Just listen to yourselves... - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

OFKU0 · 11-04-2004, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stompy

If I have a good time with myself watching porn while smoking a joint, does that affect you?

Only if you work at Mc Donald's, you haven't washed your hands and you give me Mcnuggets instead of the Big Mac I ordered.

Sorry, couldn't resist. Carry on.

rukkyg · 11-04-2004, 02:30 PM

To those who think rights come from the constitution and who are religious, I point you to something you may have heard in school before (although I think you probably forgot about it):

Quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

All men and women are created equal, and God gives them their rights, not YOU, not the constituion. AMONG these rights are life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.

What is the american dream? A goal of happiness. It usually involves getting a job, getting married, a good job, having kids, growing old with the hope that your hard work will help your decendants.

Gays have been denied the right to happiness by these states banning their ability to get married, (probably adopt), and pass on their earnings when they die.

Your country declared its independance from a religious tyrant. Why do you elect one? Why do you want to be one?

Note: I said God gives rights for your benefit. I don't actually believe in some particular God.

adam · 11-04-2004, 03:28 PM

I'm unclear what y'all mean when you say we are "scapegoating" evangelicals. Did they not vote for Bush in large numbers? Do they not (mostly) support gay marriage bans? Prayer in schools? Etc.

Evangelicals supported Bush and expect help from him in appointing more conservative SC justices (goodbye Roe v. Wade), passing an anti-gay marriage amendment, etc. What about this is scapegoating? It is self-evidently true.

Sure, some people do not fit that profile but voted for Bush nonetheless. (God only knows why, but so what? It's not the issue at hand.) But my discomfort with the evangelicals (based on their political aims, which I disagree with -- I couldn't care less what they want to believe in their own homes) is completely rational. And the fact that Bush is their boy is a good reason for me to be leary of him.

mml · 11-04-2004, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Yep, I only have to look at these boards to reinforce it.

What I don't get is why so few liberals are proud to say they are liberal. Is it because Reagan made it a dirty word? If you believe it, shout it out, say this is who you are, this is how I think society should be run.

Of course that would never get them elected, but at least they would be honest.

I AM A LIBERAL!!!!!

I thought that might make you feel better.

Quote:

Love him or loathe him, everyone knows where GWB will stand on an issue. He will state quite openly what he believes. When I voted for Bush I knew what I was getting, and I don’t like all of it, but I knew I could live with it. When I looked at Kerry I had no idea how he would react to certain issues. Sometimes he was a hawk, sometimes a dove, sometimes a hippie. Some of Kerry’s interviews and speeches before he went for the nomination I would have thought ‘here is a good democrat I can live with’, but again speeches are just words. When you look at Kerry’s actions and inactions in the senate it tells another story. So should I have believed what he said or what he did? Should I think he will be a different man as president then he was as a 20 year senator? Should I listen to the hawk Kerry of 1998, or was he just saying things to be in lock step with Clinton? Should I listen to the dove of primary or the moderate of the presidential campaign?

If what you want in leadership is simplicity, you got it. I prefer a more, to use the hot word of this election, "nuanced" approach to leadership. I approve of changing tactics when the facts changes. I often get the impression that conservatives don't like to think too much about issues, they just want an easy, simple answer. They cannot seem to grasp that the world is indeed a complicated place where actions have consequences. I am sure that is not necessarily true, but that is often how it seems. It really is the only reason I can come up with as to why so many people voted to continue the Bush Administration.

alansmithee · 11-04-2004, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rukkyg

To those who think rights come from the constitution and who are religious, I point you to something you may have heard in school before (although I think you probably forgot about it):

All men and women are created equal, and God gives them their rights, not YOU, not the constituion. AMONG these rights are life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.

What is the american dream? A goal of happiness. It usually involves getting a job, getting married, a good job, having kids, growing old with the hope that your hard work will help your decendants.

Gays have been denied the right to happiness by these states banning their ability to get married, (probably adopt), and pass on their earnings when they die.

Your country declared its independance from a religious tyrant. Why do you elect one? Why do you want to be one?

Note: I said God gives rights for your benefit. I don't actually believe in some particular God.

The document you quoted is the Declaration of Independance. That document at it's core nothing but a puffed-up propaganda piece, and has no basis in American, nor any other countries' law. And the author was such a noble-minded person that he held 100's of slaves, of which he fathered children with, and could not be bothered to be present in the country for the formation of the legal document, the Constitution.

cthulu23 · 11-04-2004, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

The document you quoted is the Declaration of Independance. That document at it's core nothing but a puffed-up propaganda piece, and has no basis in American, nor any other countries' law. And the author was such a noble-minded person that he held 100's of slaves, of which he fathered children with, and could not be bothered to be present in the country for the formation of the legal document, the Constitution.

Boy, that's one screwed up view of Jefferson. Did you know that he wrote the first draft of the Virginia constitution and in it he made slavery illegal? That's not to say that he was racially "sensitive" in modern terms, but he was less conflicted than most of the other founding fathers. As for the "could not be bothered to attend" crack, he was serving abroad at the time...they didnt have 767s or transAtalantic cables back then, you know.

Mephisto2 · 11-04-2004, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rukkyg

Your country declared its independance from a religious tyrant. Why do you elect one? Why do you want to be one?

Just out of curiosity, when did King George III become a religious tyrant?

Is this more politico-historical revisionism?

Mr Mephisto

alansmithee · 11-04-2004, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Boy, that's one screwed up view of Jefferson. Did you know that he wrote the first draft of the Virginia constitution and in it he made slavery illegal? That's not to say that he was racially "sensitive" in modern terms, but he was less conflicted than most of the other founding fathers. As for the "could not be bothered to attend" crack, he was serving abroad at the time...they didnt have 767s or transAtalantic cables back then, you know.

The couldn't be bothered to attend crack was a little low

. But given the choice to not own slaves, he decided to own them. He was probably the most brilliant man to serve as president, but he was also the biggest hypocrite. One of my personal pet peeves is hypocracy. And when he is known most for his high-minded beliefs in liberty while he held slaves, he comes out a big hypocrite to me.

rukkyg · 11-04-2004, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Just out of curiosity, when did King George III become a religious tyrant?

Is this more politico-historical revisionism?

Mr Mephisto

Kings are by definition religious. And the declaration of independance refers to him as a tyrant several times. I don't know when he became one, probably when he was crowned.

Booboo · 11-05-2004, 07:31 AM

(sorry for the language)

Why do ideals like "Life, Liberty, and the persuit of Happiness" have to be in a document like the constitution for them to ring true for some people? They shouldn't even have to be written down. These are things that EVERY person in this country should hold true. And regardless of them being "law" or not, this country was founded on these Ideals. These ideals are what make this such a great place to live.

Some of the opinions i've seen in this thread give me a feeling of deep sadness and loss of hope for our future. We are never going to go anywhere if shit like this is even an issue. In the whole scope of things, what the fuck does it matter if two people of the same sex get married or not? The Bible may disagree with same sex relationships, but guess what, a lot of people dont follow the Bible and you have NO RIGHT to force your religious views onto someone else.

And I hope people realize this post is about more than just same sex marriages.

Fuck Presidents, Fuck Government (meaning they should be irrelivant on these points, not that we shouldn't have them), this is OUR country. We are fucking it up and have no one to blame but ourselves. Its because of our division and lack of respect for eachother AND other countries that shit like 9/11 can happen.

We as a people are so fucking arrogant and full of ourselves that we completely forget there is an entire universe out there, and we are a speck of dust that means nothing. All we can do is sit back and enjoy the small amount of time we have here. People think about trivial issues way too much and I really hope we can all get past them at some point, or there is no hope for us.

I hope you will reflect on life after reading this and REALLY think about whats important.

Please no one take this as a personal attack (though I dont really see how someone could...). Anyway, I hope my point came through ok, thats all that matterd in this post.

Oh, and the quote in my sig fits nicely with this post.

ARTelevision · 11-05-2004, 07:32 AM

rukkyg,
Kings are not "by definition" religious.

smooth · 11-05-2004, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

rukkyg,
Kings are not "by definition" religious.

he may have worded it poorly, but rukkyg is correct in what I interpretted him to mean.

kings ruled by divine right in Europe during the disputed time period that being the time frame rukkyg is referring to--although it may be more accurate to say that George 3 was trying to create a modern equivalent to DROK. I don't know anymore, maybe I'm just tired of people parsing shit so thin it becomes meaningless to speak to one another. maybe that was art's intention, after all. hell, I'm done rambling.

edits in bold for clarification. better roachboy?

roachboy · 11-05-2004, 07:51 AM

the divine right theory of kingship is a function of the development of absolutist monarchy. it is a 17th century invention. you might think of it as an early expression of the ideology of nation-state.

before that, the relation of kingship to "god" was more variable.
one extreme might be charlemagne...you can see the entire theory of kingship in the layout of the cathederal in aachen. but there was no split between the king and nobility in kind for him.

another might be henri 4.

either way, it is not correct to equate all conceptions of kingship with divine right.
sorry.

aliali · 11-05-2004, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rukkyg

To those who think rights come from the constitution and who are religious, I point you to something you may have heard in school before (although I think you probably forgot about it):

All men and women are created equal, and God gives them their rights, not YOU, not the constituion. AMONG these rights are life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.

Whether your rights come from God or space monkeys, your rights in this country are enumerated in the Constitution. Your government is soverign and has the power to make laws criminalizing certain behavior and activity. To simply assume you have rights not enumerated that cannot be infringed upon by the majority through legislation or ballot initiative doesn't really move the ball as far as the discussion goes. It is a fair question to ask where is the right that you assume to exist found in the Constitution.

Bookman · 11-19-2004, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gcbrowni

I seldom say this, but this position is absolutly insane and deluded. Afghanistan is the most justifiable military action by the US since WW2. Your views on it automatically make me question your views on any other issue, and ignore you.

linky

Quote:

Opium production surging in Afghanistan
Last Updated Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:59:23 EST
KABUL - Afghanistan's opium production is approaching record levels. A new United Nations report says drug production has shot up more than 60 per cent in the past year.

INDEPTH: Afghanistan

The hardline Taliban regime, which ruled Afghanistan until 2001, greatly reduced opium poppy cultivation. However, under the rule of the new democratically elected president, Hamid Karzai, opium production is approaching record highs, with poppies now being grown in all of Afghanistan's 32 provinces.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that opium cultivation has increased by 64 per cent in the last year alone.

The current crop is valued at $2.8 billion US, an amount equal to more than 60 per cent of Afghanistan's gross domestic product.

Afghanistan is now the leading producer of opium in the world, providing three quarters of all global supplies.

UN officials say fears are high that the country will degenerate into a "narco-state" and have voiced concerns of the strong links between drugs and terrorism.

President Karzai has said fighting drugs is his top priority for the next five years.

With files from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Written by CBC News Online staff

fibber · 11-19-2004, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Since as a rule the liberal elite like to sneer at anyone who openly says they are a Christian, they will have no problem 'blaming' them for the Bush victory.

Quote:

I often get the impression that conservatives don't like to think too much about issues, they just want an easy, simple answer. They cannot seem to grasp that the world is indeed a complicated place where actions have consequences. I am sure that is not necessarily true, but that is often how it seems. It really is the only reason I can come up with as to why so many people voted to continue the Bush Administration

prej·u·dice ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prj-ds)
n.

An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
A preconceived preference or idea.
The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.
Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.

This gate swings both ways.

Please in no way take this as an attempt to single anyone out. I believe this is the sad state of political discourse nationwide at the moment. My personal feelings are that it stems from the "news" shows and even more from the pseudo-news shows where debate and discussion have been replaced by rhetoric and even worse, the snazzy one-liner to get the crowd to cheer.

I feel conservative on some issues and liberal on others. Used to be I would have been respected for taking issues as seperate matters as I approach them. Now I get the distinct impression I'm a fucking idiot in the eyes of at least half of the people who hear me.

-sad fibber

-fibber

aliali · 11-19-2004, 12:56 PM

I blame the daily show.

fibber · 11-19-2004, 01:10 PM

heh sorry if anyone thought I meant the daily-show in that context, I'm trying to refer to the "pundit" shows as pseudo-news. The one where they slap your party affiliation on-screen with your name before you can speak.

-fibber

aliali · 11-19-2004, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fibber

heh sorry if anyone thought I meant the daily-show in that context, I'm trying to refer to the "pundit" shows as pseudo-news. The one where they slap your party affiliation on-screen with your name before you can speak.
-fibber

I knew what you meant. It was Stewart's somewhat similar complaint on Crossfire that pushed him over the line from funny to annoying in my book--not that your post wasn't both funny and unannoying. I think there is some similarity, when a show just presents the polar opposites, it gives a skewed view. When a comedy show just presents one skewed view over and over, it ceases to be funny.

Sen · 11-19-2004, 01:48 PM

I think this is an excellent thread. There has been a lot of good discussion and points raised.

I still think it's funny that the left still wants to "scapegoat" the loss, if not on the Christians, then on the so-called "sleepy liberals" who didn't get out and vote. That mindset is still condecending to the outcome of the election. Basically, they still want to believe that they are in the majority, but just couldn't get their people to show up. We saw turnout in record numbers all over this country. One precinct in my county had 88% turnout. Just once, I would love for a liberal to at least consider the possibility that they TRULY ARE IN THE MINORITY right now.

Seriously, there has been a saying on the hill for quite some time among Republicans that the Democrats feel ENTITLED to govern and when they lose it's a travesty because the views of the "true majority" aren't represented.

pedro padilla · 11-19-2004, 03:35 PM

Personally, I am not too convinced George really recieved a majority vote. Some slimy things are coming to light. But, nonetheless, he recieved a massive wave of support from the religious right. And if things are as we are told to believe, roughly half the population are opposed to the "moral values" held in such esteem by the other half. I have never believed that I have any right to dictate or force my personal spiritual beliefs on another person of different point of view. I cannot and will not accept forced conformity to a set of moral values I do not share. I am not alone. Ever hear the difference between tatooed people and non tatooed people? Tattoed people could care less whether you´re tattoed or not.

Coppertop · 11-19-2004, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ravenradiodj

I don't think the gay marriage issue had anything to do with it for MOST voters.

I have to agree with Manx on this one, my problem with fundamentalist Christians, generally speaking (not all of them are like this, but most are), is their habit of believing that they're right and everyone else is wrong, of pushing their belief system down everyone's throat. To anyone who says they don't, ask them how they feel about prayer in public schools. It is absolutely undoubtedly a violation of the separation of church and state, and yet all of them believe, no, INSIST that they have a right to it, and if you oppose them, you're doing Lucifer's work.

"Allah" is merely the Arabic word for "God". Ask them if they would object to a teacher of Arabic descent stating "one nation under Allah" in class, and you'll find out just how intolerant and self-righteous these people are.

I am a pagan minister who regularly feels the scorn, disdain and obsessive drive to "save" everyone else that this group feels for anyone not a part of it. There are exceptions, yes, fine individuals who are fundamentalist who disagree with me entirely, yet who remains my friends, respect my views, and, hey, can even go through a normal day without mentioning Jesus to other people 753 times.

I have no problem with Jeheshua Bar Joseph, the man you erroneously call Jesus. It's the majority of his followers that I have a problem with.

I wonder how Christian it is to drop napalm on civilians, including children, in violation of a UN Resolution banning napalm that we signed years ago. I wonder how Christian it is to use depleted uranium bunkerbuster bombs that cause radiation sickness and mutated fetuses for control of the world's oil in an act of military aggression without legal standing (yes, another UN resolution violated, making every death in this war a murder). So many of you walk around with "What Would Jesus Do?" shirts and stickers. I'd like to hear your answer. Anyone here picturing Jesus firing an automatic rifle into a crowd? Anyone here imagining Jesus saying he'd murder another man for making a pass at him (as REVEREND Jimmy Swaggart recently said, presumably not in the presence of one of his hookers).

I have zero problem with your belief system, and will always defend your right to believe what you wish to believe. But the collective hypocrisy of this group of people, who are the majority of voters in this country, and their bias against anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with them, is nauseating.

One last suggestion: the next time a fundamentalist Christian tells you that his religion doesn't dictate his politics, ask him if he'd vote for a candidate who agreed with his position on absolutely every issue, but the candidate was a Muslim, or a Pagan, or an atheist.

Gotta go, someone's knocking on the door, perhaps it's the FBI coming to "liberate" me from my civil rights.

Thank you for this post. Far too often do people fail to grasp the underlying importance of what you say.

I am always boggled at people who truly believe Bush is Christian. What could be more un-Christlike than starting a war? "But Coppertop, no one can be like Christ. He was perfect in everyway..." Yeah, yeah. But the point is he gave an example of how to live a righteous life. War isn't in that description.

Sorry if it's been mentioned before, I got into this thread rather late.

joeshoe · 11-19-2004, 05:25 PM

Yeah, you can't blame Christians for who they voted for. In a democracy everyone gets one vote.
Liberal intolerance is just as bad as conservative intolerance, and they even claim to be the tolerant ones.

SSgtQ · 11-19-2004, 06:51 PM

I have to agree with one thing that has been said. A vote is a Vote not matter who you are. Liberal or Conservative. Reguardless of how you feel if you voted you did your part. No reason to be angry with the other side that also voted. Instead seek out those who support your personal belief and hate the views of the oppisition and still chose not to vote.

MuadDib · 11-19-2004, 11:10 PM

No, plain and simple. The essence of egalitarianist liberalism is that all people are inherently equal in all aspects. This doesn't mean they conduct themselves in equal manners or that all behavior, actions, or even ideas are equal. It simply means that nothing is out of hand worse than anything of similar creation before inspection. The fact of the matter is, I can be better than some evangelical Christians, I am smarter than some evangelical Christians, and I did cast my vote with more concern than some evangelical Christians. Its not scapegoating to emphasize the fact that the influx of evangelism in this country has a direct correlation to the election of republican leaders nor is it scapegoating or in any way discriminating to point out that the contradictions in evangelical belief and their tendency to vote republican. Similarly, these points have been made about Hispanic-Americans, African-Americans, and even women during every election cycle for the last 6 decades! Anyone who wants to de-emphasize the roll of evanglistic Christians in this election is ignorant or in denial of the facts. Furthermore, anyone who wants to claim this is exclusionary and unique behavior on the part of librals is a hypocrit. This attack is nothing more than reactionary and completely in the spirit of the last 4 years of sore winner's syndrome.

joeshoe · 11-20-2004, 03:12 AM

Just wondering, how come evangelical Christians played such a huge role in this election and not the election four years ago? Was the "influx of evangelicals" only during the past four years?

I gotta agree with Coppertop about war being very un-Christian. Bush seems to just be choosing what aspects of Christianity to uphold.

smooth · 11-20-2004, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeshoe

Just wondering, how come evangelical Christians played such a huge role in this election and not the election four years ago? Was the "influx of evangelicals" only during the past four years?

I gotta agree with Coppertop about war being very un-Christian. Bush seems to just be choosing what aspects of Christianity to uphold.

That's what karl rove believed. The campaign shifted its strategy to net those evangelicals he believed had stayed home last cycle.

MuadDib · 11-20-2004, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeshoe

Just wondering, how come evangelical Christians played such a huge role in this election and not the election four years ago? Was the "influx of evangelicals" only during the past four years?

I gotta agree with Coppertop about war being very un-Christian. Bush seems to just be choosing what aspects of Christianity to uphold.

Actually its not just the last 4 years. The evangelical Christians came out big for Bush in 2000 and Bush Sr 1988. Ironically, it was George W. that courted them then too and in Senior's reelection bid in 1992 Dubya was busy with his own campaign/administration in Texas as governor and the evangelical turnout for the republicans went to crap. It really all began though with Reagan in the early 80s when the big time Fawell and Baker shows were airing and the evangelicals have been very good to the republicans ever since, just particularly with Dubya who is himself an evangelical born-again Christian.

aliali · 11-22-2004, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedro padilla

Personally, I am not too convinced George really recieved a majority vote. Some slimy things are coming to light. But, nonetheless, he recieved a massive wave of support from the religious right. And if things are as we are told to believe, roughly half the population are opposed to the "moral values" held in such esteem by the other half. I have never believed that I have any right to dictate or force my personal spiritual beliefs on another person of different point of view. I cannot and will not accept forced conformity to a set of moral values I do not share. I am not alone. Ever hear the difference between tatooed people and non tatooed people? Tattoed people could care less whether you´re tattoed or not.

Who do you think won the popular vote? What are the slimy things coming to light?

Who told you half the popultionis opposed to the "moral values" held in esteem by the other half and what values are you talking about?

Ever hear the difference between the child molester and the non-child molester? the drug addict, the guitar player, the monkey, or the gun dealer?

pedro padilla · 11-25-2004, 03:59 PM

Don´t know who won the popular vote. I´ve been told what to think, but being a sceptical, free thinking individual I reserve my right to question anything that doesn´t smell right. As I hope you do.
Slimy shit for me include such smelly things as Diebold and deliberately disenfranchised democratic voters. "Lost" or disqualified votes. The absolute blackout of any media coverage questioning the elections outcome. Exit polls which call fraud in any other country are ignored or marginalized in the USA.
Opposed to the moral values was bad wording. I should have said opposed to having someone elses moral values shoved down their throats.
Child molestation is an international moral no no. Drug addicts are their own business. Gun dealers are american patriots. As far as I know guitar players and monkeys are still OK.

aliali · 11-28-2004, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedro padilla

Don´t know who won the popular vote. I´ve been told what to think, but being a sceptical, free thinking individual I reserve my right to question anything that doesn´t smell right. As I hope you do.
Slimy shit for me include such smelly things as Diebold and deliberately disenfranchised democratic voters. "Lost" or disqualified votes. The absolute blackout of any media coverage questioning the elections outcome. Exit polls which call fraud in any other country are ignored or marginalized in the USA.
Opposed to the moral values was bad wording. I should have said opposed to having someone elses moral values shoved down their throats.
Child molestation is an international moral no no. Drug addicts are their own business. Gun dealers are american patriots. As far as I know guitar players and monkeys are still OK.

I guess I'm just not good enough to be sceptical enough. I kind of need evidence. Do these alleged impropers account for millions of votes? Are all of the impropers in favor of Bush? Who is Diebold and which voters were deliberately disenfranchised? Which votes were lost or disqualified--and which of the disqualified votes were wrongfully disqualified. Who blacked out the media? What about the exit polls are fraud?

ObieX · 11-28-2004, 04:27 PM

I really don't see why people are so against gay marriage AND gay civil unions. Firstly, if gays are such a small minority, what POSSIBLE impact could this have on our country or businesses? Lets say a company has 100 workers. 98 of these workers are strait, and married, some of which have children. All 98 of these people recieve extra benefits for them, their spouse, and their children. Lets say that one of the remaining two workers was gay, and the final remaining one was black skinned. The gay man/woman has a spouse, and a child (a child? how can a gay have a child? maybe he/she *gasp* had sex with someone of the opposite sex and produced a child, or had a child then got divorced, or had been artificially inceminated). This person is DENIED special care for his spouse and child. Would it REALLY cost that much to add one more family to this benefits list when you already have 98% of your workers recieving it? "NO, you CAN'T have this because you're SLIGHTLY different from these 98 people over here." How is there no outrage? Now lets say that That one remaining worker, the black skinned worker, also had a spouse (of the opposite sex) and a child. If this one person is DENIED medical care just because he was black skinned, just because he was SLIGHTLY different from the other 98 workers recieving benefits, do you think there would be outrage? You're damn right there would be. How is that one case any different from the gay man/woman's? Just because this person's spouse (that you'll probably never see at work) is of the same sex?

Should it be illegal for gays to get jobs? I mean, it seems, no one wants to see "them" benefiting in any way. Why give "them" jobs at all? You wont have to work next to that "fag" or hear them talk about their "fag" spouse. Their child must be a "fag" too because you can't live with a "fag" w/o becoming one, right?

11-05-2004, 07:31 AM	#90 (permalink)
Booboo Insane	(sorry for the language) Why do ideals like "Life, Liberty, and the persuit of Happiness" have to be in a document like the constitution for them to ring true for some people? They shouldn't even have to be written down. These are things that EVERY person in this country should hold true. And regardless of them being "law" or not, this country was founded on these Ideals. These ideals are what make this such a great place to live. Some of the opinions i've seen in this thread give me a feeling of deep sadness and loss of hope for our future. We are never going to go anywhere if shit like this is even an issue. In the whole scope of things, what the fuck does it matter if two people of the same sex get married or not? The Bible may disagree with same sex relationships, but guess what, a lot of people dont follow the Bible and you have NO RIGHT to force your religious views onto someone else. And I hope people realize this post is about more than just same sex marriages. Fuck Presidents, Fuck Government (meaning they should be irrelivant on these points, not that we shouldn't have them), this is OUR country. We are fucking it up and have no one to blame but ourselves. Its because of our division and lack of respect for eachother AND other countries that shit like 9/11 can happen. We as a people are so fucking arrogant and full of ourselves that we completely forget there is an entire universe out there, and we are a speck of dust that means nothing. All we can do is sit back and enjoy the small amount of time we have here. People think about trivial issues way too much and I really hope we can all get past them at some point, or there is no hope for us. I hope you will reflect on life after reading this and REALLY think about whats important. Please no one take this as a personal attack (though I dont really see how someone could...). Anyway, I hope my point came through ok, thats all that matterd in this post. Oh, and the quote in my sig fits nicely with this post. __________________ "Your life is yours to live, go out and live it" - Richard Rahl Last edited by Booboo; 11-05-2004 at 07:33 AM..

11-05-2004, 07:32 AM	#91 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	rukkyg, Kings are not "by definition" religious. __________________ create evolution

11-05-2004, 07:51 AM	#93 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the divine right theory of kingship is a function of the development of absolutist monarchy. it is a 17th century invention. you might think of it as an early expression of the ideology of nation-state. before that, the relation of kingship to "god" was more variable. one extreme might be charlemagne...you can see the entire theory of kingship in the layout of the cathederal in aachen. but there was no split between the king and nobility in kind for him. another might be henri 4. either way, it is not correct to equate all conceptions of kingship with divine right. sorry. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

11-19-2004, 01:48 PM	#100 (permalink)
Sen Insane Location: Midwest	I think this is an excellent thread. There has been a lot of good discussion and points raised. I still think it's funny that the left still wants to "scapegoat" the loss, if not on the Christians, then on the so-called "sleepy liberals" who didn't get out and vote. That mindset is still condecending to the outcome of the election. Basically, they still want to believe that they are in the majority, but just couldn't get their people to show up. We saw turnout in record numbers all over this country. One precinct in my county had 88% turnout. Just once, I would love for a liberal to at least consider the possibility that they TRULY ARE IN THE MINORITY right now. Seriously, there has been a saying on the hill for quite some time among Republicans that the Democrats feel ENTITLED to govern and when they lose it's a travesty because the views of the "true majority" aren't represented. __________________ "I want to announce my presence with authority!" "You want to what?" "I want to announce my presence with authority!!"

11-19-2004, 11:10 PM	#105 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	No, plain and simple. The essence of egalitarianist liberalism is that all people are inherently equal in all aspects. This doesn't mean they conduct themselves in equal manners or that all behavior, actions, or even ideas are equal. It simply means that nothing is out of hand worse than anything of similar creation before inspection. The fact of the matter is, I can be better than some evangelical Christians, I am smarter than some evangelical Christians, and I did cast my vote with more concern than some evangelical Christians. Its not scapegoating to emphasize the fact that the influx of evangelism in this country has a direct correlation to the election of republican leaders nor is it scapegoating or in any way discriminating to point out that the contradictions in evangelical belief and their tendency to vote republican. Similarly, these points have been made about Hispanic-Americans, African-Americans, and even women during every election cycle for the last 6 decades! Anyone who wants to de-emphasize the roll of evanglistic Christians in this election is ignorant or in denial of the facts. Furthermore, anyone who wants to claim this is exclusionary and unique behavior on the part of librals is a hypocrit. This attack is nothing more than reactionary and completely in the spirit of the last 4 years of sore winner's syndrome. __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751 Last edited by MuadDib; 11-19-2004 at 11:19 PM..

11-04-2004, 03:28 PM	#83 (permalink)
adam Insane	I'm unclear what y'all mean when you say we are "scapegoating" evangelicals. Did they not vote for Bush in large numbers? Do they not (mostly) support gay marriage bans? Prayer in schools? Etc. Evangelicals supported Bush and expect help from him in appointing more conservative SC justices (goodbye Roe v. Wade), passing an anti-gay marriage amendment, etc. What about this is scapegoating? It is self-evidently true. Sure, some people do not fit that profile but voted for Bush nonetheless. (God only knows why, but so what? It's not the issue at hand.) But my discomfort with the evangelicals (based on their political aims, which I disagree with -- I couldn't care less what they want to believe in their own homes) is completely rational. And the fact that Bush is their boy is a good reason for me to be leary of him.

11-19-2004, 12:56 PM	#97 (permalink)
aliali Insane Location: Missouri	I blame the daily show.

11-19-2004, 01:10 PM	#98 (permalink)
fibber Tilted	heh sorry if anyone thought I meant the daily-show in that context, I'm trying to refer to the "pundit" shows as pseudo-news. The one where they slap your party affiliation on-screen with your name before you can speak. -fibber

11-19-2004, 03:35 PM	#101 (permalink)
pedro padilla Insane	Personally, I am not too convinced George really recieved a majority vote. Some slimy things are coming to light. But, nonetheless, he recieved a massive wave of support from the religious right. And if things are as we are told to believe, roughly half the population are opposed to the "moral values" held in such esteem by the other half. I have never believed that I have any right to dictate or force my personal spiritual beliefs on another person of different point of view. I cannot and will not accept forced conformity to a set of moral values I do not share. I am not alone. Ever hear the difference between tatooed people and non tatooed people? Tattoed people could care less whether you´re tattoed or not.

11-19-2004, 05:25 PM	#103 (permalink)
joeshoe Crazy Location: California	Yeah, you can't blame Christians for who they voted for. In a democracy everyone gets one vote. Liberal intolerance is just as bad as conservative intolerance, and they even claim to be the tolerant ones.

11-19-2004, 06:51 PM	#104 (permalink)
SSgtQ Upright	I have to agree with one thing that has been said. A vote is a Vote not matter who you are. Liberal or Conservative. Reguardless of how you feel if you voted you did your part. No reason to be angry with the other side that also voted. Instead seek out those who support your personal belief and hate the views of the oppisition and still chose not to vote.

11-20-2004, 03:12 AM	#106 (permalink)
joeshoe Crazy Location: California	Just wondering, how come evangelical Christians played such a huge role in this election and not the election four years ago? Was the "influx of evangelicals" only during the past four years? I gotta agree with Coppertop about war being very un-Christian. Bush seems to just be choosing what aspects of Christianity to uphold.

11-25-2004, 03:59 PM	#110 (permalink)
pedro padilla Insane	Don´t know who won the popular vote. I´ve been told what to think, but being a sceptical, free thinking individual I reserve my right to question anything that doesn´t smell right. As I hope you do. Slimy shit for me include such smelly things as Diebold and deliberately disenfranchised democratic voters. "Lost" or disqualified votes. The absolute blackout of any media coverage questioning the elections outcome. Exit polls which call fraud in any other country are ignored or marginalized in the USA. Opposed to the moral values was bad wording. I should have said opposed to having someone elses moral values shoved down their throats. Child molestation is an international moral no no. Drug addicts are their own business. Gun dealers are american patriots. As far as I know guitar players and monkeys are still OK.

11-28-2004, 04:27 PM	#112 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	I really don't see why people are so against gay marriage AND gay civil unions. Firstly, if gays are such a small minority, what POSSIBLE impact could this have on our country or businesses? Lets say a company has 100 workers. 98 of these workers are strait, and married, some of which have children. All 98 of these people recieve extra benefits for them, their spouse, and their children. Lets say that one of the remaining two workers was gay, and the final remaining one was black skinned. The gay man/woman has a spouse, and a child (a child? how can a gay have a child? maybe he/she gasp had sex with someone of the opposite sex and produced a child, or had a child then got divorced, or had been artificially inceminated). This person is DENIED special care for his spouse and child. Would it REALLY cost that much to add one more family to this benefits list when you already have 98% of your workers recieving it? "NO, you CAN'T have this because you're SLIGHTLY different from these 98 people over here." How is there no outrage? Now lets say that That one remaining worker, the black skinned worker, also had a spouse (of the opposite sex) and a child. If this one person is DENIED medical care just because he was black skinned, just because he was SLIGHTLY different from the other 98 workers recieving benefits, do you think there would be outrage? You're damn right there would be. How is that one case any different from the gay man/woman's? Just because this person's spouse (that you'll probably never see at work) is of the same sex? Should it be illegal for gays to get jobs? I mean, it seems, no one wants to see "them" benefiting in any way. Why give "them" jobs at all? You wont have to work next to that "fag" or hear them talk about their "fag" spouse. Their child must be a "fag" too because you can't live with a "fag" w/o becoming one, right? __________________ We Must Dissent.