Political Crossfire Forums

[Etienne]

Ewrue The Veracious wrote: Etienne wrote: Ewrue The Veracious wrote: Etienne wrote: Ewrue The Veracious wrote: Etienne wrote: Ewrue The Veracious wrote: Why do hollywood producers insist on only markiting and produsing movies about Queers. why must everything inthe world include less than .1% of the population every T.V. show has a queer on it there have been several movies about queer shepards in wyoming. I lived in wyoming there are now queers there lots of shepards however, but that is beside the point. the more crap that media pumps out about queers the more i dislike their cause. the best thing for queers to do is keep it to them selves and quit forcing your belifes down our throughts or i might just start focing my catholic views down your throat.

What exactly is the queer agenda? Is this the agenda where they have the right to marry their soul mates?

And I am pretty sure Hollywood released a movie or two that had nothing to do with homosexuality. marrage is defind as matramony. matramony is the formation of a famaliy you cannot have a famaliy with out a mother and a father and a child this names mention sex very clearly you dn't have the right to marry anybody. marrage is a priveledge like driving or fishing because you have to have a lisense. sole mate can be your child your brother Jesus Christ or a farrari now all of those things are illigal to marry, reasons are, your child, would make you a pedafile and that is aginst the law, your brother, that is insest, Jesus Christ, he has no earthly body and that is nessasary to be legal, And a farrari is an object not a person.

So men and women who cannot have children should not be allowed to marry...because they cannot have children, and therefore cannot form a family?

2 unrelated consenting adults...who love each other, are committed to each other, who respect each other...they may not marry because they happen to be of the same sex? We are not talking about cars, or children, or animals, but rather consenting adults.

Quote: you can't marry inside your own sex because the church defined marrage long ago as man and wife besides the marrid couple is called a bridegroom for the religious idea that they are a sengle body in God's eyes. now if your not religious what differance dose it make if you are wed. and if you are religious than you shouldn't be acosting your religion by doing someting compleatly aginst it.

it only matters for religious reasons i as a religious man am aginst queer marrage because they would be hijacking a solom sacramint and be blasfeming my church just like i don't walk into the middle of muslim culture wearing a thong and eating a pork sandwich

And here you are forcing your religious views on people...

Why should marriages born out of economic convenience be valued more than a relationship between 2 people who love, honor, and respect each other? Why are arranged marriages recognized by the state, but homosexual relationships are not?

God loves us, and wants us to be happy...but not them gays? first no a man and a woman unrelated can merry. regardless of the ability to have chideren.

Then why don't you extend this to gay men or women?

Quote: two people that fall in love don't ever just happen to be the same sex. you are born with your sex and you know from an eirly age that you are a boy or a girl and that girls and boys are differant the fact that some people prefer the same sex dosen't just happen they always wanted it that way if that was the way it worked why couldn't they happen not to fall in love and be friends?

Isn't this true for gay and straight people?

A man and a woman who have never met each other, do not love each other, are not committed to each other...are able to get married.

Two women who love each other, are committed to each other, respect and honor each other...they may not marry.

What reason do you have to deny gays the right to marry each other? Why are arranged marriages recognized by the state, but not gay relationships?

Quote: and last i am not forcing my religios belifes on anybody a same sex marrage is focing my religion out of importants by saying that a merrage involves nobody else but the two being married and every marrage involves me and you.

You are...you are defining marriage within a religious context. You are denying gays the right to marry each other based on your religious beliefs. first your parts have to match up that is nature two people of the same sex are not capable of becoming a bridegroom therefor the ceramony is pointless and the people are living in hypocrasy

What is the purpose of the parts matching up? Is matching parts more important than love, honor, and committment?

Quote: second no it is not true for homos because they are not because it defys natue look at the anadamy

If homosexuality defies nature, then why do some animals practice it?

Quote: no marrage is defined in religion only nothing else defines it it is a blessed sacrament like communion or charity look it up it is not just a legal term.

Are arranged marriages, born out of economic convenience, a blessed sacrament?

Quote: gay people havent nor straight people the right to marry anybody that is not a right it is not in the constitution or the bill of rights there is no such right.

Quote: http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/amend.html#art-14

Amendment XIV.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A heterosexual is free to marry his/her soul mate, but a homosexual is not. Does this deprive them of liberty? Does this give them equal protection of the laws?

Quote: marrage is religious religios people made it up and you are married by a religious figure. it is religious as defined dy funk&wagnel.

Actually, this isn't true...some people are married by a Justice of the Peace. These secular marriages are recognized by the state, and are awarded the same benefits as religious marriages.

[00timh]

foadi wrote: Ewrue The Veracious wrote: Melchior wrote: Oh god.

First of all, I still don't believe that .1% figure, it's bulls**t.

Secondly, are you seriously complaining about the fact that homosexual characters are allowed on TV and in the Movies? That sounds incredibly prejudice, and ignorant to assume they there is a central agenda behind all of it.

Homosexuality is becoming a more relaxed, and more of a popular interest in both debate, acceptance, and fiction. What's difficult to grasp? go find a cenuse report and get the real numbers if you feel so inclined i was just guessing but i doubt it is even 1% population that is queer. why do i have to hear about my narrowmindedness frome somebody who is narrowminded i am not predudice you are callin names my friend so you are preduduce. all i am saying is that the queer agenda is going to doom the queer population when a minority especially one so out of the mainstreem starts pushing the majority around and fanning the flames then they will be pushed back. besides the queer agenda is seeking the demise of the church so they are not even following their own retoric. if queers can speak simbly of god cherches can too and if that means telling them that wicked people burn in hell then they have as much right to say that as anyone else and queers should never get an apology from the pope or the cahtolic chuch or any other religion the bible should not be rewritten for them.
This sounds like plasticky-fake posturing to me. Given that 94.5945945345338372% of the population is biologically bisexual, it stands to reason that most of those claiming 100% heterosexuality are merely posturing due to societal conditioning, given that only around 3.191489361702127659574468085106% out of the population of the 94.5945945345338372% will actually be biologically monosexual heterosexuals. Finally! I've always wanted to know what it is like to be in a minority. Now I get to champion for special heterosexual rights YIPPEE! :bana: :woo:

[thefranzkafkafront]

Ewrue The Veracious wrote: Why do hollywood producers insist on only markiting and produsing movies about Queers. why must everything inthe world include less than .1% of the population every T.V. show has a queer on it there have been several movies about queer shepards in wyoming. I lived in wyoming there are now queers there lots of shepards however, but that is beside the point. the more crap that media pumps out about queers the more i dislike their cause. the best thing for queers to do is keep it to them selves and quit forcing your belifes down our throughts or i might just start focing my catholic views down your throat.

Forcing there views down you throught...

Feeling a bit insecure are you.

[Hybrid]

For all religious people who use the bible to say homosexuality is a "sin" consider this: When god looks down on a person he sees their spirit, not just their body. He sees light. Pure light. The spirit/soul has no gender so when people come together in sexual intercourse he will see two beings of light joining together to make love. No gender, just spirit. There is nothing "wrong" with homosexuality. People are born like it or their parental influence/upbringing initiates it. Either way it doesn't affect you, it technically is none of your business what people do in the bedroom. It is their privacy. If God is really that "judgemental" then let him judge them, not you. Afterall jesus said: "Love your neighbour as thy self." Don't judge people for who they are, only judge them if their actions are irresponsible and cause problems for other people and then try to guide them through or help them learn from this mistakes.

[00timh]

Hybrid wrote: For all religious people who use the bible to say homosexuality is a "sin" consider this: When god looks down on a person he sees their spirit, not just their body. He sees light. Pure light. The spirit/soul has no gender so when people come together in sexual intercourse he will see two beings of light joining together to make love. No gender, just spirit. There is nothing "wrong" with homosexuality. People are born like it or their parental influence/upbringing initiates it. Either way it doesn't affect you, it technically is none of your business what people do in the bedroom. It is their privacy. If God is really that "judgemental" then let him judge them, not you. Afterall jesus said: "Love your neighbour as thy self." Don't judge people for who they are, only judge them if their actions are irresponsible and cause problems for other people and then try to guide them through or help them learn from this mistakes. What so many people do not understand about Christianity is that God loves siners and it is not a sin to love a sinner. In Christianity, God will forgive a sinner if they repent their sins. God also wants us to forgive others who have sinned against us who work to right their actions.

[Sukoi]

Ewrue The Veracious wrote: gay people havent nor straight people the right to marry anybody that is not a right it is not in the constitution or the bill of rights there is no such right. Apparently you don't understand the U.S. Constitution nor the Bill of Rights; they do not grant rights to people but rather limit the power of government. Read the ninth amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

As well as the tenth:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[Hybrid]

Agreed, every religion has its good points when read literally, but much of it is symbolic. Thats where truth comes in.

[Ozzone]

Hybrid wrote: For all religious people who use the bible to say homosexuality is a "sin" consider this: When god looks down on a person he sees their spirit, not just their body. He sees light. Pure light. The spirit/soul has no gender so when people come together in sexual intercourse he will see two beings of light joining together to make love. No gender, just spirit. There is nothing "wrong" with homosexuality. People are born like it or their parental influence/upbringing initiates it. Either way it doesn't affect you, it technically is none of your business what people do in the bedroom. It is their privacy. If God is really that "judgemental" then let him judge them, not you. Afterall jesus said: "Love your neighbour as thy self." Don't judge people for who they are, only judge them if their actions are irresponsible and cause problems for other people and then try to guide them through or help them learn from this mistakes.

Actions are the sin, not the person.

A homosexual is not committing a sin. A person engaging in homosexual acts is. Learn the difference.

[Obilisk18]

Ozzone wrote: Hybrid wrote: For all religious people who use the bible to say homosexuality is a "sin" consider this: When god looks down on a person he sees their spirit, not just their body. He sees light. Pure light. The spirit/soul has no gender so when people come together in sexual intercourse he will see two beings of light joining together to make love. No gender, just spirit. There is nothing "wrong" with homosexuality. People are born like it or their parental influence/upbringing initiates it. Either way it doesn't affect you, it technically is none of your business what people do in the bedroom. It is their privacy. If God is really that "judgemental" then let him judge them, not you. Afterall jesus said: "Love your neighbour as thy self." Don't judge people for who they are, only judge them if their actions are irresponsible and cause problems for other people and then try to guide them through or help them learn from this mistakes.

Actions are the sin, not the person.

A homosexual is not committing a sin. A person engaging in homosexual acts is. Learn the difference.

As a religious person, I've always found this argument vaguely unsettling. Do you think, assuming that homosexual acts are sins, that they should be decried on that basis alone? I mean, every single day, we all commit sins. What exactly is unique about the sin that homosexuals may or may not be committing? Do you think they should be disparaged for making mistakes, assuming it is a mistake. Not trying to provoke here, but honestly interested.

[Hybrid]

Ozzone wrote:
Actions are the sin, not the person.

A homosexual is not committing a sin. A person engaging in homosexual acts is. Learn the difference. Sins do not exist my friend, only mistakes. We learn from mistakes and evolve spiritually. This is what the bible means by "you are forgiven when you confess your sins." Because you are recognising your mistake and you are evolving. Either way its the same spiritual truth.

Yes judge people for their actions if they are responsible, not for who they are and then help them to learn from this mistakes, guide them.

Obilisk18, Earth is a schoolground my friend. We are Gods children, we are here to learn, gain wisdom and expand our consciousness to evolve spiritually, thus in this order we fulfil the role of helping god experiencing himself in every way shape and form and also evolve spiritually eventually to expand gods infinity and become creators ourself. Expanding creation to infinity, from infinity for infinity. Something a human mind finds difficult to grasp is gods infinity.

[Super Conservative!]

Hybrid wrote: Agreed, every religion has its good points when read literally, but much of it is symbolic. Thats where truth comes in.


Actually, religion is only good for one thing: scaring otherwise dangerous people into submission with a boogeyman creator story. People on this very forum have asked me "If you think there's no God, why be good?" It scares me to wonder what people who ask that would do if they lost their religion.

Please, morons of the world, don't stop going to church.

[Super Conservative!]

I'm curious: what qualifies someone as being gay?

Thinking about having gay sex?
Thinking about having gay sex, and liking it?
Having gay sex, but not liking it?
Having gay sex for money?
Having lots of gay sex, and liking it, but not knowing how to decorate your house?
Falling in love with a dude?
Having sex in prison?
Getting raped by a straight dude?
Getting raped by a gay dude?
Experimenting in college?
Blowing a bishop?

[sublime]

Melchior wrote: Oh god.

First of all, I still don't believe that .1% figure, it's bulls**t.

Secondly, are you seriously complaining about the fact that homosexual characters are allowed on TV and in the Movies? That sounds incredibly prejudice, and ignorant to assume they there is a central agenda behind all of it.

Homosexuality is becoming a more relaxed, and more of a popular interest in both debate, acceptance, and fiction. What's difficult to grasp?

This percentage seems low to me, too. But the usual percentage quoted by the activists seems way too high. If it were true there would be well over 25-30 million Gays in this country. I don't believe there are that many.

Of course there is an agenda behind most of what Hollywood does these days. They have taken it upon themselves to hit all the LIBERAL HOT BUTTON ISSUES leading up to the 2006 elections.

The movie about the two cowboys was way out of date. Gays are no longer forced to live secret lives. So this was a throwback to the 1960s....by a generation that only knows and cares about the issues of their youth.........issues that are no longer "issues."

But you see they view these as issues that made them what they are today. Many only have jobs now because they work for organizations that keep the issues in front of the public. If the issues die, their jobs go away.

Hollywood is largely part of the Democrat Party, and it's a party which has failed to come up to the present and has nothing else that is SAFE to talk about. Their views on many things are now not acceptable to the public, such as their views on national security, so sticking with the old tried and true keeps them away from trouble. Besides, if they can CONVINCE Blacks, women, and Gays that they still are not accepted in society they will get more votes.

They are all living in the past because those issues have driven their lives; those issues made them feel important; and many now have a vested interest (such as Jesse Jackson) in making Americans believe they are still issues. Otherwise, he and thousands of others would be out of a job.

When they try to take on subject of geo-politics as they've done this past year, they show a simpletons view of the world. A world in which EVERYBODY is even in terms of guilt, for instance. A world in which whatever America did 30 or 40 years ago must now enter into the equation of what she now about terror, for instance.

Hollywood is largely made up of people inflated with their own importance in the world because sycophants and photographers follow them about. They believe we want their input on politics. We do not!

[00timh]

sublime wrote: Melchior wrote: Oh god.

First of all, I still don't believe that .1% figure, it's bulls**t.

Secondly, are you seriously complaining about the fact that homosexual characters are allowed on TV and in the Movies? That sounds incredibly prejudice, and ignorant to assume they there is a central agenda behind all of it.

Homosexuality is becoming a more relaxed, and more of a popular interest in both debate, acceptance, and fiction. What's difficult to grasp?

This percentage seems low to me, too. But the usual percentage quoted by the activists seems way too high. If it were true there would be well over 25-30 million Gays in this country. I don't believe there are that many.

Of course there is an agenda behind most of what Hollywood does these days. They have taken it upon themselves to hit all the LIBERAL HOT BUTTON ISSUES leading up to the 2006 elections.

The movie about the two cowboys was way out of date. Gays are no longer forced to live secret lives. So this was a throwback to the 1960s....by a generation that only knows and cares about the issues of their youth.........issues that are no longer "issues."

But you see they view these as issues that made them what they are today. Many only have jobs now because they work for organizations that keep the issues in front of the public. If the issues die, their jobs go away.

Hollywood is largely part of the Democrat Party, and it's a party which has failed to come up to the present and has nothing else that is SAFE to talk about. Their views on many things are now not acceptable to the public, such as their views on national security, so sticking with the old tried and true keeps them away from trouble. Besides, if they can CONVINCE Blacks, women, and Gays that they still are not accepted in society they will get more votes.

They are all living in the past because those issues have driven their lives; those issues made them feel important; and many now have a vested interest (such as Jesse Jackson) in making Americans believe they are still issues. Otherwise, he and thousands of others would be out of a job.

When they try to take on subject of geo-politics as they've done this past year, they show a simpletons view of the world. A world in which EVERYBODY is even in terms of guilt, for instance. A world in which whatever America did 30 or 40 years ago must now enter into the equation of what she now about terror, for instance.

Hollywood is largely made up of people inflated with their own importance in the world because sycophants and photographers follow them about. They believe we want their input on politics. We do not! Such good points which also shows a hypocricy. way back when carter was president, his medling was good. Clinton's too. Now Bush is furthering world peace and this time directly confronting the issue instead of playing footsie. Now they feel he is the problem.

[cool_chick]

00timh wrote: sublime wrote: Melchior wrote: Oh god.

First of all, I still don't believe that .1% figure, it's bulls**t.

Secondly, are you seriously complaining about the fact that homosexual characters are allowed on TV and in the Movies? That sounds incredibly prejudice, and ignorant to assume they there is a central agenda behind all of it.

Homosexuality is becoming a more relaxed, and more of a popular interest in both debate, acceptance, and fiction. What's difficult to grasp?

This percentage seems low to me, too. But the usual percentage quoted by the activists seems way too high. If it were true there would be well over 25-30 million Gays in this country. I don't believe there are that many.

Of course there is an agenda behind most of what Hollywood does these days. They have taken it upon themselves to hit all the LIBERAL HOT BUTTON ISSUES leading up to the 2006 elections.

The movie about the two cowboys was way out of date. Gays are no longer forced to live secret lives. So this was a throwback to the 1960s....by a generation that only knows and cares about the issues of their youth.........issues that are no longer "issues."

But you see they view these as issues that made them what they are today. Many only have jobs now because they work for organizations that keep the issues in front of the public. If the issues die, their jobs go away.

Hollywood is largely part of the Democrat Party, and it's a party which has failed to come up to the present and has nothing else that is SAFE to talk about. Their views on many things are now not acceptable to the public, such as their views on national security, so sticking with the old tried and true keeps them away from trouble. Besides, if they can CONVINCE Blacks, women, and Gays that they still are not accepted in society they will get more votes.

They are all living in the past because those issues have driven their lives; those issues made them feel important; and many now have a vested interest (such as Jesse Jackson) in making Americans believe they are still issues. Otherwise, he and thousands of others would be out of a job.

When they try to take on subject of geo-politics as they've done this past year, they show a simpletons view of the world. A world in which EVERYBODY is even in terms of guilt, for instance. A world in which whatever America did 30 or 40 years ago must now enter into the equation of what she now about terror, for instance.

Hollywood is largely made up of people inflated with their own importance in the world because sycophants and photographers follow them about. They believe we want their input on politics. We do not! Such good points which also shows a hypocricy. way back when carter was president, his medling was good. Clinton's too. Now Bush is furthering world peace and this time directly confronting the issue instead of playing footsie. Now they feel he is the problem.


LOL, you're kidding right?

[00timh]

cool_chick wrote: 00timh wrote: sublime wrote: Melchior wrote: Oh god.

First of all, I still don't believe that .1% figure, it's bulls**t.

Secondly, are you seriously complaining about the fact that homosexual characters are allowed on TV and in the Movies? That sounds incredibly prejudice, and ignorant to assume they there is a central agenda behind all of it.

Homosexuality is becoming a more relaxed, and more of a popular interest in both debate, acceptance, and fiction. What's difficult to grasp?

This percentage seems low to me, too. But the usual percentage quoted by the activists seems way too high. If it were true there would be well over 25-30 million Gays in this country. I don't believe there are that many.

Of course there is an agenda behind most of what Hollywood does these days. They have taken it upon themselves to hit all the LIBERAL HOT BUTTON ISSUES leading up to the 2006 elections.

The movie about the two cowboys was way out of date. Gays are no longer forced to live secret lives. So this was a throwback to the 1960s....by a generation that only knows and cares about the issues of their youth.........issues that are no longer "issues."

But you see they view these as issues that made them what they are today. Many only have jobs now because they work for organizations that keep the issues in front of the public. If the issues die, their jobs go away.

Hollywood is largely part of the Democrat Party, and it's a party which has failed to come up to the present and has nothing else that is SAFE to talk about. Their views on many things are now not acceptable to the public, such as their views on national security, so sticking with the old tried and true keeps them away from trouble. Besides, if they can CONVINCE Blacks, women, and Gays that they still are not accepted in society they will get more votes.

They are all living in the past because those issues have driven their lives; those issues made them feel important; and many now have a vested interest (such as Jesse Jackson) in making Americans believe they are still issues. Otherwise, he and thousands of others would be out of a job.

When they try to take on subject of geo-politics as they've done this past year, they show a simpletons view of the world. A world in which EVERYBODY is even in terms of guilt, for instance. A world in which whatever America did 30 or 40 years ago must now enter into the equation of what she now about terror, for instance.

Hollywood is largely made up of people inflated with their own importance in the world because sycophants and photographers follow them about. They believe we want their input on politics. We do not! Such good points which also shows a hypocricy. way back when carter was president, his medling was good. Clinton's too. Now Bush is furthering world peace and this time directly confronting the issue instead of playing footsie. Now they feel he is the problem.


LOL, you're kidding right? No. When Clinton and Carter were meddling in the middle east they were heros, Bush is a villain. None of their efforts brought us any peace. Terrorism isn't new.

[Little Wimp]

Marxism and Hollywood have gone hand in hand over the past 50+ years. In the 1950's there were members of the Hollywood community who were actually working for and sympathetic with the Soviet Union, and Marxist ideals. Not much has changed since then, except for the fact that Hollywood is now unabashedly left wing bordering on Marxist.

Hollywood elitists have been following the pattern set forth by the original purveyors of Marxism which was to destroy all the vestiges of Western civilization. They did this by promoting anything that was opposite of the existing power structure in the West.. Homosexuality was promoted, where heterosexuality was questioned and shunned.. Feminism was promoted, masculinity was disparaged.. The patriarchal nature of Western civilization was deemed to be too sexist, misogynistic and chauvinistic and the opposites needed to be promoted in order to counterbalance this.. To Marxists, the church only served as a reinforcement of the existing Western values and needed to be destroyed as well.

Don't get me wrong, homosexuals do need their place in this society should not live in fear. However, to those of us who understand the game plan; the incessant promotion of homosexuality is just an old trick designed to bring about social change, more specifically erode the existing society.

The Marxist left also has a built in self-defense mechanism to defend the previously mentioned agenda: Just call anyone who understands the Marxist lefts' usage of homosexuality as a means to topple exisiting society a homophobe, a sexist or a male chauvinistic pig..

Typical.

[cool_chick]

00timh wrote: cool_chick wrote: 00timh wrote: sublime wrote: Melchior wrote: Oh god.

First of all, I still don't believe that .1% figure, it's bulls**t.

Secondly, are you seriously complaining about the fact that homosexual characters are allowed on TV and in the Movies? That sounds incredibly prejudice, and ignorant to assume they there is a central agenda behind all of it.

Homosexuality is becoming a more relaxed, and more of a popular interest in both debate, acceptance, and fiction. What's difficult to grasp?

This percentage seems low to me, too. But the usual percentage quoted by the activists seems way too high. If it were true there would be well over 25-30 million Gays in this country. I don't believe there are that many.

Of course there is an agenda behind most of what Hollywood does these days. They have taken it upon themselves to hit all the LIBERAL HOT BUTTON ISSUES leading up to the 2006 elections.

The movie about the two cowboys was way out of date. Gays are no longer forced to live secret lives. So this was a throwback to the 1960s....by a generation that only knows and cares about the issues of their youth.........issues that are no longer "issues."

But you see they view these as issues that made them what they are today. Many only have jobs now because they work for organizations that keep the issues in front of the public. If the issues die, their jobs go away.

Hollywood is largely part of the Democrat Party, and it's a party which has failed to come up to the present and has nothing else that is SAFE to talk about. Their views on many things are now not acceptable to the public, such as their views on national security, so sticking with the old tried and true keeps them away from trouble. Besides, if they can CONVINCE Blacks, women, and Gays that they still are not accepted in society they will get more votes.

They are all living in the past because those issues have driven their lives; those issues made them feel important; and many now have a vested interest (such as Jesse Jackson) in making Americans believe they are still issues. Otherwise, he and thousands of others would be out of a job.

When they try to take on subject of geo-politics as they've done this past year, they show a simpletons view of the world. A world in which EVERYBODY is even in terms of guilt, for instance. A world in which whatever America did 30 or 40 years ago must now enter into the equation of what she now about terror, for instance.

Hollywood is largely made up of people inflated with their own importance in the world because sycophants and photographers follow them about. They believe we want their input on politics. We do not! Such good points which also shows a hypocricy. way back when carter was president, his medling was good. Clinton's too. Now Bush is furthering world peace and this time directly confronting the issue instead of playing footsie. Now they feel he is the problem.


LOL, you're kidding right? No. When Clinton and Carter were meddling in the middle east they were heros, Bush is a villain. None of their efforts brought us any peace. Terrorism isn't new.


Meddling, yes. "world peace" that's a joke.

You left out two presidents between Carter and Bush, (Bush I and Reagan) who were also "heroes" when meddling.

Meddling is bogus, but Bush's meddling goes to new and rediculous unwelcome heights. So if this is some sort of "victim" stance on your part, may I suggest you give it up?

[Little Wimp]

:thrhj: would the Bush bashers and locksteppers please take it to private messages :arrow: .

[cool_chick]

Little Wimp wrote: :thrhj: would the Bush bashers and locksteppers please take it to private messages :arrow: .

Yes, lets.....let's get back to gay bashing and discussing the paranoid "destruction" of society they cause.....that's so much more fun anyway....... Equate some movie about a gay couple to communism and the fearmongering is complete. :tu: