It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
And American society's re-evalutaion of gay marriage took place after 2005. So did Tim Kaine's. Better late than never. At this rate, the Republican party will accept gay Americans as being fully human...what, around 2076, just in time for the Tricentennial?
Groucho is always good. Have you got any Stooges clips to amuse @Mendacious4Lyfe?
So what's the score on the other fella? You know, the guy running with Trump? Mike Pence?
LGTB:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-pence-lgbt-vote_us_578904bee4b0867123e0f507
Abortion:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/07/15/mike-pence-has-made-no-secret-about-his-views-on-abortion-will-this-help-or-hurt-trump/
And of course, death penalty:
http://chicagodefender.com/2016/07/21/3-things-you-should-know-about-mike-pence/
Are you quite sure your conservative add tells the truth? Or have they confused the two VP candidates? I mean, of course they don't have a stake in the matter....
This is what one would call 'the pot calling the kettle black'.
Or is this post of yours meant to support the democratic VP instead of the Trump candidacy?
The choice is: Trump and a conservative ****
or Hillary and a conservative ****. At least it's another factor you don't have to take into consideration when voting.
I'm guessing @bondjames would come to the conclusion she chose him to attract conservative republicans whom are scared of Trump.
No. Rodham Clinton and Trump are not the only people still in the race.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/donald-trump-hillary-clinton_n_1387680.html
And of course you're right, they're not the only ones in the race. They're the only ones with a chance in the race...
Trump is like a 747 heavy slamming into a big mountain.
I'll take my chances in the car, thank you.
Your remarks are....off the scale.
First of all, I have listened to your links. But in return, you perhaps haven't read my comments. First of all, Tim Kaine has softened a lot on his personal beliefs regarding LGBT rights. In part because of Obama's fresh progressive air that he brought back once he took office. Call it 'flipflopping', but again, on many occassions I find that a strength, and not a weakness.
Secondly, Tim Kaine is 'Progressive Catholic'. And in many ways of perfect carbon-copy of Joe Biden. With that I mean that he's way more secular than many 'Orthodox Catholics' on the Republican side...or Mike Pence! That does make a difference.
So while he has some -very mild- personal problems with same sex marriage, he did not reflect that when he was the Governor of Virginia and now he is US Senator for Virginia. So in 2006 as governor he campaigned against an amendment of GOP-senators from Virginia to bar same sex marriage. And in 2013 as US Senator he issued a statement that he changed his beliefs fundamentally by now supporting full same sex marriage in the entire USA.
Overall, I simply don't get your problem. I mean, ask yourself this question: Was gay marriage introduced when a GOP-president was in office? Furthermore, as of today the Republicans are still entirely conflicted about LGBTQ-rights (from electoral-vote.com):
So please, cut the crap @PanchitoPistoles. LGBTQ-rights are much safer with Democrats than with Republicans. I am gay myself, and I condemn the way the GOP blatantly removed LGBTQ-rights from their party platform. If only Trump would stood up for them.
Of course he stands up for the LGBT community, that's part of why he wants to ban the Muslims from coming to the US. The Dems treat gay people like cattle, abusing them for political gain. Its disgusting to watch, and shouldn't be allowed. IMO, its better to just ignore them than to treat them in such a demeaning way.
The party I support in The Netherlands, D66 (Democrats 1966), was modeled after JFK's ideas as a Democrat. Some call it the natural sister party of the Democratic Party of the USA. And I tell you this, I know the people from D66 who initiated the fight for marriage equality in the 1990's in The Netherlands, when even the biggest parties at that time (Conservative Liberal Party, VVD, and the Dutch Party, PvdA), were against it! So how...how on Earth can you say that Democrats are using gays for...political gain? ExCUSE me?
One last thing, as an assistant city-councilor in the city of Groningen I brought Muslims and gays together....in fierce, but respectful and in the end succesful debates. Because, there are also gay Muslims. Are we, am I, as a gay person....going to slam down my fellow gay buddies? NO!
Republicans didn't fight for LGBTQ-rights. Democrats did. And now, when there's a lot of terror, I dare to say that some Republicans are actually the ones treating gays as cattle, as political gains. Because NOW they can make headlines by connecting LGBTQ-rights with terrorism. That's not fighting for LGBTQ-rights? That's what you call "treating gay people like cattle, for political gains".
It's a Volvo, stuffed with airbags, so you'll be safe ;-):
I am gay. I am not a party animal. I would love to marry and have kids. But I know that my mental problems will be a severe difficulty. So I can only dream. And until that dream becomes reality, we now have those LGBTQ-rights. Obviously many gays don't wish to marry, but that's absolutely besides the point. How would YOU feel if there wasn't a 'straight marriage' and you didn't have the option to marry? Think about that, before you start generalizing gay people.
Well, personally I think marriage is a religious ceremony. I mean, that's how it started, I think. Maybe it would be better if we just gave churches the right to refuse any couple they like, then everyone is happy. My parents were refused by a church because they already had children before they were ready to marry. They simply found another church that accepted them, problem solved.
Secondly, I'm not generalising anyone, and being the exception to the rule isn't anything to be ashamed of. Sometimes I wish I could be dancing on tables at 2AM, but for some of us its just not on the cards. I say let them enjoy themselves, who are we to spoil the fun? A wedding ring is like an anvil to most gay men out there. I think, if you asked them, they'd probably tell you the same thing.
Agreed. I think that this is one of the biggest problems in any political debate, when people start generalizing any group of people. It's not productive to do so, which is probably why our politics in the US are so bad, because that's pretty much what both sides do to each other.
With regards to marriage, given that the government has more or less taken over the institution and made it necessary for couples to have certain rights together, it's something that should be allowed for all or for none. Otherwise, as we saw with civil unions and whatever other alternatives those who couldn't marry under the law sought, you have one group of Americans who are barred from having certain basic rights that others were allowed simply because the government wouldn't allow them to participate in a sanctioned institution.
I wouldn't mind at all. I firmly believe that marriage is stupid, and that states should get out of the marriage business. I am a big advocate of marriage privatization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_privatization
Oh, the old GOP establishment! Homophobes, misogynists and people who hate the poor. You know, the fans of people like George W Bush, Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz. F them! The Republican Party used to be great (Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower). Trump is making the Republican Party great again.
Even if you LOVE Hillary, you have to admit that it's genius! :bz
That's why we don't need no stinkin' Fairness Doctrine. Fairness just inhibits free speech.
Bottom line - he's a safe choice and that's her M.O., unlike her opponent.
That's a reasonable analogy. Thing is, there are far more car accidents than there are catastrophic plane crashes. Furthermore, a car can only do so much and go so far, whereas a plane can really soar if handled well.
As I said earlier, Hillary is the safe choice. She will tinker around the edges and the risk of anything failing (or succeeding radically for that matter) are slim in my view. Trump is a far riskier choice. If he succeeds, he will be transformative. If he fails, he will be catastrophic.
Either way, even if he loses, I believe many of his proposals will be adopted by the Republican party going forward, and he will leave an indelible mark on it. The long Bush era is dead and gone. Buried. Thank goodness.
----
PS: That Hillary clip above is brutally funny.
"Excuse me if we don't feel like wading into a river of shit. We will vote for the best candidate. That's Democracy. If the DNC wanted to win, they shouldn't have sabotaged their best bet (Bernie). Shame on you for trying to shame us into voting the way YOU want us to."
Thoughts?
*obviously playing Devil's Adv
I think we have a chance to do that with this election. The only way the third parties are going to get more recognition from the public, more influence, and thus a better chance to win in the future is to have people vote for them in the fall.
This is an election where the third parties have a chance to make some noise, mainly Gary Johnson and the Libertarians because it seems as though they'll be the only ones other than Clinton and Trump to make the ballot in all 50 states.
They won't win, of course, but if Johnson were to make the debates and then parlay that into some decent showings in several states (there are even polls suggesting he has a chance to outright win Utah), then we could see both Johnson and his party gain more influence moving forward, and that would be a good thing because it would lessen, even if only slightly, the grip the two major parties have on the electoral system.