| Author | Message | ||
     #9Dream Citizen Username: 9dream Post Number: 525 Registered: 12-2002  |
mem -- Remember (as any Republican can surely tell you) that sending billions of federal dollars over to another country is called "foreign aid," "humanitarian aid" or "rebuilding." Spending one penny of federal money on our own people is "Socialism."  | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 4946 Registered: 5-2001  |
http://www.costofwar.com | ||
| Walker Citizen Username: Fester Post Number: 2 Registered: 4-2003 |
There are two points in this. 1) The Catholic church has no say in weather you and your significant other can be joined under a legal union in the eyes of the law. 2) What business is it of the governments is it to say that you cannot be in a legally recognized union because the person that you want to create this union with happens to be the same sex as you, this sound an awful lot like discrimination. | ||
| Brett Citizen Username: Bmalibashksa Post Number: 20 Registered: 7-2003 |
The Catholic church has a say weather you and your significant other can be joined under a legal union if you are Catholic. I don't think that Bush is swayed by the Pope, he's swayed by what the people donating to his campaign are. Catholics can beleave what they want, just as you can. | ||
| Walker Citizen Username: Fester Post Number: 3 Registered: 4-2003 |
I say again the Catholic church Has no say in weather to people can enter in legally recognized union( Only a union under the eyes of god according to catholic doctrine )There is a significant difference. 2) I agree with you Catholics can believe whatever they like as can anyone elsebut that does not give the Government the right to allow one group of people to enter into legal unions and deny that right to another. | ||
| Brett Citizen Username: Bmalibashksa Post Number: 21 Registered: 7-2003 |
Walker Sorry I wasn't trying to make you mad. What I was saying is you can't be Catholic and gay. Popes rules, not mine. I don't know how they inforce that though. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 1889 Registered: 5-2001  |
Well, you can be Catholic and gay, just like one can be Catholic and divorced. In both instances, official doctrine does not approve of sexual relations outside of a till-death-do-us-part marriage between a man and a woman, but that does not make the person "not Catholic". If Rudy Giuliani can call himself a Catholic, any gay person who wants to, should as well. And, Brett, you are correct - enforcement is the tricky part, and probably a little uneven, as well. | ||
| us2innj Citizen Username: Us2innj Post Number: 807 Registered: 5-2001 |
An interesting poll I just read showed that 57% of Catholics approve of gay marriage. The general American population weighs in at 45%. | ||
| CFA Citizen Username: Cfa Post Number: 947 Registered: 5-2001  |
newjerz, You stated, "If there are no real "advantages" to marriage and two gay people are committed to each other and make promises of fidelity to each other, why does it matter if government acknowledges this as marriage?" Well, there ARE real advantages. My s/o (significant other) and I would love to file joint tax returns. God forbid he or I should be hospitalized because of illness or injury, there is a possibility (depending on what part of the country you're in) that neither one of us would be allowed to be with the other or make medical decisions. We would also love to have each other on our health insurance plans from work. Should one of us die, we would love not to have to pay exuberant legal fees to draft tons of documents to give the other the estate. The list goes on and on. It's NOT a social thing....for us, anyway. | ||
| snowmom Citizen Username: Snowmom Post Number: 97 Registered: 5-2001 |
Could everyone please calm down and pay a little more attention to their spelling?!? "Weather" refers to the elements outside; the word you mean is WHETHER And BELIEVE, not 'beleave' And of course the real issue is money; but sometimes intelligent thinking is swayed by beliefs; allow legal unions between whomever seeks them and tax them, or don't- it's high time to eliminate the 'marriage' tax anyway and encourage marriage | ||
| Jackie Day Citizen Username: Zoesky1 Post Number: 53 Registered: 6-2003 |
Re pissing off the world: The other day I saw a snippet of a Colin Powell press conference where he called Saddam a "piece of trash." Sure, Saddam Hussein sucks, but let's curb the 7th grade slurs and be a little more mature....with bluster and bravado like that, no wonder so many people in Europe and beyond shake their heads and say how obnoxious Americans are. We're obnoxious right in the middle of the West Wing. | ||
| lumpyhead Citizen Username: Lumpyhead Post Number: 355 Registered: 3-2002 |
Heavens to Betsy! You should never call Saddam or Hitler a piece of trash. It's so sophomoric and politically incorrect! | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 1613 Registered: 12-2001  |
Everybody agrees with the sentiment regarding Hussein. I, for one, would appreciate a slightly more refined way of communicating the sentiment. It seemed to me that Churchill and Roosevelt managed this with Hitler and he was a threat Hussein could only dream of becoming. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1083 Registered: 5-2001 |
Calling someone a "piece of trash" is hardly what one would consider "Churchillian," is it? I'd expect higher-quality rhetoric from Mr. Powell. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 1897 Registered: 5-2001 |
As Winston Churchill said (in his Churchillian way): "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." Gotta love that. Of course, he also said: "The Americans will always do the right thing ... after they've exhausted all the alternatives." | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 4951 Registered: 5-2001 |
And the all-time great Churchill quote: Lady Astor: "Winston, if I were your wife I'd put poison in your coffee." Winston: "Nancy, if I were your husband I'd drink it." | ||
| Mary Gallagher Citizen Username: Mary_g Post Number: 42 Registered: 2-2003 |
"I was in the Navy so I think that sometimes we do need to go to war." Brett, What did you mean by that statement? | ||
| Brett Citizen Username: Bmalibashksa Post Number: 22 Registered: 7-2003 |
When you serve in the Armed Forces you get an impression of what the rest of the world feels about Military Power. There was a lot of respect that comes from driving a war ship into a foreign port. Plus war is what we trained for, so for me (And I imagine a lot of service men and woman) we felt as if we could make a difference to our friends and family back home in the states by doing our job. If someone joined the military with the impression that they were not going to have to defend (or attack for) their country, they were quickly weeded out. People die in a war and that sucks, but there are benefits to it. There are some really bad people in the world that don’t have power anymore because the US military “Ended their careers” (Bushism) | ||
| montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 16 Registered: 6-2003 |
Yes, such a stunning success in Vietnam, where the troops had to end the careers of their officers. | ||
| anon Citizen Username: Anon Post Number: 741 Registered: 6-2002 |
I was not going to paticipate in this thread, but Dave, my friend, it was tea not coffee! After all, they were British! |
