership could legitimize or delegitimize our own.

It's awfully odd that conservatives complain about the "big government" of liberals. They complain about how "big government" translates into the liberals wanting to stick their nose in where it doesn't belong. They complain about how liberal "big government" programs are seeking to "regulate" aspects of life that the political system really shouldn't be overseeing: healthcare, affirmative action, environmental oversight, etc.

Yet, it's not "big government" when conservatives want to legislate away a woman's right to make choices concerning abortion (I love the line that says if men could get pregnant, abortion would be protected by a constitutional amendment by now.). It's not "big government" when conservatives come down in favor of term limits which would seek to take away the electorate's right to choose how long they want an elected official to serve in office (I'm more than capable of making educated choices on whom I want in office and for how long, thank you.). And it's not "big government sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong" when conservatives want to dictate what constitutes a "marriage". Give me a break!

I find it ironic that George W. Bush has labeled the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling on marriage as "deeply troubling" because it was the work of "activist judges", as opposed to being the result of debate from elected officials in Congress, or the will of the majority of the American public. Are these the same type of "activist judges" who anointed him president in 2000? If so, then why didn't George W. Bush deem those five conservative Supreme Court justices "activists" back in 2000? After all, George W. Bush's selection to be president certainly wasn't debated by elected officials in Congress, and it certainly wasn't the will of the majority of the American people, seeing as he lost the popular vote by a half a million votes. Could it be that George W. Bush is all for rulings by "activist judges" that come down in his favor, but against rulings by "activist judges" that don't support his agenda? Sounds awfully hypocritical to me.

Equally hypocritical was Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's statement that the issue of "gay marriage" was "too important to leave to a one-vote [court] majority". Again, we've got a "conservative" leader who seems to have forgotten that we left the selection of our president to a one-vote majority in the Supreme Court in 2000. Again, it sounds an awful lot like hypocrisy.

Brian in Boston

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and with that we are done. Please avoid further embarassment, and lets just leave it here. BiB again, full of insight and wisdom.

NCFA Sunset Beach Tech - Octopi

 

ΓΔΒ!

 

Going to college gets you closer to the real world, kind of like climbing a tree gets you closer to the moon.

"...a nice illustration of what you get when skill, talent, and precedent are deducted from 'creativity.' " - James Howard Kunstler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marriage becomes involved with goverment because of taxes on married couples, the benifits from marriage, ect, ect, so to say the government has no role in marriage is a very stupid and uneducated statement.

Stay Tuned Sports Podcast
sB9ijEj.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly I don't know if the government is NOT involved with anything... you know it's kinda suspicious with Kasay stupidly kicking the kickoff out of bounds... maybe he was paid to do it so that the Patriots can be the "America's team" of the decade. Maybe it's the Republican party building Tom Brady to be a future president of the USA? HUH! DID YOU EVER THINK ABOOT THAT, EH?

From a proud Canadian...

ccslcbanner_zps5eda8538.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marriage becomes involved with goverment because of taxes on married couples, the benifits from marriage, ect, ect, so to say the government has no role in marriage is a very stupid and uneducated statement.

You didn't read very thoroughly.  He made a distinction between what he called "civil unions," or the governmental sanctioning of the partnership, and "marriage," which is external to the government's involvement.

Buy some t-shirts and stuff at KJ Shop!

KJ BrandedBehance portfolio

 

POTD 2013-08-22

On 7/14/2012 at 2:20 AM, tajmccall said:

When it comes to style, ya'll really should listen to Kev.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J. Quincy King...

Call my argument a case of "semantics" if you will (not that I agree with that assessment), but please don't call it "stupid" and "uneducated".

As my post made abundantly clear, I see a distinction between a "marriage" and a "civil union". It's my argument that a "marriage" is a "sanctified religious commitment before God". It is a commitment between the two parties entering into the "marriage" and their God. It's legitimacy is an issue between the parties involved and their God. It is a sacred and not a civil contract that is entered into.

A "civil union" is the contract that is entered into between these parties and the government. It has nothing to do with the sacred, since our particular brand of government calls for a separation between church and state. Rather, it touches upon the civil/legal issues (such as ownership of property, benefits, taxes, etc.) that arise when the aforementioned parties enter into a domestic partnership.

So, while I believe that the government certainly is going to play a role in the civil arrangement that has arisen out of my wife and I entering into a "marriage", I don't consider that civil arrangement to BE my marriage.

After all, if all of the various Federal/State/Local governmental licenses, forms and certificates that my wife and I filled out prior to our marriage were to be lost or destoyed, it goes without saying that we would still be "married". Certainly, some bureaucratic "automaton" in a government office might beg to differ, but it would not change the sacred nature of the commitment my wife and I have made to one another before God.

You and I agree on the fact that the government can and will regulate and legislate certain aspects of my domestic partnership with my wife. However, I see the civil aspects of that partnership as a "civil union"... that's what I believe the government controls.

My "marriage" is an entirely different story. That belongs to my God, my wife and I. No matter what the government might say.

Brian in Boston

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As my post made abundantly clear, I see a distinction between a "marriage" and a "civil union". It's my argument that a "marriage" is a "sanctified religious commitment before God". It is a commitment between the two parties entering into the "marriage" and their God. It's legitimacy is an issue between the parties involved and their God. It is a sacred and not a civil contract that is entered into.

I would like to think one wouldn't have to believe in a God to enter into marriage.

Unless I missed your point, which I probably did.

---

Chris Creamer
Founder/Editor, SportsLogos.Net

 

"The Mothership" News Facebook X/Twitter Instagram

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.