Fantastic.

Especially 2 and 3. I really had wondered that before. Living in Las Vegas I see everything all the time.

Who says we need to draw a line there Joe? Let people marry 30 cacti if they want, who the hell cares?

That was funny when I heard it on Little Bush on Comedy Central. Another one (imagine little GWB saying it)

"That's the last thing we need, a black man, running around the white house, begging for change."

1. Okay, so if a dude's girl starts making out with another girl, for the most part he thinks it's hot, and doesn't mind at all. So if a gay dude sees his gay dudefriend making out with another dude, would that be like a straight dude watching his girl make out with a chick? Or like watching his girl make out with a dude?

2. Why do so many super hot lesbian chicks hook up with the man-beast women who want to be men? Why not just hook up with a man then?

3. Are gay guys who are flaming gay guys just putting on an act? I mean, they still have balls and testosterone. Why would they act so over-the-top feminine?

4. Can a really hot gay person get off just by looking at themself in the mirror?

5. Is anal sex a cure for constipation?

I expect all of these questions answered promptly.

Just stop, please.

You haven't fought off any more invaders than me. Or any other living American.

So please, I'm begging you, every time I go to my page this week all I see are your all caps shouting at me.

Go argue with someone else, I've made my points, you've made yours.

I know! That's what I just said...

I realize I'm not arguing with your opinion here, but only with your frame of mind. Anyway...

It's a valid, if not an old, point that your priest made to you. It's not a reason for a choice though, but a choice with consequent reasoning. Okay, maybe that doesn't make sense but..

Any time you make a moral decision for someone else, which you should never do anyway, you have to take into account facts, and there are only 2 relevent facts in this issue.

1. making abortion illegal does not decrease the number of abortions, only the number of safe abortions.

2. every person with any insight into when what we call life really begins (doctors) practically unanimously believe it is not until after the first trimester at the very earliest.

If, and only if, you were to accept the Catholic ideology in the arguement of life, then you are not arguing for actual life, but the potential for it. By that arguement, (it's crude, sorry) thousands of abortions are being performed by no fault or our own every time someone ejaculates, whether 1 pregnancy is a result of that or not. I know, it's almost a cliche at this point, but true none the less.

And if you do accept it's all god's design, than he designed it such.

I'm not going to attempt to remove that cross you've chosen to burden yourself with (catholisism.) I would though suggest that with some points at least, you should be the one advising the priests, and not the other way around. After all, of the two of you, who could even bare a child from that act?

I don't have any opinion on abortion unless I know it's my kid. I would distrust any male who claims otherwise, agent of god or not.

Yeah, YEAH! me and soccer, then Joe, all on the same side of a debate!

Not that we're all in this together, I'm going to tear down a pillar of conservative thought...

$ = hard working, smart, not a lazy liberal.

So how did this hard working, smart, not lazy liberal get her hands on $400,000 if she's dumb enough to lose it in an email scam?

Answer that one joe. Guess we should give her another tax cut, that will help a little at least...

Anyone who speaks in absolutes is lying "I don't hate anybody." Unless you're Jesus (and I don't believe in him anyway,) you're lying.

That aside. Given that miracle were true, one person does not constitute "an audience."

All of that aside, we technically are not a democracy. We have an electoral college. I only threw that in to avoid nit-pickers on the one side, and sure enough, I get nit-pickers on the other. Can't win.

I'm going to completely ignore the Joe's quote of whatever lunatic he got that from, and instead explain something to conservatives that is completely beyond their comprehension.

And I know, before you start, you're going to say "uh aw! I never said that! that must mean it's true!" then you'll say in your head, but not out loud, "ha! got him!"

So before you go celebrating that, I just want to say I saw it coming.

This whole debate stems from an underlying belief by conservatives that a large part of Obama's election is due to this mythical "white guilt," (which by the way no white person has ever, ever claimed having, that aside...) it's upside down and backwards racism.

"I really really don't believe a black person can lead the country, I feel guilty about that belief, therefore I'm voting for a black person," then on the other side, "people are just going to vote for him because... (see above quote)" then on the other side, "poor black people, they were slaves way back before anyone alive knew anyone alive who could remember, so I'm voting for a black person," then on the other side, "there's still racism, this will go a long way toward healing that, I'm voting for a black person (which happens to be right, but should be irrelevant.")

See what happened there? I just used more words talking about the color of a persons skin than like any arguement on this debate so far.

That whole paragraph was racism. Not all racism wears sheets, or posts a confederate flag, or gets a tatoo of a black fist.

That's why Obama won.

There's a whole generation of people, 18-24, that are thouroughly and rightly confused by the entire discussion.

Because the fact is, Obama won because he was the best candidate.

And had it been a white person who came out against the Iraq war from day one, and who could inspire a generation, he would have won.

If it were a girl, she would have won.

Hispanic, Indian, etc.

That quote provided by Joe is the problem. That anyone's time should be spent considering such poisonous thoughts is the problem. This entire debate is the problem.

White guilt? How about guilt that we now torture people? That were in the bottom 50% of all developed countries in education and healthcare? That the unemployment rate keeps rising? Or that we are not taking care of our vets, and sending them to foreign countries for longer missions with no realistic or even existing goal?

No, white guilt has been laid to rest. Not because it should or should not have ever existed, but because the majority of the American population decided in no uncertain terms, that the color or a person's skin has no bearing on his potential. That every American should be given every opportunity and that we will be lead by those who are most qualified.

Continuing the debate on skin color does nothing for anyone who is looking forward. It only serves to divide, regardless of what your thoughts on it are, and it should be ignored, or made fun of by people like myself who enjoy making fun of dumb people.