Warning: Table './mypetpee_mpp3/cache_page' is marked as crashed and last (automatic?) repair failed query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_page WHERE cid = 'http://mypetpeeves.com/rant/28108' in /home/mypetpee/domains/mypetpeeves.com/html/includes/database.mysqli.inc on line 134

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/mypetpee/domains/mypetpeeves.com/html/includes/database.mysqli.inc:134) in /home/mypetpee/domains/mypetpeeves.com/html/includes/bootstrap.inc on line 729

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/mypetpee/domains/mypetpeeves.com/html/includes/database.mysqli.inc:134) in /home/mypetpee/domains/mypetpeeves.com/html/includes/bootstrap.inc on line 730

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/mypetpee/domains/mypetpeeves.com/html/includes/database.mysqli.inc:134) in /home/mypetpee/domains/mypetpeeves.com/html/includes/bootstrap.inc on line 731

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/mypetpee/domains/mypetpeeves.com/html/includes/database.mysqli.inc:134) in /home/mypetpee/domains/mypetpeeves.com/html/includes/bootstrap.inc on line 732
Not a rant, a RAVE!!!! | MyPetPeeves.com

Not a rant, a RAVE!!!!

You should all go get Sarah Palins book and read it. Inform your brain because I know most of you only think of her what you saw on TV. FACT: 99% of Alaskans do NOT like the Sarah that was on TV as VP elect. FACT: The Sarah you saw on TV is not Sarah, it was what the GOP made her be. FACT: She fixed our state, she can damn well fix the country.

Learn the facts before you debate me too.

Go Sarah 2016!!!

Comments

Well I was going to edit this

Well I was going to edit this so it said we *DID NOT* instead of DO NOT, but ummm, I don't see an edit button?

Alright, a debate....

Actually, no debate, in fact, I can't even find fault in your logic. People often forget that what they see on TV is quite often NOT what is REAL! Good job poiinting that out, AK. You may as well have changed your HAIR color or something (Inside joke for those that don't understand).

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA You should

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You should pick up her book though, it's a great read. I swear, it's like the RNC never even wanted McCain to win. It almost makes the elections look as rigged as pro wrestling!

It is on my christmas list

It is on my christmas list you should look at this website and what others have to say about Sara Palin.

 

http://otpoliticalposts.forumotion.com/forum.htm Warning thought some of the posts are not to freindly however most are really positive.

I read a lot of bad reviews,

I read a lot of bad reviews, from people who didn't even read the book!!! It's amazing to see that people can not open the book but put their two cents in. It was a great book, and it's nice to see things from her point of view. I was in Alaska for her entire stay a governor, and we all loved her. Everyone loved her until she was announced as the VP candidate. Then the Democrats had to hate her based on their party name. Sad to think she did so much outside of her party line yet they all turned their back on her when it mattered most.

Poor girl has been through hell and back, and nobody will ever leave her alone, no matter what she does now.

So are you saying that in

So are you saying that in reality she supports effective entitlement and welfare programs, universal healthcare, gay rights (including marriage), reproductive rights, comprehensive sex education in schools, sensible firearm legislation, proactive environmental policy, and generally gives more credence to empirical evidence than to religious fervor and popular belief? If that's the case than sure, I'd consider voting for her! But I get the feeling she isn't quite that "mavericky." 

People often forget that what they see on TV is quite often NOT what is REAL! 

I couldn't agree more! More often than not, what we see on TV is what's sensational. Reality plays only a small role here. But just so we're all on the same page, you realize that this applies to Fox News as well, right? In fact, to them more so than many others, based on the studies that have been done.

I swear, it's like the RNC never even wanted McCain to win. It almost makes the elections look as rigged as pro wrestling!

Of course! They didn't want their ticket to win! That explains EVERYTHING! I mean it could be that; a) Palin isn't quite as spectacular as she would like you to believe; b) the RNC made some big, but unintended, miscalculations; and/or c) they built a platform based largely on smoke and mirrors, and do to some strange twist of fate, much of the voting public was able to see through it this time. But I'm sure you're right. This was all just a conspiracy to hurt an obscure Alaskan governor by nominating her to the Vice Presidency and then throwing the election. That makes much more sense.

It's easy for Sara Palin to write a book after the fact and blame everything on the McCain campaign—you like her, so you want to believe her—but the fact she wrote it doesn't make it all true.

Then the Democrats had to hate her based on their party name. Sad to think she did so much outside of her party line yet they all turned their back on her when it mattered most.

Now I'm no Democrat, but I know many of them. Everyone I know (including myself and many Republicans) dislike Sara Palin because of her policies. Party line has nothing to do with it. She may have done things now and then that I approve of. Everyone has their good days. But by and large I find the things she stands for to be abhorrent and dangerous to society.

I was in Alaska for her entire stay a governor, and we all loved her. Everyone loved her until she was announced as the VP candidate.

Really? EVERYONE loved her? She got 100% of the vote in her gubernatorial election? Do you think perhaps its more accurate to say that you and the people you're close with loved her? Perhaps you could acknowledge that some of the people you're not so close to didn't like her all that much, even before she was the VP candidate and even in Alaska.

Poor girl has been through hell and back, and nobody will ever leave her alone, no matter what she does now.

You act as if she wants to be left alone. People who want to be left alone don't write books, give press conferences and run for public office. I'd be happy to leave her alone if she'd be willing to leave me alone and stay out of my government. 

I read a lot of bad reviews, from people who didn't even read the book!!! It's amazing to see that people can not open the book but put their two cents in.

Your right. I haven't read the book yet, so I won't offer any critique of it. But I have read a good deal about Sara Palin, from multiple sources, so when it comes to her I do feel justified in putting my two cents in. And before you get all flamey on me, ask yourself this: Have you read all of Obama's books? How about the Clintons' publications? Have you read Ted Kennedy? John Kerry? Al Gore? If not, has that stopped you from criticizing them and their policies? 

So getting back to my initial question, does the book indicate such drastic changes in her core values and policies? If so, then I'll run out and get it right away. But if it's just recounting her perspective on the campaign in-fighting and support for her contention that the media misrepresented her, then I have little interest.

Troll Alert!

I was going to reply to a few things you said, but instead all I can say is this:

 

HEY PEEVERS, WE HAVE A NEW TROLL!!!!!

 

If you did your homework you wouldn't have said half the nonsense you said. I don't debate with people that aren't informed.

Be warned all! Disliking the worst fool liar politicians

makes you a troll! RFLOL!

It's TGIX in disguise.

It's TGIX in disguise.

Naah...

TGIX wouldn't 'hide' himself from us, he is always right and never wrong, THIS guy, though he talks like TGIX, doesn't use foul language the way TGIX was known for either. Of course, I could be worng, but I think Ed is still getting healthy from his car accident and has 'better' things (Can't believe I am defending him, but I never held much malice towards him despite what he said about my wife once, just once) to do than stir up the pot that IS PEEVES!

Yeah, TGIX is man enough to

Yeah, TGIX is man enough to be TGIX and doesn't need to hide behind some new name. 

You can defend him Walter, I have before. He did stuff other then just stir the pot, I remember times I had a few good rants going with him. This new one IS a troll, cause I have yet to see one post he's made that isn't trying to piss someone off.

Not TGIX

I am not now, nor have I ever been, TGIX. But thank you, AK, for questioning my manhood.

The fact that I seem to disagree with you on many issues doesn't make me a troll. MPP isn't some right-wing blog that I'm crashing. You're just choosing to treat it that way. It also doesn't make me uninformed. 

Actually, I haven't made any deliberate effort to piss anybody off and have posted several supportive comments on this site. Sorry if you missed them AK. Perhaps I just haven't seen you say anything I feel I can support yet. Mostly your statements just peeve me, and this is the place to discuss our pet peeves.

Other than a little good natured sarcasm, nothing I said was nonsense. If you don't want to debate me, that's fine. I wasn't asking you to. But that's no reason to insult me. I've refrained from personal attacks. You should try it sometime.

When did Ed get into an

When did Ed get into an accident? I never heard about that.. To bad he didn't have government health care.

It's easy for Sara Palin to

It's easy for Sara Palin to write a book after the fact and blame everything on the McCain campaign—you like her, so you want to believe her—but the fact she wrote it doesn't make it all true.

McCain ran one of the worst campaigns in history. But there were those that did hate McCain and wanted him to lose. I bet those people are happy now.

 

Now I'm no Democrat, but I know many of them. Everyone I know (including myself and many Republicans) dislike Sara Palin because of her policies. Party line has nothing to do with it. She may have done things now and then that I approve of. Everyone has their good days. But by and large I find the things she stands for to be abhorrent and dangerous to society.

But you give no examples.

Really? EVERYONE loved her? She got 100% of the vote in her gubernatorial election? Do you think perhaps its more accurate to say that you and the people you're close with loved her? Perhaps you could acknowledge that some of the people you're not so close to didn't like her all that much, even before she was the VP candidate and even in Alaska.

 

Now your just being a smart ass.

You act as if she wants to be left alone. People who want to be left alone don't write books, give press conferences and run for public office. I'd be happy to leave her alone if she'd be willing to leave me alone and stay out of my government.

No she wants her family left alone. The attacks were horrid. I could imagine if SNL did a skit on Obama having sex with his children.

aka MV

According to Dawn, ED was in a really bad auto accident a few months ago. I've heard nothing else, but he IS in my prayers.

I will pray for the big turd.

I will pray for the big turd. Don't want to see anyone get hurt.

@MV But you give no

@MV

But you give no examples.

I gave several examples at the beginning of my post. I generally disagree with her positions on entitlement and welfare programs, healthcare, gay rights, reproductive rights, sex education in schools, firearm legislation and environmental policy... to name a few. I also feel she gives more credence to religious fervor and popular belief than empirical evidence.

Now your just being a smart ass.

Yes. Yes I am. I do that sometimes when people make sweeping generalizations and talk in absolutes. I'm just trying to illustrate how ridiculous the statements are. But for the record, my ass does have a very high IQ.

No she wants her family left alone.

Then she should stop using them to further her career. I'm not saying there weren't some tasteless jokes flying around (and no, I didn't approve of them), but if Palin's going to bring her family and parenting skills into a political campaign then she can't expect them to be impervious to retort.

I'm only giving into the

I'm only giving into the troll for one thing:

Gay rights: Sarah may be anti-gay, but she is NOT anti-gay rights. She signed the fucking gay rights into effect in AK. Like I said before, DO YOUR HOMEWORK BEFORE YOU TRY TO SPEAK ABOUT HER.

Know why Sarah Palin is awesome? Because she NEVER did anything for her personal beliefs while in office, everything she did was for the PEOPLE, as in she had the PEOPLE decide and that's how she acted. BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE.

Maybe you should do some

Maybe you should do some homework yourself there AK.

True, Sarah Palin complied with the Supreme Court of Alaska's ruling the the state had to provide state benefits to same sex partners, but she did so begrudgingly. “We have no more judicial options. We may disagree with the rationale behind the ruling, but our responsibility is to proceed forward with the law and follow the Constitution.“ When asked if she supported the ruling she said "No, I believe spousal benefits are reserved for married citizens as defined in our constitution." She stated on numerous occasions that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, and that she would support a ballot question that would deny benefits to homosexual couples. When asked if she would support extending same-sex benefits beyond Alaska to the rest of the nation, she said "Well, not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. And unfortunately that’s sometimes where those steps lead. I don’t support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman, and I think through nuances we can go round and round about what that actually means. I’m being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non- support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage."

So, how exactly does this make her pro gay rights?

I lived through the lesson

I lived in AK when she was governor and signed the rights into effect. 

WE VOTED ON THEM - it had nothing to do with the supreme court. WE THE PEOPLE voted on these rights and she signed them into effect. *I* myself voted on the proposition!!!

That's the problem with you trying to debate me - I KNOW the facts cause I lived through them. You can't lie to me and make up what happened when I lived through it. Yes, she may be against gay marriage, but she had the RIGHT to not sign the bill into effect, but she DID sign it into effect, which goes against her beliefs. 

AGAIN - BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE.

Actually, it had a great deal

Actually, it had a great deal to do with the Supreme court. I'm happy for you that you lived through it, but check your history. In 2005, Alaska's Supreme Court ruled, in a case brought in 1999 on behalf of nine couples, that the state could not deny benefits to the domestic partners of state government employees. The court ordered the state to implement that ruling in late 2006. Palin let a resolution stand that urged the court to delay implementation of same-sex partner benefits, but he court did not grant the delay.

Palin did veto HB 4001, which would have prohibited the Commissioner of Administration from implementing the regulations that would extend same-sex partner benefits, but only because  "The Department of Law advised me that this bill... is unconstitutional given the recent court order... mandating same-sex benefits," and "With that in mind, signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office." She added "Please know that this veto does not signal any change or modification to my disagreement with the action and order by the Alaskan Supreme Court."

Eight days before signing the veto, Palin signed another bill, HB 4002, that called for a "statewide advisory vote" regarding the ruling from Alaska's high court, saying in a statement, "We may disagree with the rationale behind the ruling, but our responsibility is to proceed forward with the law and follow the Constitution... I disagree with the recent court decision because I feel as though Alaskans spoke on this issue with its overwhelming support for a Constitutional Amendment in 1998 which defined marriage as between a man and woman. But the Supreme Court has spoken and the state will abide." That advisory vote occurred on April 3, 2007 at the cost of $1.2 million to the State of Alaska. Representative John Coghill, HB 4002's prime sponsor, said publicly that he was looking for "an overwhelming majority" of Alaskans to vote in favor of only providing benefits to opposite sex couples so he would have public support for legislation to enact another constitutional amendment. Ultimately, Alaskans voted 52% in favor and 48% against the advisory vote.

If you have more information about this proposition of which you speak, I would be happy to hear about it. However, it doesn't change the fact that Palin is, by her own admission, anti-gay rights and would do nothing to further those rights if elected to national office. Perhaps I give more weight to these statements than you do, but that doesn't make them lies. I'm not making this stuff up. If you did a little research before jumping to conclusions and calling me names then you would see that.

 

Again, I lived there

We voted during our normal local elections on the proposition for gay rights. I don't know where you get your info, but I wouldn't consider it a very good source. It wasn't any special vote, and it didn't cost the state any extra money (the only people that would have spent money were the people that wanted to get word out for whichever side they were on). HB 4001 would have DENIED same sex benefits, so it's good she vetoed it - and it's against her personal beliefs so I don't see anything "self serving" about that veto. Looks like she was doing her job (as she always did in AK).

Want to know what happened in AK? Sarah said "why don't we let the people decide, and they're already voting in April so lets just add it to the ballot as a proposition". It's just like when the city wants to get money for road work or school upgrades, they put it on the ballot and people vote. Instead of being a typical politician and making a decision she "thinks" the rest of the state agrees with, she put it to a vote and let the people decide. She never once signed anything that was against the PEOPLEs decision. The vote had nothing to do with marriage, it was strictly for benefits. And it didn't cost the state any money, as I stated it was just added to the ballot for our local elections.

Can you please tell me what

Can you please tell me what proposition you are talking about? I would like to look it up for myself. So far I have not found any references to it in my research.

As for my statements about the Supreme Court case, HB 4001 and HB 4002, I have crosschecked several sources. I rarely rely on just one. The information is factual. 

Yes, it's great that she vetoed HB 4001. But she made a point of saying she only did it because she had to, and that she would support a future constitutional amendment to deny benefits to same sex couples. You can give her credit for that if you wish, but I don't think she deserves it.

In any case, she is still unabashedly against gay marriage, benefits for same-sex couples, gays in the military and other gay rights issues. And she acknowledged she would do nothing to further these issues on a national level. Given that, I see no reason why I am not completely justified in opposing her stance on gay rights.

Sounds like she did her job

She vetoed it because she "had to" - that means unlike the majority of the politicians out there she actually did her job. Coghill wanted her to "fight the courts" but unlike the CBC (corrupt bastards club) she did her job. Of course I'm going to give her credit for doing her job, even more so because what she did was AGAINST her personal beliefs. Unlike the majority of the politicians out there she put her personal agenda aside and did what the PEOPLE wanted. 

Also - in order for a constitutional amendment to deny benefits to same sex couples to go through, it would again have to be VOTED ON BY THE PEOPLE. So yes, she has all the right to support something that is in agreement with her personal beliefs. She couldn't do anything about it without the consent OF THE PEOPLE. 

No, she wouldn't personally do anything to further the issues on the national stage. But she wouldn't sign down a bill voted on BY THE PEOPLE that was for furthering rights/benefits/marriage. That's why she's so awesome, she does what the PEOPLE tell her to do. She's not out there working on her agenda, she's out there doing work FOR THE PEOPLE. 

The same sex benefits vote was part of our municipal election. Read a local AK paper if you want to know more about AK.

Unlike the majority of the

Unlike the majority of the politicians out there she put her personal agenda aside and did what the PEOPLE wanted. 

No, she did what the courts required. That particular veto had nothing to do with the people, per say. And she didn't exactly put her personal agenda aside. She just recognized that it was a battle she couldn't win at the time and decided to concentrate her resources elsewhere to fight it from another direction.

So yes, she has all the right to support something that is in agreement with her personal beliefs. 

You're absolutely correct! I have never said otherwise! i just happen to find her personal beliefs immoral. That is my personal belief, which I also have the right to support.

No, she wouldn't personally do anything to further the issues on the national stage.

Which gives me little reason to support her on a national ticket.

But she wouldn't sign down a bill voted on BY THE PEOPLE that was for furthering rights/benefits/marriage.

 That's not necessarily true and she has made statements suggesting otherwise.

...she does what the PEOPLE tell her to do. She's not out there working on her agenda, she's out there doing work FOR THE PEOPLE. 

Working for "the people" doesn't mean blindly following the majority opinion. That's why the founding fathers designed our government as a democratic republic, not a democracy. And if you think she isn't pushing for an agenda you're deluding yourself.

The same sex benefits vote was part of our municipal election.

While I have relatives in Alaska, I do not reside there myself and cannot go browsing through the archives of your local paper. You apparently can, so can you please give me the date of this election and perhaps the proposition number? All the references I've found talk about HB 4002 and the advisory vote, which did pass by a small margin, but it was against gay rights. i'm honestly interested in this, so I'm asking you to enlighten me. If you have the facts than please share them.

Yes. Yes I am. I do that

Yes. Yes I am. I do that sometimes when people make sweeping generalizations and talk in absolutes. I'm just trying to illustrate how ridiculous the statements are. But for the record, my ass does have a very high IQ.

 

Why is it so hard to acknowledge that she was popular. I even knewe what she means and I am sure you did to.

 

I generally disagree with her positions on entitlement and welfare programs, healthcare, gay rights, reproductive rights, sex education in schools, firearm legislation and environmental policy...

As far as gay rights I have said this once before and I will say it again gays have the same exact right as I do or you do. As far as welfare we have tried it the liberals way back in the 70s under Carter it was the biggest failure of all time. No one was looking for work because they did not have to. They learned how to beat hte system.  Reproductive rights I am going to assume you mean abortion. I will say this I could care less about abortion it does not matter it is the law of the land and it is going to stay that way. No matter who is for it or who is against it. I do not understand why people get worked up over it. It is here to stay so eveyone just needs to get over it.

 

Healthcare I retired from the military I earned government healthcare it is not the greatest but it is a hell of a lot better then what is coming down the pike. I earned that health care by being away from my family sacrificing a normal life. Now all of sudden people will not have to do anything to earn it they will just get it we are talking about smokers obese people drug addicts. This is a train wreck waiting to happen. I know we will disagree on this hopefully it will be a civil disagreement.

As far as Sex Ed sure it shoul be taught in schools but not to 5 year old's. It should be taught your freshmen year but even then it does not matter because if a kid is going to have sex then they are going to have sex. Most of the time it is the parents that just do not give a shit and do not look after there kids. Now there are those that do have good parents and they  end up pregnant anyway.

Fire arms are every Americans right to own period. I have may rifles and shotguns. A few pistols what pisses off about the left is that anytime something happens with a firearm they go running around like a bunch of pimps pushing there prostitutes. A bunch of phony bastards they are on it. Many of them own firearms in cities where it is illegal think they have the right to own them and tell every one else you can't own it. Your not going to stop murder in this country or world fact of life. Regardless if it is firearms or cars. Hell just last year someone used a samurai sword to kill a bunch of people we going to control that to? I do not get the left on trying to put us in a rubber room.

As far as religion everyone has the right to practice it. I will not bash anyone that believes in religion unless they are blowing up children. I will not bash atheist. I have one son that is going to become a preacher and one son that is a atheist. Best thing is they respect each other. The most radical religion right now on this face of the Earth is Islam period. Now before you bring up Christians had there violent path I will say to yes they did. I will acknowledge that but this is the 21 century time to grow up. If the Muslims were blowing up abortion clinics the left would be going nuts right now no if ands and buts about it. Muslims are staunchly against abortion worse then any christian. Sooner or later they will get around to blowing up those clinics. But they see the bigger picture the financial sector.

Now as far as Palins children it was right down brutal. I will disagree with you that she put them out there. She did not put them out there more then any other politician has. Certaintly not more then Obama did. We will just have to agree to disagree on that.

Climate change is a farse and everyone involved in it has been caught red handed lying. This is the biggest fraud on the American people ever. Now saying that should we take care of the planet of course. But not destroy jobs and tax people to death doing it. It should be done in a responsible manner. I agree with Palin on most of the climate stuff. We can take care of the enviroment and drill for oil look for alternative energy all at the same time. This notion that we must do something now has been proven false. People do not remember how bad it was in the 60s. Salmon were not running up rivers in Maine companies were pumping pullution in the air at record levels. We have made great srides in cleaning up Maine led the way Salmon are now running up river they abondoned thanks to laws that cleaned them up. The experts said that the Salmon would never run up those rivers again well guess what they were wrong. Thanks to those policies I enjoyed Salmon fishing when I was a kid.

In closing I do not understand why the left and the right cannot get along. Both want the same thing however they cannot agree on how to get there. That is the biggest thing maybe if they stopped calling each other names they would get there. Or if they would learn to bend as to find out what is the best way to go and stop arguing my way is better no my way is better they sound like a bunch of 3 year old's arguing about a toy.

 

Why is it so hard to

Why is it so hard to acknowledge that she was popular. I even knewe what she means and I am sure you did to.

I don't deny that Sarah Palin was popular, but AK tried to make a point that "everyone loved her" until the election and then the democrats "turned their back on her when it mattered most." That I find ridiculous. 

I wasn't going to go into all this, since it's so tangential to the topic at hand, but since you brought it up...

As far as gay rights I have said this once before and I will say it again gays have the same exact right as I do or you do.

They don't, but they should. I have seen first hand how the current state of gay rights affects people, even in more liberal states, and it isn't pleasant. 

As far as welfare we have tried it the liberals way back in the 70s under Carter it was the biggest failure of all time. No one was looking for work because they did not have to. They learned how to beat hte system. 

The problem with welfare is in the implementation. Not the concept. I'm not saying I support 1970s era welfare legislation, but that doesn't mean we need to throw the baby out with the bath water. 

Reproductive rights I am going to assume you mean abortion. I will say this I could care less about abortion it does not matter it is the law of the land and it is going to stay that way. No matter who is for it or who is against it. I do not understand why people get worked up over it. It is here to stay so eveyone just needs to get over it.

The legality of abortion is attacked all the time, there have been several setbacks and there is no reason to think it couldn't be appealed. Perhaps it isn't an important issue to you, but it is to me. Anti-choice legislation represents the legislation of religious beliefs and i can't stomach that.

Fire arms are every Americans right to own period. I have may rifles and shotguns. A few pistols what pisses off about the left is that anytime something happens with a firearm they go running around like a bunch of pimps pushing there prostitutes. A bunch of phony bastards they are on it. Many of them own firearms in cities where it is illegal think they have the right to own them and tell every one else you can't own it. Your not going to stop murder in this country or world fact of life. Regardless if it is firearms or cars. Hell just last year someone used a samurai sword to kill a bunch of people we going to control that to? I do not get the left on trying to put us in a rubber room.

I am not "the left," so you'll have to excuse me if I only speak for myself. Personally, I don't want to take everyone's guns away, but I do support responsible gun legislation. Just because we can't stop all murder doesn't mean we should legalize it. One of the big differences between cars and firearms is that driving a car requires you to take a test and get a license. 

 

As far as religion everyone has the right to practice it.

I have no problem with people believing whatever they want. I just have a problem with them trying to legislate those beliefs. 

I will not bash atheist.

You are more enlightened than most, but I'm glad to hear it.

The most radical religion right now on this face of the Earth is Islam period.

It's more accurate to say that most of the violent radicals in the world right now tend to be muslim. In fairness to muslims, most of them don't actually condone this kind of violence. 

Climate change is a farse and everyone involved in it has been caught red handed lying.

That is a gross misstatement, but I'll refer you to my comments on this rant for a more detailed opinion. 

In closing I do not understand why the left and the right cannot get along. Both want the same thing however they cannot agree on how to get there. That is the biggest thing maybe if they stopped calling each other names they would get there. Or if they would learn to bend as to find out what is the best way to go and stop arguing my way is better no my way is better they sound like a bunch of 3 year old's arguing about a toy.

I'm afraid that the left and right don't always want the same thing. And even when they do, their views on implementation are often separated by an unbridgeable gulf. Who gets to determine what is the "best way" to do something? Meeting in the middle often isn't an option. Many time you either need to go full force in one direction or the other if you have any chance of success. Of course left and right is far too simplistic a designation for people's positions, given the difference between social views and economic views, even in the same party. I do appreciate your sentiment though. i just wish the arguing could be a little more based in reality, avoiding the unnecessary use of misinformation and scare tactics. 

 

They did love her

And if you did your research with people in Alaska you'd know that. Her approval rating was almost 90% when she was governor. The only reason it dropped when she was elected to VP nom was because everyone had to vote in their party lines. Our local paper knew it, they had an article about how the local democrats were getting shit from the rest of the US democrats for supporting her. Typical politics. She was applauded by Democrats in AK when she was governor, they loved her. She worked outside her party lines when she was up there.

The legality of abortion is

The legality of abortion is attacked all the time, there have been several setbacks and there is no reason to think it couldn't be appealed. Perhaps it isn't an important issue to you, but it is to me. Anti-choice legislation represents the legislation of religious beliefs and i can't stomach that.

 

There are plenty of things in this country that is anti choice. Abortion is no different. Even if abortion is outlawed states will have to vote on it and maybe only one state might outlaw it. Other then that there is no reason to worry it is not going to change no matter how much it is attacked.

 

I have no problem with people believing whatever they want. I just have a problem with them trying to legislate those beliefs.

 

As do I. But both sides have there zealots on this issue.

 

It's more accurate to say that most of the violent radicals in the world right now tend to be muslim. In fairness to muslims, most of them don't actually condone this kind of violence.

Then they need to step up to the plate and start reporting people. They need to form task forces to deal with it and start being part of the salution instead of part of the problem.

 

 

That is a gross misstatement, but I'll refer you to my comments on this rant for a more detailed opinion.

 

I have read that but GW is still a myth. However I will refer to this

Now saying that should we take care of the planet of course. But not destroy jobs and tax people to death doing it. It should be done in a responsible manner. I agree with Palin on most of the climate stuff. We can take care of the enviroment and drill for oil look for alternative energy all at the same time. This notion that we must do something now has been proven false. People do not remember how bad it was in the 60s. Salmon were not running up rivers in Maine companies were pumping pullution in the air at record levels. We have made great srides in cleaning up Maine led the way Salmon are now running up river they abondoned thanks to laws that cleaned them up. The experts said that the Salmon would never run up those rivers again well guess what they were wrong. Thanks to those policies I enjoyed Salmon fishing when I was a kid.

 

We will just have to agree to disagree on GW. Both sides have an agenda and to think one side does not and the other side does is just foolish.

They don't, but they should. I have seen first hand how the current state of gay rights affects people, even in more liberal states, and it isn't pleasant.

Please name me one right they have that I do not.

 

Even if abortion is outlawed

Even if abortion is outlawed states will have to vote on it and maybe only one state might outlaw it. 

There is no guarantee the damage would be that contained, but in any case, one state outlawing abortion would be one state too many (in my opinion). And it's not just about keeping it legal, but also about keeping it accessible. 

Please name me one right they have that I do not.

Unless I've miss judged your sexuality, I think you mean name one right you have that they do not. Homosexuals do not have the right to get married. Because of that, they also miss out on many benefits typically extended to one's spouse (insurance and such). In many places they are not allowed to adopt children, or at least there are obstacles put up against such adoptions. Homosexuals are not allowed to serve in the military, which is just ridiculous, considering the current state of the world. Is that enough for you?

I cannot marry another man so

I cannot marry another man so we have the same right. I cannot put that man on my insurance. So again please tell me one right they have that I do not?

No you didn't!!!

MV, I hope you're just trying to piss me off. I didn't take you for a bigot. 

You have the right to marry the person you love. Hell, you can marry some girl just to get in her pants, or to steal her inheritance (I'm giving your charm the benefit of the doubt here), or maybe just because you enjoy each other's company. That is a right which homosexuals do not have. And while you can marry a woman, my friend Ellen does not have that right. There is absolutely no justifiable reason why someone's sex, or sexual orientation, should enter into this at all. We're talking about a civil contract between consenting adults. The only objections are religious in nature and religion has no place in legislation.

Do you know any homosexuals? In particular, do you know any who are in committed relationships? I have seen the hurt these so called "defense of marriage" laws cause good people. I have also been to a gay wedding or two and seen the joy it brings people. My wife and I can't figure out for the life of us how the hell two women marrying each other has any impact on the meaningfulness of our relationship. It boggles my mind how hateful people can be about something they don't understand. These are people's lives your messing with!

I do not have the right to

I do not have the right to marry the same sex as does every American. Now saying that should gays have the right to put there partner on there health insurance sure why not I could care less. Should they have the right to marry I know gays that have been married for 20 years by a preacher. Ya it is not recagnized by the state. But one statement by you disturbs me just because someone is against gay marriage does not make them a bigot.

Now could I care less if 2 gays gets married no I am secure enough in my manhood it would not bother me. But say they don't the same rights is just wrong. They do.

 

But if someone religious beliefes prevents them from believing in gay marriage I have no problem with it. It does not make them a bigot. The fringe gay people would have you believe that this is the same as slavory when in fact it is not. Hell I even know gay people against gay marriage.

I have known a lot of gay people I have been to gay clubs and I will tell you it was some of the strangest things that I have ever seen. However it is not strange to them.

 

But also I have a cousin that is an xray tech and she can tells us horror stories of gay people gerbels up there but and snakes. She has seen it all and she is very against it just for that reason. Not to mention the hemroids problems that come along with it.

Another cousin that works at a hospital of in the area and this is not  just subject to gays but he says STDs of the mouth have skyrocketed. along with genital cancers of the mouth.

 

I guess the moral of my story is you better watch what you eat and what you suck.

Remember Gay Ronny Reagan Junior

How about Dick Cheney's dike daughter

FUCKING RIGHT WING Hippo cretans.

LOL

How about those left wing

How about those left wing hippo cretans that support Ugandas Law in outlawing Homosexuality Zhithead.

Do what Cheney was told and STFU!

You are the reason the search for intelligent life is an extra terrestrial one

Wow

Did you think that all up by yourself.

Yes I did think that all up by myself.

Jealous?

You would be

People like you is why this

People like you is why this board died last time.

But if someone religious

But if someone religious beliefes prevents them from believing in gay marriage I have no problem with it. It does not make them a bigot.

If someone is against gay marriage on religious grounds, then fine, they shouldn't have a gay wedding themselves. And if that is the extent of their expression of this belief then I have no problem with it. I think it's a little ridiculous, but I respect their right to feel that way. However, if they attempt to instate or enforce legislation against gay marriage, then that is an entirely different story. At that point they are demonstrating intolerance and contempt for those who do not agree with their own beliefs and opinions. That is the definition of bigotry. 

Hell I even know gay people against gay marriage.

And there were plenty of blacks against integration. That isn't an excuse and it doesn't make it right.

I do not have the right to marry the same sex as does every American. ...say they don't the same rights is just wrong. They do.

That is a completely fallacious argument based on nothing but poorly parsed semantics. But if you really want to play that way, you have the right to marry a woman and more then half of all Americans do not have that same right. You have the right to marry someone you love (in a non-platonic way), while no homosexual has that right.

There is exactly zero difference between today's homophobic anti-gay marriage laws and the racist anti-interracial marriage laws of our not-too-distant past. Back than I could have said "Sure colored men can't marry white women, but I can't marry a colored woman, so they have the same rights I do." it was bullshit then and It's bullshit now.

But also I have a cousin that is an xray tech and she can tells us horror stories of gay people gerbels up there but and snakes. She has seen it all and she is very against it just for that reason. Not to mention the hemroids problems that come along with it.

I know many gay men and none of them have put gerbils or snakes up their butts. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but plenty of straight people have done things that were just as stupid and cruel (including putting gerbils and snakes up their butts). The animal cruelty of a few wayward homosexuals is an inane reason to oppose gay marriage. If anything your cousin should support gay marriage, since it encourages the formation of more stable relationships.

You do have those people that

You do have those people that hate gays just to hate them and would beat the living shit out of them and in some extreme cases kill them I have tolorance for those people. It was proposed to have civil unions that gave the same rights to gay people which then was shot down for some stupid reason. They should have taken the deal just my opinion.

 

That is a completely fallacious argument based on nothing but poorly parsed semantics. But if you really want to play that way, you have the right to marry a woman and more then half of all Americans do not have that same right. You have the right to marry someone you love (in a non-platonic way), while no homosexual has that right.

 

And again if I loved another man I would not be able to marry him. Which gives me the same right. Just like a gay man would have the right to marry a woman. Regardless if it is right or wrong is not my problem. Those people have to convince god not me.

 

There is exactly zero difference between today's homophobic anti-gay marriage laws and the racist anti-interracial marriage laws of our not-too-distant past. Back than I could have said "Sure colored men can't marry white women, but I can't marry a colored woman, so they have the same rights I do." it was bullshit then and It's bullshit now.

There is no law preventing gays from getting married. That is a falsehood they can. Now the federal government does not recognize that however it does not outlaw gay marriage. The law you talk about white men black women was actually a law forbidding it there is no such law on the books today for gay couples. I know a few people that have gotten married in Virginia they were married by a priest the state does not recognize that however it does not make it illegal. They are not going to hunt those people down and lock them in jail.

I know many gay men and none of them have put gerbils or snakes up their butts. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but plenty of straight people have done things that were just as stupid and cruel (including putting gerbils and snakes up their butts). The animal cruelty of a few wayward homosexuals is an inane reason to oppose gay marriage. If anything your cousin should support gay marriage, since it encourages the formation of more stable relationships.

What do you call a pedophile that abuses little kids? Some people want to make that legal NAMBLA comes to mind. Which is a disgusting organization. Now I will tell you this people do wierd stuff I will grant you that. I have seen the gay community first hand with some lesbian friends and I will tell you it is not normal. But then again those people have to make there peace with god not me. If they so choose to live that lifestyle.

But as I said before if a women gets to put another woman on her insurance and they get the tax breaks and all they have to make there peace with god.

It's OK. We know gay haters are themselves repressed gays

It is also good being one to have the last laugh

It was proposed to have civil

It was proposed to have civil unions that gave the same rights to gay people which then was shot down for some stupid reason. They should have taken the deal just my opinion.

"Separate but equal" is not really equal. That's a lesson we learned decades ago. Well... some of us learned that lesson. It seems that some of us could use a historical refresher course. Now, if you would like to talk about getting rid of marriage all together (in the civil sense) and making it civil unions for everyone, than that's a proposal I would be happy to talk about. 

And again if I loved another man I would not be able to marry him. Which gives me the same right. Just like a gay man would have the right to marry a woman.

So you're saying it's OK to ban all gun ownership, since the people who don't want guns can't own them either, so you all have the same rights? While we're at it, why don't we ban all technology? It wouldn't bother the Amish and we would just have the same rights as them, so nothing to complain about, right? You're using a narrowly constructed semantic argument to justify something that has no justification.

Regardless if it is right or wrong is not my problem.

Just because the issue doesn't effect you personally does not mean that you are somehow free from responsibility. We live in a democratic republic. Your actions (and inactions) have an impact on legislation. Perhaps you've heard this little poem before, written by Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

If you want others to stand up for your rights, even when they have no direct stake in it themselves, then yes, this is your problem.

Those people have to convince god not me.

I couldn't give a rat's ass what this "god" fellow thinks. He is not an American citizen and doesn't make the laws. In fact, he is constitutionally banned from influencing legislation in any way. You have far more impact on the legality of gay marriage. Democracy, remember? Why don't you grow a pair and accept some responsibility. 

There is no law preventing gays from getting married. That is a falsehood they can. Now the federal government does not recognize that however it does not outlaw gay marriage... I know a few people that have gotten married in Virginia they were married by a priest the state does not recognize that however it does not make it illegal.

Now you're mixing your marriages. I don't care about the religious institution of marriage. What ceremonies an individual priest does or does not consent to perform is irrelevant to this conversation. I am solely concerned with the civil institution of marriage. Please do not confuse the two. One has little to do with the other. Talking about religious ceremonies is just distracting from the issue at hand. The fact is, as you yourself acknowledged, same-sex marriage is not recognized by the state, thereby denying same-sex couples all the rights and privileges afforded married couples. So yes, there is a law preventing homosexuals from getting married (civilly speaking). The fact that they aren't lynched as often doesn't mean it isn't illegal. 

What do you call a pedophile that abuses little kids?

Are you trying to equate homosexuality with pedophilia? Seriously? The fact is that the vast majority of pedophiles are straight. Homosexuals make up the same percentage of the pedophile population that they do in the population at large, no more. The idea that homosexuals are somehow dangerous and more likely to be pedophiles is a myth, propagated by homophobic bigots. It has no basis in reality.

I have seen the gay community first hand with some lesbian friends and I will tell you it is not normal.

No, you have seen one facet of the gay community and it looked different than what you consider normal. I have seen many facets of the straight community that are thoroughly sick and twisted (both in and out of the bedroom), but I'm not generalizing that behavior and labeling all heterosexuals as abnormal. Why is it that you think it's OK to label all homosexuals as abnormal, just because you may have witnessed a few of them doing something on the wild side? There isn't just one "gay community", they don't all know each other and they don't all act the same. If you don't want to be lumped in with the sadomasochistic coprophilia side of heterosexual activities, then stop generalizing about what homosexuals do or do not do. You are just fear mongering and feeding the flames of bigotry. 

Interesting...

What do you call a pedophile that abuses little kids?

Are you trying to equate homosexuality with pedophilia? Seriously? The fact is that the vast majority of pedophiles are straight. Homosexuals make up the same percentage of the pedophile population that they do in the population at large, no more. The idea that homosexuals are somehow dangerous and more likely to be pedophiles is a myth, propagated by homophobic bigots. It has no basis in reality.

 

You would not call a male pedophile that only picks little BOYS a homosexual? They, pedophiles, do have preferences. So what WOULD you call a pedophile that goes after little boys?You really cannot call them 'straight' can you? By definition they are NOT straight, but are, in fact, HOMOsexual. Just because they like little boys doesn't makethem any less HOMOSEXUAL, does it? In prison, when the menrape other men (and sometimes, MANY time not raping at all) is that not also a homosexual act? Again, what is the definition of Homosexual? I think it is pretty clear here, some people just go too far trying to keep labels out of the equation, itis what it is.

Now I am not saying all gay men are closet pedophiles, but I AM calling all male pedophiles that target boys (young MEN) as Homosexuals.

I have to agree with Walter

I have to agree with Walter he explained it much better then I could ever. If a pedophile likes little boys only then by definition he is a homesexual. Case in point my daugter school teacher was gay teaching grade kids. Only problem was he was sexually abusing male boys only. Finally got caught but he did not turn in other people the chickenshit. I am sorry but no one will ever change my mind on this. If you are a male willing to suck a dick then you will do anything. If you are a female willing to eat pussy then you are willing to do anything with any kid not of age.

They do not know where to draw the line. No way would any of my kids be allowed to be babysitted by a homosexual period. I never allowed. Oh and lets talk about all those Catholic Preist with little boys they are by definition homosexauls. I am glad the boyscouts decided not to let them in. The scandals would have ruined them. They got it right.

No, you have seen one facet

No, you have seen one facet of the gay community and it looked different than what you consider normal.

 

And that is what it all boils down to. Ok I consider murder normal so everyone now is allowed to go out and kill. A pedophile that abuses little boys considers that normal. So since they consider that normal I take it you do to.

ust because you may have

ust because you may have witnessed a few of them doing something on the wild side?

 

A few oh no it was a whole bunch it was hundreds and hundreds in a gay club that 2 lesbains took me to. They has to sit on each side of me that night. After about 30 minutes I said I cannot take this. And we left. That was in my younger days when I did not give a shit about people being gay. But man were my eyes opened up.

You would not call a male

You would not call a male pedophile that only picks little BOYS a homosexual?

I never said that. What I said that most pedophiles are not homosexual. In other words, most pedophile men target little girls and most pedophile women target little boys. The percentage of pedophiles who are homosexual corresponds to the percentage or homosexuals in the greater population. Somewhere around 5-10% of people are homosexual and about 5-10% of pedophiles are homosexual. This indicates that there is absolutely no correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. If you pick a random heterosexual, they are just as likely to be a pedophile as any homosexual you meet. Which, in case you're wondering, is not that likely.

I am sorry but no one will ever change my mind on this. If you are a male willing to suck a dick then you will do anything. If you are a female willing to eat pussy then you are willing to do anything with any kid not of age.

And now the bigotry really comes out! That is absolute crap! How is it that a man couldn't possibly be attracted to another man without also being attracted to little boys, yet you can be attracted to women without being attracted to little girls? That is a baseless accusation showing nothing but your own blind intolerance. What line have homosexuals crossed that scares you so much? Yes, they are different from you, but that doesn't mean they have any less moral sense than you, or ability to tell right from wrong. They just happen to be attracted to people with the same genitalia as themselves.

And that is what it all boils down to. Ok I consider murder normal so everyone now is allowed to go out and kill. A pedophile that abuses little boys considers that normal. So since they consider that normal I take it you do to.

Murder and pedophilia can cause irreparable damage to other human beings and destroy the healthy functioning of a society. I do not consider that normal, or desirable, and screw you for insinuating that I might. I have said nothing in defense of either action. The only thing I have defended are homosexual relationships between consenting adults. That doesn't hurt anyone. It is a natural predilection that occurs throughout the animal kingdom.

A few oh no it was a whole bunch it was hundreds and hundreds in a gay club that 2 lesbains took me to. They has to sit on each side of me that night. After about 30 minutes I said I cannot take this. And we left. That was in my younger days when I did not give a shit about people being gay. But man were my eyes opened up.

Even several hundred homosexuals would be an insignificant percentage of the homosexual population of this country. There is no basis for taking the behavior of the people who happened to be in that one gay club on that one night and generalizing it to represent all gay people. That being said, what exactly did these people do that was so abnormal? Were they committing murder? Were they grabbing little kids off the street and raping them? Or, more likely, where they just getting hot and heavy on the dance floor? Perhaps there was even some nudity or, heaven forbid, some public sex? If that's what ruffled your feathers, then don't go to that club again. But there are plenty of straight clubs where the same shit happens. And not every gay club is like that.

Don't be such a bigot. Its an ugly trait.

A 'new' label to make us all 'happy'...

Strange Quark, don['t think I didn't notice how you CHERRY PICKED what I said, I even summated my thoughts in my last line;

Now I am not saying all gay men are closet pedophiles, but I AM calling all male pedophiles that target boys (young MEN) as Homosexuals.

Pretty sure that COVERED the 'Somewhere around 5-10% of people are homosexual and about 5-10% of pedophiles are homosexual.' and everything else you felt the need to 'correct' me on. I know what I wrote, I was specifically writing about the HOMOSEXUAL MEN THAT TARGET LITTLE BOYS, nothing more. YOU read into what I wrote more than was there. Simmer down. I actually have PERSONAL experience in this particular field, I know first hand the differences between the types of pedophilia and how the psychologists try their hardest to downplay the fact that the definition of homosexuality IS what that particular type of pedophiles are. Those people, the psychologists, work their collective arses off to try to not 'hurt the feelings' of those that commit these heinous acts and why? To get these people out of PRISON sooner? To make more money? I don't know, I only knkow that it isn't working it will NEVER work until people get over being 'scared' to label a pedohilic homosexual for a pedophilic homosexual.

Tell you what (not YOU Strange Quark, I am talking to people in general), since we have such a 'hard-on' for describing people of color correctly (African-American) instead of just American (or Black in my case, hey, if White is still alright, there MUST be an opposite, and Black IS the opposite, but that is a whole otehr Rant, isn't it?) let us hence forth, to avoid confusion or feelings of hurt from the homosexuals in the world, call a man that targets his own sex but kids, a PEDOHILE-HOMOSEXUAL. One that targets little girls but is a male, a PEDOPHILE-HETEROSEXUAL, and one that targets either sex withno preference, a PEDOHILE-BI-SEXUAL. The rest of the labels follow in the same pattern, actually, it would truly matter if the person was female targeting little girls, it would stillbe, by definition a homosexual act, would it not? But I will leave THOSE semantics to y'all to figure it out.

 

There, that is all I have to say on that subject.

Strange Quark, don['t think I

Strange Quark, don['t think I didn't notice how you CHERRY PICKED what I said...

Sorry if I offended, Walter. I picked that statement because I found it to be an erroneous interpretation of what I said earlier. I was just trying to clarify what I DID say. You implied (and still are, in fact) that I was trying to deny that pedophiles and prison rapists who target victims of their same sex are committing homosexual acts. I never denied that. I just think it's irrelevant to this conversation. Actually, I think it's irrelevant all together. The salient point is that they're pedophiles and rapists. Bringing up their sexuality is nothing but a pointless distraction, which encourages some people to see causality where none exists. I appreciate that you do not think "all gay men are closet pedophiles," but unfortunately others on this site do not seem to be so evolved.