Debate!!!

College Confidential Community
241

<p>The arguments put forth in this thread are absolutely despicable. Just wretched. I feel my stomach creeping up my throat as I read the debate of same-sex marriage. </p>

<p>Let me refer</a> you all to a thread that I feel covers the issue well. Read through before posting, please. I am persuaded by the scientific evidence in favor of my view of GLBT relationships. You have faith in your religion and trust in your heritage. Neither one of our opinions matters to same-sex marriage legislation. The debate is strictly political in nature.</p>

242

<p>I read through that thread, and how does it cover the issue well? It is the same thread as this one: several teenagers bickering at each other. No one is ever going to be convinced of anything because we are all going to stand hard on our beliefs. The fact of the matter is that amendments banning same-sex marriage have been instituted throughout the country, and I'm sure they will continue growing.</p>

243

<p>"Yeah, Kerry listed his plan all right. It consisted of putting on his purple hearts and walking around the White House like he had a plan. Obviously the American people saw through this and elected the more honorable man."</p>

<p>Kerry ENLISTED to fight in one of the most dangerous wars America has participated in, yet Bush managed to have his dad pull strings so that he could avoid serving his country. In addition, Bush lied about Iraq. You call that honorable? Whatever floats your boat.</p>

244

<p>Of course, the typical liberal motto: "Bush lied, kids died!" Doesn't it occur to anyone that he DIDN'T lie, as he made his decisions on evidence that was credible at the time?</p>

245

<p>Amen Benz</p>

<p>"The Bush propaganda machine ( headed by Karl Rove) managed to convince the American public otherwise."</p>

<p>Oh right cuz kerry never ever had propaganda he was the perfect person.</p>

<p>"as usual ElCommando is making no sense and BCgoUSC is pretending to be jesus"</p>

<p>YES good for you hilary you just blasted me so bad. I guess you wont be responding to anything i say? I thought we were refraining from personal attacks? </p>

<p>"have them tell me to go to hell"</p>

<p>FUNNY YOU SHOULD MENTION IT hhboyji.</p>

<p>"Kerry ENLISTED to fight in one of the most dangerous wars America has participated in, yet Bush managed to have his dad pull strings so that he could avoid serving his country. In addition, Bush lied about Iraq. You call that honorable? Whatever floats your boat."</p>

<p>Yeah he did enlist and then after the war he flip-flopped. Most dangerous? Sorry buddy thats world war 2.</p>

246

<p>I fail to see how you are relating the Vietnam War to 2005. It has no bearing whatsoever. Does the fact that Bush didn't participate in the war affect the American people? No. Does the fact that Kerry did serve in the Vietnam War affect the American people? No. </p>

<p>And if you think Bush lied about Iraq, you might wanna check out your boy Kerry. Time to bust out the Kerry quotes!</p>

<p>
[quote]
With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
I mention these not because they are a cause to go to war in and of themselves, as the President previously suggested, but because they tell a lot about the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and the nature of this man. We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future.

[/quote]

All of these come from a speech on the Senate floor on October 9, 2002. This speech is a quote machine, so I can provide more if you really want me to.</p>

<p>This comes from Cynthia Tucker, editor of the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, which endorsed KERRY has President:

[quote]

Even now, a year later, Kerry has trouble giving a cogent rationale for his vote to go to war. You'd think a man like Kerry -- a decorated Vietnam veteran who later became an outspoken critic of that war -- would have a succinct, indeed passionate, explanation for his vote. But Kerry stammers, sputters, doubles back, never able to give a short and simple response. Perhaps that's because Kerry's vote was based on politics, not principle.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is from Kerry's own op-ed in the New York Times:

[quote]
Until we have properly laid the groundwork and proved to our fellow citizens and our allies that we really have no other choice, we are not yet at the moment of unilateral decision-making in going to war against Iraq.

[/quote]

Yet, less than a month later after writing this sentence, he agreed to authorize the war in Iraq. </p>

<p>George W. Bush does what he does based on CONVICTIONS. You may not AGREE with his convictions, and that's OK, but I think he's shown time and time again that he could care less what the polls show. If anything, he takes a stand and the polls echo THEIR agreement (gay marriage, stem cells, war in Iraq). Does public opinion change? Of course. Hourly. But then that's a different argument. </p>

<p>It's apparent that Kerry, like Gore, will say anything to anybody to win. Whatever the audience of the moment wants to hear, that's what Kerry will say. All politicians do it to an extent, but Clinton/Gore/Kerry have elevated this to an art form. The only Democrat who seems to stick to his convictions is Howard Dean.</p>

<p>I think it is time to give up the argument about whether we should have gone to War in Iraq or not. Everyone was duped into believing that Iraq had WMD's, so that's basically a moot point. This is essentially where the election was decided: Americans knew that the WMD intelligence was a mistake, so they got past that and voted for who they thought would maximize our success in Iraq. They chose George W. Bush. We should concentrate on what we should do now to stabalize the situation instead of bickering about the past.</p>

247

<p>
[quote]
If the Supreme Court can accept the 14th amendment as a legal document, then I guess there's no real dispute as to the legality of it. True, you can continue to challenge it, but I guess the point is really moot.

[/quote]
The Supreme Court also held Plessy v. Ferguson as a legal ruling so does that mean that the questioning of it was wrong?</p>

248

<p>You may also want to read this article:
<a href="http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050401-114205-2153r.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050401-114205-2153r.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>57% of people favor an amendment that defines marriage between a man and a woman, while 37% are opposed to it. This poll also comes from a largely liberal publication.</p>

249

<p>I just want to present a simple arguement of mental logic to those who believe homosexuality is an immoral choice. </p>

<p>Have you ever asked yourself, do you choose to be straight? </p>

<p>Think on that.</p>

250

<p>
[quote]
"as usual ElCommando is making no sense and BCgoUSC is pretending to be jesus"
YES good for you hilary you just blasted me so bad. I guess you wont be responding to anything i say? I thought we were refraining from personal attacks?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>ElCommando, shut the hell up for the sake of all that is good.<br>
if you have a single educated response to ANY of the points i made, THEN you can talk. so far you pretty much havent said anything i could legitimitely respond to, you just whined about being "personally attacked" and said other non-sensical things.</p>

<p>
[quote]
"have them tell me to go to hell"
FUNNY YOU SHOULD MENTION IT hhboyji.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>you are disgusting ElCommando... talk about personal attacks...</p>

<p>
[quote]
"Kerry ENLISTED to fight in one of the most dangerous wars America has participated in, yet Bush managed to have his dad pull strings so that he could avoid serving his country. In addition, Bush lied about Iraq. You call that honorable? Whatever floats your boat."
Yeah he did enlist and then after the war he flip-flopped. Most dangerous? Sorry buddy thats world war 2.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>clearly ElCommando fought bravely in both wars, so his opinion about which one was more dangerous means a lot to me.</p>

<p>
[quote]
George W. Bush does what he does based on CONVICTIONS. You may not AGREE with his convictions, and that's OK, but I think he's shown time and time again that he could care less what the polls show.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>last i checked we live in a democracy. a democratic leader acts based on the wants and needs of the people, he doesnt rule stubbornly with his own ridiculous convictions like a dictator. i dont see how ANYONE, republican OR democrat, would want to be led by someone who "could care less" about their opinions.</p>

<p>and everyone who is still b*tching about kerry being a flipflopper needs to shut up. he changed his opinion about 1 ISSUE, like TONS of people probably did. at least he is willing to admit when hes wrong rather than stubbornly sticking with idiotic viewpoints like bush. and clearly bush is far worse than kerry in his "flip-flopping" (what a stupid term). see primitive's post. can we please stop debating a dead issue and beating a dumb term into the ground? thanks.</p>

251

<p>HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! uc_benz, dares to include quotes about kerry while he STILL hasnt responded to the 32 quotes about Bush.</p>

<p>and BCgoUSC, I disagree with you. Bush was the flip-flopper on every topic that dominating our politics. I provided you with 32 examples, I challenge you to find more quotes in Kerry's case. I guarantee you that you wont find as much.</p>

<p>uc_benz, you are weakening. I proposed to debate on Bush's economic policy but you seemed to chicken out.</p>

<p>Elcommando, I dont think i need to take your posts seriously AS YOU ADMITTED THAT YOU DONT THINK BEFORE YOU POST.</p>

252

<p>A quick review of the intelligence that has come from ElCommando during this debate:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Ok? maybe he has a jewish mother who raped him as a child? LOL just kidding! (i know you guys think i use that for everything)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>what?</p>

<p>
[quote]
duurrrr wat hilery???? i duno wut you is be talkin bout???? maybe i oughta go tek a nap??????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????

[/quote]
</p>

<p>still a good idea.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Im sure some of the "liberals" arguing on this board are gay...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>good one.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So, they choose to be gay, jsut so they can be ostracized by society right?
EXACTLY THEY WANT TO FEEL SORRY FOR THEMSELVES!!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>again, what?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I belive stem cell research is good but not at the cost of normal babies. Go ahead and use the dead ones or whatever. I think the california stem cell bill passed is just a way for the company to get money.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>because clearly stem cell research is done on live babies.
and clearly trying to cure diseases like cancer and parkinsons disease is selfish scam to get money</p>

<p>
[quote]
DUDE do u not know how they "do it"??? They ram their stuff up the booty! Thats freakin abuse right there!!!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>...</p>

<p>moving on...</p>

253

<p>hilary, dont forget that Elcommando himself said that he doesnt think before posting when he said-</p>

<p>"No sorry that is reserved for John Kerry. I wouldnt call it a flip flop just because i wasnt thinking. "</p>

254

<p>haha yeah, there were so many smart comments it was hard to choose just 6!</p>

255

<p>"Even Michael Moore admitted that John Kerry didn't really have a solid platform."</p>

<p>Wow, the first conservative to be a Michael Moore fan!</p>

<p>The conservative I hate the most is O'Reilly (or whatever his spelling is)</p>

256

<p>The Bush administration's justification for the war in Iraq is bi-polar:</p>

<p>1) We went to war because Iraq was a threat to U.S. security. They had stockpiles of WMD, a thriving nuclear program, strong connections to terrorism, etc. We had to act preemptively -- and now -- if we wanted to keep America safe.</p>

<p>2) Saddam was an atrocious dictator guilty of atrocities. It was our duty as a good, democratic nation, to liberate the Iraqi people and to bring democracy to the Middle East. Regime change was a good in and of itself, if the regime was committing atrocities. And the spread of democracy is always a good thing.</p>

<p>Here's the problem. Under the first justification, we were dead wrong. I won't even get into all the accusations (many of which are warranted) that the Bush administration lied, or deliberately misled and manipulated, etc. Let's just say we were wrong. If that's the case, then why isn't the Bush administration being held more accountable? Any accountability for our grievous, costly mistakes, has been pushed off onto intelligence agencies -- and I think we can all agree that no one has really been held accountable. After all, Tenet wasn't fired, Rummy hasn't been fired, Powell hasn't been fired. Heads should be rolling, you would think. But nobody's is.</p>

<p>Part of this is because the Bush administration was very successful in shifting the justification for the war from #1 to #2. The push for this began at the time of the invasion, and even just prior to it, when they started calling it "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and talking about liberation. There are problems with this justification, too, of course. First, Saddam hadn't committed any major atrocity for years. Yes, he was a dictator. Yes, Iraqis were oppressed. Yes, Iraq is better off without him. But we were basically justifying an invasion of a sovereign nation by pointing to atrocities committed a decade ago, at best, and fifteen years ago, if you want the real dirt. (And those were committed when Saddam was our ally -- so we turned our heads the other way.)</p>

<p>Let's go ahead and put all of this aside and say that justification #2 works for us. The war in Iraq was justified by the cause of liberation, regime change, and the spread of democracy.</p>

<p>Doesn't this present a problem? I bring all of this up because of the present situation in Sudan. If this is really "genocide," as the Bush administration (i.e. Powell) is claiming, then the Sudan situation is much, much worse than the Iraq situation was. (No one was claiming genocide was taking place in Iraq, unless they were referring to stuff from 10-15 years ago.)</p>

<p>The problem is, what do we do? It's interesting to note that nobody in the American public was thinking we needed to invade Iraq until after the Bush administration made a strong case for doing so; conversely, today polls show that a majority would favor military intervention in Sudan -- but the Bush administration has shown almost no sign of interest in doing so. The Sudan problem's been around for a long time, and it took a long time for Bush or anyone else in the administration to even comment on it. Now, we're declaring it's "genocide," but there's still no sign of doing anything about it.</p>

<p>Somebody, please explain to me an administration that makes a strong case for war with one country -- a country no one thought we needed to invade until after the case was made -- and a case that was based on either a host of falsities or objectionable events from the previous century -- yet this same administration makes no case for war, in fact hardly even acknowledges, the current genocidal atrocities going on in another country, even though most Americans believe that something ought to be done about it.</p>

<p>I just don't understand these people.</p>

257

<p>What? I 'dare'? This must be preschool. I'm sorry you have an inflated sense of self-worth that you feel need to grant other people permission to speak. I could care less what you think about Bush that's why I'm not responding. He's the President and Republicans rule the Congress. So get used to the Republican platform because you're going to see a lot of it in the next 4 years!</p>

<p>Back to Kerry:
John Kerry chose the swift boat because at the time, the position wasn't involved in combat, but protection of harbors. However, after he was sent, they changed the mission and sent the boats into the river where they faced combat. Kerry was injured three times which made him eligible for going back to the States. He has the ability to release his records on his injuries, but he never has! Why he never lost a day of time despite being injured is beyond me.</p>

<p>Why believe me? When you can believe General Tommy Franks:

[quote]
On one hand, Kerry chides Bush for not having a big enough coalition and for having too many Americans as a percentage of fighting troops in the war. On the other hand, in an area where American troops clearly would have been at a disadvantage against an entrenched foe in an unknown and difficult terrain with excellent defensive features, he scolds Bush for not going it alone. John Kerry as commander-in-chief would only send American troops into action under conditions where they would almost certainly fail, if this is any indication.

[/quote]

From New York Times</p>

258

<p>America was not wrong to go to war with Iraq. The world is safer as a result. The problem with liberals is that you'd wait until after America was attacked again before taking any action. It's obvious that Iraq was a threat to the world, not just to America. The second reason (liberation) just makes the invasion of Iraq even more meaningful.</p>

259

<p>What? I 'dare'? This must be preschool. I'm sorry you have an inflated sense of self-worth that you feel need to grant other people permission to speak. I could care less what you think about Bush that's why I'm not responding. He's the President and Republicans rule the Congress. So get used to the Republican platform because you're going to see a lot of it in the next 4 years!</p>

<p>if you are gonna say BS like that then why bother to debate?</p>

260

<p>America was not wrong to go to war with Iraq. The world is safer as a result. </p>

<p>I strongly disagree. Even the UN confirmed that Iraq had no WMD. But rather North Korea and Iran did. Go figure!!</p>