Page 19 of 32 FirstFirst ... 9141516171819202122232429 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 380 of 639
  1. #361  
    Quote Originally Posted by xpdnc View Post
    Oh yeah, she was. She tried the Pre but decided her old palm was more reliable.
    Now THAT was freaking HILARIOUS ! ! ! !


    ROTFLMAO
  2. #362  
    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Whereas the word 'cult' has many definitions, religion fits nicely under at least one. Google is your friend.

    It is enough proof for me and many others. Can you disprove the tooth fairy? Or does logic not dictate he/she doesn't exist? It's a waste of my time to argue the obvious. As far as I'm concerned you're grasping at straws and the burden of proof isn't with me. You're talking about an alternate sense of reality that no one has been able to prove. So therefore it is illogical to think it really exists. I can see and experience one, YOU have to prove to me the other is real.

    Well that's the problem with your argument. You're assuming. If someone chooses to be a Christian, Muslim, Catholic, whatever, I don't care. If they however are able to influence a political figure into enacting laws that go against the majority view, including mine, I have a problem with that. If they put up banners and ads in public places in an attempt to propagandize their religious beliefs, I have a problem with that. No one religious group should have that amount of influence.

    There was a reason the founding fathers sought to separate religion from the matters of state. It was to restrict the power of any one religious group as more often than not, some form of persecution follows. How many wars have been fought over religion? How many dead? Religion should be personal as there are too many varying beliefs. Giving one too much power is only asking for trouble.

    They should be restricted if it's going to encroach on others rights, beliefs etc.

    Actually your reasoning do matter to me. But more importantly what matters is that your influences don't encroach on other's rights or beliefs DESPITE the source. However laws centered around religious beliefs in particular, tend to do just that e.g anti-abortion legislation. I know that topic alone opens up a huge can of worms but I'm not going to get further into it.

    Then our political system will collapse. How can you restrict or separate left or right-wing beliefs from our politcal system? It's impossible. Even though our society is split politically, it's in name only (as in democrat or republican). The reality of it is many people are close to the center sharing some leftist and right-wing views. Those beliefs ARE our politics.

    It's just not the same as restricting any one religious group's political influences. Think about what would happen if the KKK or God hates *** s groups for example were allowed to be a huge political force in this country.

    Because religion (especially when organized) tend to divide and perpetuate hatred in some form or another. And proof of that can be seen literally everywhere.

    Actually no it didn't. As soon as it came to light (well before he won) it was front page news, day after day after day. Hillary made sure of that. And that was just the Rev Wright issue. There was also Michelle Obama's supposed lack of patriotism with something she said that was taken totally out of the context. Then there was the lapel pin issue. And what about the constant mention of his inexperience? I'm sorry but you must have seen a different campaign to what I saw.

    Did I say that, or even imply that? My point was the word Christian is just a label.

    You're trying to put religion on the same plane with other social ideologies and this is where I disagree. Religion isn't based on logic (as you admitted before) and I have a problem having illogical interpreted beliefs shaping the laws of my country especially when those beliefs aren't shared by the majority or when those beliefs clearly involve the restriction of rights and pratices. So yes the source does matter to me as well.

    But to answer your question, NO ENCROACHMENT of rights or beliefs by others is ok regardless of the source of influence. However as a society we must have laws and some form of government to progress and ensure that everyone is treated fairly and is represented (as much as possible) so to have no encroachment at all is impossible. However I just don't see religion's influence as a needed ingredient. IMO, it will only make it worse.
    Explain how youre going to do the first line I've set in bold, please, without violating the Constitution.

    As to the second, your pretty hateful and you don't have religion. Care to explain how your hate towards religion is or should be more palatable than your example?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  3. #363  
    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

    Maybe the right will here this, because I'm sure your jesus would want healthcare for everyone. Especially when theres children that are dying.
    Sorry to break it to you but kids with health care die too. And if you knew anything at all about Jesus you'd know he doesn't really say that it's a goal to keep everyone alive.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  4. #364  
    Quote Originally Posted by astrobill View Post
    Sarah Palin is a failed "sports journalist" and beauty pageant contestant who wasn't qualified to be mayor of Wasila and was CERTAINLY not qualified to govern Alaska (even though it has fewer people than Long Island, NY or Chicago).

    It's a national embarrassment this talentless, ignorant woman was even CONSIDERED for ANY federal office, much less the Vice Presidency.

    Palin is now relentlessly feeding on the right-wing, tea party nutbags in a transparent effort to sell as many books and get as many speaking engagements as she can before even the lunatics grow tired of her.

    Unfortunately, her method of staying in the limelight among her followers involves dangerous demagoguery and frighteningly irresponsible statements that get carried by the national media and serve to mislead the less-educated among us....a common theme in our history (Ref: Joe McCarthy).

    She's truly a scary, dangerous, woman who I hope goes away as soon as possible.
    Translation : All you folks in Alaska are stupid.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  5. #365  
    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

    Maybe the right will here this, because I'm sure your jesus would want healthcare for everyone. Especially when theres children that are dying.
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    Sorry to break it to you but kids with health care die too. And if you knew anything at all about Jesus you'd know he doesn't really say that it's a goal to keep everyone alive.
    It is confusing isn't it?
    Why?
    If he cares it should have nothing to do with Obama.
    Just call me Berd.
  6. #366  
    Okay....sometimes you liberals are a bit confusing, so let me get this straight. If a Republican woman writes notes on her palm, it indicates she is stupid and not qualified to hold any office or be relevant.....but if a democrat woman writes notes on her palm, she is qualified to be a US Senator? This gets quite confusing. Is this an example of that word that I hear mentioned all the time....what is that word....(looking at my palm).....oh yes.....hypocrisy?

    I hate that I actually got something from this website, but seems like Diane Feinstein was one of the first to use this "tactic": Phil Trounstine: Palin Channeled Feinstein with Sneaky Palm Notes Funny how things like this happen some time....funny, huh?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  7. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #367  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Cult

    Religion

    If you look at the definitions, they are pretty much enterchangable.
    No, the key difference is that a cult by definition is not mainstream as shown in #3 and #5c in your links. They are only interchangeable in the sense that they are belief based things.

    Calling a mainstream Religion a cult is in my view, just an attempt to denigrate something that you dislike.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Logic dictates that if (a) we are here so we must have come from somewhere, i.e. a “designer” who is more complex and intelligent than us, then (b) a complex and intelligent designer, would also have to have come from somewhere i.e. a “designer” who is even more complex and intelligent.
    Is that what logic dictates?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    If the reasoning for a God is we’re here, then where did he come from? My favorite famous lines are “he always was” and “no one knows”. Shave the wool off your back and follow the herd if you believe that. If someone HAD to have created us, they would have HAD to have been created. If our creator could have ALWAYS been or just magically appeared, then so could we have.
    All very interesting. You aren't proving anything however.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    We can’t just assert that God is mightier and he just magically came to be, if that’s the logic, I say someone still had to find him in the bottom of a cereal box, it’s a paradox.
    So, in your view is anything that you cannot explain impossible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Because by using your religion in politics to inact laws, you are forcing your religion and virtues on to people who may not share your same beliefs. Kind of like the stories that my dad was saying early on in Obama's presidency, (he, unfortunatly, is a bit of a tea partyer) that he was going to start passing all of these crazy Muslim laws. Well, what makes Muslim laws crazy and not Christian laws? To me they are both one in the same. That is why "separation of church and state" works both ways.
    I'm not sure why you are making this artificial distinction. Why does it matter if Religion is the basis for a belief rather than some other basis? Why would you, using your leftist ideals forcing something me be acceptable, but not if it comes from a Religion? Who decides that an idea is Religious and therefore not acceptable? Now, if you are saying there is a law requiring people to believe in a Religion or engage in a Religious practice, that's something different. Murder is Forbidden in Judeo-Christian Religion. Should we then say that we cannot have laws about Murder?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    First of all, "leftist" is not a religion or even a belief, but it is a political stance so your analogy is absurd. Religion has nothing to do with basis of politics so it can very easily be ommited.
    Yes, my analogy is absurd--because it is pointing out the absurdity of the idea that you can somehow cut out ideas that you identify as having a "religious" basis, any more than I can cut out ideas that I dislike (for any reason). You say that Religions has nothing to do with the basis of politics? Why? What gives you the power to define where someone's political ideas can or cannot come from? If any of you believe this is what the First Amendment is about, you are WILDLY mistaken.

    Also--Leftism is every bit a "religion" by your definition above.
    4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
    I'd suggest that you have faith in your leftist principles. You believe in them don't you? There is no supernatural element in this definition.
    Edited to Add: I should note that, I'm just making a point here--about how these definitions can easily be used (improperly). I actually don't think that liberalism is a religion akin to Christianity, Hinduism, etc.


    I think you fellows are WAY off base here. You cannot make some demand that people somehow separate their Religious and secular ideas in what they do. AGAIN, I ask--what is the difference if I advocate something because I have a Religious belief or a secular one? If I advocate Free food for the poor--does it matter to a third party where my belief comes from? The thing I'm suggesting is or isn't allowable under our Constitution--my reason or anyone else's reason for advocating it (which may be different) is really not relevant in a legal system.

    I think your Prejudice against Religion (which is what it looks like to me--correct me if I'm wrong) is leading you to a very strange conclusion. There is nothing in our system that allows you or anyone else to demand that they reject any reasoning for what they advocate. People are free to politically advocate for anything they want--for any reason. To claim that religion can not be a person's reason is simply incorrect.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 02/12/2010 at 11:11 AM.
  8. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #368  
    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    KAM, All one has to do is actually look at the true history of religions, then they should all be able to be dispelled. And I dont mean all the terrible things christians and such have done and still do. I mean the actual history of them, all the way back to the sumarians.
    Oh? Really--what is the "true history of Religions." What does Christians having done terrible things mean in regards to Religion and proving it or disproving it logically? I'm not saying you are wrong--I just don't see your point.

    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    Personally I dont care what anyone believes in, but it has no place in politics. It has no place to decide the rights I'm afforded in life. Does that not infringe on my rights as an american per the constitution.
    I'm sorry, but you don't have the right to demand that someone's religious beliefs cannot inform their political views. Something infringes on your rights or it doesn't--regardless of the source. It is certainly possible someone could come up with something that infringes on your rights--based on Religion--such as if they demand that you adhere to their beliefs, or can only vote if you are of a given Religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    Also I hope everyone realizes, if they were born in afghanistan, india, china, thailand, etc. the odds of them thinking jesus is so great is pretty slim. Your christian now, but you could've easily been born a suicide bomber in the name of allha.
    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    There is more evidence of global warming than there is of Gods existence, and you choose to disregard global warming?
    You aren't correctly stating my views. First--naturally there is more evidence regarding ANY natural system, than there is of something that is not part of the physical world. Second--I don't disregard global warming--I question the claims people are making, BECAUSE of the evidence.

    I've never said I have any evidence God exists--I'm not sure if that was clear or not. What I think is important to understand is that Religion is not a matter of proof and evidence, so I fail to see why people keep attempting to treat it as such and then say "AHAH! No Evidence as if they've made some brilliant discovery.

    KAM
  9. #369  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Okay....sometimes you liberals are a bit confusing, so let me get this straight. If a Republican woman writes notes on her palm, it indicates she is stupid and not qualified to hold any office or be relevant.....but if a democrat woman writes notes on her palm, she is qualified to be a US Senator? This gets quite confusing. Is this an example of that word that I hear mentioned all the time....what is that word....(looking at my palm).....oh yes.....hypocrisy?

    I hate that I actually got something from this website, but seems like Diane Feinstein was one of the first to use this "tactic": Phil Trounstine: Palin Channeled Feinstein with Sneaky Palm Notes Funny how things like this happen some time....funny, huh?
    Here is why it is relevant. She mocked Obama for using a teleprompter just minutes before she got caught using her notes. If she would not have bashed teleprompter use, then this would not have been an issue. Even if she would have wrote it on a note card, it would have been less of an issue. But no, she tried to be sneaky and hide it because she has painted herself into a corner on this. She brought this upon herself.
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  10. #370  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Here is why it is relevant. She mocked Obama for using a teleprompter just minutes before she got caught using her notes. If she would not have bashed teleprompter use, then this would not have been an issue. Even if she would have wrote it on a note card, it would have been less of an issue. But no, she tried to be sneaky and hide it because she has painted herself into a corner on this. She brought this upon herself.
    So Feinstein apparently was being "sneaky" and didn't want to show her hand when asked to see it, so that would also be trying to "hide" it? Feinstein...."sneaky" (check)....tried to hide it (check)....ohhhhh.....but wait, Feinstein is a democrat....I see now. My bad. I always get that part confused. Republicans are held to different rules than democrats.....grrrrr....always get that wrong.

    It's like these pesky "recess appointments". Reid fought Bush over them, saying they were unconstitutional (even though it does appear to be allowed in the Constitution), but is now just fine for him with Obama as Prez. I hope the Republicans don't fight this. But just another example of how what is good for one party isn't always good for the other. And yes....it goes on for both parties....but just two examples recently of the hypocrisy on the democrat side.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  11. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #371  
    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Whereas the word 'cult' has many definitions, religion fits nicely under at least one. Google is your friend.
    Yes, you can stretch the common definition for your own purpose if you want, but as I said--they key feature to being a cult is that it is out of the mainstream, and that does not rightfully describe any major religion. I think what your real purpose is to make a cheap shot, by likening major religions to things like the Heaven's Gate cult. It strikes me as somewhat dishonest.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    It is enough proof for me and many others. Can you disprove the tooth fairy? Or does logic not dictate he/she doesn't exist? It's a waste of my time to argue the obvious. As far as I'm concerned you're grasping at straws and the burden of proof isn't with me. You're talking about an alternate sense of reality that no one has been able to prove. So therefore it is illogical to think it really exists. I can see and experience one, YOU have to prove to me the other is real.
    No, it was your claim that Logic can address this--proving or disproving. I said it couldn't. I'm not trying to prove something, so how is it that I'm grasping at straws. I asked you to do what you claim can be done, and you haven't.

    I'm not sure where you've gotten the idea that I'm trying to prove anything to you. I'm not. I'd suggest however that you believe a great many things without having any "proof" that they exist. You BELIEVE a great many things on faith just like everyone else, I suspect. Do you believe any scientific theories? Have you run those numbers yourself? Do you even understand the science behind those theories, or are you simply believing what someone else tells you and trusting that their claims about the facts are true? Now, please don't mistake what I'm saying--I'm not saying these things aren't true--I'm asking how the mechanism by which you believe something is any different from what someone does in believing something else.

    Now, I'm sure you will say "But there is proof or evidence." Sure--there may be, but have you examined this evidence or do you simply accept that it is true? Now, I'm sure you have actually experienced some things--like gravity obviously--you can experiment with that on your own. But many other things you accept, I'm guessing you haven't even attempted to "prove" in any way to yourself.

    I can't really speak to you as an individual and what you experience or have proven personally or not, but people throughout the world "believe" things without any proof all the time--non-religious things.

    So, my point is--simply stating that people have no proof is not disproving anything. That seems to be what you are resting your entire position on this.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Well that's the problem with your argument. You're assuming. If someone chooses to be a Christian, Muslim, Catholic, whatever, I don't care. If they however are able to influence a political figure into enacting laws that go against the majority view, including mine, I have a problem with that. If they put up banners and ads in public places in an attempt to propagandize their religious beliefs, I have a problem with that. No one religious group should have that amount of influence.
    Sure. I say the same thing about secular movements--I don't think they should be able to enact laws that go against a majority view (including mine). It seems to me that you are creating an artificial distinction in terms of the effect it has on a third party. I asked this before, and I will again, does it matter to you if something is enacted that harms you if it is Religious or Secular in its origin? Is it acceptable for a secular idea transformed into law harms you or infringes on your rights, but unacceptable if the same thing is done if its origin is a religious idea?

    I suggest that there is no difference--it either infringes on my rights or not--the reason that led to it is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    There was a reason the founding fathers sought to separate religion from the matters of state. It was to restrict the power of any one religious group as more often than not, some form of persecution follows. How many wars have been fought over religion? How many dead? Religion should be personal as there are too many varying beliefs. Giving one too much power is only asking for trouble.
    How many wars have been fought over non-religious reasons? How many people died as the result of Communism in the 20th Century? That's an atheistic system. Additionally, blaming Religion is really not terribly accurate in many cases--first, Religion and the State are highly intertwined in other cultures and in history, so you can be sure that there were secular political reasons that went hand in hand with these so-called "religious" wars.

    While my personal view agrees with yours--that my Religious beliefs are personal to me, and I have no particular desire to push them on anyone else, I think that the extensions of your argument I can't agree with.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    They should be restricted if it's going to encroach on others rights, beliefs etc.
    Well, I guess that literally is true--of anything, Religious or non-Religious. You and I do not have the right to encroach on anyone else's rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Actually your reasoning do matter to me. But more importantly what matters is that your influences don't encroach on other's rights or beliefs DESPITE the source. However laws centered around religious beliefs in particular, tend to do just that e.g anti-abortion legislation. I know that topic alone opens up a huge can of worms but I'm not going to get further into it.
    Your statement about "despite the source" is valid in my view. What if I had a totally secular position on Abortion that led me to want to ban it? Is that any better? No--as you say, it is or isn't valid despite the source.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Then our political system will collapse. How can you restrict or separate left or right-wing beliefs from our politcal system? It's impossible. Even though our society is split politically, it's in name only (as in democrat or republican). The reality of it is many people are close to the center sharing some leftist and right-wing views. Those beliefs ARE our politics.
    The point is that WHAT a law or government action does is what is important, not what someone's reasoning is for advocating it.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    It's just not the same as restricting any one religious group's political influences. Think about what would happen if the KKK or God hates *** s groups for example were allowed to be a huge political force in this country.
    The fact is, we don't restrict what people think or believe--religious or not. Its not something you can control. The PRODUCT of those ideas are what we can address as acceptable or unacceptable.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Because religion (especially when organized) tend to divide and perpetuate hatred in some form or another. And proof of that can be seen literally everywhere.
    Differing political views most definitely divide and perpetuate hatred. Proof of that can be seen everywhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Actually no it didn't. As soon as it came to light (well before he won) it was front page news, day after day after day. Hillary made sure of that. And that was just the Rev Wright issue. There was also Michelle Obama's supposed lack of patriotism with something she said that was taken totally out of the context. Then there was the lapel pin issue. And what about the constant mention of his inexperience? I'm sorry but you must have seen a different campaign to what I saw.
    Yes, I saw one where the media treated this candidate with kid gloves. For every instance of negative, how many instances of positive coverage were provided? If these things were so damaging, then how exactly did he end up winning not only the primary, but the general election? I suggest it is obvious that these things were NOT damaging, or balanced off by a much greater amount of fawning adoration.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Did I say that, or even imply that? My point was the word Christian is just a label.
    Yeah, I think you kind of did allude to that, which is why I asked for clarification? Is Christianity just a label for Obama or is he an actual Christian--in your opinion?

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    You're trying to put religion on the same plane with other social ideologies and this is where I disagree.
    Really? Why? Where does it say that Religion is to be a lesser basis for anything? Where does it say that it must be separate from other "social ideologies?"

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Religion isn't based on logic (as you admitted before) and I have a problem having illogical interpreted beliefs shaping the laws of my country especially when those beliefs aren't shared by the majority or when those beliefs clearly involve the restriction of rights and pratices. So yes the source does matter to me as well.
    Correct, Religious belief is not a logical matter. You however are making the mistake of then saying that no belief borne from a Religious origin can be logical. That is a fallacy. Likewise it is a fallacy to claim that non-religious based beliefs are somehow inherently logical.

    You've mentioned the Majority several times. Are you aware that the Majority of Americans are Christians? Not that I think that should mean anything in particular--just that you are making an argument that doesn't favor your claim.

    I believe Murder is wrong and our laws reflect that. I cite religious belief as my source. Is that view illogical? Should we dismiss this, because it has a Religious basis?

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    But to answer your question, NO ENCROACHMENT of rights or beliefs by others is ok regardless of the source of influence. However as a society we must have laws and some form of government to progress and ensure that everyone is treated fairly and is represented (as much as possible) so to have no encroachment at all is impossible. However I just don't see religion's influence as a needed ingredient. IMO, it will only make it worse.
    Well, that's your choice whether to believe in a religion or not. What I'm saying is your choice isn't a reasonable basis for demanding that others make that same choice.

    I agree--no encroachment for any reason is ok, but of course it happens all the time. Right now Government is working hard to create all sorts of restrictions on my freedom, and many others already exist.

    KAM
  12. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #372  
    Quote Originally Posted by astrobill View Post
    Sarah Palin is a failed "sports journalist" and beauty pageant contestant who wasn't qualified to be mayor of Wasila and was CERTAINLY not qualified to govern Alaska (even though it has fewer people than Long Island, NY or Chicago).

    It's a national embarrassment this talentless, ignorant woman was even CONSIDERED for ANY federal office, much less the Vice Presidency.

    Palin is now relentlessly feeding on the right-wing, tea party nutbags in a transparent effort to sell as many books and get as many speaking engagements as she can before even the lunatics grow tired of her.

    Unfortunately, her method of staying in the limelight among her followers involves dangerous demagoguery and frighteningly irresponsible statements that get carried by the national media and serve to mislead the less-educated among us....a common theme in our history (Ref: Joe McCarthy).

    She's truly a scary, dangerous, woman who I hope goes away as soon as possible.
    President Obama is a failed professor and community organizers who wasn't qualified for the Illinois State Senate and CERTAINLY not qualified to be President of the United States.

    It's a national embarrassment this egotistical, incompetent man was even CONSIDERED for ANY federal office, much less the Presidency.

    Obama is now relentlessly feeding on the left-wing, progressive nutbags in a transparent effort to drain the american taxpayer of as much money and gain as much personal powers as possible before even the lunatics grow tired of him.

    Unfortunately, his method of staying in the limelight among his followers involves dangerous demagoguery and frighteningly irresponsible statements that get carried by the national media and serve to mislead the less-educated among us....a common theme in our history (Ref: Joe McCarthy).

    He's truly a scary, dangerous, man who I hope goes away as soon as possible.


    Now, of course, I don't subscribe to such outlandish, extremist views, but its interesting to see how simple it is to make these sorts of claims.

    KAM
  13. #373  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    So Feinstein apparently was being "sneaky" and didn't want to show her hand when asked to see it, so that would also be trying to "hide" it? Feinstein...."sneaky" (check)....tried to hide it (check)....ohhhhh.....but wait, Feinstein is a democrat....I see now. My bad. I always get that part confused. Republicans are held to different rules than democrats.....grrrrr....always get that wrong.
    Did Feinstein attack someone else for using a teleprompter before she was caught with notes scribbled on her hand?? NO! Did Palin attack someone else for using a teleprompter before she was caught with notes scribbled on her hand?? YES! That is the difference. That is where the source of the mockery is coming from.
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  14. #374  
    WOOF.....Sorry to break it to you but kids with health care die too. And if you knew anything at all about Jesus you'd know he doesn't really say that it's a goal to keep everyone alive.
    Well considering jesus was big on us treating one another well, and was a known humanitarian, I think it becomes a big deal when the god party doesnt want to do that, due to monetary interests.

    BERD.....I saw Religion creep into this thread and some comments were difficult for me to refrain from replying to. You have made some I disagree with, but the above is just too evident to ignore. You are absolutely correct on this comment.
    Religion only crept into this thread because it is a campaign point for the right. I'm atheist, (well I support ancient astronaut theories). Although honestly, I think jesus preached alot of correct things and ideals. I have no problem with any religion. My problem is my life being dictated by it. My problem is when a god party does nothing "christlike'', yet runs on the morals and values deceit.
    Also it does make sense, and has nothing to do with god caring. According to the bible, we were given free will. So it has nothing to do with god caring, it has everything to do with us caring about one another, which for the most part we dont.

    Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    KAM, All one has to do is actually look at the true history of religions, then they should all be able to be dispelled. And I dont mean all the terrible things christians and such have done and still do. I mean the actual history of them, all the way back to the sumarians.

    KAM
    Oh? Really--what is the "true history of Religions." What does Christians having done terrible things mean in regards to Religion and proving it or disproving it logically? I'm not saying you are wrong--I just don't see your point.
    I stated NOT the things they have done. You missed my point. I am talking the actual histories of them. Like the jesus story existing long before jesus came around. The great flood story, etc. Many things from the bible come from other religions and ancient stories that predate the bibles timeline. So given that, it becomes hard for me to accept anything in it as fact or for me to walk in blind faith hoping for heaven.

    KAM
    I'm sorry, but you don't have the right to demand that someone's religious beliefs cannot inform their political views. Something infringes on your rights or it doesn't--regardless of the source. It is certainly possible someone could come up with something that infringes on your rights--based on Religion--such as if they demand that you adhere to their beliefs, or can only vote if you are of a given Religion.
    Would you still say that if it were muslims entering office and not christians? I remember all the fuss during the obama is muslim deciet, created by the right. I dont care if a politician is guided down an honest moral choice by his religous views. I do care when my president goes to the ranch and prays on wether we should go to war or not. I do care when Palin says the bible is her states constitution. It does infringe on me, when a congressman stands on the floor and declares climate change false, based soley on something the bible says. I can't go buy a bottle of whiskey in texas on sunday? But I can buy a lotto ticket.

    I like alot of things jesus said. But lets be realistic, you can't guide public policies based on your interpretation of the bible. It's not right. And when you have someone like bachman thinking god told her run for office, and people love that, it becomes scary. Scary that we have lunatics accepted into office based on something like that. If there is a god, he by no means gives a dam if she runs or not. It was cleary voices in her head telling her that, not a god.

    I will say it again, fundamentalism is just that. And wether its muslims,christians,buddists, whatever it is, it becomes crazy when it reaches that level.
  15. #375  
    Had this in my email, thought i would share it......

    545 vs. 300,000,000
    You must read this. It is non-partisan!
    545 vs. 300,000,000


    Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.

    545 PEOPLE
    By Charlie Reese

    Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

    Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

    Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

    You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

    You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

    You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

    You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

    You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

    One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million who are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

    I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

    I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-pickingthing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

    Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
    What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

    The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

    It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

    If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

    If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

    If the Army and Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.

    If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

    There are no insoluble government problems.

    Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

    Those 545 people and they alone, are responsible.

    They and they alone, have the power.

    They and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

    Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

    We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

    Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

    What you do with this article now that you have read it.......... It’s up to you.

    This might be funny if it weren't so true.
    Be sure to read all the way to the end:

    Tax his land,
    Tax his bed,
    Tax the table
    At which he's fed.

    Tax his tractor,
    Tax his mule,
    Teach him taxes
    Are the rule.

    Tax his work,
    Tax his pay,
    He works for peanuts Anyway!
    Tax his cow,
    Tax his goat,
    Tax his pants,
    Tax his coat.
    Tax his ties,
    Tax his shirt,
    Tax his work,
    Tax his dirt.

    Tax his tobacco,
    Tax his drink,
    Tax him if he
    Tries to think.

    Tax his cigars,
    Tax his beers,
    If he cries
    Tax his tears.

    Tax his car,
    Tax his gas,
    Find other ways
    To tax his ***.

    Tax all he has
    Then let him know
    That you won't be done
    Till he has no dough.

    When he screams and hollers;
    Then tax him some more,
    Tax him till
    He's good and sore.
    Then tax his coffin,
    Tax his grave,
    Tax the sod inwhich he's laid.

    Put these words
    Upon his tomb,
    Taxes drove me
    to my doom...'

    When he's gone,
    Do not relax,
    Its time to apply
    The inheritance tax.

    And. More!!!
    Accounts Receivable Tax
    Building Permit Tax
    CDL license Tax
    Cigarette Tax
    Corporate Income Tax
    Dog License Tax
    Excise Taxes
    Federal Income Tax
    Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
    Fishing License Tax
    Food License Tax
    Fuel Permit Tax
    Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
    Gross Receipts Tax
    Hunting License Tax
    Inheritance Tax
    Inventory Tax
    IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
    Liquor Tax
    Luxury Taxes
    Marriage License Tax
    Medicare Tax
    Personal Property Tax
    Property Tax
    Real Estate Tax
    ServiceCharge T ax
    Social Security Tax
    Road Usage Tax
    Sales Tax
    Recreational Vehicle Tax
    School Tax
    State Income Tax
    State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
    Telephone Federal Excise Tax
    Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
    Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
    Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge=2 0Tax
    Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
    Telephone State and Local Tax
    Telephone Usage Charge Tax
    Utility Taxes
    Vehicle License Registration Tax
    Vehicle Sales Tax
    Watercraft Registration Tax
    Well Permit Tax
    Workers Compensation Tax

    STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
    Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the mostprosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
    What happened? Can you spell 'politicians?'
  16. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #376  
    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    I stated NOT the things they have done. You missed my point. I am talking the actual histories of them. Like the jesus story existing long before jesus came around. The great flood story, etc. Many things from the bible come from other religions and ancient stories that predate the bibles timeline. So given that, it becomes hard for me to accept anything in it as fact or for me to walk in blind faith hoping for heaven.
    Ok.

    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    Would you still say that if it were muslims entering office and not christians? I remember all the fuss during the obama is muslim deciet, created by the right. I dont care if a politician is guided down an honest moral choice by his religous views. I do care when my president goes to the ranch and prays on wether we should go to war or not. I do care when Palin says the bible is her states constitution. It does infringe on me, when a congressman stands on the floor and declares climate change false, based soley on something the bible says. I can't go buy a bottle of whiskey in texas on sunday? But I can buy a lotto ticket.
    I have no objectives to Muslims holding public office.
    Someone else's belief doesn't infringe on you--only an ACTION can infringe on you.

    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    I like alot of things jesus said. But lets be realistic, you can't guide public policies based on your interpretation of the bible. It's not right. And when you have someone like bachman thinking god told her run for office, and people love that, it becomes scary. Scary that we have lunatics accepted into office based on something like that. If there is a god, he by no means gives a dam if she runs or not. It was cleary voices in her head telling her that, not a god.
    I don't think someone should guide public policies based on any idea I disagree with--Religious or not.

    Lunatics? I think you are getting a bit outside of reasonable here.

    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    I will say it again, fundamentalism is just that. And wether its muslims,christians,buddists, whatever it is, it becomes crazy when it reaches that level.
    I don't disagree, but I don't think it is reasonable for radical anti-religion to rule our world either. I'm more of a live and let live guy when it comes to personal beliefs. It seems to me that a lot of people out there have a lot of hatred for Religion, while decrying Religious beliefs as leading to hatred.

    I'd suggest that perhaps a little more tolerance on your part might be healthy. You don't have to accept ANYTHING they wish to do that affects you (for any reason), but it seems to me what's being said here is at least pushing that boundary a bit.

    We have Freedom of Religion here, and there is no Religious test of any kind allowed for office. Religious believers are not to be segregated in any way--politically or otherwise. They have as much right to engage in the political process as anyone else. Perhaps you understand this just fine, but what I'm hearing here makes me wonder a bit.

    KAM
  17. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #377  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    the "legal" persecution and pursuit of Clinton was contrived by many of the same right wing zealots who are so breathless in their love of Palin.
    All the "quotations" in the "world" "won't" change the "facts".

    Those right wing zealots ceaselessly pursued Clinton from the day he was elected, making endless ersatz accusations on matters like Whitewater, "travelgate", Foster's suicide, and Clinton's extramarital explorations. They finally succeeded in finding an event so embarrassing and humiliating to him that they were able to maneuver him into a questionable verbal tangle, which was ultimately sufficient for a minor legal sanction.
    Are you guys still ignoring the severity sexual harassment after all the years that women suffered under an oppressive male-dominated hierarchy? Perhaps your kind doesn't realize that we humans are trying to rise above all that .

    Many of these same right wing zealots have been behind the: Obama doesn't have a birth certificate, that he's a moslem, that he pals around with terrorists etc. etc.
    The Masters of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, no doubt.

    I see a trend here.
    As do I.
  18. #378  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Here is why it is relevant. She mocked Obama for using a teleprompter just minutes before she got caught using her notes. If she would not have bashed teleprompter use, then this would not have been an issue. Even if she would have wrote it on a note card, it would have been less of an issue. But no, she tried to be sneaky and hide it because she has painted herself into a corner on this. She brought this upon herself.
    You REALLY don't see the difference between 5 words written on the hand as reminders and ENTIRE SPEECHES that are read word-for-word at almost every single appearance? Seriously? 5 words = 500 words. Really?

    OK, if you insist on maintaining this attack, it means you either:

    (a) believe there's no difference between 5 words and teleprompter-dependence (which makes you look less intelligent), or

    (b) it shows that you're willing to wage an attack based upon something that most average people see as a complete non-issue (which makes you look hateful).

    I know people that will write notes on their hands if they can't find a piece of paper when they need it and I've never thought they were incompetent. If it works for them, fine. I guess I'm just more tolerant...
  19. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #379  
    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    LOL, There is no research there. You mention logic, logic doesn't factor in believing an invisible man, created a flesh man to save us 2 thousand years ago. Also the bible and christiantiy is spotty anyway. many books were removed, they tried to destroy the nag hamadi library. Then theres things like the fact that reincarnation was taught in christianty, then 300 years after jesus died, it was voted out of the religion, for ridiculous reasons. Plus no miracles have ever been proven. Not to mention the entire story of jesus was originally an ancient 'pagan' story. But if it makes your life better....
    Wow, lots of assertions and not a single fact! Nice!
  20. #380  
    Who would of thought Palin ink scribbles could be such a springboard for all these pent-up frustrations. I guess it shows how tensions have really grown.

Posting Permissions