Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to BS Zelda. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Inevitable annoying politcs topic; about Bush, marriage and whatnot
Topic Started: Aug 10 2005, 05:36 PM (421 Views)
2awesome4apossum
Member Avatar
Who's your favorite possum?
Garrett,Aug 9 2005
09:49 PM
Well if he DOESN'T have mind-control powers, what is he doing here?

Posted Image

...or maybe he's just got a headache... :)

That translation is incredible. Incredible. How they could get it so wrong, even when there's some onscreen text... amazing. :D

Unfortunately most of the pics are maxed out, I'll have to look at them later... gah, this is why I hate Photobucket... :(

Guess you're not Bush's number one fan anymore, eh?

Quote:
 
Oh wait, mind power... nevermind, that's completely impossible.

I'll get you one of these times. Actually, wanna debate it? Do I need to start a different thread? But then again, most Europeans are very blindly liberal, however I haven't really spoken to you much about politics... what is your political standpoint? (oh, and you too Garrett! and coinilius)

Garrett... what happened to your custom title?!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke Serkol
Member Avatar
Where'd that Princess go?
Admin
2awesome4apossum,Aug 10 2005
05:36 PM
Actually, wanna debate it? ... But then again, most Europeans are very blindly liberal

See? That's why people get mad at you. Here we are talking (making fun) about Bush, which is no one on this board but a public figure. In answer you speak (badly) about liberals (and Europeans too, seeing as apparently offending only the liberals isn't enough for you), which may or may not be anybody on this board.

No one said anything about the party, we were talking about the man.

As for my political standpoint, I've never really given much of a crap about politics... and our points of view on the matter are probably so different that we would end up not understanding each other (I could never figure out what difference there is between your republicans and democrats)

And all things considered I'd rather keep real political debates off the board. It's not a rule (yet) but it may be wise to do so.


[Edit]
Wait was it a joke when you said "blindly liberal"? Because I was just kidding when I said you guys are bothered by just about everything (as exemplified by the ";)")
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2awesome4apossum
Member Avatar
Who's your favorite possum?
I generalize too much...

Actually...

Quote:
 
Oh wait, mind power... nevermind, that's completely impossible.


Here we go. If that wasn't a blindly liberal statement, then I don't know what would be.

Bush thinks for himself more than Europe would like. America's fine with it (except the media, but they really shouldn't be representing "conservative America"), and agrees with him most of the time (as much as the media will try to convince you otherwise). You see, unlike his Vice President, Bush is as right-winged as they come. His cabinet however, disagrees with him in a lot of respects (especially Vice President Dick Cheney). But does he listen to them? No! He thinks for himself, and instead of back up when someone complains about that, he follows through. Europe doesn't like him because he's not a liar. ie. Going to war. Well, he said he would (along with the rest of the United Nations) have to take actions in Saddam didn't comply with their little resolutions. He had already given him the umpteenth chance, and said "this was it" along with the rest of the UN. But EVERYBODY except Blair and Bush thought that Saddam might suddenly change if they passed another resolution (weren't there like 20 of them?). So Bush stuck to his word, even though he was unpopular for it. You see, because "morals are so subjective", the rest of the world (Europe and Asia, Australia, etc.) believe that we shouldn't "impose them on people". Bush believes (like I) in imposing a certain set of morals on people, as lack of morals are morals in themselves. We're just on the side side that makes certain types of people feel "constricted". Well guess what? Abortion causes breast cancer, marajuana (sp?) causes death. Isn't prison time or fines better than ruining your life completely? What if you were the aborted kid that never had a chance at life? Bush thinking for himself is why people hate him so much. He offers what I'd like to call "true freedom". Which means, nobody's stopping you from screwing up your life, but there are consequences for it such as jail time, etc. which are ALMOST always better than the natural consequences that come from repeating it, and continuing your ways. He's doing people a favor by passing laws restricting things that will be harmful to society. ie. Gay marraige: yes, they can adopt, but it goes against EVERYTHING about civilization! Civilization would cease to exist if the world was crawling with people who refused to reproduce (abortion, gay marraige, etc.). And once those kind of laws are passed, who's to say that people won't try to get (I can't remember the word, but...) an adult marrying kid(s) passed? You see? The line is being drawn by him, even though many of the people around him are SO against it. Guess what else? Having this kind of a conversation is illegal in many of those middle-eastern countries, so Bush is going in there, and offering them freedom. For some reason the rest of the world is having a problem with that, because "What?!! You can't impose your morals on them!!!". And while the rest of the world is becoming less free because of all this kind of stuff, Bush is going against the ENTIRE rest of the world, and thinking for himself in order to promote freedom.

I have a feeling that might have been too political... um... if you must you may delete this, but read it first.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke Serkol
Member Avatar
Where'd that Princess go?
Admin
2awesome4apossum,Aug 10 2005
06:42 PM
I generalize too much...

Actually...

Quote:
 
Oh wait, mind power... nevermind, that's completely impossible.


Here we go. If that wasn't a blindly liberal statement, then I don't know what would be.

Damn right. If you want to call someone "blindly liberal" because of that statement then, by golly, call me that. I'll scold you nonetheless for breaking a board rule about insulting other people, but at least it won't be a whole number of nations.

I really shouldn't reply to the rest of your post, but I feel compelled to say just this much: sounds like you ideal of state is a monarchy. It doesn't surprise me as religion people have always been in favor of monarchies, preferably ecchlesiastic ones.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2awesome4apossum
Member Avatar
Who's your favorite possum?
No actually, a monarchy is something that I'm 100% against (unless you're talking soley about a theocracy, then I'm down with that). Because the difference between that and a democracy is the checks and balances. You know, to make sure nobody goes crazy, because none of us are perfect.

Quote:
 
Damn right. If you want to call someone "blindly liberal" because of that statement then, by golly, call me that.


Well... I was trying to make a point, and use that as an example but I see you're point, and will stop it now.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
coinilius
Member Avatar
Pickled in time, like gherkins in a jar
Possum - you don't really know much about Australia and it's politics, do you, if you're saying that 'You see, because "morals are so subjective", the rest of the world (Europe and Asia, Australia, etc.) believe that we shouldn't "impose them on people".' Our Prime Minister (John Howard) and Government has been behind Bush the entire time. We have citizens who are against him, and media that are against him, but so does America. We also have citizens and media that are all for him and his actions, just like America does.

Also; 'He's doing people a favor by passing laws restricting things that will be harmful to society. ie. Gay marraige: yes, they can adopt, but it goes against EVERYTHING about civilization! Civilization would cease to exist if the world was crawling with people who refused to reproduce (abortion, gay marraige, etc.).'

Uhm, the world is ALREADY 'crawling' as you put it with people who refuse to reproduce... and not just gay people, or people having abortions (and, y'know, since when has having an abortion ment that the person doing it is NEVER EVER EVER going to reproduce at a later date?). What about straight people who choose not to have kids? Are they going to be legislated into forced reproduction? What about people unable to have children? Are they contributing to the collapse of civilisation? Gay people aren't going to reproduce as it is, so I don't see how marriage is going to affect the effect they are having on society. It seems to me that you're argueing that civilisation would collapse if Gays and Lesbians were allowed to marriage, even though they are already not reproducing. Unless you think that legalising Gay marriage would somehow make the amount of gay people in the world suddenly skyrocket and everyone would become gay? And if they somehow do they'll all drive down and get abortions? I'm going to assume that you were just simplifying things for the sake of arguement or brevity, because otherwise the thinking behind that statement is spurious to the point of incredulity.

And for the record, I'm not a fan of the Liberal party, although I have to say that Labor is a big joke these days.

I don't want to start anything, or be accused of making blindly liberal statements, but the arguement behind that line just eludes me. Also, they have linked smoking, power lines and tomatos to cancer - are they going to all be legislated away as well? If Duke's making blindly liberal statements, you're equally guilty of making blindly conservative ones.

And Paedophilia and homosexuality are completly different subjects - the idea that just because a law allowing two consenting, adult homosexuals to marry will open the floodgates to adults marrying children is ridiculous. Gay marriage is between consenting adults who have the mental, physical, emotional and sexual development to make informed decisions for themselves. There is no similarity.
"You must be talking about Heaven... or the moon."

"It's a dog eat dog world... and there's not enough dog to go around."

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2awesome4apossum
Member Avatar
Who's your favorite possum?
Quote:
 
Uhm, the world is ALREADY 'crawling' as you put it with people who refuse to reproduce... and not just gay people, or people having abortions (and, y'know, since when has having an abortion ment that the person doing it is NEVER EVER EVER going to reproduce at a later date?). What about straight people who choose not to have kids? Are they going to be legislated into forced reproduction? What about people unable to have children? Are they contributing to the collapse of civilisation? Gay people aren't going to reproduce as it is, so I don't see how marriage is going to affect the effect they are having on society. It seems to me that you're argueing that civilisation would collapse if Gays and Lesbians were allowed to marriage, even though they are already not reproducing. Unless you think that legalising Gay marriage would somehow make the amount of gay people in the world suddenly skyrocket and everyone would become gay? And if they somehow do they'll all drive down and get abortions? I'm going to assume that you were just simplifying things for the sake of arguement or brevity, because otherwise the thinking behind that statement is spurious to the point of incredulity.

You're reading between the lines too much... that was just ONE arguement. And all I was saying that it went against everything civilization stood for. None of that.

Quote:
 
I don't want to start anything, or be accused of making blindly liberal statements, but the arguement behind that line just eludes me. Also, they have linked smoking, power lines and tomatos to cancer - are they going to all be legislated away as well? If Duke's making blindly liberal statements, you're equally guilty of making blindly conservative ones.

quite right you are, as Duke's already pointed out.

Quote:
 
And Paedophilia and homosexuality are completly different subjects - the idea that just because a law allowing two consenting, adult homosexuals to marry will open the floodgates to adults marrying children is ridiculous. Gay marriage is between consenting adults who have the mental, physical, emotional and sexual development to make informed decisions for themselves. There is no similarity.

Fine, then what about polygamy?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke Serkol
Member Avatar
Where'd that Princess go?
Admin
coinilius,Aug 11 2005
02:57 AM
What about straight people who choose not to have kids?

Stop talking about me already... (j/k)

Quote:
 
Are they going to be legislated into forced reproduction?

The funny thing, is that the way the world is going someday it may become necessary to do just the opposite! (Not saying that it would be good, but that is not the point)

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2awesome4apossum
Member Avatar
Who's your favorite possum?
Duke Serkol,Aug 10 2005
07:10 PM
Quote:
 
Are they going to be legislated into forced reproduction?

The funny thing, is that the way the world is going someday it may become necessary to do just the opposite! (Not saying that it would be good, but that is not the point)

Well... look at China.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
coinilius
Member Avatar
Pickled in time, like gherkins in a jar
Quote:
 
You're reading between the lines too much... that was just ONE arguement. And all I was saying that it went against everything civilization stood for. None of that.


Which is why I found that line and arguement to be the one which bordered on spuriosness, since it included this line - Civilization would cease to exist if the world was crawling with people who refused to reproduce (abortion, gay marraige, etc.)' which foregrounded the part of the arguement I was having problems with. And it could be argued that perhaps you're not reading between the lines enough if you haven't given thought to how it applies to other groups as well as those currently under the spotlight ;)

Quote:
 
Fine, then what about polygamy?


Yes please! ^_^' Seriously, though, that is an interesting debate to look into - I mean, you have three consenting adults who are capable of making decisions for themselves. There is nothing stopping someone from living in a defacto polygamous relationship. I'm assuming that polygamy goes both ways, with men being able to have multiple wives and women being able to have multiple husbands, which avoids the issue of polygamy as a mysoginistic excercise. And it's not like many of the greats of the bible weren't polygamous in there relationships - Abraham, Moses, Jacob... The answer to that question may very well be 'Why not polygamy?'

"You must be talking about Heaven... or the moon."

"It's a dog eat dog world... and there's not enough dog to go around."

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke Serkol
Member Avatar
Where'd that Princess go?
Admin
Here are my thoughts on the matter.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2awesome4apossum
Member Avatar
Who's your favorite possum?
coinilius,Aug 10 2005
07:23 PM
Quote:
 
You're reading between the lines too much... that was just ONE arguement. And all I was saying that it went against everything civilization stood for. None of that.


Which is why I found that line and arguement to be the one which bordered on spuriosness, since it included this line - Civilization would cease to exist if the world was crawling with people who refused to reproduce (abortion, gay marraige, etc.)' which foregrounded the part of the arguement I was having problems with. And it could be argued that perhaps you're not reading between the lines enough if you haven't given thought to how it applies to other groups as well as those currently under the spotlight ;)

Oh, I know that, but I was just trying to argue back with you on that one ;)

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Fine, then what about polygamy?


Yes please! ^_^' Seriously, though, that is an interesting debate to look into - I mean, you have three consenting adults who are capable of making decisions for themselves. There is nothing stopping someone from living in a defacto polygamous relationship. I'm assuming that polygamy goes both ways, with men being able to have multiple wives and women being able to have multiple husbands, which avoids the issue of polygamy as a mysoginistic excercise. And it's not like many of the greats of the bible weren't polygamous in there relationships - Abraham, Moses, Jacob... The answer to that question may very well be 'Why not polygamy?'


Well, see everytime they did that the "prophet of God" commanded them to, so I'm not sure this'd be a wonderful thing to debate just yet... or on this board, although you're welcome to post it at Nexus Chat ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2awesome4apossum
Member Avatar
Who's your favorite possum?
Duke Serkol,Aug 10 2005
07:29 PM
Here are my thoughts on the matter.

erm... isn't that against the rules? (gay=stupid?)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke Serkol
Member Avatar
Where'd that Princess go?
Admin
Borderlines: being a comic strip it's obviously not to be taken seriously.

Besides I think it means by it "not-manly", not "stupid".
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2awesome4apossum
Member Avatar
Who's your favorite possum?
Duke Serkol,Aug 10 2005
07:33 PM
Borderlines: being a comic strip it's obviously not to be taken seriously.

Besides I think it means by it "not-manly", not "stupid".

well, and being a conservative (quite frankly) I'm not to be taken seriously.

But in all honesty, I didn't mean to single you out Duke, and I'm not sure that I meant "blindly".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Generic Discussions · Next Topic »
Add Reply