Page 49 of 71 FirstFirst ... 39444546474849505152535459 ... LastLast
Results 961 to 980 of 1405
  1. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #961  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I certainly won't speak for davidra, but I'll illustrate my thoughts with the example of gay marriage. (Let me stress that I'm not bringing this subject up to engage in yet another gay marriage debate, but merely to illustrate the point.) When you get right down to it, the primary reason for many folks' objections to gay marriage comes down to religious belief...the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" argument. Legislators certainly have th right to this opinion, but if they promote legislation based upon religious tenets (or persons' selective interpretations of tenets), then that is a clear violation of church / state separations.

    Similarly, when people try to inject Intelligent Design into science teachings, it clearly proselytizes religious ideology into secular activities of the government.
    Congrats! You just successfully knocked down your own strawman argument. How do you do it?
  2. #962  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I don't think you guys are saying the same thing. Clem seems to be asking if you think religion should be no factor in an individual's voting preference. You answer that religion should not be the basis for laws. Those are not the same.

    Now, if davidra is really saying people's religion shouldn't influence their vote at all then, well, I don't know what to say except "too bad". As long as people have beliefs, religious or otherwise, those beliefs will influence their voting habits. Nothing you can do to stop that.
    You hit it. Voting is totally different. If you want to vote for or against someone based on your (or their) religious beliefs, have at it. The hope is that that would be a moot point, since their religious beliefs should not be expressed in their legislating. I fail to see what's so radical about this. Regardless of all the hand-wringing about exactly what "separation of church and state" means and whether it's a real governmental requirement or not, most people favor it as a process. And that's all I'm saying. The church should not influence the state. And you don't have to look too around too much to realize that is a wise way for a government to behave. The problem is that for some reason many feel that their religion is somehow different and not really a risk. Sorry, but I have much more fear about a government based on religion than I do a secular government with a democracy in place.
  3. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #963  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I agree totally that the Bush administration failed to provide the appropriate support for Veterans. This is a chance to make it right.
    Oh yes, I'm sure that lack of quality Veterans care started and ended with the Bush administration, and all all other times before and since it was perfect. Pathetic.

    However, I don't care which administration fails to care for our Vets--its a disgrace either way. However, you are attempting to isolate this to an administration, when it is hardly that. GOVERNMENT is the failure throughout--the entire corrupt system which you are attempting to force everyone to suffer under is the problem.

    GOVERNMENT is failing to take care of even a small group of people who have earned it, and you want to give this SAME GOVERNMENT the power over everyone.

    Perhaps if you had the capacity to step back from your partisanship (something you accuse others of) you'd realize that ALL of this is about Government and their never-ending failures, and never ending power grabs. But you don't, and blunder blindly into helping make the problem worse, but handing more and more money and more and more power to the MORONS who harm people with their massive incompetence.

    KAM
  4. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #964  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    There is no constitutional separation of medicine and state. And we loves us our Constitution, don't we?
    Nor is there a separation of people with Religious views from 'State' either, but that doesn't stop people such as yourself from your distortion of the entire issue. And of course, no where in the Constitution does the phrase "separation of church and state" occur, and in fact--that utterance was related to PROTECTING religion.

    This modern fallacy of "separation of church and state" taking the form that Davidra (and apparently you) are suggesting is a blatant lie.

    Again--there is no prohibition again Religious believers serving in government OR from voting for anything because of personal beliefs--including religious ones.

    You fellows anti-religious fantasies are running wild it seems.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 11/12/2009 at 08:36 AM. Reason: cleanup
  5. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #965  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Yes, good for them. Who cares if the data is suspect.
    Well that pretty much sums it up doesn't it? The Data really doesn't matter. The cost, the Constitution, the damage it does...none of it matters. It is all about want. They want this, and that is that, reasoning, effect, cost--its all secondary. The only thing that matters is getting what they want.

    Unfortunately, even if this is backed up by sincerity (which I'm trying hard to keep assuming), it is wildly dangerous, because ignoring the other issues can and HAS led to very bad results, which just as often end up undermining what these people claim to want.

    They are willing to accept scraps of what they want, and the costs that vastly outweigh the benefits, because of this single-minded want attitude.

    KAM
  6. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #966  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Sorry, but I have much more fear about a government based on religion than I do a secular government with a democracy in place.
    And I have a fear of a populace having the ability to support a decent government when radical secularism supplants ethical behavior. I think if you bothered to look into it, you'd find that our Founding Fathers depended upon the morality of the public (which was largely rooted in Christianity, although not exclusive to it) to be able to maintain this form of government.

    The paranoia here is amazing. We DO have a Secular government, and it is NOT based on Religion--not even close, but you will sit around and fret about that I guess. The idiots (not saying you did this) that whimper about our "theocracy" are...well, they are insane--detatched from reality.

    I don't advocate a Government run by a Church either...and big surprise...America doesn't advocate that either, not even close. That being said, anti-religious people cannot be allowed to force what is in essence a (anti) religious test upon anyone.

    This is exactly why we have a Religious clause in the First amendment--to PROTECT everyone's right to practice their religion, and NOT be force to hide it or exclude them from ANYTHING--including Public office.

    Such a *******ization of our founding principles makes me ill.

    KAM
  7. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #967  
    Hello everyone,

    For those of you who have attempted to use opinion polls to push for Healthcare "reform" here's another one for you.

    RealClearPolitics - Public Opinion Polls

    So, given that we've heard folks here stating that their Reps should do what their constituents want, this should be defeated right?

    KAM
  8. #968  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    And of course, no where in the Constitution does the phrase "separation of church and state" occur, and in fact--that utterance was related to PROTECTING religion.
    Yes, and protecting folks who belong to non-majority religions. Which is the entire point: if laws are made based upon the religious beliefs of the legislators, they impose the majority's religious ideology on everyone else.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  9. #969  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Hello everyone,

    For those of you who have attempted to use opinion polls to push for Healthcare "reform" here's another one for you.

    RealClearPolitics - Public Opinion Polls

    So, given that we've heard folks here stating that their Reps should do what their constituents want, this should be defeated right?

    KAM
    Based upon that logic, any plan should include a public option, agreed?

    New Poll: Public Option Up … GOP Down - George's Bottom Line
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  10. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #970  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Based upon that logic, any plan should include a public option, agreed?

    New Poll: Public Option Up … GOP Down - George's Bottom Line
    Yes, when you can somehow resolve that a majority of people want a public option, but the majority doesn't want this at all, then you can make an argument.

    Here's how we can resolve this--you can have the Public Opion plan, as long as we don't pass this mess at all.

    KAM
  11. #971  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post

    GOVERNMENT is failing to take care of even a small group of people who have earned it, and you want to give this SAME GOVERNMENT the power over everyone.

    Perhaps if you had the capacity to step back from your partisanship (something you accuse others of) you'd realize that ALL of this is about Government and their never-ending failures, and never ending power grabs. But you don't, and blunder blindly into helping make the problem worse, but handing more and more money and more and more power to the MORONS who harm people with their massive incompetence.

    KAM
    By all means, and this should be very easy, give some examples of the "never-ending failures" of the big bad government, and how it's negatively impacted the country. You might want to focus on the Reagan administration and how it helped the middle class. Or you might want to address the massive failures of the military, as they are government-run, right? Or try Medicare or Social Security. Specifics about how people are "harmed by massive incompetence" would be useful, too. After all, if the US is that bad, maybe you can find a libertarian country to go live in. If there's anything that's partisan, it's the trashtalking about how awful the government is, while at the same time talking about what a great country the US is. Tell us, please....which is correct?
  12. #972  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Yes, when you can somehow resolve that a majority of people want a public option, but the majority doesn't want this at all, then you can make an argument.
    Many folks like the concept of a public option, but have been repeatedly told about death panels, killing grandma, etc.

    Like Medicare and Social Security, once it's implemented and folks find that the propaganda never comes to pass, it'll become a sacred institution.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  13. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #973  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Yes, and protecting folks who belong to non-majority religions. Which is the entire point: if laws are made based upon the religious beliefs of the legislators, they impose the majority's religious ideology on everyone else.
    Again, you are working under the false belief that our government is or is even close to being run according to the specifics of any one Religion's ideology, and that is false. We are GENERALLY attuned to the Principles and Morality of Christianity, Judaism, Islam and most other Religions--things like not murdering people, not stealing, etc--things found in the 10 Commandments.

    You are further incorrect if you are claiming that because someone arrives at a position informed by their Religious views that this somehow is incompatible with the views and preferences of another person who doesn't share that same Religion. This is demonstrably false.

    If I am against Child Abuse (and I am), because it is repugnant to my Religion--that is how I arrived at this view, and you are against it (and I assume you are) and arrived at that based on your non-religious views, what does it matter? Look at that--A religious view and non-religious view working just fine together, and in fact--they are the same.

    Perhaps if you weren't so distracted by fretting over the source of someone's views, you'd be able to realize that the RESULT is what affects you--not the source of the position of a given legislator.

    If there is a Representative who is an atheist who for his own reasons agrees with every one of my desires and votes for them, isn't that a good thing for me? Wouldn't I say that I am well represented? Why would it matter that his Religious views are different than mine?

    This is a clear case of not seeing the forest for the trees. If you fellows are an example, this is quite telling. There are people out there so wrongly focused on the people rather than the product of what these people do--and that's what matters in government as far as I see it. I don't give a damn what their personal views are--I care that they vote the way I want them to vote.

    How is this not prejudice? Isn't tolerance something liberals claim to represent? I guess it doesn't count for people with Religious views, even if they agree with you--they just had better not DARE be influenced by Religion. Any other whacko ideology...well, that's fine, but Religion...no way--totally unacceptable. I find this to be an incoherent position.

    KAM
  14. #974  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    If I am against Child Abuse (and I am), because it is repugnant to my Religion--that is how I arrived at this view, and you are against it (and I assume you are) and arrived at that based on your non-religious views, what does it matter? Look at that--A religious view and non-religious view working just fine together, and in fact--they are the same.
    If my religion supports gay marriage, why should your religious ideology prevent it...it hurts nobody, and you're denying my freedom. If legislators push Intelligent Design, it directly promotes a religious ideology to folks who don't share it.

    Child abuse is an easy example, others are not.

    If there is a Representative who is an atheist who for his own reasons agrees with every one of my desires and votes for them, isn't that a good thing for me? Wouldn't I say that I am well represented? Why would it matter that his Religious views are different than mine?
    Can you point to a single Republican legislator who is a declared atheist? For all of the rhetoric that "Christianity is being picked on", atheism is a death sentence in politics - especially conservative politics.

    How is this not prejudice? Isn't tolerance something liberals claim to represent? I guess it doesn't count for people with Religious views, even if they agree with you--they just had better not DARE be influenced by Religion.
    They can believe whatever they want, but they'd better not dare impose their religious values on me through legislation.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  15. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #975  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Many folks like the concept of a public option, but have been repeatedly told about death panels, killing grandma, etc.
    First--the poll you listed is nearly a month old. Mine was posted today I believe.

    Oh, so they are just misinformed? Well, I can say that too--they favor a public "option" because they have no idea what it means. They believe the propaganda and lies that this is the only way to create "competition" despite being designed to destroy competition. They believe that a "public option" is a free lunch, and that they are simply buying into the repeated lies that this will benefit them instead of end up restricting them.

    They are buying into the lies that repeating the same mistakes (expanding unsustainable programs that already waste billions upon billions of dollars) will somehow result in savings, and that this will have a positive effect on prices, instead of what has happened with other government programs--increased costs and/or denial of payment at a rate exceeding that of private insurance.

    Perhaps they are believing the lies that the Government cooking of the books is accurate and that current Government healthcare is more efficient, when they really just make up their rules as they go to lie to the public about the massive waste and costs.

    I'd LOVE to have the public be fully informed about all of the issues surrounding this, because your "reform" wouldn't have a prayer. Even without this people's intuition is telling them this is yet another government boondoggle, being rammed through buying off Representatives with our own tax money or threatening them into submission. If the public as a whole even knew HALF of the thug-like tactics going on behind the scenes I'd be delighted.

    Of course, the Pelosi crowd is doing their best to NOT be transparent about any of this. They are working the back-rooms like seldom before.

    KAM
  16. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #976  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    If my religion supports gay marriage, why should your religious ideology prevent it...it hurts nobody, and you're denying my freedom. If legislators push Intelligent Design, it directly promotes a religious ideology to folks who don't share it.
    What makes you think that I support Government having ANY say over what any Religion does? You are contradicting yourself. YOU want government to involve itself in Religion--in this case your (I presume theoretical) Religion's support of it. Wait--didn't you NOT want government involved in Religion? Isn't that violating separation of Church and State?
    That would be proper--Government has no business deciding what is to be in a Religion's belief system.

    Its very easy when you adhere to a set of principles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Can you point to a single Republican legislator who is a declared atheist? For all of the rhetoric that "Christianity is being picked on", atheism is a death sentence in politics - especially conservative politics.
    I have no idea. However, if you don't appeal to your constituents, you aren't likely to be elected.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    They can believe whatever they want, but they'd better not dare impose their religious values on me through legislation.
    How do you tell the difference? How do you decide what is a Religious value and what isn't? The fact is that Government has no place enforcing its VALUES on citizens at all. No one (at least not yet) tells you what to think.

    Again, not to be disrespectful to you personally, but I find this laughable. You who are more than happy to have Government impose its will upon the entire nation are fretting about whether someone has a Religious view motivating them.

    Are you aware that Catholic Bishops are in favor of healthcare reform (and many leftists ideas)(excepting taxpayer funded abortions)? Oh no! You had better oppose healthcare, because Catholics are for it.

    OR am I incorrect. Are you simply using Religion as a club against those who tend to disagree with you? Is this really just another facet of forwarding a leftist agenda and using whatever means necessary to justify it? If the majority of Religious folks supported Leftist ideas would you refuse to support them, because they arrived at these views due to their religion?

    KAM
  17. #977  
    I've been reading this thread for a while and I just want to say: LOL!

    So many egoistic tought and so many ignorance...

    Your American stigmata of what you call Socialism its ridiculous and demonstrates your ignorance.
    Last edited by glorifiedg; 11/12/2009 at 03:31 PM.
  18. #978  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    What makes you think that I support Government having ANY say over what any Religion does?
    Maybe you should read my post again...you didn't get it. The issue isn't governments having a say over religions, but governments enforcing religious ideals over its citizens.

    The fact is that Government has no place enforcing its VALUES on citizens at all. No one (at least not yet) tells you what to think.
    Excellent...then we're totally agreed. The government shouldn't push its values regarding: gay marriage, gays in the military, Intelligent Design in the schools, prayer in schools, and anti-choice ideology. I knew we could agree on something.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  19. #979  
    Quote Originally Posted by glorifiedg View Post
    Your American stigmata of you call Socialism its ridiculous and demonstrates your ignorance.
    ITYM 'stigma', although the stigmata guy was somewhat socialist.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  20. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #980  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Maybe you should read my post again...you didn't get it. The issue isn't governments having a say over religions, but governments enforcing religious ideals over its citizens.
    Perhaps you should read your own post. You talked about Gay Marriage--which is what activists are pushing for GOVERNMENT to approve of. You want government in the business of defining a Religious institution, whereas I say they have no place in doing that at all (and should extract themselves from it).

    Perhaps you are unaware that Government is currently involved in Defining marriage and those who support gay marriage want to delve further into that--if you support that, then you support government involvement in a Religious institution.

    My position is that Religions define this for themselves and the government has no right to interfere. But Statists don't understand this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Excellent...then we're totally agreed. The government shouldn't push its values regarding: gay marriage, gays in the military, Intelligent Design in the schools, prayer in schools, and anti-choice ideology. I knew we could agree on something.
    No, of course we aren't agreed, because you advocate government pushing what you prefer on me, and pretending that it isn't pushing values. I advocate government getting out of individuals business to the maximum extent possible, excepting where the Constitution specifically grants the Government powers.

    I'm glad you brought this up, because it is really the core issue, and demonstrates the hypocritical nature common to leftists and statists. That ideology DEPENDS on government to push its views and demands on individuals. MY ideology opposes that.

    You are forwarding the false notion that Statism isn't inherently dedicated to using government power to push someone's views on the individual, violating personal liberty.

    the Federal Government should have no say about Prayer in schools, or intelligent Design or anything else, because they shouldn't be involved in Education at all. But you don't adhere to that principle--you simply wish for YOUR views to be pushed on school children. That is an unprincipled and biased position.

    You don't want Government to be able to define marriage in the way you dislike--the traditional way, you want to use government power to define it as you wish. I say government has no right defining marriage period.

    Pro-Abortion advocates want government to give one party in a three-life interaction to have the power to end one of those lives. I respect the rights of all three lives. Much more to this whole issue.

    In short--Statists are strongly devoted to using government power to forward their views, while crying and whining whenever someone they oppose uses the same power in the same way. I on the other hand maintain a principled view that Government's role is not to involve itself in individuals lives.

    The Statist/Leftist view is inherently hypocritical and violates individual liberties as a matter of course. Mine seeks to preserve individual liberties to the maximum extent possible, while retaining a civil society.

    KAM

Posting Permissions