Strong, as usual. Go Bush - he’s got my vote.

Posted by: James at January 20, 2004 11:33 PM

Pretty weak. This speech seemed a lot more partisan than the previous two SOTUs.

Posted by: Tim Shell at January 21, 2004 12:46 AM

james you are on crank….

even the republican pundits think this speech was poop.

Posted by: what2 at January 21, 2004 01:04 AM

I loved the paragraph of the speech about how wrong gay marriage is and how they need to protect the institution of marriage by outlawing any state from changing the ‘rules’ of marriage to include couples not consiting of only a man and a woman. Very good stuff, George.

I’m not gay, but I’m not retarded either, and I can’t fathom why anyone would appreciate someone so stuck up and close-minded. That’s my two cents.

Posted by: Brad at January 21, 2004 01:18 AM

The way that this admin handles gay rights eerily reminds me of how blacks were treated before MLK. We all know what is the right thing to do. Some of us have the moral courage to truly believe in liberty and justice for all some dont.

Dont even try to tell me that W is not biased towards Gays and Lesbians….

Posted by: what2 at January 21, 2004 01:24 AM

Bush anounces tax cuts should be made permanent. No thanks given to the future generations who will pay for it!

Posted by: Bush Lies at January 21, 2004 03:32 AM

Lets recall January 2003- just for laughs

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct — were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq’s regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax — enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn’t accounted for that material. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin — enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn’t accounted for that material. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He’s not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them — despite Iraq’s recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans — this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Posted by: Bush Lies at January 21, 2004 04:08 AM

So… where exactly are the lies within this excerpt? Sure, there’s some “spin” in this excerpt, but all of it is factually correct, and otherwise theoretical in nature (“If Saddam had this, he could do this…”).

I haven’t read this year’s SOTU yet, nor do I plan to. I really don’t think I will vote for Bush anyways, but I can’t bring myself to vote for any of the Democrats either. Maybe if they drop the whole “Bush is Satan” rhetoric, I could get onboard.

I would challenge the previous poster to sum up the “lies” in his post, specifically, and not necessarliy why or how they are “lies”, just which things are “lies”. What do you feel like are lies in that excerpt?

Posted by: g at January 21, 2004 04:58 AM

Concerning gay rights: Will someone please tell me why gays want the right to marry in the first place? Of what special benefit is it to gays to have the state recognize their relationship?

Sodomy is now legal, so their activities cannot be reason for prosecution.

Sigh, look I know no one, especially those in the gay marriage camp are going to listen, is going to listen, but marriage, gay straight or what have you, is a social institution. Why should the state have any say whatsoever in your personal relationships? It is only viable if that state is threatened by that relationship.

For straight marriages, the threat is obvious. Children. Children come out completely unencumbered by morality, law, custom or what have you. They need to be indoctrinated, or else they may very well end up committing barbaric acts later on in life. At one end, this means criminality. Robbery, murder, rape and other activities that weaken society. I think everyone can agree that bands of criminals are not a good thing, and in the end can lead to chaos, anarchy and even the downfall of all the other social structures we create in order to ensure our lives and livelyhood.

Gay relationships do not present that kind of threat to society, because gay sex is not procreative. For a gay couple to reproduce, a third party would have to come in and “donate”. But since that party is not part of the couple, they have no further responsibility for the child they have help create.

Do you really want a society where people are making babies and not taking responsiblity for them?

But most of the advocates don’t want to listen, don’t care. They appear to think that gay marriage will convince others that their relations are identical to straight marriages. But it ain’t. The risks are different to society, the same society they are demanding equality and tolerance from. And show little concern for such a radical and unjustified change in this fundamental societal institution.

Being gay is not the same as being black. Skin tone is genetic. Being gay is predicated on actions, and actions are chosen by the individual. Since actions are chosen they come under the precepts of morality, societal conscriptions on what is and is not proper behavior. Such conscriptions serve a function for maintaining a functioning society to the benefit of all its members. Change is fraught with risk, and ignoring those risks, refusing to even address them and automatically dismissing anyone who brings them up as a bigot, homophobe or what have you, well… that ain’t good.

Advances in medical technology has made recreational sex far less risky, and led to the rise of the gay rights movement, feminism, swinging, BSDM and other forms of what has previously been considered “deviant behavior”. Not eliminated all risks, but reduced them. Such advances are quite new to society, and it will take time for society to adjust to the new reality and new morality to filter out in recognition of this new world we are creating.

Pushing for more faster approach is a sure way to creat a backlash. Refusing to even attempt to understand the concerns of the opposition, ridiculing them, dismissing them is not going to garner greater tolerance. If anything, it will ensure the opposite to the detriment of the gay rights community. You cannot force people to tolerate your lifestyle, or your sexuality. You can only persuade, and you can not persuade if you give the impression you have written them off already as religious bigots.

Posted by: Ben at January 21, 2004 06:11 AM

Posted by Ben at January 21, 2004 06:11 AM
Of what special benefit is it to gays to have the state recognize their relationship?

Simple, two words: Economic benefits.

It’s that little box you check on your 1040A (Single, Married Filing Seperately, Married Filing Jointly). It’s also the health insurance enrollment form you fill out at your employer (Individual coverage, Family Coverage.)

Do YOU want to legitimize this lifestyle, or more so…PAY FOR IT?!? Personally, I do NOT. If a gay couple gets (GETS, not ‘has’!) then yes, I will have to say for the benefit of the CHILD, they are entitled to the child tax credit…WHICH they would get ANYWAY. However, given the VAST amount of statistics on drug/alcohol abuse rate, health problems (INCLUDING a much shorter lifespan due to lifestyle), suicide, ETC…I, for ONE, do not wish to pay for THEIR choices.

THAT SAID, I am not a ‘gay basher’, ‘homophobic’, ETC…I believe LIKE religon, political affiliation, ETC it IS a personal CHOICE. As with ANY CHOICE there are consequences (good & bad!) of your decision. The American people have decided that it is OK to punish people that SMOKE by charging them higher health insurance rates, higher LIFE insurance rates, ETC...the SAME theory applies here.

Just my 2¢…

Posted by: American_Defender at January 21, 2004 09:04 AM

Posted by what2 at January 21, 2004 01:04 AM
even the republican pundits think this speech was poop.

LOL...ummm, you MIGHT want to put YOUR crack pipe down AND save that terd for yourself! Try READING a little before you simply post on your OWN BIAS.

[url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr040121.asp[/url]

Posted by: American_Defender at January 21, 2004 09:11 AM

Posted by what2 at January 21, 2004 01:04 AM
even the republican pundits think this speech was poop.

AD stole my thunder.

Can I have several pundits who agree with you? Not Pat Buchanon.

Posted by: jones at January 21, 2004 10:12 AM

why not Pat Buchanan?

Either way being gay is not always a choice. Since it naturally occurs in the wild I would think that you guys were smarter than that. Homosexuality is not always a choice….You are born gay just like certain wild animals are born gay….

Posted by: what2 at January 21, 2004 11:01 AM

I thought the speech was political spin, moving Bush back toward the far-right and dismissive of moderate and/or centerist Repubs…. and it was in some ways, a slap in the face to the leftist Dems. Bush’s delivery was a 100% improvement in his public speaking, though. He didn’t have the death-grip on index cards and didn’t even stumble over much of the speech. The constant applause, par for the course was annoying as hell.

The Dem response, particularly Pelosi’s piece of it, while not unexpected, was an insult to the American people and obviously prepared with minimal knowledge of the actual CONTENT of the SoU speech itself. Ms. Pelosi just jumped up and down on the “I Hate Bush, We need the UN” dead-horse.

Daschle was (as usual), impressive in his delivery, if not his content, which was rather bland.

Posted by: Jim S at January 21, 2004 11:11 AM

Posted by what2 at January 21, 2004 11:01 AM
Either way being gay is not always a choice. Since it naturally occurs in the wild I would think that you guys were smarter than that. Homosexuality is not always a choice….You are born gay just like certain wild animals are born gay….

ROFLMAO!

Ahhh, ignorance TRULY must be bliss.

PLEASE, enlighten us with your ‘intellect’: Name ONE animal species that has ‘gay’ members! JUST ONE will do for starters…

Posted by: American_Defender at January 21, 2004 11:37 AM

BTW- Sorry Jones…I will try to refrain. :)

Posted by: American_Defender at January 21, 2004 11:47 AM

In reply to Ben: As a parent who is going to be adopting out my first child, I’m really offended by your statements saying, in more or less words, that a nation where parents adopt their babies out is not something “we really want”. What is that? I’m actually planning on adopting my child out to a gay or lesbian couple, because there is no reason not to. To say that adopting out a child is a negative thing in ANY WAY shows what sort of narrowmindedness you contain. The urge to use much more vulgar words is becoming overwhelming and I’ll leave it at that. I’ll never understand some people.

Posted by: Brad at January 21, 2004 12:40 PM

Sorry I quoted something you didn’t say, but implied. You, my friend, sound like a religious bigot. Not only do you manage to disrepect gay people, but you manage to disrespect those parents who wish to be responsible with their “unwanted” gift and wish to give it to couples who are less able to have children, due to infirtility or… gayness. (Which is to refer to gayness as a disease or personal issue such as a disease, that way you can understand it better).

Posted by: Brad at January 21, 2004 12:42 PM

///Either way being gay is not always a choice. Since it naturally occurs in the wild I would think that you guys were smarter than that///

I tend to agree with the first sentence. The second I disagree with. What2 (Istill can’t believe you have no more imagination than this), I read a great number of scientific journal articles, however, I have never seen an article from a reliable scientific journal (Science, Nature, SciAm, Neurology etc) that makes an argument for what you are suggesting. Nevertheless, I hear this claim all the time. There are two that seem to pop up most frequently. Usually the articles cited involve invertebrates that change their sex, or another that for some odd reason I’ve never been able to find involving “lesbian cats”

Post whatever you want, but let’s base it on reliable fact instead of propaganda. Let’s see some citations to back up your “Wild Kingdom” claim.

Posted by: johnnymozart at January 21, 2004 12:43 PM

Baaack on track, however, I thought the Prez did a good job considering the kind of speech it was. The Beltway boys said it wasn’t one of his great speeches, bu nobody implied it was bad.

He came out swinging though, didn’t he? I didn’t watch all of it, but I liked the line “…this particular criticism (unilateralism) is particularly difficult to explain to our allies in blahblahblah” I thought, “Wow, what is this?! George Bush Comedy hour? Good for him.” I also liked the Hillary/Teddy shots with the reluctant courtesy claps. Those were hilarious.

I suppose when you take it on the chin from these zeros for months without responding, he was probably chafing at the bit to speak out. Strong work.

Posted by: johnnymozart at January 21, 2004 12:50 PM

Posted by Brad at January 21, 2004 12:40 PM
I’m actually planning on adopting my child out to a gay or lesbian couple, because there is no reason not to.

Brad,

First, I APPLAUD you for putting your “unwanted” child that you are unable and/or unwilling to care for, up for adoption! Unfortunately, many will not make this difficult choice and in this way live up to their responsibilities. It is THE CHILD that suffers.

HOWEVER…

NO REASON NOT TO…?!? PLEASE tell me you are joking! There are a MYRIAD of reasons NOT TO: STABILITY, future EMOTIONAL PROBLEMS, developement issues…! There are MORE THAN ENOUGH “couples who are less able to have children, due to infirtility” which are ALSO heterosexual!!! WHY compound the inherent problems that an adopted child will face in the future by putting them in the situation of having TWO mommies, or TWO daddies!

Adoption is a WONDERFUL thing for both the child AND the adoptive parents! AGAIN, I applaud you for making that decision given your careful assesment of your individual circumstances! I would just ask you to reconsider this “statement” you are trying to make and AGAIN consider your child!

Posted by: American_Defender at January 21, 2004 12:58 PM

To defend my argument that homosexuality occurs in nature wouldnt it be enough to say that it has been OBSERVED on a number of occassions….

I am not sure how scientific you need to make it, if you see with your two eyes two animals of the same sex mating then there you have it…..

I am sure scientific data exists but for something this simple it seems like overkill….

Posted by: what2 at January 21, 2004 01:14 PM

I also know a friend or two that is bisexual. In talking to them they never made the “choice” to be bisexual. They have an innate attraction to the same sex along with the opposite sex. They never sat down and charted out things…. To me this seems perfectly natural. Nobody ever makes the choice to be heterosexual, so why do you people insist it is the other way around. I like girls, I never sat down and reasoned it out. I am truly arguing with the Religious right if you guys think otherwise…Choice my ass…Sexuality is like breathing you just take it for what it is and deal…

Posted by: what2 at January 21, 2004 01:18 PM

So, there seem to be the following responses;

1. Ignore everything about Iraq, Terrorism, the Economy, or the country’s future: Focus on Gay Rights;

2. The President (hushed awe) said it, we must applaud it in totality, do not debate any part of it;

3. You (meaning one’s opponent) must be a moron if you thought “x” after hearing the speech;

4. closed my mind long ago, not gonna open it now…

Good speech, agreed with most of it.

Don’t think it changed any minds, but then again, that wasn’t the idea, anyway.

Bush sure seemed Presidential, especially when compared to some of the recent yellers.

Posted by: GDubya at January 21, 2004 01:29 PM

American Defender,

Dolphins
http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

There is a ton of “scientific data” on this already and it has been observed multiple times which I find to be the most damning evidence.

Check out the link on the bottom with the book from Amazon. Guy that wrote it is a biologist with credentials. These are professionals not that guy from Crocodile Hunter.

The reality is that sexuality in general is hardly ever a choice. It is realized just like the conscience is realized after a certain level of maturity post-birth. Sexuality is a realization and if people can be born with three legs, in nature I see no reason why the preceding cannot be true as well.

Those who refuse to believe are normally so religiously blinded and mind constipated that they refuse all “scientific explanations for things…” I suppose you do not believe in evolution either….

Posted by: what2 at January 21, 2004 01:29 PM

O M G! You have made some INCREDIBLY STUPID statements before, but THIS one should be saved as the PINNACLE!!

If you had ANY semblance of knowledge of animal behavior (BASIC knowledge even!) OR biology for that matter, you would KNOW that this behavior has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with “MATING”!!! This behavior is NOTHING more than posturing AND used to establish DOMINANCE and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a sexual act! I was HOPING you would use the ‘normal’ idiotic example of canines (which is PROBABLY what you were indirectly referring to!) as canine behavior is an fervent interest of mine. In pack/herd species this posturing is readily used to establish ‘the pecking order’! I DID give you the benefit of the doubt however and thought you MIGHT come up with the example of porpoises ! Given your ignorant assertions, for your information porpoises are the ONLY animal other than human beings that have been documented as having sex STRICTLY for pleasure! There is some anecdotal evidence that there MAY be some rare instances of homosexuality in that species. AGAIN, EXTREMELY anecdotal DESPITE a VOLUME of scientific research that has been done with porpoises over MANY decades!!!

I now much better understand the BALANCE of your uneducated views, it goes along the same lines as the three blind men and the elephant (which btw ALSO could be observed “mating”…from your perspective!)

Posted by: American_Defender at January 21, 2004 01:35 PM

GEE, you stumbled across the very one I gave you FAR too much credit for in the first place…sorry, my typing skills leave MUCH to be desired and was in the process of posting my response based on your previous “example”.

My apologies. However, your argument STILL does not hold water…whether there are porpoises in it or NOT!

Posted by: American_Defender at January 21, 2004 01:39 PM

You seem to rattle off a bunch of statistics about gay adoptive couples without any real factual evidence to back it up, much like many of other people who are obviously anti-gay here. (Drug abuse! Disease! Mental unstability! There are all signs that you may be in the prescence of a gay person, call your local authorities).

In fact, children who grow up with gay or lesbians parents have a good chance of growing up more well adjusted in life than those given to straight couples. The ideas that gay couples might corrupt or not be able to properly care for a child in some way is just a misconception cooked up by anti-gay activists. I suggest you do some research on what you’re talking about before you brashly overgeneralize and entire group of people.

Posted by: Brad at January 21, 2004 01:44 PM

Hmmm, GEE...thanks for posting all of YOUR “factual evidence”. BOY, I now stand corrected…WHAT was I thinking.

Posted by: American_Defender at January 21, 2004 01:47 PM

BTW, there is a very large post on my website (electricbiscuit.com) dealing solely with replying to all of the points in Ben’s original comments, but not dealing with my stance on gay adoptive parents, however, sorry. I suggest you head on over and read it… If you dare, bwhahaha.

Also, it is EMPHASIS free because I HATE it when people DO THIS!

Posted by: Brad at January 21, 2004 01:47 PM

OK,

Maybe I didn’t make myself clear. I asked for data, what2, for what you are describing, not a citation to a GLBS special interest website. This is not evidence. If you want me to cite data on preoptic nucleus and other anatomic differences between homo and heterosexual men, I can do that, from scientific journals.

What you are doing is hiding your ignorance behind an “everybody knows this” argument. Hell, I’m not saying you’re wrong (although I think you are) I’m just asking you to prove it.

So cite your source where what you asserted is a) observed or b) proved; otherwise stop posting nonsense.

Posted by: johnnymozart at January 21, 2004 01:49 PM

Ummm, YEAH…I will certainlt put that ‘on my list of things to do’.

bwhahaha…?!? (WTF.)

Posted by: American_Defender at January 21, 2004 01:49 PM

Gay Adoptive Parents:

http://www.adoptions.com/aecgaylez.html
http://www.adoptionfamilycenter.org/resources/adoption/gayandlesbian/gl-issues.htm
http://adoption.about.com/cs/gaylesbian/

Doesn’t matter how many links I post, a decent Google search will come up with enough information for you… Not that any will be enough for you.

Posted by: Brad at January 21, 2004 01:50 PM

///Sexuality is a realization and if people can be born with three legs,///

..and what usually happens to people with three legs, what2? Do they tend to keep that third leg?

Posted by: observer at January 21, 2004 01:51 PM

Well I’m glad that shut them up.

Posted by: Brad at January 21, 2004 02:12 PM

johnnym…

Once again, I think it would be a waste of my time to try to do years of research just to convince no one. The data is out there. I’ve heard of it before and accept the theory owing to the fact that I know that sexuality is not a choice. I did not choose my sexuality so I am sure that others fall in the same category. You are really banging your head against the wall. Sometimes the answer is simple not complex. Do you really think millions of sexuality choices are made each day and thousands punch the gay button just for shits and giggles?

Biology is weird. Accept it. Move on.

Posted by: what2 at January 21, 2004 02:13 PM

what2, according to many of the posters here, yes many people do punch the Gay button… Heck, I would too if what these people said was true. I mean, how can you pass up drug abuse, care free recreational sex, a shorter lifespan, and diseases the straight world apparently hasn’t even heard of!

At that rate, I’d like to be gay. Sounds like fun, sex drugs and rock and roll, used to be what us straight people were proud of… Course, then those icky black and gay people brought AIDS into the mix, damn those gay people! (Can’t say damn those black people because us Americans supposedly LOVE black people now!)

Posted by: Brad at January 21, 2004 02:18 PM

Brad,

The problem with that argument is that yes maybe some do choose. But if even 1 and only 1 do not choose and they are born that way. Then you have to accept the fact that it occurs in nature. Much stranger things have and do happen. To me it is not even a huge leap to consider this more than likely. Think about it. Did you choose your sexuality when girls gave you a funny feeling at age 12?

Posted by: what2 at January 21, 2004 02:23 PM

observer,

Leg or not they always remember they had a third leg. In the other case, they always know in the back of their mind they are gay.

There is no winning this argument. There is no gay /straight button to push for some people.

Posted by: what2 at January 21, 2004 02:36 PM

Posted by what2 at January 21, 2004 02:13 PM
Once again, I think it would be a waste of my time to try to do years of research just to convince no one. The data is out there. I’ve heard of it before and accept the theory owing to the fact that I know that sexuality is not a choice…
Biology is weird. Accept it. Move on.

What2? a COP OUT. (SORRY , What?…!!!) :)

BIOLOGY, yes while sometimes weird, is a SCIENCE...hence the ‘ology’. It is based on FACTS, of which you have presented NONE. However, as this is your usual modus operandi…par for the course. DESPITE this lack of being able to present facts, you THEN draw rediculous conclusions BASED on these ellusive ‘facts’ and then assert THAT as being ‘the truth’.

Hmmm, no logical fallacies HERE.

Posted by: American_Defender at January 21, 2004 02:44 PM

Posted by Brad at January 21, 2004 02:12 PM
Well I’m glad that shut them up.

Brad,

I ASSURE you that some assinine, rambling post on an obscure website has NOT ‘shut me up’. As you stated, no matter WHAT OR HOW MUCH I posted, it would not be enough for you.

It is QUITE apparent that this issue is a ‘little too close to home’ for you.

I HONESTLY DO wish your child well. Let’s just leave it at that.

I’d like to be gay.
Posted by Brad at January 21, 2004 02:18 PM

Posted by: American_Defender at January 21, 2004 02:50 PM

what2,

Oh. I see. The evidence is out there, but you’ve never seen it, and you continue to refuse to produce it.

Read my post again, you jackass. I didn’t disagree with you at any point. I just demonstrated, which I will do again, that you have no idea what you’re talking about, and in addition, that you have now twice dodged a question that I asked, and then blamed me for that deficit. If its so obvious, then prove it. Or perhaps you’d just like to sit back and imply that I’m a homophobe some more, because clearly that’s all you’ve got. As it happens, I’ve looked for the animal studies. I have the human studies which show significant biologic differences, which if you actually had read my post you would have known. You have asserted that there is proof. Well, I’ve looked for it, hard, for a long time, and I can’t find it. Yet you continue to assert it as gospel.

You spout stuff you have no evidence for, then refuse to produce it, because you know you can’t. You just refuse to admit it. Then you make unfounded accusations for your failure to provide one shred of evidence that was asked for.

Again I will say that you and I may not disagree on this. But the more you post, the more stupid you look. There’s no failure in saying that you don’t know, what2.

Posted by: observer at January 21, 2004 03:09 PM

whoops, last post was from me

Posted by: johnnymozart at January 21, 2004 03:10 PM

The reason I posted as observer, before I get crucified for it, is because of what2’s inconsistency. People think they are <so familiar with what johnnymozart thinks, they disregard, as what2 has, what I am saying. He says that homosexuality occurs in nature, provides no evidence for this, implies several people here are homophobes, and then to illustrate his point, demonstrates his own homophobia by comparing homosexuality to a birth defect.

Do you think homosexuality is a birth defect, what2?

Posted by: johnnymozart at January 21, 2004 03:15 PM

What2: I was being sarcastic in my post to you, mostly making fun of the broad generalizations the people on here are making about gay people, that’s all.

Posted by: Brad at January 21, 2004 03:20 PM

johnnymozart: I don’t recall what2 ever using the term ‘birth defect’, it was you who started to use that term on here. To use the term ‘birth defect’ is to purposeful attempt to give the concept that homosexuality or heterosexual is chosen by the genes and our DNA a bad name.

What2 did not say that homosexuality was a birth defect, and he didn’t even imply it. The sum total of his arguments seems to be that homosexuality is a natural thing, as in, it occurs naturally in people and animals alike. It is not a personal choice a person makes, they do not wake up one day and go “hey check me out, I’m gay!” they were born as homosexuals, just as you and I (assuming) were born heterosexual. What about that is hard to understand?

It’s ironic that people on here are crying for evidence, but don’t provide it themselves. I provided evidence and obvious won my side of the debate… now it’s time for you, johnny, or you, what2, to prove your case… although when it comes to science you can always disprove it by waving the bible around if you’re holy (and desperate) enough.

Posted by: Brad at January 21, 2004 03:26 PM

And USA todays analysis is:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-21-behind-address_x.htm

Reposted here:

Behind the address
A reality check on what Bush said on key issues.
Weapons of mass destruction

What Bush said: Search teams have “identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities” in Iraq. “Had we failed to act, the dictator’s weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day.”

Context: The Bush administration has struggled to explain why weapons hunters have found no chemical or biological weapons in Iraq in 10 months of searching. On the eve of the war, President Bush said there was “no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” He said terrorist groups could acquire weapons from Iraq and use them against the United States. A search effort led by CIA appointee David Kay has turned up no weapons and no evidence of any advanced weapons program, raising questions about the quality of U.S. intelligence and the Bush administration’s justification for war in Iraq.

Iraq’s new government

What Bush said: “The work of building a new Iraq is hard, and it is right. And America has always been willing to do what it takes for what is right.”

Context: A U.S. plan for ceding political power to a transitional Iraqi government this summer is facing serious obstacles. Chief among them is the demand by the country’s most influential cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, for direct elections likely to benefit Iraq’s Shiite Muslim majority. The Bush administration and its Iraqi allies favor provincial caucuses, which they assert will be safer to hold and which will keep power from being monopolized by a single group. They appealed to the United Nations this week to send a team to Iraq to back up their contention that quick elections are not feasible. Adnan Pachachi, current head of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, said Tuesday that “we are looking at various options” to make the caucuses “more transparent and inclusive.”

Federal deficit

What Bush said: If Congress will “focus on priorities” and “cut wasteful spending … we can cut the deficit in half over the next five years.”

Context: Criticism of Bush’s budget policies has intensified over the past few months, as conservative Republicans join other critics in complaining about the sharp jump in government spending in 2002 and 2003 and the record $500 billion deficit projected this year. The White House goal of cutting the deficit in half in five years is a lowering of the bar — a tacit admission that deficits are here to stay until at least 2009, and that the surpluses of 1998-2001 won’t return until some future administration. The president’s costly proposals to make tax cuts permanent, create new tax breaks and send manned missions to the moon and Mars will make even that deficit-cutting pledge harder to keep.

Jobs and the economy

What Bush said: “Americans took those dollars (from tax cuts) and put them to work, driving this economy forward. … Jobs are on the rise.”

Context: Economists say a real job recovery is just around the corner. Numerous indicators show the economy roaring back from a mild recession. But analysts are frustrated by the job market’s stubborn weakness. Factors holding down job growth: New technology has allowed many companies to do more with fewer workers; relentless pressure to cut costs has encouraged firms to move jobs abroad; surging health care costs make U.S. workers expensive to employ; and terrorism and corporate scandals have left CEOs wary of costly, long-term risks. Washington can’t do much about this in the short run.

Homeland security/War on terrorism

What Bush said: “The terrorists continue to plot against America and the civilized world. And by our will and courage, this danger will be defeated.”

Context: The war on terrorism is a work in progress. Major al-Qaeda figures have been arrested, and U.S. domestic security has been tightened, most noticeably in airline travel. But Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders remain at large, and critics say homeland security remains inadequate, especially at America’s ports and chemical plants. Saddam Hussein and Iraq were not sources of terrorism against the United States, but U.S. troops there are a magnet for terrorist attacks, and the U.S. occupation helps build support for anti-Western Muslim extremists. In Afghanistan, the U.S.-backed government is struggling against a resurgence of the Taliban regime.

Social issues

What Bush said: (On gay marriage) “If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.”

Context: Bush has avoided calling for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage but is trying to keep religious conservatives happy by making clear his opposition to gay marriage. Amendments take time to enact, and the matter is not likely to come to a head this year. Liberalizing immigration policy, another social policy Bush mentioned in his speech, faces strong opposition among conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats in Congress. Bush is likely to promote the policy this year to appeal to Hispanic voters but do little to force a showdown in Congress until next year.

Health care

What Bush said: “Congress must act to address rapidly rising health care costs. … Individuals who buy catastrophic health care coverage … (should) be allowed to deduct 100% of the premiums from their taxes.”

Context: Critics say tax deductions for the purchase of health insurance will do little to help working poor families and unemployed workers who go without health insurance because they can’t afford it. Democrats are expected to use any health care initiative as a chance to criticize the prescription-drug benefit for seniors Bush signed into law last year. Democrats say that the benefit is paltry and that the law does little to lower costs because it bars the government from negotiating cheaper prices from drugmakers. Democrats enjoy better poll ratings on health care and most other domestic issues than Bush and the GOP.

-END

Now excuse me, I have two female dogs downstairs that are trying to hump each other… very strange…

Posted by: AnyoneButBush2004 at January 21, 2004 03:31 PM

OH as for the WMD’s in the 2003 speach- BUSH LIED.
unacounted for growth media capable of produceing X amount of anthrax, became in Bush’s SOTU 03- ‘Sadam has X amount of anthrax’ - capability became fact. By cherry picking the intelligence. Then outright lying about it.
Get yourself a clue.

Posted by: AnyoneButBush2004 at January 21, 2004 03:38 PM

no homosexuality is not at all a birth defect. In my opinion it is perfectly natural. It was perfectly natural for me at age 9 to start thinking girls were cute. I did not make a freakin flowchart at age nine and come to some logical conclusion based on facts and figures on what my sexuality would be.

Furthermore, I am not going to feed you any proof. Like I said, I probably would convince none of the bible thumpers here anyway…so it is a waste of both my time and yours.

The precept that homosexuality is a choice 100% of the time seems 100% absurd.

Posted by: what2 at January 21, 2004 03:48 PM

Brad, for cryin’ out loud, what do you call a human being born with three legs? In my book, and every medical textbook I know (ref. Nelson’s textbook of Pediatrics or Smith’s Recognizable Pattern of Human Malformation.) that’s called a birth defect.

Good grief, doesn’t anyone read at this site anymore?

Posted by: johnnymozart at January 21, 2004 03:54 PM

johnny,

you are now talking semantics. Do red-heads have a birth defect? What about someone with different colored eyes…. Homosexuality is way more common than three legs….it is a hard call and a personal one in my opinion. I would call three legs a birth defect but I would not call homosexuality a birth defect. I dont think there is any clear demarcation line.

Posted by: what2 at January 21, 2004 04:06 PM

Sad. Just sad.

///no homosexuality is not at all a birth defect///

Yeah, except you compared it to one, and I didn’t. And yet I get the accusation of being a bible thumper or a homophobe.

///Furthermore, I am not going to feed you any proof.///

Of course you aren’t, what2, because you don’t have any. You just won’t admit it. I’ve seen plate glass windows that are less transparent than you. You are so desperate to prove the fact that you think its normal, you’re willing to accept any argument with no evidence. And you undermine the entire cause of equal rights for homosexuals in the process. You’re the one in the wrong here, bud, not me. But if it makes you feel better to think I’m a homophobe, then go for it.

///The precept that homosexuality is a choice 100% of the time seems 100% absurd.///

Except, again, that no one has said this but you. The only reason you make this comment is to deflect attention from the fact that you have no evidence, none whatsoever, to back up your assertion that homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom. It’s not that you won’t, slick, its because you can’t. It doesn’t exist currently that I know of. Thus, you cannot say what you have asserted is “obvious”

Now, for all those who want to believe at this point that I’m a homophobe, consider this: In 1993, an article was published in the Journal of Neurology stating that the preoptic nucleus in the brain, among other things, was quantifiably different in homosexual men than heterosexual men; thereby proving that homosexuality was an inherited or biologic condition; this was immediately rejected, correctly, on the basis that 75% of the men had HIV or AIDS; an obvious confounder. However, a repeat of this study in the same journal produced the same results, without the confounder This was repeated in the Archives of Internal Medicine in 1995. Similar studies were produced in many medical journals regarding the influence of environment on homosexuality. None was found. (I will provide citations if anyone would like)

Asking for evidence to back up questionable claims doesn’t make me a bible thumper or a homophobe, you horse’s ass. As you can see, I’m not.

You see, what2, not everyone here fits the little mold of your little liberal brain. If you opened your mind about that and everything else you post about here, you’d see that.

Posted by: johnnymozart at January 21, 2004 04:33 PM

One last thing, I prefer the term “Jesus Freak”

Still waiting for my apology, Brad.

Sorry, Alan and Michelle, and all readers, for hijacking this thread. My apologies.

Posted by: johnnymozart at January 21, 2004 04:41 PM

Similar studies were produced in many medical journals regarding the influence of environment on homosexuality. None was found. (I will provide citations if anyone would like)
******************************************
I am either dumb or not getting what you are trying to say or both…. Are you saying the environment is or is not the cause of this homosexuality….

johnny m. I have presented my point succinctly and elegantly on this blog in a way that is much easier to understand than that diahrea you put up about some studies. Please turn the studies into plain english and please counter my argument that
sexuality is innate and not a choice.

Did you choose your sexuality johnny? Everyone I know did not choose their sexuality….The choose argument is tired and weak. If you talk to humans for a change instead of watching Deep Space Nine reruns all day maybe you would get my drift….

Posted by: what2 at January 21, 2004 04:49 PM

///I am either dumb or not getting what you are trying to say or both///

Yes, exactly.

What2, you are indeed a drooling retard. Are you really this stupid, or are you joking? How many different times and ways do I need to say it? I agree with your assessment that there has been shown a proven biologic, possibly inherited, although that is not known/proven, component to sexuality…. in humans There is no evidence that I am aware of that shows the same thing in the animal kingdom. You say there is. When I asked you to provide evidence, rather than doing so you instead chose to call me a bible thumper and a homophobe. The above is only “verbal diarrhea” because you didn’t understand it. So now I’ll use one or two syllable words, what2, just for you: Study…shows…gays…brains…different. That’s… called…. proof. Is that better?

You assume that because I ask you to put your money where your mouth is that I’m a bigot, and quite frankly, I don’t appreciate it. But neither am I surprised. And I assure you, you were neither succinct nor eloquent. (which is what I suspect you meant by “elegant”) And then you wonder why people put much credence in anything you contribute.

Posted by: johnnymozart at January 21, 2004 05:05 PM

this should read:

why people DON‘Tput much credence in anything you contribute.

Posted by: johnnymozart at January 21, 2004 05:07 PM

LOL…

JM, I thank you…although the intellectually bankrupt…HOWEVER, “elegant”…what2 STILL will not get it.

BTW- I feel certain that you meant DON‘T put much credence…as in NONE!

Posted by: American_defender at January 21, 2004 05:17 PM

DAMN, GOTTA learn to type faster…! :)

Posted by: American_defender at January 21, 2004 05:18 PM

Elegant…short succint to the point

i.e., Elegant code….

My attempt to put a little lightheartedness into the thread obviously went above your head. Yes I do not mind making fun of myself in jest saying I might be dumb etc…etc…

You dodge my question about your and your acquaintances sexual “choice…” just like I refuse to give you proof. I told you I wont give you proof, I refuse to there is already data out there go find it. My question that I would like answered is did you choose your sexuality? yes or no and at what age did you make the flowchart?

Posted by: what2 at January 21, 2004 05:46 PM

what2, you are truly breathtakingly stupid.

No, I did not choose my sexuality, you pinhead. I didn’t dodge your question, you were just too stupid to understand my answer. I thought my answer to your question was sufficiently explained by the examples I cited, and thus self-evident. And the proof that I cited, which you did not, was to help prove your position, dumbshit. One which I share. That position being that perhaps homosexuals do not choose their sexuality either, as shown by obvious anatomic differences, detailed in respectable journals. Proof which I provided, and which you did not.

You further asserted that the same evidence exists in the animal kingdom. I say it does not, or that I haven’t found it, or that it has not been proven, and challenged you to prove it. You did not. You, instead, thought it would more fun to try to deflect attention from the inadequacy of your argument by pigeonholing me as a bigot.

And now that I have debunked even that by my obvious support of your friggin’ argument,you still refuse to admit that you are wrong, or even that I am not, in fact, a bigot. And you continue to make accusations and insist that there is “evidence”. And now that I have answered your question, again, I will tell you, again that you are full of horseshit. So go ahead and prove me wrong, or admit that you are in error and shut the hell up.

Posted by: johnnymozart at January 21, 2004 06:07 PM

Today is a sad day for humanity indeed. Kind of sad that the only people who are attracted to these comments are either compassionate individuals easily infuriated by the second group of people, the conservative republican “dumbshits” (to borrow from johnny) who seem to have an unbelievable desire to catalog homosexuals under “mentally handicapped, birth defective, and extremely dangerous”.

Very, very sad.

It’s just ridiculous when one person will twist another person’s words into their own agenda. “What’s that you say? Homosexuality is present in humans at birth? You mean to say, and let me put this into words I agree with to further my agenda… it’s a birth defect! An abnormality! That person is different from the rest of us, so you must mean they are a mutant!”

Etc, etc, etc.

Posted by: Brad at January 21, 2004 07:09 PM

JM,

If I may interupt your beating of what2.

You have as yet to provide a source for your claim that the SOTUS was reviled by republican pundits.

After JM has humiliated enough, please do thsi.

Posted by: jones at January 21, 2004 07:12 PM

“this”

Posted by: jones at January 21, 2004 07:14 PM

Well its been a day since I posted the USA today article so Im calling a consensus-
Bush sucks- worst president since… Hoover??

Posted by: AnyoneButBush2004 at January 22, 2004 04:18 AM

Oh and for reference:

March 2003: Weapons of mass destruction.

June 2003: Weapons of mass destruction programs.

October 2003: Weapons of mass destruction- related programs.

January 2004: Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.

Posted by: AnyoneButBush2004 at January 22, 2004 04:19 AM

Eureka.

He can be taught.

I can only assume that the chirping crickets I hear is just your arrogance refusing to admit you are wrong, which is good, because otherwise I would have to assume that there is no limit to your destitution of mind.

Oh, sorry, what2…….dumbness

Brad,

Learn to read. Because if you do, then you’ll see that I am saying exactly the opposite of what you are saying I’m saying. For God’s sake, I don’t think homosexuality is a birth defect. How many different ways do I need to write it? I didn’t make that comparison, what2 did.

Let me recap for you:

What I did say is that there is biologic evidence that there are anatomic changes in homosexual men’s brains, the sources for which I cited, which eliminates the “they choose it” argument that some conservatives (and others) have. To my knowledge, that kind of evidence does not exist in the animal kingdom. What2 said it did. I asked him to prove it and he chose instead to make erroneous assumptions, as you have, about what I believe about homosexuals rather than admit he’s wrong.

So then I explain it all, and still after explaining that I agree with both of you and that you both have misunderstood what I’ve been saying, you still have the brass to sit there and tell me that I’m a bigot by saying this:

///You mean to say, and let me put this into words I agree with to further my agenda… it’s a birth defect! ///

Say, think, do whatever you want about me, Brad. Anyone with any sense or reading comprehension skill can see that I’m not saying what you think I’m saying; I’m saying the opposite.

Pumpkinhead.

Posted by: johnnymozart at January 22, 2004 07:34 AM

Once again I apologize to Alan and Michelle, and the readers for my outbursts and hijacking of this thread. Combined with recent imbecility on other threads, the gross stupidity I’ve witnessed on this thread plus the accusation of bigotry/homophobia was more than I could bear.

I do not have a problem asking for evidence, evidence I am fairly certain does not currently exist in a body of literature I am quite familiar with, even if the cause is one I believe in, like homosexual rights.

Posted by: johnnymozart at January 22, 2004 09:50 AM