irateplatypus

I've got to voice my concern over some of the comments I've consistently read in many of these threads. The scapegoating of evangelical Christians because the candidate of a person's choice wasn't elected is getting out of hand. Some of the things posted are downright hateful and wouldn't be tolerated if they were directed at any other group.

Christians each possess a single vote. Their vote is worth no more or no less than any other. Some whine that Christians legislate morality... yet grievously complain when they simply cast a vote in opposition. Who desires to dominate the other?

You are no better than a Christian, fundamentalist or otherwise.

You are no smarter.

Your vote is not cast with more care or more wisdom.

You are just... different. Liberal tolerance is so often only extended to fellow liberals and the enemies of conservative philosophy.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Ustwo

Since as a rule the liberal elite like to sneer at anyone who openly says they are a Christian, they will have no problem 'blaming' them for the Bush victory.

Heaven forbid they look into their own wacky ideas to see why they were rejected.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

sprocket

This post is dead on. Good one irate

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

Manx

irateplatypus - you are confusing intolerance with intolerance of intolerance.

Liberals have NO issues with a fundamentalist living their life as a fundamentalist. It is the fundamentalist who wishes to control the liberal.

Projection of personal morals is unacceptable.

And further, it is not scapegoating. Bush won this election because liberals are more likely to live up to being a liberal: the non-projection of personal morals. As such, they are not as easily roused from sleep. Fundamentalist Christians eagerly desire their own beliefs to be shared, and forced, on others. This election was a moral referendum on our country - and because of the nature of the philosophy's of the opposing groups, the fundamentalists triumphed. And now it is a "mandate".

Carno

Don't blame Christians because they voted. Blame the liberals who weren't "roused from sleep" enough to vote. It's not the Christians' fault that sleepy liberals didn't vote. They could have voted, but they just didn't care enough.

Don't scream at people because they voted for Bush. Scream at the people who would have voted for Kerry but didn't.

In any case, the majority of the US wanted Bush. Nobody can deny that. Democrats wonder why Kerry didn't win, when the answer is in plain sight: MORE PEOPLE WANTED BUSH IN OFFICE.

I still wonder why the Democratic Party decided not to choose a Democratic candidate this election. Why would any sane person vote for Anybody But Bush? I'd much prefer to vote for an actual candidate.

Ustwo

Four years of 'hail to the thief'.

Four years of 'selected not elected'.

A premptive war.

Four years of hate and vitriol and the left was still sleeping?

What exactly does it take to wake them up?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Scipio

Yep, you called it. Evangelicals can do whatever the hell they want as long as they leave me alone. However, leaving everyone else alone doesn't seem to be in the cards:

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0411031109.asp

__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

mml

The Christian Right has every right to vote for whomever they choose. They have also proven time and again that they are ready, willing and able to get involved and to vote. If Dems are pissed that there is a strong Conservative, Christian movement withing the US, then they need to offer a viable alternative. I personally loathe the mixing of Church and State. I have a strong religious background,and frankly don't want God in my government nor do I want government in my God.

__________________
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
-Douglas Adams

Flyguy

Just like you right wingers sneer at anyone who is a liberal and call them "unpatrotic."

Anomaly_

Because you've made a single response to all the posts lamenting the Christian right, I feel I should set myself apart. I have never supported Kerry nor do I scapegoat evangelical Christians for the reelection of Bush. It goes without saying that their votes are cast with the same thought and conviction as anyone else's. I simply find it disturbing that this group, and even those much less religious, are energized by such issues as treating gays as second-class citizens. Out of the eleven states that passed a ban on gay marriage, eight of those also banned same-sex civil unions. Is this where America is headed? I don't find it comforting that with these bans, Bush is given a mandate to push forward with a constitutional amendment to waste more time on, what I consider, a non-issue.

Even though America will never be behind a man like Ralph Nader (whom I voted for), the least I could hope for is a Congress and President that are not so polarized by their personal religious beliefs. It seems at least half of America doesn't agree, and that just depresses me.

Scipio

I suppose a key part of it is that I and others view gay marriage (and some other issues) as a minority right, not as something the majority should be able to impose one way or the other.

__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

SecretMethod70

Irate, EXCELLENT post.

I agree that gay marriage is a minority right. In the end, I have confidence it will be found unconsitutional to ban it (and, maybe even, unconstitutional for the government to be giving "permission" to marry in the first place through marriage licenses). That's about the only real complaint though. If you want to complain about the gay marriage bans, that's fine. But scapegoating Bush's re-election is just silly.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Manx

It seems to me that to deny this election was won due to the "moral" issues of Fundamentalist Christians is the silly aspect.

Whether you believe it will be deemed unconstitutional to ban gay marriage has little to do with the reality that all 11 states which had it as a ballot initiative, passed it resoundingly.

Esen

Good thread and an important one.

If the majority of the country supported the republican view of religion then I guess they were heard and the election did exactly what it was supposed to do.

So many times I see people judging Bush and saying how he fooled people into voting for him. that all of his views are terrible that may becasue a lot of the libreal democrats may be blinded by thinking that there beleifs have to be correct.
That any opposition to them has to be off its rocker.

for the record no I do not agree with all of the Republican values but some key issues to me are represented by them.

__________________
~Esen
What is everyone doing in my room?

ShaniFaye

I've stated this elsewhere....I believe in God, I do not believe in "religion" I do not go to church but my child does (with her grandmother) because it is up to HER to decide what she believes...I grew up in church and as I got older realized that its full of nothing but hipocrites and preachers telling congregations from the pulpit what to vote for. That being said......Im a republican....as another person said...the KEY issues of the party are what I believe in.

Im tired of being called gullible or misled or blind because...whoops I believe in God AND I believe in Bush, and god forbid what I think is important doesnt coincide with what others do...well let me tell some of the people that want to "blame" christians for Bush being re elected....Its not OUR fault enuff people didnt get off their butts to make a difference...Maybe its time for people to realize that belief in God is not a past time or a dead issue....if you WANT to believe that people that re elected him are all "moral" "religious" people...think again....I have morals when it comes to how I treat other people....but if I were Catholic I'd be in a confessional for the rest of my life...as would most of the other "religious" people I know...I know SEVERAL, and when I say several I mean more than about 50 atheists/agnostics that believe in Bush just as much as I do, and "moriality" and "religion" had no play in their vote for him.

I've seen posts here and elsewhere from people telling people to stop being a sheep...vote for the 3rd party, many of them from what I can tell JUST to vote for a 3rd party...somebody tell me how that translates into not being a "sheep" The people that say that are no better than the preachers (IMO) that tell their followers who to vote for bercause they want a heard of people voting for something they dont believe in JUST to take the herd in a different directions.

Im am flat out disgusted with the attitudes of the anti bush people...I saw a post (not here) where someone said

Well wait just a darned minute.....Im educated, Im skilled, Im pro environment, Im pro choice....and I wouldnt have voted for Kerry if you'd paid me too

Im not "religious" I voted no on the gay marriage ban, I think abortion should be legal and I agree with stem cell research.....and I voted for Bush, HE is the man I want running this country in this day and age.

Im also for the decrim of marijuana

Its attitudes like keep getting posted here that are going to keep our country from moving forward at all.

Please quit blaming the "christians" and the "moral" people because we are proud enuff and responsible enuff to get out and have our vote count

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

Superbelt

I won't scapegoat the Evangelicals. They won, they had more desire to see Bush get reelected and have his agenda passed than we did to get him out. For that we now reap what we sow. I am sad that they got their way. I am scared for the direction I see this country now taking, but I won't malign them.

I, openly, am a christian. lapsed catholic actually (and getting more lapsed by the day). I wear a crucifix daily, I am proud of my beliefs. As a liberal, I know everyone should be able to live as they want. The imposition of christian fundamentalism scares me. The buzz words being thrown around are "Moral Issues" for the predominant reason why people voted for Bush. Not terrorism, not our economy. And that buzz word is just code for gay rights, abortion, indecency on television and radio. I see this vote as finally pushing TFP, my favorite place on the web, into the counterculture. Everything about this election has been a decision against what this place stands for. I find it ironic and disheartening that people who are part of this community don't realize this.
It scares me that our people would vote religion into government when religion is a personal thing and should be carried out by individuals and community, not legislation.

I am angry at liberals in america who are so apathetic they refuse to vote their interest. As a movement, liberals don't act until we are completely backed into the corner. I mourn the loss of freedom to follow our own path in this country.

ARTelevision

You won't be finding a more non-religious person than myself. I have no use for it at all. That being said, I have no problem with the kind of government that is created by the`will of the people expressed by their votes. If a majority of voters want a more traditionally religious representation in their government, then it's a political issue. I don't have an interest in disenfranchisiing any point of view.

__________________
create evolution

Bookman

I tip my hat to you!!!

cthulu23

Do you actually believe in this liberal caricature that you reference so often or is it just a political gambit? Whatever the case, it is far removed from reality. Maybe Rush shouldn't be a primary source in a political belief system....

Edit: hey, the elections over...why not lose that incredibly deceptive sig? Do we need to carry our campaign lies into the next four years? I've often been curious just why you sported it when you knew that the full quote actually meant the opposite of your intended point. Is victory worth deception of the self and others?

Bookman

It is utterly ridiculous that people can IGNORE the major issues of the last four years.
1. The 2000 election for a starter.
2. The lack of investigation into the 9-11 tragedy.
3. The aggression in Afghanistan; which if you dont know has OPENED the floodgates for OPIUM production.
4. The War in IRAQ. This issue is so important to our history and in a true court of law OUR WHOLE COUNTRY COULD BE SENT TO JAIL for our actions.
5. The economy and tax issues.
6. The simple fact that people dress for success..you want your mouthpiece to sound educated. I dont think with Kerry there would be a Democratic set/group or Bildebergers, Rockefellers and Rothschilds et al., pushing the buttons...Kerry would be making the same kind of moves...bu t the manner in which GWB rationalized the USA's activities to the world was straight up ignorant.

People ignore all of this because of Gay Marriage & Abortion?
Then tell us that our supposed enemies hate us because we are FREE?!?!? As a whole we are not free, we are a bunch of standing & walking in line non-thinkers.

gcbrowni

I seldom say this, but this position is absolutly insane and deluded. Afghanistan is the most justifiable military action by the US since WW2. Your views on it automatically make me question your views on any other issue, and ignore you.

__________________
From the day of his birth Gilgamesh was called by name.

Bookman

Please just justify instead of telling me how you feel about me.

The Opium harvest is now in full swing....Osama is stil making tapes. Although I dont really consider Osama as authentic more like a stooge the fact remains that calling AFG a terrorist hotbed over a few shoddy videos and not considering elsewhere in the world is a bit scripted.

ShaniFaye

You mean to sit there and tell us that the agression towards Afghanistan is a bad thing? You mean to sit there and tell us that we shouldnt be aggressive to a country that harbors terrorists ESPECIALLY OBL? Hell the UN issued sanctions in 2000 because the Taliban was harboring him

http://usembassy.state.gov/islamabad/wwwh00122102.html


If you honestly believe the agression towards that country from the US is unfounded then I have to agree that that opinion is the most deluded I've heard on this board

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

Superbelt

Ok, getting back to WHY Bush won, since terrorism was not the factor. Moral Issues. We had a vote on a Constitutional amendment to forever ban gays from marriage. That put everyone on record, (Senate, congress and both pres candidates). And 11 states added such legislation to their own constitutions. It is these people who created the majority for Bush to win. Kerry actually won the liberal (86-13) AND the moderate vote (55-45) (as self described). Conservatives came out and voted for hate in great numbers and gave it to Bush by an (84-15) margin.
It is solace, small solace, but still solace to know that the moderates in america, largely did not support this. It's just incredibly distressing to know the most active segment of the american electorate voted to overwhelm us.

This is the base that elected Bush
link

Bookman

I believe if it is a blunder if we didnt get the intended target, killed MANY civilians, didnt wipe out the Taliban and now the drug opium is being harvested like its all good.

MSD

I don't have a problem with fundamentalists electing one of their own, I have a problem with politicians who belive that it is their divine mandate to impose their beliefs on me and on my fellow Americans.

ravenradiodj

I don't think the gay marriage issue had anything to do with it for MOST voters.

I have to agree with Manx on this one, my problem with fundamentalist Christians, generally speaking (not all of them are like this, but most are), is their habit of believing that they're right and everyone else is wrong, of pushing their belief system down everyone's throat. To anyone who says they don't, ask them how they feel about prayer in public schools. It is absolutely undoubtedly a violation of the separation of church and state, and yet all of them believe, no, INSIST that they have a right to it, and if you oppose them, you're doing Lucifer's work.

"Allah" is merely the Arabic word for "God". Ask them if they would object to a teacher of Arabic descent stating "one nation under Allah" in class, and you'll find out just how intolerant and self-righteous these people are.

I am a pagan minister who regularly feels the scorn, disdain and obsessive drive to "save" everyone else that this group feels for anyone not a part of it. There are exceptions, yes, fine individuals who are fundamentalist who disagree with me entirely, yet who remains my friends, respect my views, and, hey, can even go through a normal day without mentioning Jesus to other people 753 times.

I have no problem with Jeheshua Bar Joseph, the man you erroneously call Jesus. It's the majority of his followers that I have a problem with.

I wonder how Christian it is to drop napalm on civilians, including children, in violation of a UN Resolution banning napalm that we signed years ago. I wonder how Christian it is to use depleted uranium bunkerbuster bombs that cause radiation sickness and mutated fetuses for control of the world's oil in an act of military aggression without legal standing (yes, another UN resolution violated, making every death in this war a murder). So many of you walk around with "What Would Jesus Do?" shirts and stickers. I'd like to hear your answer. Anyone here picturing Jesus firing an automatic rifle into a crowd? Anyone here imagining Jesus saying he'd murder another man for making a pass at him (as REVEREND Jimmy Swaggart recently said, presumably not in the presence of one of his hookers).

I have zero problem with your belief system, and will always defend your right to believe what you wish to believe. But the collective hypocrisy of this group of people, who are the majority of voters in this country, and their bias against anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with them, is nauseating.

One last suggestion: the next time a fundamentalist Christian tells you that his religion doesn't dictate his politics, ask him if he'd vote for a candidate who agreed with his position on absolutely every issue, but the candidate was a Muslim, or a Pagan, or an atheist.

Gotta go, someone's knocking on the door, perhaps it's the FBI coming to "liberate" me from my civil rights.

roachboy

i have not understood, and still do not understand, why folk find it so easy to move from opposing a political position--in this case the mobilization of protestant fundamentalists as a political block in significant areas of the the country--to attacking the people who make up that bloc---i sometimes do not understand why i find it so easy myself.

because it does not help anything.
it does not constitute an analysis.
and what seems clear to me at least is that understanding what happened in this election is pretty important.

1. the "red states" were often themselves highly divided. so the situation nationally is not red/blue--unanimity in the "red" areas is far far far from accomplished.

but what you are looking out there at is the result of a really successful, highly organized political mobilization undertaken by the right.

their success in creating a politics force of protestant fundamentalists is an imposing achievement--ironically one that runs directly counter to the ideological emphasis on individuals---even the right knows that if you focus on individuals, you evicerate yourself politically--power comes for collective mobilization. their own political position is evidence of that. so i guess what is important for the right is that people who are not in positions of pwer understand the world in terms of isolated individuals so as to maintain powerlessness--but that the machine is itself not bound by the ideology it manufactures.

the discourse of the right works is designed to make and maintain a sharp division between inside and outside.

it is structured as a double of a religious belief system, but is not itself one.

it seems to involve a control of the premises for political debate that pretty much insures that folk inside and those outside conservativeland will talk by each other.

so it poses analytic problems that are similar to those of the sociology of religion--explaining belief from an outside position does not coincide with teh views of those who believe--i might understand conservative discourse as a flight from uncertainty caused by globalizing capitalism, but saying it is probably not going to make much impact on someone who believes.

what is unnerving in all this is the simple power of the discursive space.
what is reassuring is that its power is far from uniform, even in the areas where it mobilized--to a certain extent--a majority.
what is a problem is that is seems too easy to confuse the surface features of conservative discourse (see above) for the nature of the constiuency.
if all there was to the right was protestant fundamentalists, they would be a marginal party.
i think it is a distraction to focus too heavily on this element.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Ustwo

Yep, I only have to look at these boards to reinforce it.

What I don't get is why so few liberals are proud to say they are liberal. Is it because Reagan made it a dirty word? If you believe it, shout it out, say this is who you are, this is how I think society should be run.

Of course that would never get them elected, but at least they would be honest.

Love him or loathe him, everyone knows where GWB will stand on an issue. He will state quite openly what he believes. When I voted for Bush I knew what I was getting, and I don’t like all of it, but I knew I could live with it. When I looked at Kerry I had no idea how he would react to certain issues. Sometimes he was a hawk, sometimes a dove, sometimes a hippie. Some of Kerry’s interviews and speeches before he went for the nomination I would have thought ‘here is a good democrat I can live with’, but again speeches are just words. When you look at Kerry’s actions and inactions in the senate it tells another story. So should I have believed what he said or what he did? Should I think he will be a different man as president then he was as a 20 year senator? Should I listen to the hawk Kerry of 1998, or was he just saying things to be in lock step with Clinton? Should I listen to the dove of primary or the moderate of the presidential campaign?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Charlatan

I think what many are reacting to is the fundamental belief that religion and politics should remain seperate.

The Bush stratigests purposefully played the religion card. They motivated a segment of society that views God (and the morality that God implies) to get out and vote for someone who shares their belief. The evangelical sector of America is *very* organised and *very* motivated.

I see no need to scapegoat or blame. I just sit back in awe at their determination and drive. I sit back in awe the same way I would of any special interest group that manages to tip the balance in their favour (be that the NAACP, Gay, White Supremists, Parents in need of daycare).

If anything, this has convinced me just how strong a figure God is in American politics (right or wrong). The people who are upset by this, generally speaking, just can't fathom the depth of faith many of these people have. I know I can't.

To me (and many others) God has no place in politics. This is one of the few things I am absolutely firm on when it comes to the political sphere. It toubles me to my core when I think that God will have anything to do with the direction in which *any* country will be steered.


(by the way... I AM A LIBERAL thinking and acting person... damn proud of it... but then I am Canadian so it's to be expected, isn't it)

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

ARTelevision

Right - so it is a conflict of belief systems. Both sides need to comprehend that they are both battling for their beliefs. In brief, belief is always politicalized.

__________________
create evolution

cthulu23

If I judged all conservatives by the actions of a few posters here than I, too, might have such a skewed, venomous, downright dishonest view of the polotical opposition. Thankfully, I am more honest with myself.

20+ years of propaganda HAVE made liberal a dirty word. I've always given Republicans credit for their success in redefining the political vocabulary in this country. Of course, that's had the effect of narrowing the political spectrum in this country so that the accepted bounds now stretch from centrist left to far right (ie - Coburn). The country will suffer from this paucity of viewpoints.

If honesty is so important to you than why will you never respond to the comments made about your own little piece of propaganda you call your sig? Apparently, some standards only apply to the other guy.

Superbelt

Yes, you know what you got with Bush. You got eight new states who now restrict all relationship rights to gay couples. No more legal right to visit a spouse in hospital, to pass on property, to be secure in the legal status of their children.

America put the minority population of homosexuality up for referendum, and the minority lost. What this country achieved between the wee hours of November 2 and 3 was the collective terrorizing of all homosexuals in america. For anyone here who knows gay people, ask them what they think of 11 states banning their union and some of the most virulent anti-gay legislators being elected to the senate. They are terrified right now, and rightfully so.

The legacy of the 2004 election, the one that gave the Republicans a larger majority among all branches of government is the oppression of homosexuals. You rode that to victory. Can you enjoy it and justify it? I see it as no better the realignment of the south to the Republican after Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. That's nothing to be proud of.

We don't know everything that Kerry would have done, but it wouldn't have been to surf on this. What we just did is the antithesis of what America stands for.

Stompy

I think a lot of people are getting confused, or at least are misunderstanding others.

If everyone in the country but me was christian and voted Pat Roberston into president, then whatever - it's just that any law that his administration imposes had better not be one that attempts to control my actions based on their morals or beliefs.

That's what people aren't understanding here. There are a LOT of conservative ideas that I like, but one thing about conservatives I can't stand is their constant need to try and control how others live through moral law. It makes no sense and really does go against everything this country was built upon.

And I know some goon is just WAITING to harp on this post and reply with some junk like, "Yeah, you think you should be able to murder, huh?! or Rape/steal/whatever". No.

The reality is, Bush being president won't affect *me* personally, but may affect society due to his religious beliefs influencing his decisions - especially in the area of science (stem cell research). Same for gay marriage, etc.. It's like when a black/white couple couldn't get married, that was pretty stupid. We agree now, so how is it any different for same sex? It's not.

I think we can all agree (as conservatives, liberals, etc) at this point in time that it was a good idea to stop slavery and to stop racial segregation. So... why continue the same ignorant thinking with another group of people?

Prime example of people using their beliefs to control what others do. Sorry if you don't agree, but it's wrong.

This country was founded by men who were religious and believed in god, but the foundation of this country states that no religion shall be forced on anyone else, so why do it? Why is it okay to create laws based around beliefs that one person has, but others don't?

There are certain givens that should be law, such as murder, stealing, rape, etc, but then there are items (like stem cell reasearch) that, if it wasn't for religion, would have no problems at all trying to stay afloat in our society.

Believe in whatever you want - live your life the way you want, but don't take any trivial beliefs you have and try to apply them to all of society.

*That* is the problem that most people have, not "oh, Christians suck."

__________________
I love lamp.

Willravel

Delicious post, Stopmy. You hit the nail on the head. Philosophical morality is different than social morality.

aliali

Everyone who has power takes their beliefs, trivial or not, and applies them to all of society through legislation. Why would you run on something and then not put it into action once elected? Kerry ran on a bunch of beliefs in the power and role of government as applied to individual issues (by the way, he was anti gay marriage). The problem for most of you here isn't that they are christians or that their motives are bad, its that they won.

And it isn't just the Bush people and the christians who oppose gay marriage. John Kerry does. Look at the returns on this issue. These were landslides.

As to those who think gay marriage is some sort of right, tell me where you think it is in the constitution and then let me know if you oppose all gun control and registration.

Superbelt

Just because it's a landslide doesn't make it right. The returns on the issues against gays wasn't just to restrict gay marriage, it was to restrict any and all rights to gay couples. 8 new states now restrict all legal rights that a gay couple could have by being a couple. No civil unions, no visitation rights in the hospital, no common property with partner inheritance rights, no rights to children in the birth parent dies.

BTW, Marriage, for straight people isn't in the constitution either.
And that argument "think gay marriage is some sort of right, tell me where you think it is in the constitution" was used to keep interracial couples from legally marrying until the late 1960's as well.

Stompy

Oooh the hypocrisy! It's just as much of a right for them as it is for you. What makes you any more special, and why? Show me where in the constitution where you have the right to get married!

That's another thing I get upset about: constant contradtiction.

Now, give me one good (intelligent and coherent) reason why a gay couple shouldn't be married Oh, and when you do, perhaps substitute "gay couple" with "black couple" or "hispanic couple"... do you notice that it's the same idea? *gasp* There are DIFFERENT people in this country?! Whoa!

I don't oppose gun control in the slightest bit. I fully support the second amendment.

That means something - necessary to the security of a free State. You can't defend a free state with a small pistol compared to the weapons our military and police carry. I think we should be able to own an Uzi or an AK-47 if we want.

__________________
I love lamp.

Superbelt

I also wonder why, just because I don't vote republican, am against Bush and against most every bit of his platform, that I am immediately assumed to be an anti-gun nut.

Odd, but an expected stereotype.

ShaniFaye

What does the right to vote have to do with getting married?

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!