2 main reasons I won't vote for Bush

[Saltho]

Trees grow back, Big deal.Timber is a renewable resource unlike oil we will never run out of trees.

Timber, when managed effectively, is a renewable resource. There are no palm trees on Easter Island anymore. In the last 150 years we've logged about 96% of the old growth coastal redwoods in America. That's not some Earth First statistic, that's according to the National Park Service.

I believe we can use forests as a renewable resource; in the US and Canada we already do a pretty good job with hardwood forests. But don't take it as a given that we can log as much as we want and never run out.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

2. Homosexuals are not discriminated against. They have every right that straight citizens have. I straight citizen cannot marry someone of the same sex, just as a homosexual cannot marry someone of the same sex. No discrimination here.

If that isn't one of the most bone-headed, trollish things I've ever read up here I don't know what is!

Really? Perhaps you misread what I said...

Can a straight man marry a woman? Yes.
Can a straigh man marry a man? No.

Can a homosexual man marry a woman? Yes.
Can a homosexual man marry a man? No.

Same rule applys to both parties...

Does a heterosexual choose to be heterosexual? No.
Does a homosexual choose to be homosexual? No.
Can a heteroxsexual get married? Yes.
Can a homosexual get married? No.


Ah...disparity!

Can a homosexual get married? Sure. Just not to another person of the same sex. They have every right to get married to someone of the opposite sex, just as heterosexuals do.

There is no discrimination going on here. You could argue that it is unfair, but it sure of a heck isn't discriminatory.

You see, homosexuals haven't lost any rights. They just don't have the extra rights that they demand.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

2. Homosexuals are not discriminated against. They have every right that straight citizens have. I straight citizen cannot marry someone of the same sex, just as a homosexual cannot marry someone of the same sex. No discrimination here.

If that isn't one of the most bone-headed, trollish things I've ever read up here I don't know what is!

Really? Perhaps you misread what I said...

Can a straight man marry a woman? Yes.
Can a straigh man marry a man? No.

Can a homosexual man marry a woman? Yes.
Can a homosexual man marry a man? No.

Same rule applys to both parties...

Does a heterosexual choose to be heterosexual? No.
Does a homosexual choose to be homosexual? No.
Can a heteroxsexual get married? Yes.
Can a homosexual get married? No.


Ah...disparity!

Can a homosexual get married? Sure. Just not to another person of the same sex. They have every right to get married to someone of the opposite sex, just as heterosexuals do.

There is no discrimination going on here. You could argue that it is unfair, but it sure of a heck isn't discriminatory.

You see, homosexuals haven't lost any rights. They just don't have the extra rights that they demand.

You fail to see that marriage itself, as defined in certain states, IS discriminatory in not allowing same-sex marriages.

The government doesn't need to be involved in sexual discrimination.

And your suggestion for a homosexual to marry someone of the opposite sex is just ludicrous and would destroy the sanctity of marriage.

 

[BugsBunny1078]

They should be planting trees on every possible acre of land yes. They should not be forced to stop logging though ever.
We need a constant supply of wood for construction and wood doesn't recycle into wood. wood itslf breaks down over the years and turns into dirt. So fresh wood is a must. We need to be planting more trees if anything but stopping logging is not a solution.

 

[KGB1]

I wasn't going to vote for him either, but I remembered a few things from the 2000 elections. My "popular" vote really doesn't count; rather a more powerfull system choose's our president: Electoral College and US Supreme Court.

:Hypothetical Scenario:
Now, if by chance there was a LANDSLIDE by Kerry and he wins the Popular vote, however the Electoral College deams the winner Bush... what will occur I cannot fortell, but I'm sure alot people will not trust the system.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

2. Homosexuals are not discriminated against. They have every right that straight citizens have. I straight citizen cannot marry someone of the same sex, just as a homosexual cannot marry someone of the same sex. No discrimination here.

If that isn't one of the most bone-headed, trollish things I've ever read up here I don't know what is!

Really? Perhaps you misread what I said...

Can a straight man marry a woman? Yes.
Can a straigh man marry a man? No.

Can a homosexual man marry a woman? Yes.
Can a homosexual man marry a man? No.

Same rule applys to both parties...

Does a heterosexual choose to be heterosexual? No.
Does a homosexual choose to be homosexual? No.
Can a heteroxsexual get married? Yes.
Can a homosexual get married? No.


Ah...disparity!

Can a homosexual get married? Sure. Just not to another person of the same sex. They have every right to get married to someone of the opposite sex, just as heterosexuals do.

There is no discrimination going on here. You could argue that it is unfair, but it sure of a heck isn't discriminatory.

You see, homosexuals haven't lost any rights. They just don't have the extra rights that they demand.

You fail to see that marriage itself, as defined in certain states, IS discriminatory in not allowing same-sex marriages.

The government doesn't need to be involved in sexual discrimination.

You fail to see that just because a state has a law, doesn't make it right. However, that is an entirely different issue.

Those states have obviously manipulated the meaning of marriage to include same-sex couples. That's their prerogative.

However, you obviously missed the entire point of my previous posts, so I see no reason why I should continue posting.

 

[Gaard]

I straight citizen cannot marry someone of the same sex, just as a homosexual cannot marry someone of the same sex.

Why is that?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: KGB
I wasn't going to vote for him either, but I remembered a few things from the 2000 elections. My "popular" vote really doesn't count; rather a more powerfull system choose's our president: Electoral College and US Supreme Court.

:Hypothetical Scenario:
Now, if by chance there was a LANDSLIDE by Kerry and he wins the Popular vote, however the Electoral College deams the winner Bush... what will occur I cannot fortell, but I'm sure alot people will not trust the system.

And how does your vote not count? Your vote determines the state's electoral vote and, hence, the presidency.

 

[BugsBunny1078]

Because homosexual marriage is gay.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
They should be planting trees on every possible acre of land yes. They should not be forced to stop logging though ever.
We need a constant supply of wood for construction and wood doesn't recycle into wood. wood itslf breaks down over the years and turns into dirt. So fresh wood is a must. We need to be planting more trees if anything but stopping logging is not a solution.

Actually, there are more and more materials appearing in the construction industry which are made by recycled wood products and/or some synthetic materials. They have become rather common in new contruction.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
You fail to see that just because a state has a law, doesn't make it right. However, that is an entirely different issue.

Those states have obviously manipulated the meaning of marriage to include same-sex couples. That's their prerogative.

However, you obviously missed the entire point of my previous posts, so I see no reason why I should continue posting.

No, you're just being pedantic.

It's obvious that homosexuals are being discriminated against. You chose to word your posts in such a way that, under current laws, homosexuals were seemingly not being discriminated against when, in fact, due to those laws, they are!

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: KGB
I wasn't going to vote for him either, but I remembered a few things from the 2000 elections. My "popular" vote really doesn't count; rather a more powerfull system choose's our president: Electoral College and US Supreme Court.

You shouldn't complain about a law that has been around for 200+ years when all of sudden it doesn't work in your favor. Perhaps you should take the initiative to amend that portion of the election process now so that it doesn't happen again in the future. Of course, it's much easier to log onto a web board and complain then to actually solve the problem...

Hindsight is 20/20, so use your new found knowledge to fix the system.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113
You fail to see that just because a state has a law, doesn't make it right. However, that is an entirely different issue.

Those states have obviously manipulated the meaning of marriage to include same-sex couples. That's their prerogative.

However, you obviously missed the entire point of my previous posts, so I see no reason why I should continue posting.

No, you're just being pedantic.

It's obvious that homosexuals are being discriminated against. You chose to word your posts in such a way that, under current laws, homosexuals were seemingly not being discriminated against when, in fact, due to those laws, they are!

No, they aren't. They just don't have the rights that they want. Should they have them? Perhaps. But they are not being discriminated against without the right to marry a person of the same sex.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113
You fail to see that just because a state has a law, doesn't make it right. However, that is an entirely different issue.

Those states have obviously manipulated the meaning of marriage to include same-sex couples. That's their prerogative.

However, you obviously missed the entire point of my previous posts, so I see no reason why I should continue posting.

No, you're just being pedantic.

It's obvious that homosexuals are being discriminated against. You chose to word your posts in such a way that, under current laws, homosexuals were seemingly not being discriminated against when, in fact, due to those laws, they are!

No, they aren't. They just don't have the rights that they want. Should they have them? Perhaps. But they are not being discriminated against without the right to marry a person of the same sex.

It's sexual discrimination...plain and simple.

Or, perhaps you wouldn't determine the laws to be racially discriminating if they were worded to say the same race instead of the same sex.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113
You fail to see that just because a state has a law, doesn't make it right. However, that is an entirely different issue.

Those states have obviously manipulated the meaning of marriage to include same-sex couples. That's their prerogative.

However, you obviously missed the entire point of my previous posts, so I see no reason why I should continue posting.

No, you're just being pedantic.

It's obvious that homosexuals are being discriminated against. You chose to word your posts in such a way that, under current laws, homosexuals were seemingly not being discriminated against when, in fact, due to those laws, they are!

No, they aren't. They just don't have the rights that they want. Should they have them? Perhaps. But they are not being discriminated against without the right to marry a person of the same sex.

It's sexual discrimination...plain and simple.

Or, perhaps you wouldn't determine the laws to be racially discriminating if they were worded to say the same race instead of the same sex.

Race cannot be chosen.

Perhaps sexuality cannot be chosen either, but you can't prove it either way.

So, unless sexuality is proven to be determined genetically, without a choice on behalf of the person, it is not discrimination.

Now, you provide me with this evidence, and I will be all for homosexual marriage.

 

[BugsBunny1078]

Vinyl is rather common in construction ,floors pipes and siding. That comes from oil and will eventually run out.
For structural building you have three choices, poured concrete walls(these use steel and wood in the process) , metal framed walls or wood framed walls. There is nothing else.

 

[Gaard]

Dan, what does 'dicriminate' mean ?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

No, they aren't. They just don't have the rights that they want. Should they have them? Perhaps. But they are not being discriminated against without the right to marry a person of the same sex.

It's sexual discrimination...plain and simple.

Or, perhaps you wouldn't determine the laws to be racially discriminating if they were worded to say the same race instead of the same sex.

Race cannot be chosen.

Perhaps sexuality cannot be chosen either, but you can't prove it either way.

So, unless sexuality is proven to be determined genetically, without a choice on behalf of the person, it is not discrimination.

Now, you provide me with this evidence, and I will be all for homosexual marriage.

It's not been proven 100% but studies have shown that predetermination is a possibility.

And, besides, why does it have to be genetic in order for it to not be discrimination? If that's the case, then you are obviously against hate crime ordinances involving crimes against gays.

And, show me where in Merriam-Webster that shows discrimination is based upon genetic features.

 

[daniel1113]

I'm glad you asked, Gaard (However, it is "discriminate" )

One definition would be "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners."

Of course, definitions have no meaning on this board, becase the definition of marriage is "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

So, you can't choose to accept one and not the other.

However, it really doesn't matter. Consequences as a result of a choice is not the same as discrimination.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

No, they aren't. They just don't have the rights that they want. Should they have them? Perhaps. But they are not being discriminated against without the right to marry a person of the same sex.

It's sexual discrimination...plain and simple.

Or, perhaps you wouldn't determine the laws to be racially discriminating if they were worded to say the same race instead of the same sex.

Race cannot be chosen.

Perhaps sexuality cannot be chosen either, but you can't prove it either way.

So, unless sexuality is proven to be determined genetically, without a choice on behalf of the person, it is not discrimination.

Now, you provide me with this evidence, and I will be all for homosexual marriage.

It's not been proven 100% but studies have shown that predetermination is a possibility.

And, besides, why does it have to be genetic in order for it to not be discrimination? If that's the case, then you are obviously against hate crime ordinances involving crimes against gays.

And, show me where in Merriam-Webster that shows discrimination is based upon genetic features.

Studies have also shown that it is all a choice.

I'm against hate crimes against anyone, whether they be straight, gay, black, white, a man, a woman, etc. A group of homosexual men killing a straight man is just as bad, in my eyes, as the reverse.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

No, they aren't. They just don't have the rights that they want. Should they have them? Perhaps. But they are not being discriminated against without the right to marry a person of the same sex.

It's sexual discrimination...plain and simple.

Or, perhaps you wouldn't determine the laws to be racially discriminating if they were worded to say the same race instead of the same sex.

Race cannot be chosen.

Perhaps sexuality cannot be chosen either, but you can't prove it either way.

So, unless sexuality is proven to be determined genetically, without a choice on behalf of the person, it is not discrimination.

Now, you provide me with this evidence, and I will be all for homosexual marriage.

It's not been proven 100% but studies have shown that predetermination is a possibility.

And, besides, why does it have to be genetic in order for it to not be discrimination? If that's the case, then you are obviously against hate crime ordinances involving crimes against gays.

And, show me where in Merriam-Webster that shows discrimination is based upon genetic features.

Studies have also shown that it is all a choice.

I'm against hate crimes against anyone, whether they be straight, gay, black, white, a man, a woman, etc. A group of homosexual men killing a straight man is just as bad, in my eyes, as the reverse.

So it's ok to have a law that denotes certain behavior against homosexuals as discriminating yet it's ok to have another law that says it's ok to discriminate against homosexuals.

Hmm....

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

No, they aren't. They just don't have the rights that they want. Should they have them? Perhaps. But they are not being discriminated against without the right to marry a person of the same sex.

It's sexual discrimination...plain and simple.

Or, perhaps you wouldn't determine the laws to be racially discriminating if they were worded to say the same race instead of the same sex.

Race cannot be chosen.

Perhaps sexuality cannot be chosen either, but you can't prove it either way.

So, unless sexuality is proven to be determined genetically, without a choice on behalf of the person, it is not discrimination.

Now, you provide me with this evidence, and I will be all for homosexual marriage.

It's not been proven 100% but studies have shown that predetermination is a possibility.

And, besides, why does it have to be genetic in order for it to not be discrimination? If that's the case, then you are obviously against hate crime ordinances involving crimes against gays.

And, show me where in Merriam-Webster that shows discrimination is based upon genetic features.

Studies have also shown that it is all a choice.

I'm against hate crimes against anyone, whether they be straight, gay, black, white, a man, a woman, etc. A group of homosexual men killing a straight man is just as bad, in my eyes, as the reverse.

So it's ok to have a law that denotes certain behavior against homosexuals as discriminating yet it's ok to have another law that says it's ok to discriminate against homosexuals.

Hmm....

There is no discrimination against homosexuals in terms on U.S. law.

Whether or not individuals decide to discriminate against homosexuals is a different story, and that is where hate crime legislature comes in.

It's no different then an extremist Muslin attacking a Christian church, or vice versa.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

There is no discrimination against homosexuals in terms on U.S. law.

Whether or not individuals decide to discriminate against homosexuals is a different story, and that is where hate crime legislature comes in.

It's no different then an extremist Muslin attacking a Christian church, or vice versa.

Then why cannot homosexuals marry someone of the same-sex? Because existing laws discriminate against them.

Now, you're going to go back to your pedantic view on the laws and that homosexuals CAN marry, as long as it's someone of an opposite sex. What sane mind would propose that as a solution?

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

There is no discrimination against homosexuals in terms on U.S. law.

Whether or not individuals decide to discriminate against homosexuals is a different story, and that is where hate crime legislature comes in.

It's no different then an extremist Muslin attacking a Christian church, or vice versa.

Then why cannot homosexuals marry someone of the same-sex? Because existing laws discriminate against them.

Now, you're going to go back to your pedantic view on the laws and that homosexuals CAN marry, as long as it's someone of an opposite sex. What sane mind would propose that as a solution?

The laws don't descriminate, they just don't advocate the practice. It is a simple concept.

You seem to think that being pedantic is a bad thing, perhaps you could share why that is.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

The laws don't descriminate, they just don't advocate the practice. It is a simple concept.

You seem to think that being pedantic is a bad thing, perhaps you could share why that is.

Well, explain how you call the laws as just not advocating the practice as opposed to being discriminatory.