Presidential Debate

This was a quote too, sorry:

Bush's response to the question about gay marriage was absolutely sickening. As he answered the question babbling about how gay marriage would basically ruined the 'sanctity of marriage" I was reminded of all the blindly religious hick retards who think gay people getting married would somehow ruin it for everyone else. Then, I realized that's pretty much who Bush is, a religious, hateful, hypocritical bigot.

"I'm for equal rights and I think ga people should be allowed to live the way they want, but if they are allowed to get married then it will ruin marriage for everyone because GAY PEOPLE ARE DOING IT." What's the underlying message there? You just know he uses the excuse of "well I guess I'm just old fashioned, gay people shouldn't have the same right to get a document pledging their love for one another that's recognized by the country". You know what else is old fashioned? Thinking black people should be forced to ride in the back of the bus. Bigot.

Bush is a dumbass prejudice hick who changed the american constitution to coincide with his prejudice beliefs."

I agree totally with ya Raven...Like I said, people will be gay if they want...but question is, are they born gay or do they become gay? I think they become gay personally...or its how they were raised...BUT, to legalize it in a court, we are teaching our kids that it is okay...thus allowing and teaching kids to be gay...we shouldn't teach them that...if that is what they become later in life for other reasons, fine...but let's not force it upon them...what would our society come to? We can't just allow anything that people want to do. Freedom is different than you think...if we allowed people to do whatever they wanted, it wouldn't be good...marrying their dogs...and all that jazz...

"i understand. but how do you expect a human being to ignore all the teachings and morals they were brought up with... the guy is 50+ and a new age tells him its ok.. what would you expect your Grandpa or Grandma to say? I would be scared if the President of the United States had no standings and just followed the whims of ups and downs of public opinion. Technically what Massechutes and San Fransisco had done was totally illegel, they tried to force all the States to accept thier ideology."

Maybe because Bush is NOT racist...that's why he goes with morals that we've always had...Being racist wasn't a moral...it was what SOME people thought at the time...to say all white people were back then just isn't true...to an extent maybe...but not all the way...think about the Civil War...Abraham Lincoln was fighting for the freedom of slaves...But the point is, we are not creating new morals and excepting everything that people decide they want to do. As for your mom, of course, not everyone is gonna agree with the same morals...my mom is also against allowing gay marriage in courts...its called a difference of opinion...and which is more morally right? Sorry to say it, but being gay is not natural. Now if you believe that's the same as being racist...that's like saying being black isn't natural...well, we all are differently colored...its called race...not what we decide to do...

"My mom's older then he is and she was probably brought up under the same morals, however, she thinks it's stupid that gay people aren't allowed to be married.

It's called THINKING FOR YOURSELF, something Bush should check out. I could care less if he wants to follow outdated morals, he should not be president if he's still using morals from teh 1940's. The morals that existed when he was young are not the same as now. The morals from when he was a child also stated that it was okay for black people to be forced to ride in the back of a bus and force them to have their own drinking fountain because white people didn't want them contaminating theres. Morals must change, if they didn't change slavery would still exist in this country.

Outdated, prejudice morals have no place in the presidential office, PERIOD."

I meant the two parties that Bush and Kerry are...Republican and Democratic...but I understand what your saying...HOWEVER, I think Bush did a better job...Kerry did remain the same...in my opinon a robot...and when I say that I mean a lawyer who is doing what is popular not what he believes...Just like he tried to talk about God a lot in that last debate...Bush was only different in the first debate in my opinon...he scowled yes and didn't do a good job...all my friends who like Bush agree...however, he stayed the same in the 2nd and 3rd...A "smiley liberal basher" I'm sorry dude, but they both bashed eachother...it comes with the debate...He was calm and stated his points but didn't frown...

"I agree with you to a point. The trouble with your argument is not everyone is in a party. I say that Kerry won the last debate. Not just because I think he is the better candidate but because independents overwhelmingly said Kerry won.

'A CNN/USA Today/Gallup snap poll taken immediately after the presidential debate found that respondents gave a significant edge to Kerry with 52% over Bush with 39%. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

The numbers were similar to the results of a poll taken the night of the first debate September 30 in Miami, Florida. That night Kerry was favored by a 53 percent to 37 percent margin.

Kerry and Bush were almost even in the second debate on October 5, with the numbers falling within the margin of error.

The respondents Wednesday were 511 registered voters who watched the debate. Their political affiliations broke down as 36 percent Republican, 36 percent Democratic and 28 percent independent.'

Let's assume of Bush's 39% that 36% of it is the Republican's that voted in the poll. That only leaves 3% independents saying Bush won. Yes, I am simplifying the results. I am sure that some Republican's stated that Kerry did a better job in the debate. The point is that Kerry is gaining a lead over Bush not only in the debate polls but regular polls.

Polls aren't extremely reliable but I bet the Bush camp is getting a bit concerned. Bush can't expect to win by going around the country talking to people that are already voting for him. His best chance to reach the independent voters was during the debates.

It is like you saw 3 different Bush's during the debates. 1st debate the idiot, 2nd debate the angry guy, 3rd debate the smiley liberal basher.

You say Kerry was a robot. I saw a consistent, passionate person. For Bush I saw a man with no consistency and multiple personalities"

Sure you can take a picture in the middle of anyone saying something and it makes them look dumb...obviously...such as this one of Kerry:

"i need some ideas for this pic.
bush makes some of the funniest faces out of any politician i can think of...besides maybe perot i guess. anyway, i need a caption. so any ideas would be much appreciated BTW, this image is not photoshopped, its all real 100% dubya"

Hahahahah....dude, you obviously don't know what your talking about...the constitution clearly states..."BETWEEN A MAN AND WOMEN"...get your facts straight...

" Lets also keep in mind that obviously Bush didn't like what the founding fathers defined marriage as, so he changed it to stricly say "between a man and a woman" rather then "between two people who love eachother" or whatever it said before."

quick question...just out of curiosity...who are you talking to? 😂

True, true. He keeps saying he has a plan and saying he'll do this and that...he promises a lot of things...and yet he doesn't really tell us his plan...he's a politician...Bush does what is right, not what is popular at the time...Who's the better leader? And since when did Bush sound like Beavis? Somebody obviously can't tell the difference between a lot of things...and that's why I don't trust your opinion on anything from now on...

"In all fairness there was something from the debates that did bother me about Kerry. He needs to find a different way to say 'I have a plan.' In know that you are supposed to repeat things to get it across to the voters. There should be a limit though."

Who am I talking to? You see the quotes at the bottom PVS? I am talking to people who said those things...

err....ummm....ok.....carry on.......... 🙄

😆 😆 😆 😆

Seeing as though I didn't have time to spend all my day on the internet today, like some people (hint hint), I am now getting on and putting in my say...

Originally posted by hunchy
Hahahahah....dude, you obviously don't know what your talking about...the constitution clearly states..."BETWEEN A MAN AND WOMEN"...get your facts straight...

" Lets also keep in mind that obviously Bush didn't like what the founding fathers defined marriage as, so he changed it to stricly say "between a man and a woman" rather then "between two people who love eachother" or whatever it said before."

Please show me exactly where it says that in the US Constitution.

You're clearly confused.
Or as these last few pages indicate, may not be living on the same planet as I am.

.BUT, to legalize it in a court, we are teaching our kids that it is okay...thus allowing and teaching kids to be gay...we shouldn't teach them that

Tolerance and respect for other people should never be taught to our children! 👆

It's best to stick to the racist prejudiced teachings found in the pornographic vile verses of the bible. 👆

Tex your really in to all this president crap arnt you? All I know is that whoever wins the election is not going to do anything to help america. Bush sucks and Kerry sucks so whoever wins america is f*cked.

Originally posted by R0B
All I know is that whoever wins the election is not going to do anything to help america. Bush sucks and Kerry sucks so whoever wins america is f*cked.

Nicely put! 👆

John Kerry will have his work cut out for him.
Bush will leave him with a disater in Iraq and a depressed economy with raging poverty, millions of uninsured children, a skyrocketing cost of living and a severly weakened less safe America.

We have to turn around as soon as possible.
Bush is driving America off a cliff, we need to hit the brakes and turn this puppy around. Before it's too late.

Yeah but tax wise, kerry wont help out for shit. Bush is definately a f*ck up, but Kerry wont be much better

Dude, first off, Bush DID NOT change the constitution...he's going by it...Whereas Kerry isn't...by wanting to allow gay marriage...secondly, its not the point that Bush is against gay marriage, its the legalization of it in a court which goes against the constitution...if people wanna be gay, there's nothing stopping them...its there choice...this has nothing to do with being prejudice...or racist against blacks...that was discrimination of the color of skin...not a choice that people made about men being with men and women being with women...one is mental...the other is physical....find the difference for yourself dude...and stop comparing them...

They are directly comparable because they are blatantly similar. Your idea of homosexuality being "a choice" is becomming more and more disproven every day with all sorts of studies and research that is going on. There is far more proof to back up the belief that being gay is NOT a concious choice one makes, it is something that they are born with, a chemical difference, or a chromonal difference, which causes it. You later go on to claim it isn't natural to be gay. Then why are there some animals who have sex with the same gender?

Since data shows that homosexuality is not a concious choice, then discrimination and prejudice against them is easily comparable to prejudice against black people/women.

to legalize it in a court, we are teaching our kids that it is okay...thus allowing and teaching kids to be gay...we shouldn't teach them that...if that is what they become later in life for other reasons, fine...but let's not force it upon them...what would our society come to? We can't just allow anything that people want to do. Freedom is different than you think...if we allowed people to do whatever they wanted, it wouldn't be good...marrying their dogs...and all that jazz...

So your implied argument is that gay people are smililar to people who have sex with animals, and if we allow gay marriage then beatiality marriage won't be far behind.

This, of course, is utter bullshit. There is an enourmous difference between having a relationship with someone of the same sex who is part of the same species, and someone who has sex with dogs. The implied argument you make is unfounded and stupid.

Also, yeah, god forbid kids think it's okay to be gay. God forbid we teach kids tolerance and understanding of people who are different then them. You're statement above directly contradicts itself. First you say it's bad to be gay and by allowing gay marriage we are allowing kids to be gay which shouldn't happen, then you say that if a kid ends up being gay then that's fine. Make up your mind, kid.

Again, morals that discriminate against anyone for something they can't change (and all data and research shows that gay people cannot change and are do not make a concious decision to be gay) are WRONG. And sometimes it's necessary to impose correct morals onto a country despite some bigots who don't want them gays having the same rights as everyone else. Morals that gave black people rights were imposed without voting for them, because they were correct morals. Morals that gave women the same rights as men were also imposed without voting because they were correct. The samething should happen now so gay people have the same rights as everyone else.

why bother arguing those points backfire?
its all homophopic redneck bullshit, and anyone who equates
two consenting adults having a relationship to screwing a dog
is just unreachable. waste of energy if you ask me.

Originally posted by RaventheOnly
I don't know if you know this but Kerry has the same standings. 😑 He actually attacked basically Cheney for having a Lesbian daughter 😑 The only difference is that Bush wants to make it illegal for a State to put its views upon the country by defining what the concept of marriage is. 🤨 if marriage was intended to be open to all as a representation, considering that marriage is in fact a religious ceremony... the founding fathers would have put that in their and the past 7000 years of civilization would have defined it as so... 😐

Ok, when exactly did Kerry attack Cheney for having a Lesbian daughter? Are you talking about Debate 3 when the question was 'Do you believe that homosexuality is a choice?'?? How was Kerry's reply attacking Cheney's Daughter?

KERRY: We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as.

How is that an attack? Do you actually listen to what he says or do you just listen to select words? Taking stuff out of context?

Then you say 'Bush wants to make it illegal for a state to put its views upon the country by defining what the concept of marriage is' I don't know if you have ever heard this but no state is legally responsible to acknowledge a marriage from another state. So let's say you get married in Maine. New York doesn't have to recognize your marriage. So how exactly can a state force its views on the nation?

Shouldn't marriage be a union of 2 people in love. Usually it has religious overtones but they do not have to be. Shall we call it a civil union? Recognized by the state they are married in. You say it has been that way for 7,000 years. Well as long as there has been sex there have been homosexuals. Ask the early Romans before Christianity was even born.

They want to define marriage as a man and a woman. Ok, how about places that men have multiple wives? They have been that way for thousands of years. Is their way wrong? What I think we have in American is a group of religious people forcing their views of life on others. Just because they don't conform to what they feel is the right way. So much for a free society.

Sorry, but people aren't born gay...and if so, its a mental defect...its not something natural...