Kitch

Why don't we just nationalize them then?

As a science teacher I'm a little tired of being told what I should and shouldn't be. Besides, as a science teacher I understand the limitations of the word "proven". Anyway... You have misunderstood my point. My point isn't that the quality of the vehicles made by GM et. al. hasn't improved... I'll take your word on that. I'm saying that after a long period of producing crappy cars, it's hard for customers to change their minds... at least it is for me. And maybe I WILL change my mind when I start seeing 10-15 year old GMs on the road that are going strong after 300K. Perhaps the newer ones can... but reputations can't be changed as quickly as quality can. And if they can, the change doesn't occur simultaneously. I don't know that I'd want to allow my tax dollars to help a company that couldn't be successful on its own. But, then this makes me a hypocrite... maybe. I often advocate for helping PEOPLE that suffer from CHANCE occurrences, why wouldn't I support the same for COMPANIES? That being said, there are people that take the opposite stance that I do, on both counts. (Just rambling).

Could you define 'evil' and explain more clearly how gay people are 'evil'?

I'm jumping in here late, and have probably missed reading many good posts by many people, but I just want to ask one question. Why do we always expect people in the public eye to be incredibly careful about everything that they say. Why do we consistently apply these ridiculously high standards to other people? Could this be a contributing factor to our litigious society? That we apply our own expectations and interpretations to the words of others rather than giving them the opportunity to clarify if we don't understand? Just wondering.

So the reputation that they built over the years, based on the low quality of their product, has been improved based on improvements of their products in recent years? That quickly, based on 'expert' reports? I don't know about you, but I'd rather wait to see if the 2005 GM cars can make it past 300K... a lot of them I mean. THEN I might personally change my mind about buying a GM (or Ford or Chrysler). Until then, they still make crappy cars in my mind. Would it not be fair to assume that others would require this sort of evidence before the reputation of these companies changed? (Because that's all reputation is... common opinion). I tend to think that reputation plays quite a large role in customer decisions. So unions have the power to demand (I'd hesitate to agree with the use of the word 'dictate') what cars will be built where... but that doesn't mean that they have any voice when the design team is deciding what cars to produce. I could be wrong.

I would like to quote Shakespeare by saying that "nothing is either good or bad but thinking makes it so". Because knowledge exists only in the mind of it's possessor. But, I'm no psychologist/philosopher and this isn't the thread for that. But thank you. I would like to acknowledge your particular flavour of smarts too. But give a go at some of my other posts... particularly the ones that deal with this thread... please?

I think I'm kind of smart.

At first glance I thought this was sarcasm... I don't think it is... but I really don't know!

My bad... thanks!

I find this funny. I describe myself as a leftist and consider Miller right-wing. But, whatever's clever. I'm just getting a little irritated at how you and others consistently label anything that you disagree with as the will of the "left".

I think that all of you who are discussing your own definitions of homosexuality are missing the point. Even those of you who try to make assertions regarding your own definition of marriage don't seem to get it. What right do you have to determine the way a person lives their life so long as the choices they make don't negatively affect other people? 'Your' definition of marriage might apply to you and your wife/husband/partner, but who the hell does anybody think they are to try to apply that to anybody else's relationship??? And what does it matter what any of us thinks it means to be homosexual? Two dudes throwing it to each other doesn't affect anybody but those two dudes. What problem do any of you REALLY have with that?

Have you ever asked somebody who was incarcerated for a significant amount of time... who also engaged in sodomy... if they were gay? It happens in prison, as I'm sure you know. By using your logic, the gay people who would procreate on an island are not gay for that reason, so prisoners who engage in sodomy while incarcerated ARE gay.

What does that mean?

What do unions have to do with sales? Do you really think that unions have that much power to dictate what vehicles are produced? Do you have any evidence to support that? It wouldn't be unheard of for a GM car to die after 150K yet Hondas and Toyotas can EASILY go strong for over 300K. But yes, GM is probably not able to compete because of unions. (Don't people that work at Honda or Toyota plants belong to the same union?)

I think a major problem is that some people would disagree with you here. For example: Unfortunately, Thomas Jefferson wouldn't have agreed with THIS statement: http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html I could be wrong, but wasn't he one of the FOUNDING fathers of the U.S.A.? I'm pretty sure that the principles that America was formed on are not at odds with gay people that want to get married.

To look for examples of gay people attacking the church in an organized way? The burden of support (because I dislike the word proof... largely because it rarely can exist) is on your shoulders bud. That's an assumption. I have indeed heard of attacks on christian people on the news. Perhaps there are more (maybe you are privy to them) instances than are reported, but this does not in any way support the notion that gay people have attacked, physically, anything to do with the church. Actually, bud, I was raised catholic. I am well aware of the reasons religious people have for advocating against homosexuality. My catholic upbringing is one of the reasons that I decided that there is no god and that organized religion is bad for the world. And I sincerely 'believe' that... religion is bad for the world. BUT do you see me out there promoting hate for religion? No, because a belief in a god is an individual's choice and who am I to tell a person what they can/cannot believe? Even though collectively believers do harm to the planet and society (in my opinion). But, and this is important.... what you are saying is that existence of gay people makes the world more evil. Or, that they promote their chosen lifestyle. Well, in reality, they don't 'promote' it. They don't want to make more people gay, at least from what I've seen/heard. They just don't want to have to keep their chosen lifestyle a secret. Are you gay? I'm going to guess no. So then may I please point out the glaring hypocrisy of you telling me that I don't understand something about the 'religious side' because I"m not christian, while you, a non-homosexual, claim to know something about the motives of the gay community? And yes, somebody called you dumb so it MUST be simply because you disagree with gay lifestyle. Not at all because you pretend to know something about it that you just don't. Angus said that you said something stupid anyway... not that YOU are stupid. Wow are you trying to distort what was said. If you really want to be taken seriously, take your time and make a better attempt. Dude, quit talking about 'deviant sexual behaviour'. The catholic church preaches against tugging your tube-steak, so that's considered deviant in the minds of some. And I'm sure you twisted a few out in your day. But let's bring it back to the foundation of your argument. 'Gay = evil because being gay makes the world more evil'. Care to justify this? And remember I WAS catholic.

Sure newspapers are longer, but can you really differentiate them from television or radio newscasts because of that? In depth doesn't necessarily mean more objective, less slanted or truthful. Besides, newspapers sell for, what, 50 cents? A dollar? The revenue from sales does not allow newspapers to continue to operate. It's the companies that want to advertise that are the customers. Readers/viewers are the product. Which is why it makes sense that such media companies would be subservient to advertisers. Why wouldn't CanWest allow Adbusters to run a commercial on one of their stations even though Adbusters was willing to pay the going rate for such air time?

Which is understandable in this case because the desires of both groups are mutually exclusive. We (humans?) need to figure out why or why not gay people should be allowed to engage in this human idea called 'marriage'. Are gay people not human? It's not necessarily about tolerance from the perspective of gay people. As Marksman said, they just want to be treated equally. So what reason do people... society, as you called them... have for voting against allowing gay people to marry?

Perhaps you're right, but there's a history of 'gay bashing' whereas I'm not aware of any examples of 'religious bashing' by gay people. So maybe threats by the "opposition" would be taken a little more seriously. That being said, I've seen and heard people say MANY derogatory and threatening things to and/or about gay people without investigations.

Is it really a responsibility though? And is it really not voting if one decides to not choose any candidate?

I really am impressed with the ability to speak in metaphor... but I don't know what you're saying. I'm not very quick.

There isn't an idea unworthy of consideration. You should ALWAYS bother and always try. If I'm a liberal/leftist and claim to be tolerant of others, yet others see me as intolerant, it wouldn't be a bad thing to have this point of view brought up. That being said, I think that there are still a few things that can be discussed... if you'd like. These gay people that you exemplified are not being intolerant either. Marksman said it well. They're being treated unequally. As I said above, what effect does the marriage of two people, gay or straight, have on society? There is no effect. But society has decided to impact on the lives of gay people by preventing their ability to marry each other... which, again, doesn't harm anybody. So while it's not... nice (I'm not going to say wrong because I strongly believe in freedom of expression), these gay people are not being hypocritical.

The other guy said something about the 'MSM' being certain TV stations and you told him that he should read newspapers more. I assumed this meant you were saying that newspapers are... better sources of news. So I asked you whether or not newspapers were 'filtered'... meaning that they selectively choose information and angles just as TV networks do.

You're trying to steamroll your point without acknowledging that your premises are being debated before your issue can be discussed. What political stripe to most people who preach tolerance come from? Liberal The people who said the things that you posted very well might be liberal. The connection is made, right? Sorry bud. But it's not. IF you want to carry on under the assumption that people come wearing only one of two stripes, we'll do so. Let's say these people who claim to want to burn down churches are liberals. They are a subset of an entire political ideology. So you can't extend their words (not actions, mind you... maybe they should be taken seriously, maybe not) to a broader group of people. Therefore, if you want to accuse this broad, diverse group of people you call the 'left' of hypocrisy... choose another example.

I don't know about other GOOD forums, but check out www.conservativesforum.com You've labelled me as a 'liberal/leftist' (so have I, but whatever). Dude, YOU'LL be labelled liberal there!