Bot posters

Werbung:
Lib I wish people would say homosexual instead of gay. My good friend growing up, her name was gay (she is since dead) but it is not fair to people who were given the name because it means very happy and now someone decided to change the meaning.

also, why do you assume the rainbow has anything to do with homosexual? Its oldest known meaning is from The Bible, It’s a sign from God that he will never destroy us again by a flood for our wicked ways, not not a logo for homosexual rights.
 
Why must names always have new meanings, they should mean what they mean

That's the nature of a living language. It comes down to the basics of individual human experience. Think of it this way: once, there was just the word awesome. Then, along came someone who had two peculiarities: 1) He didn't like the word "awesome," and 2) he enjoyed low temperatures. He began using the word "cool" to refer to things when others would have used "awesome." This slang caught on, and today - the word "cool" has a new meaning. That's just how communication works.
 
good example

as long as I can stick with homosexual rather than gay I can live with other people saying gay :)

the rainbow thing really erks me though

I've always associated rainbows with leprachuans and gold, so the rainbow's use as a symbol of homosexual pride has never really resonated with me. We'll see if it lasts.
 
hey you are from Mass. would you be happy if your senator was sec. of state?

Who, Kerry? Absolutely, unequivocably, without a single doubt in mind, no, I would not be happy with him as Secretary of State. I might be able to deal with him bringing me my order at Burger King, so long as I don't actually have to look at him. Otherwise, I'd rather that man not be in any position to affect my life or the lives of others.

Being on the DNC mailing list and getting monthly "updates" from him during the '04 elections had something of a negative impact on me. We've seen more than our share of politicans out of touch with reality lately, but none have ever incited my gag reflex as strongly as John Kerry did. Well, okay, Zell Miller did, but that's another story altogether.
 
Who, Kerry? Absolutely, unequivocably, without a single doubt in mind, no, I would not be happy with him as Secretary of State. I might be able to deal with him bringing me my order at Burger King, so long as I don't actually have to look at him. Otherwise, I'd rather that man not be in any position to affect my life or the lives of others.

Being on the DNC mailing list and getting monthly "updates" from him during the '04 elections had something of a negative impact on me. We've seen more than our share of politicans out of touch with reality lately, but none have ever incited my gag reflex as strongly as John Kerry did. Well, okay, Zell Miller did, but that's another story altogether.

Ah ok :) Dang you and I agree on him it seems very well. Why do people keep voting him in? He and Ted both to me are the best argument for term limits.

I liked Zell Miller but mostly because he had the spine to stand up against his party. Though it is very hypocritical of me, I did not seem to like it as much when Jim Jeffers did the same thing. I think about that a lot, but I don't hate Jeffers for it, I just dont seem to find myself running ot his defense as fast as I have for Joe and Zell. I don't like that about myself.
 
Ah ok :) Dang you and I agree on him it seems very well. Why do people keep voting him in? He and Ted both to me are the best argument for term limits.

I liked Zell Miller but mostly because he had the spine to stand up against his party. Though it is very hypocritical of me, I did not seem to like it as much when Jim Jeffers did the same thing. I think about that a lot, but I don't hate Jeffers for it, I just dont seem to find myself running ot his defense as fast as I have for Joe and Zell. I don't like that about myself.

Well I have to agree. Zell Miller stayed in his party, and worked through his party to change it from the inside out, while at the same time bucking the party when he felt there was a better alternative.

Joe Liberman was the same. He was very much a democrat who on certain issues of principals worked to change the party from the inside.

In both cases, they were loyal to the party.

Jim Jeffers was a totally different thing. First, there was almost no issue on which Jim Jeffers was 'conservative'. He campaigned with democrats, supported democrats, and generally was in effect a democrat. So first, he wasn't trying to change the party from within, because he wasn't part of the party.

He also didn't stay loyal, but instead he completely abandoned his party. Further, he specifically abandoned at a time when his party needed him, and he knew it. It was because of his choice that Republicans lost control of the senate.

He did so to gain favorable media coverage of himself, which he got, and the appreciation and support of democrats, which he also got. Moreover, he didn't even join the democrats because he knew he'd lose at home, but he wanted the media and democrats favorable to him, so... he became and 'independent'.

This was a purely politically calculated move for his self advancement. So honestly, I'm with you. I can handle McCain's principled defection from the party policy, more than Jim Jeffers back stabbing politically advantageous moves. I disagree with McCain on the things he did, but at least he did them because he believed in them. Jeffers was just selfishness.
 
Werbung:
Back
Top