The jinx of the north

[GaryC 7]

Those are some of the reasons I like Fred. The more I see the more I like.

I'm not going to touch abortion or gay marriage issues, but why on earth would you

want to support job discrimination by sexual orientation?

Or drill the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, one of the most beautiful places in the world?

Or defund renewable and solar energy?

Voting against adding a new protection isn't the same as being for discrimination. Thats an old trap.

I would drill in my backyard if it meant we didn't import as much oil and I already answered the energy bill question.

Smaller government and fewer federal laws is what I am for.

As for Dev's pictorial comment, she is just showing her lack of intelligence with such generalizations.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Those are some of the reasons I like Fred. The more I see the more I like.

I'm not going to touch abortion or gay marriage issues, but why on earth would you

want to support job discrimination by sexual orientation?

Or drill the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, one of the most beautiful places in the world?

Or defund renewable and solar energy?

Voting against adding a new protection isn't the same as being for discrimination. Thats an old trap.

I would drill in my backyard if it meant we didn't import as much oil and I already answered the energy bill question.

Smaller government and fewer federal laws is what I am for.

As for Dev's pictorial comment, she is just showing her lack of intelligence with such generalizations.

Fred Thompson is unelectable then, Gary. You think Hillary has the highest negatives...can you imagine if Fred were the Rep nominee? Oh my... Not a horse I'd be betting on.

[mawilson 2,133]

I would drill in my backyard if it meant we didn't import as much oil and I already answered the energy bill question.

I disagree - I'd rather drill the Arab lands of the Middle East than my own backyard.

Let them have the pollution and #######.

[GaryC 7]

Those are some of the reasons I like Fred. The more I see the more I like.

I'm not going to touch abortion or gay marriage issues, but why on earth would you

want to support job discrimination by sexual orientation?

Or drill the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, one of the most beautiful places in the world?

Or defund renewable and solar energy?

Voting against adding a new protection isn't the same as being for discrimination. Thats an old trap.

I would drill in my backyard if it meant we didn't import as much oil and I already answered the energy bill question.

Smaller government and fewer federal laws is what I am for.

As for Dev's pictorial comment, she is just showing her lack of intelligence with such generalizations.

Fred Thompson is unelectable then, Gary. You think Hillary has the highest negatives...can you imagine if Fred were the Rep nominee? Oh my... Not a horse I'd be betting on.

He has lower negative numbers than Hillary. Hillary does not have a chance if she is the nominee. To much baggage,

[no name 1]

As for Dev's pictorial comment, she is just showing her lack of intelligence with such generalizations.

Resorted to name calling now?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Those are some of the reasons I like Fred. The more I see the more I like.

I'm not going to touch abortion or gay marriage issues, but why on earth would you

want to support job discrimination by sexual orientation?

Or drill the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, one of the most beautiful places in the world?

Or defund renewable and solar energy?

Voting against adding a new protection isn't the same as being for discrimination. Thats an old trap.

I would drill in my backyard if it meant we didn't import as much oil and I already answered the energy bill question.

Smaller government and fewer federal laws is what I am for.

As for Dev's pictorial comment, she is just showing her lack of intelligence with such generalizations.

Fred Thompson is unelectable then, Gary. You think Hillary has the highest negatives...can you imagine if Fred were the Rep nominee? Oh my... Not a horse I'd be betting on.

He has lower negative numbers than Hillary. Hillary does not have a chance if she is the nominee. To much baggage,

Go with your convictions, Gary. If he's your candidate, more power to you.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Thompson doesn't seem very charismatic to me.

[Stabu 0]

Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad science. (Jun 2007)

Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)

While this is bad, Fred Thompson's voting record (based on these) seems to be an okay one. I really don't understand what the point in banning science is.

Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad science. (Jun 2007)

Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)

Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)

Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)

Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)

The YES vote on the constitutional ban on gay marriage is a particularly bad one. In general it's a bad idea to add anything extra too the constitution as it should be a law which anyone can understand. Still, I like his NO votes on adding sexual orientation to hate crimes or prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. Hate crimes are ridiculous. A murder is a murder no matter who kills whom. If you put a burning cross on a black mans yard it will be treated as a death threat and treated accordingly as such in court. There's no reason to have legislation for hate crimes. If this would be the case you might as well have legislation against hate crimes towards each individual, since the individual is after all the smallest minority in the world. And of course an employee should have the right to decide who he wants to pay. He has the right to fire a person or not hire one on basis of his shirt color, his music taste or what not. If he refuses to pay more capable homosexual workers he will shoot himself in the foot as these will get plenty of job offers on a free market.

Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad science. (Jun 2007)

Voted YES on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)

Voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)

Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)

While I like his YES vote on defunding renewable energy, I dislike his YES votes to increase the budget for ANWR drilling. If a company wants to do drill for oil it can do so on its own land with its own money (in the same manner it can build solar panels if they so wish). Renewable energy can be supported by private individuals; those who whine about it can invest their own money to these projects, instead of wasting our joint resources to it. If you are against ANWR drilling, set up a fund and donate to it, which will buy off the land where this drilling is made.

It's always easy to sit back home (or at the congress for that matter) and play dictator voting yes or no to projects that one likes or dislikes, but it's a lot harder to put your money where your mouth is and do something financially for those goals one finds important.

Ouh and btw. this thread seems to be the racists definition of a fair fight: all against GaryC.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Ouh and btw. this thread seems to be the racists definition of a fair fight: all against GaryC.

I guess you'd know - with those bizarre comments you made about "White Civilization".

[Stabu 0]

I guess you'd know - with those bizarre comments you made about "White Civilization".

Argumentum ad hominem

[Peikko 1,575]

This misunderstanding of how the law currently works is probably indicative of wider view the world as 'black and white' 'good and bad' 'normal and abnormal'. Viewing the world in this way does make it much easier to advocate some of the 'simple solutions' to what are, more often than not, very complex problems.

I do find it odd that people are comfortable with getting rid of all the shades of grey though.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I guess you'd know - with those bizarre comments you made about "White Civilization".

Argumentum ad hominem

Indeed. But the comments were weird nonetheless.

[GaryC 7]

The basis for most of my arguments is this, I am not in favor of discrimination of any kind nor am I in favor of violence on the basis of race, gender or orientation. What I am against is new federal laws. It seems that when someone identifies some sort of a disservice or crime the first instinct is to pass a new law. That just makes for a more bloated legal system. I think the states should deal with those issues on their own.

[no name 1]

Ouh and btw. this thread seems to be the racists definition of a fair fight: all against GaryC.

um no, read it again. It's all against Thompson, even our Republican friend Charles agrees. Gary is the only one backing Fred's (dark ages) votes here.

Edited September 5, 2007 by devilette

[Caladan 19]

Ouh and btw. this thread seems to be the racists definition of a fair fight: all against GaryC.

Thompson doesn't have a lot of supporters on this board. That's not the fault of the other people debating Gary politely. You're welcome to support Thompson if you want, too.

(And it's not an ad hominem to point to someone's crazy views as evidence of their views being crazy. Just in case it comes up again.)