Forums Index >> General >> Presidential Debates, Ummmm, Presentations Schedul...
Page : 1 : 2 : <3> : 4 : 5 . . . . . 7
Off topic:
Is it wrong that I hope this is true?
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/9925186.htm?1c
Like a midget at a urinal, I was going to have to be on my toes.
Invite a retard to a picnic and you'd better expect to get drool in the potato salad.
No ROGUE it's not wrong. So much for touting family values. Bye-bye Bill!
BTW, here's an interesting article on the vitriol of this year's elections:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/15/means.season.ap/index.html
I gotta admit, I'm pretty disgusted with all the hate and nastiness being slung by both parties myself. Whatever transpires on 11/2, I'll be happy it's over.
@Memphis - You're kidding, right? :o
Not really. I just find an incredible hypocrisy in our faith when we say we believe in the command that thou shall not kill yet the command from God seems to be molded to fit whatever we want it to. For instance, those who are pro-life say that they adhere to this command when they talk about abortion and of how all life is sacred. Yet these same people are proponents of the death penalty. If God commanded that thou shall not kill, what's up with the death penalty then? Are we not placing a higher value on one life over another when we say that this form of killing is okay, yet this one is wrong? Don't we confess to believe that ALL life is sacred not just the ones whom we find repulsive? I don't think these people should be thrown back into society, but killing them outright seems to forget about the command in the first place.
My comment wasn't so much directed towards war as it was at the hypocrisy of the self-righteous. We're all sinners Rabban and as soon as we begin to draw lines in our own piety and morality as to where we think God is, God will always be on the other side of the line. It may also be very likely that I missed your point entirely.
Last edited: Friday, October 15, 2004 at 6:30:02 PM
This whole bridge thing seems specious in the it lets you make false claims to validate false premises. Why construct arguments this way instead of the classical form?
I'm not for either candidate but when Kerry dissed Alan Greenspan he lost my vote.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_1013.html
Now, Alan Greenspan, who I think has done a terrific job in monetary policy, supports the president's tax cut. I don't.
Kerry is foolish to point out his differences with Greenspan. Greenspan is probably the only person in Washington that I would actually support for president.
Last edited: Saturday, October 16, 2004 at 12:03:09 PM
@ All
Damn fellas - y'all have really turned it on. Gonna take me a while to catch up.
BC, on your totem pole for president, do you have Kerry at the bottom, above him Bush, and on top Greenspan?
I don't get it.
Last edited: Saturday, October 16, 2004 at 5:16:04 PM
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000673212
Knight Ridder Report Reveals Poor Planning for Occupation of Iraq
By E&P Staff
Published: October 16, 2004 10:00 PM EDT
NEW YORK Knight Ridder's Washington bureau, which in the past two years has produced a string of important exclusives related to the Iraq war (and pre-war), offered evidence today about poor or "non-existent" planning for the U.S. Occupation of Iraq, as well as the failure to provide 100,000 more troops military commanders had wanted.
The article carries the byline of Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott but was also reported by Joseph Galloway and Jonathan Landay. It was based on official documents and on interviews with more than three dozen current and former military and civilian officials who participated directly in planning for the war and its aftermath.
Some senior officials spoke about their concerns for the first time, the story said.
"A Knight Ridder review of the administration's Iraq policy and decisions has found that it invaded Iraq without a comprehensive plan in place to secure and rebuild the country," the article declares.
"The administration also failed to provide some 100,000 additional U.S. Troops that American military commanders originally wanted to help restore order and reconstruct a country shattered by war, a brutal dictatorship and economic sanctions. In fact, some senior Pentagon officials had thought they could bring most American soldiers home from Iraq by September 2003. Instead, more than a year later, 138,000 U.S. Troops are still fighting...."
The authors quote a veteran State Department officer who was directly involved in Iraq policy saying, "We didn't go in with a plan. We went in with a theory."
"We've finally got our act together, but we're all afraid it may be too late," commented one senior official still engaged daily in Iraq policy.
The Bush administration's failure to plan to win the peace was the product of many of the same problems that plagued the administration's case for war, the KR report continues, "including wishful thinking, bad information from Iraqi exiles who said Iraqis would welcome American troops as liberators and contempt for dissenting opinions.
However, the administration's planning for postwar Iraq differed in one crucial respect from its erroneous pre-war claims: "The U.S. Intelligence community had been divided about the state of Saddam's weapons programs, but there was little disagreement among experts throughout the government that winning the peace in Iraq could be much harder than winning a war.
"A half-dozen intelligence reports warned that American troops could face significant postwar resistance. This foot-high stack of material was distributed at White House meetings of Bush's top foreign policy advisers, but there's no evidence that anyone ever acted on it. 'It was disseminated. And ignored,' said a former senior intelligence official."
The KR story features this anecdote up top: "In March 2003, days before the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, American war planners and intelligence officials met at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina to review the Bush administration's plans to oust Saddam Hussein and implant democracy in Iraq. Near the end of his presentation, an Army lieutenant colonel who was giving a briefing showed a slide describing the Pentagon's plans for rebuilding Iraq after the war, known in the planners' parlance as Phase 4-C.
"He was uncomfortable with his material, and for good reason. The slide said: 'To Be Provided.'
In an interesting sidelight, the article notes that every effort was made to get those who were interviewed to speak for the record, "but many officials requested anonymity because they didn't want to criticize the administration publicly or because they feared retaliation. One official who was deeply involved in the pre-war planning effort, and was critical of it, initially agreed but then declined to cooperate after expressing concern that the Justice Department might pursue a reporter's telephone records in an effort to hunt down critics of the administration's policies."
Pick your favorite quote.
Here's my favorite..... "but many officials requested anonymity because they didn't want to criticize the administration publicly or because they feared retaliation. One official who was deeply involved in the pre-war planning effort, and was critical of it, initially agreed but then declined to cooperate after expressing concern that the Justice Department might pursue a reporter's telephone records in an effort to hunt down critics of the administration's policies."
Fascism anyone? I miss democracy.....sigh
...in an effort to hunt down critics of the administration's policies.
A la Valerie Plame, the wife of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson who refuted the Bush Administration's "proof" that Iraq tried to buy nuclear materials in Africa. If the Bush Administration is willing to sacrifice one of IT'S OWN secret agents within the CIA because her husband is "against us", then you damned well better believe that NO ONE is safe. Isn't the human intelligence capability supposed to be our best weapon against terrorist organizations? Obviously, the Bush Administration doesn't think so. It would rather make money taking the bomb-building route.
...and contempt for dissenting opinions.
More of the same, folks: the article "Without a Doubt" at [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?ex=1255665600&en=890a96189e162076&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
is a long read (10 pages), but it's a great glimpse into how our present President works. If it wasn't so damned scary, I'd think W has a whole coat-pocket full of these wherever he goes:
Last edited: Monday, October 18, 2004 at 3:19:14 PM
@Memphis - OK. My point was that morality is legislated all the time. Whether or not it be Judeo-Christian is beside the matter, but laws in general are a sort of moral code for a society and we all agree (in theory at least) to live by them. What is considered right and wrong in a society may change over time, but saying the govt can't legislate morally is kinda silly. Otherwise we'd be living in anarchy.
But then your reply took me in another direction. Sure, one of the Ten Commandments is "You shall not murder" Ex 20:13 ESV (with the Hebrew word also covering causing human death through carelessness or negligence (ESV footnote)). So I can see where someone like stink could make the argument that Bush is guilty of breaking that commandment since he sees Bush as being directly responsible for any collateral deaths in Iraq. However, to lump capital punishment and war in under that same commandment seems a little odd. You know the reason I would say that. There are plenty of instances where God commanded the Israelites to go to war against certain nations and those reasons would never pass the "world litmus test" today. The same goes for captial punishment. God laid that down in the Law for several offenses that we currently would never dream of enforcing today. God also included provisions for man-slaughter and accidental deaths within the Law as well to make sure there were some exceptions. To that's why I was taken aback a bit by your statement.
The way I see it is we're not to murder for personal gain or passion, sure, but to lump captial punishment and wars under that same blanket seems a bit strict in interpretating the Scriptures and the meaning behind them in addition to making God seem guilty of breaking his own commandment.
As far as being self righteous and hypocritical...aren't we all? Even stinky quietly wakes up early on Sunday mornings to secretly watch Charles Stanley. ;)
Well, of course I do....doesn't everyone?
Don't get me wrong rabban....i'm not a pacifist...some people really need killin'. But you better have a good reason. I believe that national security is a good reason....but the iraqis never threatened ours...and bush knew this. He and his cabal planned to invade iraq before 9/11. 9/11 provided a public rationale to their plan.
That's what makes him a murdering scum-bag.
Wait, wait, wait. Stink, you're sliding something in there. You're right, the Iraqis never threatened us, but the war wasn't against the Iraqis. It was against Saddam and his regime. Saddam had bad intents toward us (probably still does).
Wow, Rabby, that's really reaching dontcha think? I would think stinky meant Saddam when he said Iraqi's, and besides, having bad intentions and having the means to carry out those bad intentions are ENTIRELY different. There is no proof Saddam had the latter.
In other news, it looks like some people out there are fighting back against the Sinclair group and their propaganda machine:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/19/politics/campaign/19vet.html?oref=login&pagewanted=all
I don't think anyone can deny that there were and still are terrorists in Iraq. The problems I have with the war are many. That said, my major concern is that Afghanistan was not stabilized prior to taking on any new terrorist hotspots. I'm not saying that we should have stabilized Afghanistan and immediately followed with an attack on Iraq. What I'm saying is that a stable Afghanistan would have proved to the word that one it's possible and two that it's not a war against Islam. Bush's actions have turned borderline radicals into full-fledged Jihadists. We now have a mess of a war against a vastly decentralized enemy. This was a mistake of infinite proportions.
This self-serving putz has done enough harm. Vote for who will server America best, not who matches your religious beliefs more closely. If the vote you cast is swayed solely by your religious views you're missing the point of America entirely.
Like a midget at a urinal, I was going to have to be on my toes.
Invite a retard to a picnic and you'd better expect to get drool in the potato salad.
A quick question here....does anyone think that profiling in regards to Islam is okay?
Did you say profiting, Chief? Oh yeah....sure.... That's ok.
Jangles
--stockpiling his flu vaccine and knitting quilts for Bolo and Fro--
What about profiling in regards to right wing religious zealots? That would have prevented this bush presidency in the first place....
@ stinky
You're kinda catching on to my point. Making Bush's religious views an issue and then raising hell about profiling Islamic citizens - just don't smoke right. It's kinda bitter with a lot of seeds.
Religious views are one thing....acting on your religious views instead of reason, logic, experience, and good advice are quite another...
I don't care what his views are. I just want him to act like a president, not a goddam messiah.
Chief wants us to believe thus that all "islamic citizens" are zealots?
dubious.
You can pick at "profiling" for all sorts of reasons...but no one is profiling the president based on his religious views. He's getting a lot of criticism because he is the only president who believes he's on a mission from god.
This characteristic he shares with the taliban, all the ayotollahs, etc. Who run theocracies around the world.
@ Tally
Not at all. I just don't think it's right to hold anyone's religious views - Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Agnostic, whatever - against them.
Chief see above.
Chief, this has nothing to do with religious views. In fact, hasn't just about every president ever elected to office had 'religious' views or beliefs? As far as I can recall, no-one prior to Bush Jr let it rule his decision making the way it does with him. Have faith in him he aks? That is downright scary. What the hell ever happened to logic? Does that have no place in his decision process?? If not, he needs to be ousted pronto.
Bored? Check it out
http://w4prez.com/cartoon1.html
http://w4prez.com/cartoon2.html
Der..uh...duh...er...senile dementia?
http://www.adbuzz.com/bushbuzz.htm
Chief, you're wrong dude. We cant have our president running around on a tank full of gospel. I accept that it can provide guidance, but belief should N-E-V-E-R trump reality.
Two weeks left until vote time!
@ OM
Ah, yes, the venom. When you get desperate, you raise hell...or lower heaven.
@ Tally
It is always interesting to watch the arguments that people make! This is what makes this forum interesting, IMO. Everybody makes points, good, weak, or boo-awful. Then, we tie those points, in some fashion -- good, weak, or rotten -- to a main contention.
I find it fun to pop apart the connections between the points/main contention. Points usually stand or fall on their own strength. If the "classical" way works better, refresh my understanding. I am still exhuming my education. (Hope you are on your way to law school...)
@ arguments, a sample or two:
Picking one...
OM's point that Presidents and religious world views don't mix?
Chief's argument that profiling the President and Islamists might be double standard?
Memphis' argument on molding the prohibition on killing to whatever situation we plz?
Stinker's argument that...well, never mind, Stink just rants. XD
E&P's wonderful little bit of presentation of Knight Ridder's reporting? (KR Reporter: I found someone who agrees with my POV! I report what these handful of people say. So, it's a Truth! Especially because we have visual proof! A slide presentation! )
Last edited: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 at 10:11:57 AM
I pick on this one:
Bush's actions have turned borderline radicals into full-fledged Jihadists.
IF Bush had stabilized the Afghan thing...IF Bush had not declared war on Islam...IF Bush had not declared war on IRAQ?!...IF Bush had secured Iraq better so that we wouldn't have a guerrilla war in Iraq now...
The argument is familiar, so not picking on Rogue.
All of the reasons are worth some discussion. There is some to a lot of speculation in them.
But, the notion that those reasons uphold the idea that terrorism would have been contained/neutralized/curtailed/stopped/prevented (you pick your favorite verb) if they had been done correctly, begs the question.
The fact is that the terrorists never liked us in the first place. Even if all of those points held water, the terrorists would still attack us. Is it us or them, ya think?
Last edited: Thursday, October 28, 2004 at 3:52:59 AM
Vote for who will server America best, not who matches your religious beliefs more closely. If the vote you cast is swayed solely by your religious views you're missing the point of America entirely.
Nice try there, Rogue, but I ain't buying. I mean, your statement reveals your bias. You're telling me not to vote for the candidate who most closely matches my views. Unbelieveable!
I'm sure you're speaking for a lot of the guys here since they share your perception of religion, but it seems like you're really trying to censor my opinion. Of course, you and others think religion and faith are private, pet illusions and shouldn't be part of the national discourse when science, reason and logic should prevail. Well, in a way I agree. Science, reason and logic should prevail, but the difference of opinion is the perception of what those things are and how they should be applied to the nation. Science is not truth. Reason and logic are swayed by a person's view of the world and what they think is best within their own moral code. Everyone has a moral code of some sort, whether defined by themselves and the current society or books of faith and religion. You think my faith is silly, fine, but I'm not going to allow your opinion of my beliefs to cause me to back down from my position if I think they're right. You're going to have to convince me (for example) that it is better to start using harvested human embryos for stem cell research as a commodity, that one group can die so another can have a better life. You're going to have to convince me that killing unborn children is a benefit to the families that lose them and society on the whole. You're going to have to convince me that homosexual marriage isn't going to have a negative effect on marriage in general, the children they care for and society as a whole. So far, no one's done this. Instead they're rather just call me names and attack my views. That can't be the way of political dicourse.
So, I think my religious beliefs will serve America best so the candidate that most closely reflects my views is the candidate I'm going to vote for.
Wuzzat? Did someone say something? No, no, that's just JJ talking out of his butt again.
I wasn't going to address you JJ, but I feel I must.
@ OM
Ah, yes, the venom. When you get desperate, you raise hell...or lower heaven.
What are you trying to say? That my statements are based on some kind of hatred, vitriol or desperation? I'm not sure how you see that, but then, I never am able to see through your eyes.
I'll admit that I threw opinion in my comments, but really only at the end with my "Does that have no place in his decision process?? If not, he needs to be ousted pronto."
Everything else I stated was based on what I know to be fact or true. Isn't it true that all presidents have had religious beliefs? Isn't it true that none of them have let pure faith and belief guide their decisions, eschewing facts or logic in favor of such faith? If I'm wrong in this, please educate me.
Although I don't follow any religious beliefs myself, I fully recognize it's place in our society. Though I've never needed a book or preacher to tell me how to live my life as a good, law abiding, caring individual, I can understand how many in the world need religion as a moral foundation. I even accept that it's good for a country's leader to have this moral grounding. It's an unwritten rule of sorts that the president have some sort of religious beliefs, just as he should be married, and be a 'family man'. Even though I wouldn't have much problem with a candidate who is lacking in any of these aspects, provided they showed good leadership abilities and a sense of decency and logical thinking, I see how important it is for the nation as a whole. I also have no problem with Bush having strong religious beliefs.
BUT where I have trouble with him is how he is letting his faith take over his decisions.
Logic:
1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
2. Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.
Faith:
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
Think about it seriously. Which principle would you really rather have guiding important decisions made by our president? If you choose the latter, then I truly feel sorry for you.
And if you think non-religious people like myself are the only ones who think his pure faith in his decisions are troubling, then I refer you to this article.
"And I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, 'Mr. President, you had better prepare the American people for casualties.' "
Robertson said the president then told him, "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." Those are the words of someone who doesn't use any logic at all in his decision making process. Of someone who doesn't understand the costs of war or live in reality.
And before Chief or anybody else claims media bias, keep in mind that Pat Robertson is an ardent Bush supporter. Not much reason for him to make a fool of the president.
Oh yeah JJ, I forgot. One other thing:
The fact is that the terrorists never liked us in the first place. Even if all of those points held water, the terrorists would still attack us. It is us or them, ya think?
Yes, terrorists have hated us and probably will for the foreseeable future, but jeez man, think about it a second. Why don't they like us? Would it have anything to do with our heavy handed tactics and military exploits in the Middle East. Have Bush's actions made them hate us EVEN more because it plays right into what they believe us to be, ya think?
@JJ
The fact is that the terrorists never liked us in the first place. Even if all of those points held water, the terrorists would still attack us. It is us or them, ya think?
So leaving a very vulnerable Afghan government to fend for itself was the answer? We should have used most of our military resources to stabilize that country. Bush has failed the Afghan country miserably. What Bush did was put a roof on a new home before putting up even one single load bearing wall. Going after terrorists from place to place and leaving a weak government, Afghanistan and Iraq, in control was hardly the correct thing to do.
IF Bush had stabilized the Afghan thing...IF Bush had not declared war on Islam...IF Bush had not declared war on IRAQ?!...IF Bush had secured Iraq better so that we wouldn't have a guerrilla war in Iraq now...
I have no clue how you came up with this from what I stated. The U.S. Is spread too thin and in all actuality there is no alliance. He blew it and that's obvious.
@ Rabban
You missed my point entirely. If everyone voted for a presidential candidate that matched their religious beliefs the U.S. Would be a Protestant state. How would that sit with the dozens of other religions in our country? Just for kicks let's say that the majority of U.S. Citizens are Muslim. Then a radical Muslim president is voted in. Let's also say that because of his radical beliefs your wife has to stay at home and cannot work, vote or drive. Then let's add in that your daughter is forbidden from getting an education. Are you seeing my point? Or are you just thinking that I'm being ridiculous and that it could never happen? Weren't people enslaved for thousands of years because religious leaders found nothing wrong with it? Do you not find it odd that one religion enslaved another thoughout history? I wonder what might have been if the Aftrican continent were mainly Chrishian in the times of slavery. I'm thinking world history would be a lot different right now.
Religion is an IDEA that is supposed to provide hope and suggest goodwill towards man. When religion becomes a BELIEF and demands that a strict code be followed people die. Is that not apparent?
New subject: Stem cell research.
I've not seen you complain that Bush has sent our boys to Iraq to die. Why is that? Probably because you support the troops and think they're great patriots. You may also think that their sacrifice will save millions in the long run. Is that not what stem cell research can do for the entire global community? If it makes you feel better I'll head over to the local fertility clinic and slap a "U.S.A. Patriot" sticker on each tube for you. I think your views would change if you had a mother stricken with MS. And don't give me that it's God's will crap.
Like a midget at a urinal, I was going to have to be on my toes.
Invite a retard to a picnic and you'd better expect to get drool in the potato salad.
"You're going to have to convince me that homosexual marriage isn't going to have a negative effect on marriage in general."
Do not even get me started on the short-sightedness of this. Do not.
O and by the way, a democracy is NOT a theocracry. Religion doesn't rule here, and it never should. Period. Check our your constitution if you don't believe me.
Yes, please check the constitution. Please.
OK, OM said is best and I agree. The President shouldn't make his decisions solely in faith, but guided by his faith. So his reasons for going to war with Iraq may have been based on his perception of some religious tenents, but it would be a great act of faith to believe there would be no casualities. I like the idea of having a Christian, moral man in the White House and Bush's views align more with my views than does Kerry's.
I looked up this quote that used to hang on my aunt and uncle's bathroom wall,
Men must be governed by God, or they will be ruled by tyrants. - William Penn"
and I looked up this one...
"Without God, there is no virtue, because there's no prompting of the conscience. Without God, we're mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under." - Ronald Reagan
In both I think the idea that we need God (or some greater, moral code if you like) to be internalized in order for our democracy to function. While I agree that our nation wasn't founded to be a Christian Nation as such, it was a nation filled with Christians or at least people who respected the Judeo-Christian laws of God and I think that's why it's worked as well as it has. I think the further we get from that standard of self rule, our country's going to suffer for it.
As far as his idea that terrorists hate us because of "heavy handed tactics and military exploits", I submit this article as a better explaination. Basically, they hate what democracy entails and allows.
As far as Rogue's comment trying to compare stem cell research with our GIs in Iraq. I really don't see it unless you want to compare the morality of using the dead solider's bodies for commerce in organ transplants and scientific research. Our guys volunteered for duty, they're paid to be there and most are happy to serve and feel it's the right thing to do. How you compare that to harvesting people for research is beyond me. As far as my mother's health goes, you've got a lot of nerve to suggest my views would change it the situation was self-serving. In fact my mother DOES suffer from some chronic diseases that leave her in constant pain and she shares my POV. Using the dead to benefit her situation is immoral. She's against abortion and the idea of using it's victims for stem cell research.
Tally, here's a snippet.
The homosexual legal agenda is not only a threat to religious freedom, it is a threat to the existence of the traditional family as well. Consider this quote from Chris Crain, executive editor of the homosexual newspaper, The New York Blade:
In the English-speaking world, the faux marriages have been called domestic partnerships. In France, theyre called Pacte civil de solidarte, or PACS. The effect on traditional marriage has been dramatic. In France, where PACS became available in 1999, some 14,000 couples signed up the first year, and almost half of them heterosexualBack in the States, many heterosexual couples are also choosing domestic partnerships [DP] over marriage for many of the same reasons. In almost every jurisdiction where DP status is available, straight couples far outnumber gay couples on the sign-up sheet, even taking into account that there are more of them out there generally than there are of usThe threat to traditional marriage from quick and dirty domestic partnerships comes at the same time some states are purposefully making it harder to enter and exit that venerable institutionThese ineffectual attempts at bucking up traditional marriage are losing the battle to a popular and easier alternative [that] is increasingly available. Theres your threat to traditional marriage. L 58
We have seen exactly what Mr. Crain is talking about in Scandinavia. Consider these excerpts from an article by Gene Edward Veith on the state of marriage and the church there:
In the Scandinavian countries of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Iceland, it became socially acceptable decades ago for couples to live together without being married. When they started having children, then and only then would they get married. But now, they are not even bothering to do that.
In a story for the Los Angeles Times, Carol J. Williams reports that more than half the children being born are being born to unwed mothers. (The numbers are 54 percent in Sweden, 49 percent in Norway, 46 percent in Denmark, and 65 percent -- nearly two-thirds -- in Iceland)In Scandinavia, the whole culture is doing without marriage.59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
58 Chris Crain, Gays May Ruin Traditional Marriage, The New York Blade, August 3, 2001.
59 Gene Edward Veith, Doing Without Marriage, World, April 29, 2000.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So in Scandinavia we're already seeing the effects of homosexual marriage or domestic partnerships on traditional, heterosexual marriages. So maybe you're the one who's short sighted?
I'm sorry, I missed it....what where the effects again? People chose not to get married, but engage in partnerships instead? Well, there goes america! Unwed mothers? By definition only. Right?
Morality without god? Are you saying we atheists have no moral foundations? And what about non-christians? How's their morality? Since you see them as non-believers, what is the value of their sense of morality to you?
Your morality comes from the outside...you only do good because you are commanded to do good. Not me. My morality comes from within. I do good because it is the right thing to do, the strong and virtuous thing to do. Doing good comes naturally to me.
Rabban...me again!
"What Spengler, Toynbee, and Nietzsche can teach us is how Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, despite superficial differences, were all forged and/or altered by a religious revolution in ancient Iran associated with the name Zoroaster or Zarathustra . The central notions of dualism between Good and Evil, Salvation through an Expected Messiah, and the Final Battle between St Michael and Satan animate these world religions and their devotees. Pragmatism, reason, and common sense have little place in these primitive Semitic world views. All conflict is interpreted as part of a cosmic struggle between Good and Evil and there is no room for compromise or tolerance. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche
Two points (okay jj, but no bridges...and only one fleeting reference to a monkey):
1) your religious world view borrows very heavily from ancient persian folk-religion...you know, iran? Iraq? Your morality is the morality of an iranian mystic. Sorry charley. (er..wait...is that a bridge jj? Damn!)
2) the bolded text at the end of the paragraph explains almost all of the monkey bush's actions as president. The president is under the control of a philosophy borne of an ancient iranian mystic, long since dead and departed...
Last edited: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 at 8:48:06 PM
Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh. If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.
Abe Lincoln
"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."
- Abraham Lincoln, American president (1809-1865).
Ooooooooh, n1 stink.
How you compare that to harvesting people for research is beyond me. As far as my mother's health goes, you've got a lot of nerve to suggest my views would change it the situation was self-serving. In fact my mother DOES suffer from some chronic diseases that leave her in constant pain and she shares my POV. Using the dead to benefit her situation is immoral. She's against abortion and the idea of using it's victims for stem cell research.
So if it's possible to find a cure for her and others like her you'd still sit idly by? How about the 2 year old kid with the same symptoms or cancer? Don't tell me that cancer in a toddler is God's will. That's just silly
You can't have both sides of the coin Rabban. If you truly were as religious as your outdated quotes you'd be incensed with the Bush administration.
The correlation between soldiers and embryos is this. You consider an embryo to be more important than an 18-25 year old adult. If you didn't you'd be in Washington, D.C. Right now protesting the war. So it's ok for a man to die by the sword and not okay for another to be sacrificed for the good of all humanity?
Your comment about "using the dead" contradicts your religion completely. Your religion teaches you that once a body is dead it's just that, a dead body. The spirit has long since been gone. Are you not then an organ donor?
If you want to quote. Our constitutoin states clearly that "all men are created equal" and "justice for all." Your religion states "Love thy neighbor," yet your interpretations of the Bible excludes homosexuals. If you're going to quote the bible you'd better be ready to defend it in its entirity, not just the parts that meet your current biases. You have a mind, use it. You're relying solely on a two thousand year old publication written by an oppressive and male dominated society.
Son of a bitch, I'm annoyed. Backwoods people that have not experienced the world are the reason that this jackass is going to get another four years. These mainly white putzes live sheltered lives and consider their tiny little backwoods world to be the end all and be all of the damn universe.
Rabban I remember a while back when you said how huge D.C. Seemed when you visited. Guess what? The world's a lot friggin bigger and more complicated than D.C. And how an interpreted damn book from two thousand years ago states.
Son of a... Back to stem cell once again. According to your religion Jesus was sacrificed for the good of all mankind. Remember, "He died for our sins." He is now seated at the right hand of God according to the Bible. How the hell is this any different from using an embryo for stem cell research? Is it not for the good of all mankind? I think you forget that Jesus didn't have a choice either, it was thrust upon him by God. Yet you have a problem with this.
I must leave the message boards now before my brain pops out of my head.
Like a midget at a urinal, I was going to have to be on my toes.
Invite a retard to a picnic and you'd better expect to get drool in the potato salad.
Last edited: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 at 10:07:56 PM
Rogue, you forgot to mention that their religious beliefs aren't even original...they can be traced back to persian mysticism. And WE are supposed to feel morally inferior?
The conflict here, illustrated by rabban et al vs. Rogue et al reflects what I see as a crucial issue in this election, and a crucial point in the evolution of our country. America was founded on the principles of the enlightenment. Our constitution ensures that these principles will guide our continued development. Now, religious fundamentalists (who are not part of the enlightenment tradition) want to take our country in a different direction. Rather than employing reason, logic and science in their policy making, they prefer to employ faith.
This was never what america was about. Over two hundred years ago, our founding fathers were more progressive in many ways, than these religious fundamentalists...this is de-evolution.
Couldn't agree more, Rogue. And the crazy part is that even the religious freaks in my country think Bush is a wanker. What up wid dat?
Let me state one thing Stink. I'm a Catholic. The difference between me and a radical religious freak is that I use my head and interpret my faith's teachings by the demands of the world of today, not a thousand years ago. The inability to adapt to an ever-changing world matches the Bush adminstration to the letter.
Like a midget at a urinal, I was going to have to be on my toes.
Invite a retard to a picnic and you'd better expect to get drool in the potato salad.
Last edited: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 at 10:14:07 PM
Page : 1 : 2 : <3> : 4 : 5 . . . . . 7
This thread has been locked
Sept. 30 @ 9 pm ET
Oct. 5, VP debate
Oct. 8
Oct. 13
Ready to think?
Last edited: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 at 3:28:52 AM