Replies

"Me: These are politically correct excuse and you know it. He appointed atleast TWO homos to postions of authority. COnsdiering that homos make up 1-2% of the ENTIRE population in the U.S., I'd say that is out of line."

So you're talking quotas? I was talking appointing the best person for the job.He's suggesting that this is normal and they are equal in judgement to those who are atleast heterosexuals.

He's suggesting that this is normal and they are equal in judgement to those who are atleast heterosexuals.

So Newt Gingrich should have been tossed out on his ear when he told his wife (while she lay in her hospital bed) that he wanted a divorce? That seems very immoral to me. (I agree with Newt on politics, but this was an utterly distasteful act on his part.)

Me: COrrect - exisiting embryonic stem cells even though he LIED to conservative organizations through letters stating that he WOULD NOT okay this. Besides it is WRONG to do this to begin with. So, he blatently lied and compromised himself on embryonic stem cell research.

Sorry, we disagree on this. I don't see how it could be considered a lie. The concern was the destruction of embryoes to obtain their stem cells. With Bush's decision, that is not permitted.

Fine, don't vote for Bush next time. Who will it be? Dean? Kerry? Or will you simply not vote?

Me: These are politically correct excuse and you know it. He appointed atleast TWO homos to postions of authority. COnsdiering that homos make up 1-2% of the ENTIRE population in the U.S., I'd say that is out of line." So you're talking quotas? I was talking appointing the best person for the job.He's suggesting that this is normal and they are equal in judgement to those who are atleast heterosexuals.

Me:He's suggesting that this is normal and they are equal in judgement to those who are atleast heterosexuals.

You: So Newt Gingrich should have been tossed out on his ear when he told his wife (while she lay in her hospital bed) that he wanted a divorce? That seems very immoral to me. (I agree with Newt on politics, but this was an utterly distasteful act on his part.)

There we go again - topic shift when cornored. I suspect you're having a cyber tantrum and lost track of the topic. The topic is George Bush and his appointing of homos in positions of power and authority. Odd how you can't defend yourself and need to drag in unrelated issues as a distraction. The truth is it's tough to defend the undefendable, isn't it? About Newt, he was divorced BEFORE she became ill with cancer but truth doesn't matter to you.

Embryonic stem cell researh disagreement:

You: Sorry, we disagree on this. I don't see how it could be considered a lie. The concern was the destruction of embryoes to obtain their stem cells. With Bush's decision, that is not permitted.

Me: Sending out letters to conservative organizations reassuring them that he will NOT approve further research on this is lying. In writing, no less to multiple organizations ... .

You: Fine, don't vote for Bush next time. Who will it be? Dean? Kerry? Or will you simply not vote?

Did you stomp your feet when you wrote the above also? Sounds like you're a tad pissed at what the true pictrue of George Bush is and frustrated beyond words to defend the undefendable. Oh well ... Next comes more evidence of your lack of logic. If I'm disgusted with Bush and his LACK of Biblical conservatism, why in the world would I vote for a party that is out in the open with PRO gay rights, PRO abortion and anti-Biblical stands on any issue you can conjure up? Silly boy. YOU've amused me enough today with your silliness.