O'Reilly rippin mad

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

if they are conservative democrats why are you worried about secular values passing?? lol

dixie why do you hate gay people so much?? would the world be a worse place if gays married??

would crime go up?? air quality go down?? homelessness go up??

do you have any valid reason other than your disdain of people like me?

Rob, I don't know where you get that I hate you, I have never said that, and I know I have often told you that I didn't hate you. In fact, I think I have stood up for you and gays, against people like the perv, who want to assume a gay man should have been "investigated" based on being gay, because that was supposed to be some sort of 'red flag' that he was a pedophile. I have also broken with traditional religious-based conservative values, and supported civil union legislation.

We've discussed "gay marriage" before, and I have no problem with two gay people, wanting to ceremonially recognize their love for each other, in fact, I have some gay friends who have done just that. My position is against government sanctioning and licensing of marriage, based on a sexually deviant behavior. I am sorry that word bothers you, but again, I was clear that I didn't mean to offend you with it, I am merely speaking in clinical terms, not personal ones.

I understand it is easy to become emotionally entangled in this issue, people want to feel compassion and be respectful of others, and I get that. This is why I am in favor of civil union legislation, or just doing away with government-sanctioned marriage licensing altogether. I just don't support an activist movement to destroy a religious-based institution, for the sake of attacking religious morality. I can't support changing an age-old social acceptance of 'marriage' for the sake of allowing deviant sexual behavior to be glorified, and that is what is happening with Gay Marriage.

Now, you hear me say "deviant" and your blood starts to boil, as you interpret this as bigotry, prejudice, and condemnation, and from my perspective, it is not. I would say, particularly with modern day sexuality, most everyone deviates from the norm in some regard. The point is, we don't establish laws or change our terms, based on these deviance's. You are free to masturbate in private all you like, you are not free to wear a trench-coat to the park and ogle kids while you do it, and it has nothing to do with what "harm" you are causing in this act. Clearly, this deviant behavior wouldn't "harm" anyone, and no one wants to "control" the sexual desires of such a person, but we don't change our definition of 'indecent exposure' because this person has the desire, and is not "hurting" anyone.

Okay, if you don't like the 'perv in the park' example, apply it to the opposite direction... say a bunch of Quakers and Mennonites start a new sexual-awareness revolution, and want to redefine "sex" as the missionary intercourse to produce offspring, and anything outside that, is hereby outlawed as a perverted sickness? Can we establish this viewpoint as law? Are you alright with that, if most of society agrees with it? I'm not! I don't want the government determining what IS and ISN'T acceptable human sexual behavior. I recognize the need to allow laws to protect people from deviant sexual behaviors, as well as the need for moral boundaries, whether they are religiously-based or not.

 

[Connecticut Stud]

im just stirring hte pot dixie... LOL

 

[Connecticut Stud]

Dixie btw this was the first election EVER... EVER.. where i voted for R's

I voted for the R governor and R congressman. but i did vote for Lamont (sorry i just don't like LIEberman)

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie btw this was the first election EVER... EVER.. where i voted for R's

I voted for the R governor and R congressman. but i did vote for Lamont (sorry i just don't like LIEberman)

Good for you!

I am not a big Lieberman fan, but I think the fact that he defeated the Liberal Democrat as an Independent, shows what sort of orchestrated effort was put forth by MoveOn.org and the Liberals, to oust Lieberman in the primaries.

Another race that was interesting, was Foley's district in Florida. The conservative replacement was almost able to overcome the overwhelming disadvantage to win, not because some Liberal movement swept through Foley's district, but because the Liberal ploy of 'outing the gay' after he was already on the ballot, actually worked out for them.

It's easy to understand how excited Liberals are, after all, they haven't won much lately, and this was pretty much 'it' for them. I can see why they want to now tie their Liberal ideology to the win, even though they literally hid from it, leading up to election day. It's surprising to me, they don't feel the need to be bipartisan now, because Bush wasn't. For some reason, they think America has shifted to Liberalism and now sees the world from their perspective, and they have a mandate to implement Liberal policy. We'll see.

 

[Connecticut Stud]

Good for you!

I am not a big Lieberman fan, but I think the fact that he defeated the Liberal Democrat as an Independent, shows what sort of orchestrated effort was put forth by MoveOn.org and the Liberals, to oust Lieberman in the primaries.

Another race that was interesting, was Foley's district in Florida. The conservative replacement was almost able to overcome the overwhelming disadvantage to win, not because some Liberal movement swept through Foley's district, but because the Liberal ploy of 'outing the gay' after he was already on the ballot, actually worked out for them.

It's easy to understand how excited Liberals are, after all, they haven't won much lately, and this was pretty much 'it' for them. I can see why they want to now tie their Liberal ideology to the win, even though they literally hid from it, leading up to election day. It's surprising to me, they don't feel the need to be bipartisan now, because Bush wasn't. For some reason, they think America has shifted to Liberalism and now sees the world from their perspective, and they have a mandate to implement Liberal policy. We'll see.

i think this is the democrats chance to either make it or break it... if they fail... then they'll lose the house/senate and probably presidency next election...

 

[Onceler]

"they don't feel the need to be bipartisan now, because Bush wasn't. For some reason, they think America has shifted to Liberalism and now sees the world from their perspective, and they have a mandate to implement Liberal policy"

Can you find one statement to back that up? You said there were threads all over the board here, so it shouldn't be a problem.

Dixie, you suffer from CLASSIC PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION. This is your fear about the election results, so you project it onto the liberals who you despise. It has not basis in reality whatsoever.

The Democrats have a mandate to change the course in Iraq, and to try to clean up Congress. These are the areas that the voters spoke most about; Pelosi, Reid & every other Democratic leader I have heard have reiterated this.

Yet somehow, when you turn on the TV, or read a statement, you see it as "We are not going to impose a far-left agenda on America, because we have been given a mandate to do so!"

In short, you're insane.

 

[Cancel7]

put down the kool aid dixie.

I haven't heard any democrat here say this election was a mandate for secularism.

Its about Iraq and incompetence, stupid.

This election was a mandate for secularism! And for socialism! Every elected dem is going to show up for the new session wearing t-shirts that say "EAT THE RICH BEFORE THEY EAT YOU"

The tax rate for the middle class will go up to 98%! We are going to preemptively pardon Bin Laden! You know, just on the off chance Bush ever catches him. Saddam Hussein will be set free and given a medal. Pelosi is working on the design of it as we speak.

Bibles will be outlawed! Anyone who has more than one child will be imprisoned!

Oh, we're taking over baby. Hide under your bed Dixie!

 

[Cancel7]

Yes... 30+6+6 all winning with about 2-3% of the vote! There was no Liberal Landslide! Your guys, mostly hand-picked conservative Democrats, won their races by a few percentage points, and this is NOT a Liberal mandate.

Of course you were on message board posting over and over "THERE IS NO CONSERVATIVE MANDATE" when Bush lost the popular vote to Gore and had to go to the Supreme Court to get "elected" right? I'd love to see those posts. Is whatever board you put them up on still around?

 

[dmp]

how was he not in compliance?? we had WMD inspectors there telling us that there were no WMD's.. Bush didn't even let them finish their investigation before he went holyroller and bombed the hell out of them

Your not remembering correctly. Saddam was told to PROVE he didn't have WMD. He BLOCKED ACCESS to inspectors for a decade at some of the sites we suspsected. In fact, he did have thousands of pounds of artillery and other mass-delivery rounds; we found those, remember? Saddam consistantly FIRED at UN aircraft inforcing a UN no-fly zone. Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN and the US for a decade.

and 'shock and awe' aren't words id use to describe blowing up peoples homes cities, and children.

but not suprised judging by his 'christian values'

See what you're doing? You're changing the focus of the argument with hyperbole. People like you don't want debate; they don't want to LEARN anything. You seem to just want to PREACH.

 

[Sir Evil]

See what you're doing? You're changing the focus of the argument with hyperbole. People like you don't want debate; they don't want to LEARN anything. You seem to just want to PREACH.

Thats just law around here dmp, stick around for a while, before you know it you may possibly be able to count on one hand who here can actually create a conversation without cut & pastes or actually come up with something of a so called debate.

 

[Cypress]

Your not remembering correctly. Saddam was told to PROVE he didn't have WMD. He BLOCKED ACCESS to inspectors for a decade at some of the sites we suspsected. In fact, he did have thousands of pounds of artillery and other mass-delivery rounds; we found those, remember? Saddam consistantly FIRED at UN aircraft inforcing a UN no-fly zone. Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN and the US for a decade.



See what you're doing? You're changing the focus of the argument with hyperbole. People like you don't want debate; they don't want to LEARN anything. You seem to just want to PREACH.

LOL

And yet another bush cheerleader vainly continues to try justify Bush's war, the loss of thousands of american soldiers, and the expenditure of half a trillion taxpayer dollars

 

[Onceler]

In March of 2003, Hans Blix reported to Congress that inspectors had unfettered access to all suspected sites.

Just an FYI.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Your not remembering correctly. Saddam was told to PROVE he didn't have WMD. He BLOCKED ACCESS to inspectors for a decade at some of the sites we suspsected. In fact, he did have thousands of pounds of artillery and other mass-delivery rounds; we found those, remember? Saddam consistantly FIRED at UN aircraft inforcing a UN no-fly zone. Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN and the US for a decade.



See what you're doing? You're changing the focus of the argument with hyperbole. People like you don't want debate; they don't want to LEARN anything. You seem to just want to PREACH.

LMAO! Talk about irony: you've taken the irony cake for today, dimples.

Hyperbole? How about the facts you don't mention. Like the fact that the no-fly zones weren't "UN no fly zones" at all. They were US no fly zones and illegal by UN lights. Like the fact that the UN's own team was in Iraq and reporting good progress when your boy decided to play army men with live men.

 

[Cancel7]

In March of 2003, Hans Blix reported to Congress that inspectors had unfettered access to all suspected sites.

Just an FYI.

Please stop disturbing the flow of the debate here by posting facts.

 

[dmp]

LMAO! Talk about irony: you've taken the irony cake for today, dimples.

How did you know I have dimples?

HLike the fact that the no-fly zones weren't "UN no fly zones" at all. They were US no fly zones and illegal by UN lights.

You're saying they were US-mandated No-fly zones? And ILLEGAL flyzones from a UN perspective? Got any evidence or are you just spouting your opinion as fact, hoping I'd back down?

Like the fact that the UN's own team was in Iraq and reporting good progress when your boy decided to play army men with live men.

That's simply not true. The UN gave the mandate for Saddam to comply with THEIR earlier mandate and warned of consequence. Your comments surprise me because I honestly thought the "Iraq War is Illegal" ninnies had dried up. lol Did I register at DemocraticUnderground by mistake?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

In March of 2003, Hans Blix reported to Congress that inspectors had unfettered access to all suspected sites.

Just an FYI.

Yes, with 150,000 American troops on his borders, awaiting invasion orders, he allowed full acceess. Too bad he didn't allow it before then, maybe we could have avoided a war.... like the previous 12 years he was supposed to be allowing unfettered access under UN mandate!

 

[maineman]

so what? Don't you think that with those troops on his borders and the inspectors having full access, that we would have discovered soon enough that he did NOT have any WMD's that were capable of being used against the US....

and he would have been keeping a lid on sectarian violence like we are incapable of doing, he would have been keeping islamic extremists out the area like we have been incapable of doing, and he would have been keeping a lid on Iranian hegemony like we have been incapable of doing, and we would not have suffered 24K dead and wounded and flushed a half a trillion dollars down the shitter

 

[OrnotBitwise]

How did you know I have dimples?



You're saying they were US-mandated No-fly zones? And ILLEGAL flyzones from a UN perspective? Got any evidence or are you just spouting your opinion as fact, hoping I'd back down?



That's simply not true. The UN gave the mandate for Saddam to comply with THEIR earlier mandate and warned of consequence. Your comments surprise me because I honestly thought the "Iraq War is Illegal" ninnies had dried up. lol Did I register at DemocraticUnderground by mistake?

I assure you that the no-fly zones were indeed illegal. Look it up: I don't have time to do your remedial international relations homework for you.

In case you hadn't noticed it, the "Iraq War is Illegal" ninnies now outnumber you ninnies. Get with the program dudette.

 

[dmp]

I assure you that the no-fly zones were indeed illegal. Look it up: I don't have time to do your remedial international relations homework for you.

Either you are ignorant or a liar. Ignorance of internation law is understandable.

In case you hadn't noticed it, the "Iraq War is Illegal" ninnies now outnumber you ninnies. Get with the program dudette.

Yes - On this board, they seem to. In reality - those who have a clue - stopped using that slogan once they opened their mind to law, common sense, and reality.

 

[Cypress]

Yes, with 150,000 American troops on his borders, awaiting invasion orders, he allowed full acceess. Too bad he didn't allow it before then, maybe we could have avoided a war.... like the previous 12 years he was supposed to be allowing unfettered access under UN mandate!

this is the kind of spin, excuse-making, and lame justifications for war, that got lost you the Senate and House. the majority of americans aren't buying your bull shit excuse-making anymore.




but, by all means: keep it up!