Dragonball Political Cartoon

Jerseymilk · Post by **Jerseymilk** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 12:25 pm

That's pretty good!

omae no kaasan · Post by **omae no kaasan** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 1:49 pm

Did you read what I said? It can be applied to several occasions of him speaking on gay marriage in the past couple months, he seems to speak in such an arrogant, perhaps even somewhat boastful (of his own power) manner that he makes it perfectly clear how he feels.

I certainly did read what you wrote. You said

Anytime he speaks on gay marriage, I find it to be rather offensive. The way he speaks, it's coming off to me as if he thinks that homosexuals are a lesser people. He seems so.... arrogant in his delivery whenever he talks of the subject that it's offensive.

Which means that he has said something in his "delivery" which leads you to believe he thinks homosexuals are lesser people. You also said that he seems "arrogant".

So basically what I would like from you, is to back up your statement with some quotes that explain why you believe such.

Now, if you can't find any quotes, that just means you were twisting words in your mind, or that he has never said anything like that and you just lied.

But that wouldn't be very interesting and honestly, and I have more faith than that. Obviously if he has said such things, you certainly must recall them as they left such a scar on you.

So if you please. Many thanks.

President Bush supports a Constitutional amendment banning "gay marriage". Since there isn't a legitimate social or economic reason for taking that position, it must be a moral issue. Moral opposition to gay marriage implies that the President perceives homosexuality as wrong and consequentially intolerable in American society.

I don't know if he ever stated it directly, but it's clear that Bush doesn't have much respect for homosexuals or acceptance of their sexual orientation -- otherwise he wouldn't be actively opposing gay marriages, right?

It is certainly a moral issue. However, I wonder why people assume that opposing such a thing means that one has no respect for a people. It is a moral difference and that is where it ends. And besides, since almost all Presidents are Christian, based on their religion, they should oppose gay marriage, which just means that Democrats as much as Republicans are opposed to it, and if they aren't then it shows they have no respect for their religion. Now if they have no respect for their religion does it mean they think less of their denomination. Either way you argue, both sides of the fence in both parties are hypocrites. I'm perfectly happy to accept that such a running platform is an attempt to get votes and support, just as it is on the other side. It works both ways.

Never confuse respect and disagreement. I disagree with you, that doesn't mean I lack respect for you. It's perfectly fine to disagree and still hold respect for an opponent.

James R. Cadwell · Post by **James R. Cadwell** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 4:10 pm

omae no kaasan wrote:It is certainly a moral issue. However, I wonder why people assume that opposing such a thing means that one has no respect for a people.

"I have respect for African-Americans; I just don't want them to get married to white people."

A person clearly does not respect homosexuals and any other cultural or ethnic minority if he wants to deprive them of the same opportunities other people have simply because of a "moral" disagreement. Sure, it's possible to say that you simply lack respect for their lifestyle and not homosexuals as individuals, but that's like saying "I have respect for carnivores, just not meat-eating".

omae no kaasan wrote:It is a moral difference and that is where it ends.

Unless those who oppose a certain class of people because of a "moral difference" have demonstrated that they are perfectly willing to legislate against them.

omae no kaasan wrote:Never confuse respect and disagreement. I disagree with you, that doesn't mean I lack respect for you. It's perfectly fine to disagree and still hold respect for an opponent.

If President Bush simply disagreed with the homosexual lifestyle and the concept of gay marriage, there wouldn't be an issue; he's entitled to his opinion just like every other American citizen. However; that isn't the case. Bush wants to Constitutionally-prohibit gay marriage.

You may disagree with me, but do you want to pass an amendment preventing me from expressing my opinion?

Dayspring · Post by **Dayspring** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 4:19 pm

I'll probably get banned from the boards for this but lately it feels, from the point of view of a non-American, that the US is slowly turning into a Tyrannical Republic. We're actually mostly afraid of you now.

Jerseymilk · Post by **Jerseymilk** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 4:26 pm

Oh ya! I mean those Wal-Mart stores that you've sent over here, *shudders*, well let's just say I'm digging the bomb shelter in my backyard right now!

Dayspring · Post by **Dayspring** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 4:29 pm

Hey Wal-Mart ROCKS! Mine has a McDonald's in it! Besides, we got them back: we sent them Celine Dion!

Jerseymilk · Post by **Jerseymilk** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 4:32 pm

Yes that was cruel of us wasn't it! And you've got me all wrong! I love Wal-Mart, mine also has a McDonald's in it,(I think most do), even though I don't eat that crap. Zellers sucks! But don't you think the U.S. got even back again with us with American Idol?

Dayspring · Post by **Dayspring** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 4:35 pm

Nonono: Americal Idol was Simon getting back at the US with an "original US" Pop Idol. We got them back by having better singers in Canadian Idol. Except for our second place guy. How the hell'd HE make it that far?!

Jerseymilk · Post by **Jerseymilk** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 4:43 pm

Do you seriously think Ryan Malcom's that good?

Dai · Post by **Dai** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 5:44 pm

I really, really love this topic.

Can't we just switch the conversation to Jello and leave it at that?

So, uhh, what are your favourite Jellos?

...

God, this topic is going to be locked.

PsyLiam · Post by **PsyLiam** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 9:05 pm

I've never liked that "friends should never talk about religion or politics". Are people that narrow-minded that they can't possibly bear the thought of other people having different opinions from themselves? I don't mind if people disagree with me, as long as they can explain it, and have a conversation about it.

And Dayspring is right, "American Idol" was originally a British programme called "Pop Idol".

And if I was going to get involved in the original discussion, I'd take some offense at the idea that Christians shouldn't support gay marriage, and that those that do aren't "proper Christians". But since the conversation seems to be heading towards someone repeating South Park jokes, I'll leave it there.

SpiritBomb · Post by **SpiritBomb** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 9:23 pm

Dai wrote: So, uhh, what are your favourite Jellos?

I like CHERRY! LOL!

Now, to set my opinion on a few things..first off, no matter what your colour or what sex you plan to date you should be treated as an equal so no matter what politician is against that, has none of my support.

I've never liked that "friends should never talk about religion or politics

Well,Psyliam, i dont think when your meeting someone you should talk about it but with friends, you should feel free to express your opinions.

My final thing i want to say is i dont care if they lock this post up or not but if they do, they do have reason...not that i didint like the picture but it turned the conversation into politics wich you dont find everyday in a dbz board

SpiritBomb · Post by **SpiritBomb** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 9:53 pm

Zackarotto wrote:The only political comic I've ever enjoyed was this one.

http://www.samandfuzzy.com/archive.php?id=234

Haha, that one was pretty funny

B-kun · Post by **B-kun** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 9:53 pm

Hey, I personally like political/religious conversations, as long as they're intelligent and don't turn into things like "ur stupid n i hate u!!!". I know that's an exaggeration, but..

Hm.. This topic doesn't have to be closed, but maybe it should be moved.

Kodoshin · Post by **Kodoshin** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 10:04 pm

Which means that he has said something in his "delivery" which leads you to believe he thinks homosexuals are lesser people. You also said that he seems "arrogant".

So basically what I would like from you, is to back up your statement with some quotes that explain why you believe such.

Now, if you can't find any quotes, that just means you were twisting words in your mind, or that he has never said anything like that and you just lied.

But that wouldn't be very interesting and honestly, and I have more faith than that. Obviously if he has said such things, you certainly must recall them as they left such a scar on you.

So if you please. Many thanks.

During his time as govenor of Texas he opposed legislation that would of extended hate crime laws to include crimes against gay people

How about when before he was elected, he called gays "not ideal" to raise children? Whats that mean? That they aren't worthy of experiencing the joys of parenting together? That must be how he feels, given that he opposes gay adoption.

How about defending Rick Santorum calling him a "tolerant" man after he (Santorum) said this:

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. ..."

"I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts,"

The president defended these statements as the words of a "tolerant man", comparing homosexuality to incest is tolerant?

As far as his more recent actions, the fact he talks of "defending," marriage or "protecting," it like it's some living entity that will get weak and die if gay couples are allowed to tie the knot, I find it to be shocking.

Zackarotto · Post by **Zackarotto** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 11:36 pm

ur stupid n i hate u!!!

...heh.

SonGohan-san · Post by **SonGohan-san** » Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:04 am

I agree, this topic should probably just be moved to the "general discussion" area or wherever.

I like this definition of politics--who gets what, when and how. It's cynical, but certainly founded.

To the matter at hand. I will try to be objective for a moment about this b/c it serves my point better. People need to understand that political posturing is a big part in garnering votes. Look at how the GOP views the issue of abortion. Most of them know that there is little hope in repealing Roe v. Wade, but for the sake of garning votes, they take a stand against it. Case in point, after Clinton had defeated Bush for the presidency in 1992, Barbara Bush went on television and admitted that she was pro choice. Now, would she have said this in the heat of election time as the first lady to a Republican president? I don't have to answer that one.
The same thing is going on now with Dubya. It is a fact that much of the country is divided over the war and economy and Bush as a president in general...this discussion itself seems pretty indicative of that. Both Bush and Kerry are each roughly polling 50% of the "total" votes at the moment. What Bush is doing by pushing for this amendment is pure political strategy, and, agree or disagree, it is smart if you're in his position.

Think about it...Bush is likely only going to gain potential voters by wanting to "protect marriage." Who here was going to vote for Bush or had parents who were but then decided not to in light of this amendment proposal? In other words, who here is voting for Kerry solely based on this proposal? Not many, I'd reckon. I'm sure many Kerry supporters have plenty of other grievances like taxes, the war, healthcare, the environment, etc. In contrast, many conservative voters who are perhaps turned off by Bush's excessive government spending (which is what core Republicans hate) could have actually been brought back into the fold in light of the presidents current moral stance. Bottomline: Bush is saying to his some of his voters (many whom are Christian and oppose homosexuality) "hey, I haven't forgotten about you, I'm still conservative" blah blah blah.

It's no coincidence that he chose to do this around election time, either. Look at it this way. He can't win a unified election like Reagon did and his father did in 1988, so he is employing a division strategy. It'll be very effective, mark my words. And I promise, this election will either be very close, or it will be a Bush landslide (if things change over seas, Bin Laden is caught at right time, economy changes, etc.)

So basically this rift creates a win-win situation for Mr. Bush. Both parties do it and both parties run the country, anyways. I'm sorry if this post sounds cynical, but you'll learn this in any basic poly-sci class you take if the teacher is half-decent. The main reason I posted this is to get some of you guys to redirect your indignance. (The electoral system, the two major parties in general are the real problem if you my brief two sense.) Yes, many of you disagree with Bush. But it is a mistake to see him as this lone tyrant who oppresses the will of all the people. This is a representative democracy, afterall, and he represents a side to our culture whether YOU personally see it as right or wrong, whatever. (Luckily, we do have rules liberties that are supposed to protect us from tyranny of the majority called the Bill of Rights, but I don't want to get into that even though it is pertinent.) Rather than focus your hate just on Bush (which doesn't seem healthy), understand that he represents popular idealogies that could be shared by people you see everyday. Your neighbors, your friends, your relatives, your pastor, your teachers, whomever. And some of these people, I'm sure, you're bound to respect. He's not exactly Louie XVI. Politics is all one big game chess game almost. If you want something to hate in politics, I can give a real list of far more ominous aspects in another post.

As a side, I've find that the structural arguments over who controls power (powers granted to branches of government) to be far more interesting than the substantive arguments of issues like abortion, etc. (which are rarely resolved b/c both sides have good arguments).

I'll end this here with another personal opinion here: his economic policies are far more threatening than this proposed amendment, but it doesn't generate the name news b/c it doesn't have shock value. Speaking of which, do you guys know how hard it is to actually get an amendment passed? It has to receive 2/3 Congressional approval and be ratified individually by the states. That would/will take years. If I was gay, I wouldn't be losing sleep over this shit, but over whether I'll have my job another year. But this just goes to prove my point how successful this little endeavor has been for Bush. It's distracted many people and news companies from reporting other news about the economy/war etc. all during the campaign season when his record should be evaluated. He has no record to run on, but a record to run from. I think John Kerry said that. So yeah, I'm a commie pinko leftist, but not in a blind indignant sorta way. Or at least, I try not to be.

Sorry for the rant, but I do like political discussions myself.

Jerseymilk · Post by **Jerseymilk** » Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:48 am

PsyLiam wrote:I've never liked that "friends should never talk about religion or politics". Are people that narrow-minded that they can't possibly bear the thought of other people having different opinions from themselves? I don't mind if people disagree with me, as long as they can explain it, and have a conversation about it.

And Dayspring is right, "American Idol" was originally a British programme called "Pop Idol".

I actually did know that guys, but I find "American Idol" much more obnoxious. Aaaannnd, the show "Star Academie" from Quebec has been around longer than "Pop Idol" by the way.

And I don't eat Jello I'm afraid, but perhaps your next president should be a bowl of Jello? It has the same I.Q. level as Bush.

Not that we're better off here, having to put up with "crooked" Chretien for years.

omae no kaasan · Post by **omae no kaasan** » Mon Mar 29, 2004 4:28 am

What Bush is doing by pushing for this amendment is pure political strategy, and, agree or disagree, it is smart if you're in his position.

Bingo. And that is precisely what both sides are constantly doing.

During his time as govenor of Texas he opposed legislation that would of extended hate crime laws to include crimes against gay people

And which legislation was that? I don't doubt you but I'd like to see it so that I can see that it is clearly stated in what he supposedly opposed, that it would do as you have claimed.

How about when before he was elected, he called gays "not ideal" to raise children? Whats that mean? That they aren't worthy of experiencing the joys of parenting together? That must be how he feels, given that he opposes gay adoption.

A moral issue. That was addressed in my last post.

The president defended these statements as the words of a "tolerant man", comparing homosexuality to incest is tolerant?

And what are the dates on both those quotes? Could it be possible what Bush said came before such statements.

As far as his more recent actions, the fact he talks of "defending," marriage or "protecting," it like it's some living entity that will get weak and die if gay couples are allowed to tie the knot, I find it to be shocking.

So are you not defending and protecting what you believe to be right now? Once again, that doesn't mean you lack respect.

Thanks for your reply, I appreciate your willingness to do so in a formal fashion.

James R. Cadwell · Post by **James R. Cadwell** » Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:39 am

omae no kaasan wrote:
What Bush is doing by pushing for this amendment is pure political strategy, and, agree or disagree, it is smart if you're in his position.
Bingo. And that is precisely what both sides are constantly doing.

Supporting a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is a stupid political strategy. Nobody who has a moral issue with homosexuality is going to refrain from voting or choose a different major candidate because President Bush remains legislatively-neutral on the subject of gay marriage. After all, there isn't a more conservative candidate to vote for as an alternative. However; Bush's "strategy" will drive away moderate voters who recognize that senseless bigotry isn't a quality they want to see in the President of the United States.

omae no kaasan wrote:
How about when before he was elected, he called gays "not ideal" to raise children? Whats that mean? That they aren't worthy of experiencing the joys of parenting together? That must be how he feels, given that he opposes gay adoption.
A moral issue. That was addressed in my last post.

So if President Bush said that he felt African-Americans were unsuited to adopt white children and supported legislation which would prohibit interracial adoptions, you would also consider that simply a "moral issue"?

omae no kaasan wrote:
As far as his more recent actions, the fact he talks of "defending," marriage or "protecting," it like it's some living entity that will get weak and die if gay couples are allowed to tie the knot, I find it to be shocking.
So are you not defending and protecting what you believe to be right now?

Denial of rights and expansion of rights already existing for heterosexuals to include homosexuals are not morally-equivalent positions. One is bigoted, one is egalitarian.

omae no kaasan wrote:Once again, that doesn't mean you lack respect.

Bush said that homosexuals are "not ideal" to raise children. How can you have respect for a cultural minority while continuing to insist that they are inferior to the majority in some way?

If Bush had respect for homosexuals, he would leave them alone.

Kanzenshuu

Dragonball Political Cartoon

Who is online