Reason and GL

**reason** · September 22nd, 2004, 12:18 PM

your precious same sex marriage issue.

Ever lost to find a logical rebuttal, always best to misrepresent the other's position. So if it's not a barrage of profanities or sexual innuendo, it's gross misrepresentation.

On the grand list of important issues this country faces, I don't think gay marriage makes the Top Ten.

Which begs the question: Why does George W. Bush support an amendment to the Constitution that would ban gay marriage? Why has he made this an issue? Why a desire to alter our country's most sacred document?

If you don't think this is a hot button, conservative activists are attaching this issue with anything they can, most recently to a boycott of Procter and Gamble - a company that has no position on the issue (see today's Enquirer editorial page). George W. Bush is most happy to hop on the bandwagon.

This is what your president is concerned about.

Is gay marriage the worst of our worries?

Our own president says terrorism is our number one concern. But he has done almost nothing to address the ever growing and evitable threat of of bioterrorism and nuclear terrorism. We face a "not if but when" scenario for a major catastrophe on US soil that makes 9-11 look like child's play.

Instead, George W. Bush invaded Iraq. No, he invaded Iraq without a plan. Now we have 1,000 dead and no viable plan to resolve the situation, and no explainable reason why we are even there.

Meanwhile, next door Iran is well on its way to developing nuclear weapons.

To boot, we are increasingly isolated and those leaders who support us are on the ropes in their own countries due to their support of our president. Whatever excuse there was for a coalition will cease to exist under a second term of George W. Bush.

But fortunately, we have a president who wants to alter our Constitution to ban gay marriage. Because we all know, gay marriage will be the downfall of our country.

We have fewer jobs today than we did 4 years ago, and the new jobs pay less than the ones they replaced. On top of supply side tax cuts and the worst example of keyensian economics spending, your president has unsuccessfully thrown more money into the economy to get less than stellar results.

But at least he supports a ban on gay marriage. Because we all know how gay marriage will disintegrate this country. We might not have jobs, but by gosh, we don't have to worry about gay marriage.

Record numbers don't have health insurance. WE have a president without a viable plan to resolve the issue.

But at least he wants to ban gay marriage.

So much for states' rights. So much for the conservative mantra of lack of government intervention.

George W. Bush is all about Big Government, and Big Brother Government. Worse yet, he has aligned himself with the worst of the conservative freaks who want to intervene in everyone's lives.

God Help Us All.

John Kerry For President.

[ September 22, 2004 09:30 AM: Message edited by: reason ]

**travelinman** · September 22nd, 2004, 12:52 PM

Reason

Why don't you just say anybody but Bush. I have been looking hard and have yet to find any workable plan that Kerry has for any of the issues you stated.

One issue I would like you to explain to me is how Bush has not done anything about Iran when he has parked the best trained and best equipped army in the world on each side and the best trained and best equiped Navy at it's front door? While our forces are not policemen or investigative detectives and as such are not doing well in Iraqi, in a heart beat we can roll up our tents and meet in the middle of Iran.

It just amazes me when otherwise intelligent people can't look at a map and see the vise Iran is in.

middle east map

**reason** · September 22nd, 2004, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by travelinman:
Reason

Why don't you just say anybody but Bush. I have been looking hard and have yet to find any workable plan that Kerry has for any of the issues you stated.

One issue I would like you to explain to me is how Bush has not done anything about Iran when he has parked the best trained and best equipped army in the world on each side and the best trained and best equiped Navy at it's front door? While our forces are not policemen or investigative detectives and as such are not doing well in Iraqi, in a heart beat we can roll up our tents and meet in the middle of Iran.

It just amazes me when otherwise intelligent people can't look at a map and see the vise Iran is in.

As you well know, I have on several occasions explained my position on why I supported the invasion of Iraq, mentioning the geopolitical ramifications of sandwiching Iran. On a number of occasions, I have mentioned Iranian support to the Iraqi insurgents.

You seem to forget that our goal is to turn the government over momentarily, or that lately we have been losing control of the country, not tightening the grip - primarily due to lack of planning, lack of understanding, lack of resources.

You aren't saying anything that I haven't already quantified. The difference between you and George W. Bush, is that you understand geography. I'm not sure Bush is capable of utilizing this potential strength to do anything about Iran.

And the position as I presented above isn't an "anybody" but Bush position. Though it easy to see why people feel that way.

[ September 22, 2004 10:02 AM: Message edited by: reason ]

**travelinman** · September 22nd, 2004, 01:10 PM

I disagree that we are loosing control. The problems in Iraqi are being funded by Iran as our elections come closer the violence is being turned up to try and manipulate our election. It is their misguided judgment that an escalation in violence will cause the same results in our election as the one in Spain.

Actually the increase in violence is having the opposite effect. America and Americans are different then the rest of the world. Japan found that out, but no one bothers to learn anything from history.

Once the elections are over and if Bush wins by a healthy margin, watch Iran back down. If Kerry wins, watch Iran get more belligerent.

Trav's prediction, Kerry wins and we go to war with Iran.

Cagliostro · September 22nd, 2004, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by travelinman:
I disagree that we are loosing control. The problems in Iraqi are being funded by Iran as our elections come closer the violence is being turned up to try and manipulate our election. It is their misguided judgment that an escalation in violence will cause the same results in our election as the one in Spain.

Actually the increase in violence is having the opposite effect. America and Americans are different then the rest of the world. Japan found that out, but no one bothers to learn anything from history.

Once the elections are over and if Bush wins by a healthy margin, watch Iran back down. If Kerry wins, watch Iran get more belligerent.

Trav's prediction, Kerry wins and we go to war with Iran.

Very well said Trav. I concur 100%. Except I don't see us going to war with Iran under Kerry's watch, I see him offering them billions in nuclear blackmail like we did N. Korea. And they will continue to develop nukes anyway. And it will take the next Republican to clean up the mess.

Some people just don't get it.

**reason** · September 22nd, 2004, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by travelinman:
I disagree that we are loosing control. The problems in Iraqi are being funded by Iran as our elections come closer the violence is being turned up to try and manipulate our election. It is their misguided judgment that an escalation in violence will cause the same results in our election as the one in Spain.

Actually the increase in violence is having the opposite effect. America and Americans are different then the rest of the world. Japan found that out, but no one bothers to learn anything from history.

Once the elections are over and if Bush wins by a healthy margin, watch Iran back down. If Kerry wins, watch Iran get more belligerent.

Trav's prediction, Kerry wins and we go to war with Iran.

We don't have the resources in Iraq to control the situation. I don't think this is disputable. Unless we escalate our involvement, we are doomed. Bush didn't/doesn't have a plan.

If he ever develops one, it'll be after the election and he commits billions more dollars and thousands more troops. Either way, with a Bush presidency, we're going to have to go it pretty much alone. And for that I blame George W. Bush.

The insurgency isn't about our election so much as it is about Iraq's election.

**reason** · September 22nd, 2004, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by G L:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by travelinman:
I disagree that we are loosing control. The problems in Iraqi are being funded by Iran as our elections come closer the violence is being turned up to try and manipulate our election. It is their misguided judgment that an escalation in violence will cause the same results in our election as the one in Spain.

Actually the increase in violence is having the opposite effect. America and Americans are different then the rest of the world. Japan found that out, but no one bothers to learn anything from history.

Once the elections are over and if Bush wins by a healthy margin, watch Iran back down. If Kerry wins, watch Iran get more belligerent.

Trav's prediction, Kerry wins and we go to war with Iran.

Very well said Trav. I concur 100%. Except I don't see us going to war with Iran under Kerry's watch, I see him offering them billions in nuclear blackmail like we did N. Korea. And they will continue to develop nukes anyway. And it will take the next Republican to clean up the mess.

Some people just don't get it.<hr /></blockquote>An interesting concept: Interject thoughts on a topic when he's missing at least half the commentary. An opinion formed without context of the discussion.

A genuinely priceless moment.

**reason** · September 22nd, 2004, 01:59 PM

parked the best trained and best equipped army in the world on each side and the best trained and best equiped Navy at it's front door?

Our training and equipment is not designed for the war they are fighting. Even the Bush administration admits resources are not adequate for Iraq. Now we're talking about Iran?

I should also point out that the Bush adminstration doesn't consider Afghanistan so much a war. Oh, I wish I could remember the terminology, but it's now more on the scale of a manhunt.

Last time I checked the Bush administration was playing chess with our troops on all continents because we happen to be stretched so thin.

**reason** · September 22nd, 2004, 02:07 PM

I should also point out that Iran is an entirely different animal than Iraq. Iran has not been weakened by sanctions, a no fly zone, constant world oversight. Their army has not been decimated by a war with a superior power.

I believe one reason we invaded Iraq is because we knew their army had been weakened and they were an easy target. Iran is not the same.

**reason** · September 22nd, 2004, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by G L:
I love that "ignore" feature. It gives the board a much more intelligent and sophisticated appearance. Kind of like putting up a tall fence when you want to block an ugly view. [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]

You don't have the discipline. You don't have the self-control. And you certainly don't have the gonads to do what you say.