Russellmz2 you said:

wait a second. how do we know all these "heterosexual" couples walking around are actually heretosexual? what if a pair of lesbians and a pair of gay guys decide to marry.

aconservative's reply:

I don’t’ see any problem with that. They can. The law in California and the 37 other states, enacted by their legislatures, states that only a man and a woman can marry.

aconservative, you never really answered zoomba's point:

You just shot down your economic argument against gay marriages. You tried to frame it as a scam to sap money out of the government, and that was one of the reasons it was wrong. Yet it’s OK for people to masquerade as heterosexuals to sap the government for money. In a society where equal rights and protections under the law is considered our strongest selling point, we’re definitely playing a game of “Do as I say, not as I do”

reading the earlier posts, i realize: you never really responded to the question i had about election laws where one candidate dies. again i ask: does the other guy just win by default? the dead guy's name just stays on the ticket?

If you put a liberal in a defensive position, they resort to name-calling.

It is ironic that no liberal can defy the statement of another liberal. Isn’t this reminiscent of the commie cells that exist among us in the 1950s?

Liberals, as taught by the NEA, do not believe that Americans have a Creator.

I choose the Declaration of Independence because it spells our where our rights and our power came from. That those unalienable rights cannot be taken away (endowed) and give me (us Americans) the power to alter and replace the government we want.

I did not choose the Constitution because it is just a statement of principles of the government established to secure (guard) our rights. The government (executive, legislative and judicial) has no rights to give away. We can replace the government to our own choosing and when we do that constitution is gone – kaput!

And you know what - our rights and power are still intact.

John Hancock and the 2nd President of the United States said so,

Reply #53 By: aconservative - 2/26/2004 8:24:43 AM I choose the Declaration of Independence because it spells our where our rights and our power came from. That those unalienable rights cannot be taken away (endowed) and give me (us Americans) the power to alter and replace the government we want.

Actually, the Bill of Rigths spells out our rights under the government.

Perhaps that's the better document.

Cheers

To: Sherye


I have to apologize if you were hurt by voodoostation comments. I do not think that s/he hates liberals. As Americans we should not hate teach other. We are all Americans with different beliefs, different feelings, and different political persuasions. Our greatness as a country is we are many but we are also one.

If we like to hear and sing the same song every time a tune is played then there is something wrong with our country. That was what happened in the old soviet union and still being practiced today. As an individual I resent that some of us are leaning to that very end, and I know that there are some of us and some of our political leaders wants us to be singing the same song. But we should not as individual and Americans give in because if we do, it will result in us losing our basic liberties endowed from Almighty God and guaranteed by our constitution.

I am quite sure that you have heard, “God Bless America” sang by one or by many. As a people that’s what we are. Our history is filled with thousands and thousands of Americans dying, from the fields of Antietam, Normandy, Okinawa, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and now Iraq.

If you asked me how could an Almighty God bless a nation and still let it’s young citizens die – the answer is to impress upon us that those unalienable rights are not a sole American entitlement, but for every living human being in the whole universe. This is the reason Americans are dying in Iraq – to free people who otherwise are not free.

Some of us say, it’s not our business. They blame the President. They call him names such as liar, AWOL, deserter, etc. All that this guy is trying to do is try to prevent another situation where innocent Americans are blown to pieces just because they are Americans, but best of all this President is trying to regain that prestige that we lost when an Ayatollah who believes in enslaving his people run over our embassy, took Americans hostages, and our President at that time did nothing.

You see, many of us, some who are trying to become President, do not know what the job description of a President is. Many of us think that the President is the Almighty Santa Claus, whose main job is to take care of his own people. Nothing is further from the truth.

Next time, you can spare 5 minutes; try to read, Section 2, Article II of our constitution. There’s nothing in this section of the constitution that says that a he is responsible for giving free health insurance, jobs, etc.

Why then is Mr Kerry and the rest of the wanna-bes, when they stand before you and I, won’t even mention, what their jobs will be as spelled out in the constitution. This is because the actual duties of the President do not attract votes.

Take Mr Kerry, a US Senator, for I believe over 19 years. You elect your Senator to make laws, right? That is his main job. Why then did Mr Kerry sponsor only 3 laws during his lengthy career? Maybe I am wrong. If I am wrong please correct me.

Mr Kerry’s favorite music is attacking the corporations. He called them Benedict Arnold corporations because they opened subsidiaries overseas where the labor is cheap. What you and many Americans don’t know is Mr Kerry is married to Teresa Heinz of the Heinz Catsup. From what I heard, this corporation had 57 branches overseas and 22 manufacturing plants in the United States.

Mr Kerry is also very, very rich. But when he stands before you, he promises to tax the rich. Would you really believe that – taxing your own kind?

Oops. Sorry – but I took so much of your time. I apologize.

aconservative

p.s.

jeblackstar my friend - the Bill of Rights are amendments to the Constitution. One US Constitution.

Messy Buu -

Where did you get that "cornerstone" word. Who told you that? Where is it written?

Just like what Sgt Friday would say - Just the facts ma'am.

aconservative

Alright BulbousHead I'm gonna pick on you. First of all, everyone has been very hypocritical thus far. I'm not saying that I'm not going to be hypocritical in this post or that I won't accuse anyone of being a hypocrite,because I will do both.

-It's good that we tried going to the UN, but it failed, it also gave the Iraqis several months to hide any WMD's they may have had. Bush obviously paid attention to all of those speeches in school about not giving into peer-pressure because he didn't give in. He did what he thought was right. Were his reasons correct? Debatable, which is why its being debated. In the long run I feel that this should be better for the world.

-Why are France and Germany the deciding factors in world opinion? Why do all of the countries on our side(no matter how small they may be) not matter at all? Would our coalition be all mighty if France and Germany joined? Obviously we didn't want the worlds support, we wanted France and Germanys support. If you say that those small countries do matter you are a hypocrite because you just posted about the uselessness of the countries that are in the coalition.
I don't think anyone ever wanted to claim the coalition was huge. If you were constantly being bombarded with criticism saying that you were doing something unilaterally with no world support wouldn't you point out that you do have a large number of countries behind you?

to aconservative:
so i guess you're never ever going to respond to zoomba's point or the "what if a candidate dies" question i asked above?

aconservative:

Mr Kerry is also very, very rich. But when he stands before you, he promises to tax the rich. Would you really believe that – taxing your own kind?

=cough= =cough= FDR =cough= =cough=

Reply #43 By: voodoostation - 2/25/2004 10:22:30 PM I kinda wish we were separate. I so long to fence you liberal, civilization destroying, mind warping, self-destructionists in, I would gladly spend the rest of my days pounding fenceposts so as to not hear your rhetoric.

that's kinda sad. most americans would die to defend your right to free speech.

Russellmz2 -

I'll answer your questions - What if the candidate dies.

Missesota is a state of many parties all of them had somebody running for senator. The democratic party do not have the sole rights to place their candidate into the Minnesota ballot. That holds true with every State of the Union. We do not have a 2 party system - only progressives, socialists, etc. do.

These are the political parties of Minnesota who had their Senatorial candidates in the ballat for US Senator.

Communist Party of Minnesota
Constitution Party of Minnesota
Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL)
Green Party of Minnesota
Independence Party of Minnesota (IP)
Independent American Party of Minnesota
Liberal Party of Minnesota
Libertarian Party of Minnesota
Natural Law Party of Minnesota
New Union Party
Progressive Minnesota (The New Party)
Reform Party of Minnesota
Republican Party of Minnesota

Why don't explain. quantitatively, how you define rich? Please do not avoid a reply.

acoonservative

russellmz2:

1. ''We really do not have a glitch because of the fact that our Supreme Court recognizes the American rule -- that votes cast for a dead person are not to be treated as thrown away but as an expression of the will of the voters,'' - Oklahoma Supreme Court.

2. Yes - Truman was a Democrat. Like JFK (Kennedy not Kerry) - he was a conservative. If he was a liberal like, the guy who ignored the embassy in Iran, the guy who lobed a few missiles to an aspirin factory and refused from the government of Sudan the offer of Bin Laden's head, then he would not have dropped the bomb?

3. The French did n't do a thing, believe me. Look at your stats - 189,963 to 424. The planes they flew were American made. They did it to hold the seat of their Military Police roaming around Berlin.

4. Why don't you not research Dien Bien Phu - that triggered the Vietnan War? The French can't fight - only talk.

Thanks for your input anyway.

a conservative

The democrats elected a dead candidate to the US Senate in 2000 - remember? His name was Mel Carnahan. The governor of that state appointed his wife to take his place.

Not that amazing; his opponent was John Ashcroft, the embodiment of conservative evil.

Reply #65 By: aconservative - 2/27/2004 9:56:20 AM russellmz2: 1. ''We really do not have a glitch because of the fact that our Supreme Court recognizes the American rule -- that votes cast for a dead person are not to be treated as thrown away but as an expression of the will of the voters,'' - Oklahoma Supreme Court. 2. Yes - Truman was a Democrat. Like JFK (Kennedy not Kerry) - he was a conservative. If he was a liberal like, the guy who ignored the embassy in Iran, the guy who lobed a few missiles to an aspirin factory and refused from the government of Sudan the offer of Bin Laden's head, then he would not have dropped the bomb? 3. The French did n't do a thing, believe me. Look at your stats - 189,963 to 424. The planes they flew were American made. They did it to hold the seat of their Military Police roaming around Berlin. 4. Why don't you not research Dien Bien Phu - that triggered the Vietnan War? The French can't fight - only talk. Thanks for your input anyway. a conservative

1. "b. Socialist leaning senator from Minnesota was killed in a plane crush. Minnesota has the same law that candidates must adhere to the prescribed registration date. Again they chose a retired candidate and this time the people know better. He lost. Again the liberals violated the law quoting the same reason – people’s right."

oklahoma election law doesn't apply to minnesota. which is your complaint in your original article.

and you never responded to the point zoomba made.

2. truman a conservative? seriously, where are you getting this info? he wanted to expand the new deal:

source
"An elaborate articulation of the New Deal heritage which he called the Fair Deal (civil rights, aid to education, national health insurance, public housing, a reformulated agriculture program) was mostly blocked by conservative opposition in Congress during his second term. "

3. "The French did n't do a thing, believe me. Look at your stats - 189,963 to 424."

see, the reason i don't believe you when you say the french "did n't do a thing" is BECAUSE i did look at the stats. i posted them remember? 424 flights and 10,000 people does not equal not a thing. you also said that "It was done, single handedly, by GI Joe." which was not true.

4. because you were talking about WWII, that's why. "The French landed in France marched to Paris and disbanded". that was also false.

the fact that you moan about the quality of modern education and then post this easily proven false information is amazing. then when shown that these facts are wrong you move the conversation to some other topic where you feel you're on better ground. i show you wrote something wrong about the french in wwii and suddenly you jump to the french in vietnam. i show you were wrong about how the us flew in the berlin airlift alone and suddenly it's a complaint that the french didn't do enough (and no mention at all about the huge uk effort).

you said truman was a conservative. i said he wasn't and gave evidence. i also accused you of "when shown that these facts are wrong you move the conversation to some other topic where you feel you're on better ground."

acon's reply:

The civil rights act was passed because there were more republicans than democrats who voted for its passing. Credit should be given to where it is due. Clinton said that he was responsible for eliminating welfare. He vetoed it twice. Republicans did.

so from you saying truman is conservative we get the civil rights act over a decade after truman's presidency to clinton and welfare reform in the 90s.

acon:

...there were more republicans than democrats who voted for its passing...

actually, there were more democrats voted than republicans who voted for its passing. if you were talking percentage wise, then yes. but you need to add that word in or else you are wrong.

R 136-35
D 153-91
(i looked at a couple sources and some were off by 2 or 3 votes, not sure which one is accurate so take this one with a grain of salt: i got it off this site)

by the way, a lot of the democrats voting against the civil rights act were southern conservatives. word association time: a southern conservative today is most likely in the __________ party. quick, what political party just popped into your head?


acon:

If you convert those stats to hours and minuyes, what they contributed was less than 50% of a second. That is nothing.

50% of a second is significantly higher than "It was done, single handedly, by GI Joe" and "not a single french plane flew" and "not a single French airplane flew to help". so your claim that the french did 0 is false. you then re-state your argument as: percentage-wise, the french did not do as much as the us and uk, which is correct. then you go back to saying "That is nothing". allow me my own little tangent: the number of polish to american troops was 200,000 compared to millions of us troops on the western front in wwii. would you argue that the polish did nothing?

acon:

May be I am wrong but my knowledge of World War II told me that there were no French troops (a fregiment or more) that fought in Germany.

you're switching arguments again. before you said they disbanded. now they need to fight in germany in regiment strength. they crossed the rhine after fighting in the colmar pocket after the battle of the bulge. the history is vague since there were no huge bulge-scale battles but a steady advance through germany over a few weeks. the criteria you set also ignores the fighting that was occurring outside germany after the liberation of paris (colmar pocket, german offensive in Alsace, german garrisons who refused to surrender, etc.).

source:

During the last week of March both the U.S. Seventh and First French Armies crossed the Rhine. The stage was set for the final act.

mentions a couple units that "participating in the final campaign in Germany"

acon, i am going to make this last post and then go away forever. but please, in the future, carefully read posts you respond to:



you probably meant "april", not "august", but even so they went over in "march".

by the by, "In the south the U.S. Seventh Army and the First French Army fought their way through the freezing rain and snow of the Vosges Mountains to break out onto the Alsatian plain around Strasbourg, becoming the only Allied armies to reach the Rhine in 1944.". source

the words french are highlighted for you.

1944:
May 13--French Expeditionary Corps penetrates Gustav Line.
June 17--French force lands on Elba
Aug. 28--French complete capture of Toulon-Marseille area.
Nov. 20--French First Army breaks into Belfort.
Nov. 23--French troops with United States Seventh Army take Strasbourg.

1945:
Jan. 20--French First Army begins offensive in Alsace-Lorraine against Colmar pocket.
Feb. 9--French First Army completes reduction of Colmar pocket.
March 31--French First Army crosses Rhine near Speyer and Germersheim.

i have no idea why you want a battle "by themselves" but:
"The XV Corps's French 2nd Armored Division attacked towards Strasbourg and entered the city on 23 November. "

although under a us army, it was french themselves in the attack.

the us 7th and french first armies crossed the rhine at the same time, but the 7th crossing still counts as military effort even if they didn't do it by themselves.

BUSH LOVER!? ''OR'' NADER LOVER!?
GET A LIFE VOTE FOR A DEMORCRAT, VOT FOR JOHN KERRY.