question for those who voted for Bush the last 2 elections


Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board (within reason). The forum is now closed.

Postby eldrick » Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:38 pm

tandfman wrote:
eldrick wrote:this was unfinished business

W was just completing the job his father pathetically didn't do 12y before - namely oust that monster saddam

the world & his dog wanted saddam finished in '91 & why so much opprobrium that W did the job finally ?

Because a lot had changed in the intervening years. The fact that Saddam was a monster does not mean it made sense to oust him as we did and when we did.


what had changed ?

he no longer was a threat to kuwait/saudi ?
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby kuha » Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:39 pm

Lonewolf is smart, successful, and an absolute gentleman. That doesn't mean I agree with his viewpoint, however.

There's little doubt in my mind that the Iraq adventure will be seen as an absolute fiasco. Ironically, it seems likely that it will be under the watch of the "tough" and "ultra-patriotic" Republicans that America turned, once and for all, from the world's most respected and powerful nation to something much less than that. Imperial power cannot be maintained forever. And imperial power coupled with arrogance and ignorance (which is precisely what we've witnessed in the current adminstration) is sure to come to a bad end. In hindsight, one truly catatrosphic result of the Iraq invasion was to uncap the religious furies of the region by removing a resolutely secular dictator. That country will now almost certainly end up allied to Iran. The intended consequences of this policy were highly debatable from the start. The unintended consequences could be pretty horrific. The Bush adminstration has been one of the very worst in the entire history of our nation.
kuha
 
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby eldrick » Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:42 pm

bad hammy wrote:By 2003 we would have been better off letting Sadman die of natural causes or internal strife. No one is weeping for the guy, but it was not worth what we have put into it.


let me give a professional opinion

he was strong as an ox !

if dying of natural causes meant him being in power for another 20y ( & killing countless more people ), then invade sooner than later !
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby bad hammy » Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:42 pm

kuha wrote:The intended consequences of this policy were highly debatable from the start. The unintended consequences could be pretty horrific. The Bush adminstration has been one of the very worst in the entire history of our nation.

Oh come on, man, don't hold back!
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: question for those who voted for Bush the last 2 electio

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:42 pm

mump boy wrote:now you're agreeing with me so my work here i done :D


What do you mean by 'now'? That has always been my position. Nothing has changed.

Maike may disagree with me, but he sure can't say I'm not a Christian (well, as Christian as any of us can try to be).

No gay marriage? That is a semantic sleight of hand to say two homosexuals who say their vows are NOT married. Of course they are. Some may not 'recognize' that marriage, but that's their issue, including states that say it isn't (civil union, my Aunt Fanny - I know lots of heterosexual 'marriages' that aren't very civil!)
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby SQUACKEE » Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:47 pm

I know someone who was in a cab with an exilled- Iraqie and he asked him if he liked George Bush and he responded," No, i dont like George Bush, i love him. My family was tortured." I am not making this up and it did happen, make of it what you will...and my God bless everyone :D . disclaimer-i am not a right wing nut job and dont play one on TV.

Is saving his family worth my only son risking his life in combat.....i dont know.
Last edited by SQUACKEE on Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby bad hammy » Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:49 pm

eldrick wrote:if dying of natural causes meant him being in power for another 20y ( & killing countless more people ), then invade sooner than later !

In 2003 he wasn't killing us or his neighbors. If you feel like going after every government which kills its own people then get your own PM to take the lead. You have a lot of work ahead of you . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby kuha » Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:56 pm

bad hammy wrote:
kuha wrote:The intended consequences of this policy were highly debatable from the start. The unintended consequences could be pretty horrific. The Bush adminstration has been one of the very worst in the entire history of our nation.

Oh come on, man, don't hold back!


Believe it or not, I have.
kuha
 
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:20 pm

Lonewolf, with all due respect, your narrative of the Iraq War is typical of an American nationalist. You talk as though the US has never done anything to give Arabs/Muslims a reason to feel animosity towards it. Surely you know that the US overthrew Iran's democratically elected government in 1953 in order to install a puppet dictator.

And everyone knows that the US was a major arms supplier for Saddam when he launched his unprovoked war against Iran in the 1980's. As a matter of fact, such was our duplicity, that at one time we were supplying Iran and Iraq at the same time.

And you probably know that we supplied Saddam with the chemical weapons that he used not only against Iran but also his own people. A little known fact is that when Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds, U.N. resolutions were proposed that would have brought condemnation and perhaps even sanctions against Iraq. These resolutions were widely supported by Europe, including the U.K., France and Germany, Saddam's neighbors, including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and most of the rest of the international community. But there was one, and only one, nation that opposed this resolution and which used its U.N. veto to block it. That nation was the United States of America whose sitting President was Ronald Reagan. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how Saddam's atrocities against the Kurds did not even warrant a U.N. condemnation at the time they happened, but were used to justify an unprovoked, preemptive war 15 years after the fact.

And of course there is Israel, a nation that was created as a home for European Jews who had survived the Holocaust at the hands of Europeans, by usurping innocent Palestinians without compensation. For the last 60 years, the US has guaranteed Israel's military supremacy which has enabled it to keep it's boot on the neck of the Palestinians, but some Americans just can't understand why Arabs would hold this against us.

There's plenty more that I could point out about our treatment of Arabs/Muslims since WWII, but suffice it to say, if some other country did only a fraction of the things to us that we've done to them, I think it's fair to say that we would feel plenty of animosity towards them.
George Orwell wrote:All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage-torture, the use of hostages, forced labor, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians-which does not change its moral color when committed by ‘our’ side.… The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.... A known fact may be so unbearable that it is habitually pushed aside and not allowed to enter into logical processes, or on the other hand it may enter into every calculation and yet never be admitted as a fact, even in one’s own mind.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby lonewolf » Tue Oct 28, 2008 8:29 pm

jazz, I don't consider myself a "nationalist" as in "my country, right or wrong." anymore than I am sure you do not consider ourself an anti-nationalist as the tenor of your condemnation of America suggests.

I am well aware of the facts and allegations you cite. I do not propose to do it but given time and a little research I am confident I can find examples of tit for tat " mistakes", if that is what they were, made by every administration.

World conditions change, enemies become allies and vice versa. I don't believe new mistakes should be made on the basis of old actions that may have subsequently caused second thoughts. That is armchair quarterbacking after the fact.

Smarter people than I have been debating the Palestine imbroligo without resolution for seventy years. One argument is that Jews occupied that area two thousand years before the concept of a Palestine. It is unfortunate the two societies have not been able to co-exist but IMO the onus for that lies on Yassar Arafat who made a career of stirring that pot until his death.

You and I, apparently, are not going to agree in our assessment of US historical treatment of Arabs/Muslims but I will not concede that anything we may have done warrants the current irrational, murderous actions of terrorists which are largely fueled, according to moderate Islamic scholars, by warped interpretation of the Koran.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby lonewolf » Tue Oct 28, 2008 8:51 pm

eldrick wrote:
lonewolf wrote:but he is not responsible for the current economic crisis


he is

his govt didn't provide enough regulatory control over these nonsense mortgage bonds allowing complete garbage to be passed off as AAA rated bonds which banks, etc snapped up


eldrick, in "the buck stops here" sense you can say Bush was responsible. However, the fact is there are three culpable entities responsible for the meltdown in the housing debacle.

First, a Democratic controlled Congress, ram-rodded by Senators Frank and Dodd, defeated Bush attemps at regulation and, as social pandering, forced lending institutions to make risky, subprime loans to unqualified people .

Second, greedy executives of the lending institutions who jumped on the chance to bundle, sell and resell the toxic mix of mortgages, taking their profits up front while wearing golden parachute contracts that ensured "obscene" payoffs when the bubble burst.

Third, the borrowers who took on debt they could not afford and had little or no prospect of ever being able to do so.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby lonewolf » Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:01 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
lonewolf wrote:I don't know how anyone can ignore Obama's past and continued consort with domestic terrorists, felons and anti-American racists and his blatant denial of documented facts.

Who are the felons and racists that you are referring to and what facts has he denied? :?


Well, lets start with Rezco, Ayers and Wright and, please, don't bother to recite the standard rebuttal which does not wash.
As to denial of documented statements and facts, they are too many to recount off the top of my head. Sometimes there is so much chaff flying, I winnow out the impression and forget the details.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby Daisy » Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:18 pm

lonewolf wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
lonewolf wrote:I don't know how anyone can ignore Obama's past and continued consort with domestic terrorists, felons and anti-American racists and his blatant denial of documented facts.

Who are the felons and racists that you are referring to and what facts has he denied? :?


Well, lets start with Rezco, Ayers and Wright and, please, don't bother to recite the standard rebuttal which does not wash.


As far as i can tell, the reason none of this appears to concern voters is that a quick look across the aisle reveals McCain's campaign to be full of a similar supporting cast (with the exception of Ayers). It all equals out in the wash.

As for Ayers, no one takes it seriously as it appears to be a non story.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby lonewolf » Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:32 pm

Daisy wrote:As far as i can tell, the reason none of this appears to concern voters is that a quick look across the aisle reveals McCain's campaign to be full of a similar supporting cast (with the exception of Ayers). It all equals out in the wash.

As for Ayers, no one takes it seriously as it appears to be a non story.


Nope, Daisy, the MSM ignores it but some voters are concerned. I am not a McCain enthusiast but he is all I got and I am not aware of a Rezco or Jerimiah Wright among his entourage or advisors.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby Daisy » Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:46 pm

lonewolf wrote:
Daisy wrote:As far as i can tell, the reason none of this appears to concern voters is that a quick look across the aisle reveals McCain's campaign to be full of a similar supporting cast (with the exception of Ayers). It all equals out in the wash.

As for Ayers, no one takes it seriously as it appears to be a non story.


Nope, Daisy, the MSM ignores it but some voters are concerned. I am not a McCain enthusiast but he is all I got and I am not aware of a Rezco or Jerimiah Wright among his entourage or advisors.


I thought McCain belatedly severed ties with the hate filled preacher he embraced?

As for Rezco types, no independent will seriously believe this is not widespread among the republicans. Even Jim Ryun had a house bought for him under shady circumstances. That mud will never stick.

The Obama/Ayers interaction was about improving education right? There is nothing to believe there is anything else. You may well be right that those on the right are worried. But is that relevant, McCain has to bring his arguments to the independents. Are they worried?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:41 pm

bad hammy wrote:
eldrick wrote:if dying of natural causes meant him being in power for another 20y ( & killing countless more people ), then invade sooner than later !

In 2003 he wasn't killing us or his neighbors. If you feel like going after every government which kills its own people then get your own PM to take the lead. You have a lot of work ahead of you . . .


so you are of the belief that a despot who invaded a neighbouring country & may have gone on to invade another one after, both allies of the west, shoudn't be removed from power by military means, just because of the passage of time ?!

mere passage of time absolves a criminal from punishment ?!
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby eldrick » Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:49 pm

lonewolf wrote:
eldrick wrote:
lonewolf wrote:but he is not responsible for the current economic crisis


he is

his govt didn't provide enough regulatory control over these nonsense mortgage bonds allowing complete garbage to be passed off as AAA rated bonds which banks, etc snapped up


eldrick, in "the buck stops here" sense you can say Bush was responsible. However, the fact is there are three culpable entities responsible for the meltdown in the housing debacle.

First, a Democratic controlled Congress, ram-rodded by Senators Frank and Dodd, defeated Bush attemps at regulation and, as social pandering, forced lending institutions to make risky, subprime loans to unqualified people .


i have no recollection of a democratic senate opposing fnancial regulation

perhaps you can provide the example of the bill concerned ?

as far as i'm aware democrats tend to be more regulatory when it comes to finance rather than less & have hard time believing they vetoed such a bill
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby eldrick » Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:58 pm

lonewolf wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
lonewolf wrote:I don't know how anyone can ignore Obama's past and continued consort with domestic terrorists, felons and anti-American racists and his blatant denial of documented facts.

Who are the felons and racists that you are referring to and what facts has he denied? :?


Well, lets start with Rezco, Ayers and Wright and, please, don't bother to recite the standard rebuttal which does not wash.
As to denial of documented statements and facts, they are too many to recount off the top of my head. Sometimes there is so much chaff flying, I winnow out the impression and forget the details.


you are grasping at straws

- rezco : has obama been charged with any wrong-doing ?

if no, then end of story

- ayers : presumably a rehabilitated terrorist as he got a respectable local govt job some years later - obama had to work with him

what was obama supposed to do ?

storm out the room shouting "i'm not working with a terrorist !" whilst everyone else on the committee were working with ayers ?

preacher - is obama responsible for someone else's views ?

he attended the church whilst the preacher stuck to the christian text, but when he veered off into racist, inflammatory preaching, obama denounced him & left that church

bad preacher - obama leaves

what more did you expect him to do ?
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby SQUACKEE » Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:19 am

he attended the church whilst the preacher stuck to the christian text, but when he veered off into racist, inflammatory preaching, obama denounced him & left that church

Eldy the truth is Wright said "God damn America" and other things after 9/11and Obama stayed for another 7 years.A few months before Obama left he said he would never leave. Either Obama is an idiot and had no idea how radical Wright was or he did know and decided to stay. I believe the later.

P.S. i hope my post follows my rule, first give the facts, then give your opinion. :D
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby Marlow » Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:42 am

SQUACKEE wrote:Either Obama is an idiot and had no idea how radical Wright was or he did know and decided to stay. I believe the later.


'Loyalty' is an odd thing. It can compel one to remain friends with someone long after we should have seen the bad coming. I've done that a couple times now and I hope I'm learning my lesson, but I also hope I am not adjudged guilty by association.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby bad hammy » Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:52 am

lonewolf wrote:First, a Democratic controlled Congress, ram-rodded by Senators Frank and Dodd, defeated Bush attemps at regulation and, as social pandering, forced lending institutions to make risky, subprime loans to unqualified people .

Please try again. The Dems had control of Congress for the last two years. This crisis was brewing long before that.


lonewolf wrote:
Daisy wrote:As far as i can tell, the reason none of this appears to concern voters is that a quick look across the aisle reveals McCain's campaign to be full of a similar supporting cast (with the exception of Ayers). It all equals out in the wash.

As for Ayers, no one takes it seriously as it appears to be a non story.


Nope, Daisy, the MSM ignores it but some voters are concerned.

You are right, the MSM is ignoring things that we should be concerned about. If we should be concerned about the extremely tenuous connection between Obama and Ayers, then we should be concerned about the connection between McCain and the head of his transition team, William Timmons, who actively lobbied to ease international sanctions on behalf of our old friend Saddam Hussein between 1992 and 1997, in hopes of securing a $45 million oil deal.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:08 am

lonewolf wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
lonewolf wrote:I don't know how anyone can ignore Obama's past and continued consort with domestic terrorists, felons and anti-American racists and his blatant denial of documented facts.

Who are the felons and racists that you are referring to and what facts has he denied? :?


Well, lets start with Rezco, Ayers and Wright and, please, don't bother to recite the standard rebuttal which does not wash.

Neither Ayers or Wright are felons and Obama severed his relationship with Rezko long before he became one. And none of these three men have made any racist statements that I know of, though Ayers and Wright have definitely made anti-American statements.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Flumpy » Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:23 am

tandfman wrote:But many thoughtful folks believe that W's policies were totally ineffective in that area and may, in fact, have unintentionally given comfort to those evil men who are trying to spread anti-American fanaticism and violence in the Islamic world.


He's done their job for them. The war in Iraq was the best recruitment ad for Al Quaida imaginable. Because there was no evidence at all that any terrorism attacks on the West had anything to do with Saddam Hussein (Probably because they didn't) it looks very much to Muslims around the world that the US was just waging a war against them simply because of their religion.

The Iraqi war has nothing to do with terrorism or 'freedom' and it mystifies me why anyone would still think that it does.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:24 am

lonewolf wrote:It is unfortunate the two societies have not been able to co-exist but IMO the onus for that lies on Yassar Arafat who made a career of stirring that pot until his death.

You and I, apparently, are not going to agree in our assessment of US historical treatment of Arabs/Muslims but I will not concede that anything we may have done warrants the current irrational, murderous actions of terrorists which are largely fueled, according to moderate Islamic scholars, by warped interpretation of the Koran.

Lonewolf, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree since I definitely don't put all of the blame on Arafat, though he is far from innocent in all of this. But it was Benjamin Netanyahu who deliberately incited the extremist elements among Israel's setters before Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated, and today many Israelis, including Rabin's family and Ehud Barak hold him responsible. And it was Netanyahu who took a wrecking ball to the Oslo peace process once he became Prime Minister.

As for our overall treatment of Arabs/Muslims, I guess your views are similar to the views of all the Republicans candidates for President except Ron Paul, who seemed to be the only one who believed in what the CIA calls "blowback".
Last edited by jazzcyclist on Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Pego » Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:52 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
lonewolf wrote:It is unfortunate the two societies have not been able to co-exist but IMO the onus for that lies on Yassar Arafat who made a career of stirring that pot until his death.

You and I, apparently, are not going to agree in our assessment of US historical treatment of Arabs/Muslims but I will not concede that anything we may have done warrants the current irrational, murderous actions of terrorists which are largely fueled, according to moderate Islamic scholars, by warped interpretation of the Koran.

Lonewolf, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree since I definitely don't put all of the blame on Arafat, though his is far from innocent in all of this. But it was Benjamin Netanyahu who deliberately incited the extremist elements among Israel's setters before Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated, and today many Israelis, including Rabin's family and Ehud Barak hold him responsible. And it was Netanyahu who took a wrecking ball to the Oslo peace process once he became Prime Minister.

As for our overall treatment of Arabs/Muslims, I guess your views are similar to the views of all the Republicans candidates for President except Ron Paul, who seemed to be the only one who believed in what the CIA calls "blowback".


Pandering of the originally through-and-through secular and pragmatic Netanyahu to the religious right has never ceased to mystify me.
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby lonewolf » Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:28 am

This thread illustrates my contention that people are going to believe what they want to believe. We have all accumulated different "facts" and our assessment of these facts in our memory banks. We have different priorities, place different degrees of importance to transgressions, spin things to our advantage and hang evidence to the contrary.
The mods are right in banning religion and politics on this forum. No good can come from strangers, and certainly not from online friends, debating these topics.
This thread does nothing but reinforce pre-conceived opinions of issues and individuals. I regret it was opened.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Oct 29, 2008 9:00 am

lonewolf wrote: We have all accumulated different "facts" and our assessment of these facts in our memory banks. We have different priorities, place different degrees of importance to transgressions.

I think its your latter point that causes more disagreement among us than the former. My impression of you and most of the other posters on this board is that you're more educated and more informed than the average American voter. We pretty much agree on the facts. It's the importance that we place on those facts that separates us and causes us to have different priorities. Aside from the wedge issues such as abortion, gay rights and gun rights, everybody pretty much wants the same thing, that is a prosperous, educated and healthy America and peace and brotherhood throughout the world. What we disagree on is the best way to reach those goals.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby lonewolf » Wed Oct 29, 2008 9:45 am

I think we are finally on the same page, jazz, , different strokes for different folks. Reality to each of us is our individual perception.

I will not touch on abortion or gay rights. IMO these should not be political issues, becoming so only when legislation contrary to our personal instincts is passed. .
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby Conor Dary » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:01 pm

lonewolf wrote:
Daisy wrote:As far as i can tell, the reason none of this appears to concern voters is that a quick look across the aisle reveals McCain's campaign to be full of a similar supporting cast (with the exception of Ayers). It all equals out in the wash.

As for Ayers, no one takes it seriously as it appears to be a non story.


Nope, Daisy, the MSM ignores it but some voters are concerned. I am not a McCain enthusiast but he is all I got and I am not aware of a Rezco or Jerimiah Wright among his entourage or advisors.


Of course, it has been covered, and the conclusion was there was nothing there.

"A board member at the time, R. Eden Martin, a corporate lawyer and president of the Commercial Club of Chicago, described both men as conscientious in examining proposed community projects but could recall nothing remarkable about their dealings with each other. “You had people who were liberal and some who were pretty conservative, but we usually reached a consensus,” Mr. Martin said of the panel."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/po ... =cse&scp=3
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Bush II

Postby bijanc » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:18 pm

Mike 67 wrote:

"...Marriage is a sacrament instituted by God between a Man and a Woman..."

And until 1967 Mike, in Virginia, marriage was a sacrament between two consenting individuals of legal age and opposite gender, provided that they not be Negro and white....

Gays are actually human Mike, when last I checked. Also, they have no control regarding their sexual preference (or bisexuality), any more than I had control over being righthanded or brown-eyed. We don't prevent lefthanders from marrying.
bijanc
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest