|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,473 Year: 3,730/9,624 Month: 601/974 Week: 214/276 Day: 54/34 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Huckabee | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.2 |
Oh, right, which explains why they so fervently go after Al Qaeda, while those on the Left harbor them????? Slander. Immediately provide evidence that liberals as a group are guilty of harboring Al Qaeda, or retract. Bush, on the other hand, doesn't seem too concerned with Bin laden himself...
quote: quote: If a homosexual couple wants legal recognition, I have personally have no problem with that. The problem for me comes when someone tries to redefine what a marriage is and to try and amend the Constitution. The word "marriage" is not found once in the Constitution of the United States of America. There is no Constitutional "right to marry." No redefinition of the Constitution is required, in any way, to allow homosexuals to marry. Rather, redefinition of the Constitution is necessary to deny a single group fair treatment under the law, which is what denying marriage licenses to consenting adults is.
And yet no one cries foul ball that the Constitution is being trampled there. No, its only in reverse that anyone gives a whit. Isn't that interesting... The Constitution is being trampled, and people are upset about it - refusing to grand gay couples a marriage license (and still call it a marriage license) is a violation of fair treatment under the law. Marriage licenses, as issued by the State, have nothing to do with religion or religious freedom, since people of all religions and Atheists can get receive a marriage license.
If homosexuals really just want legal recognition, then they would have no objection to it. Would that seem like a fair compromise? Compromise is not an option when one side of the argument is simple, blatantly, wrong, immoral, and unconstitutional. Seeking the middle ground is not always acceptable. What would have been the result of a compromise over women's right to vote, or the civil rights movement? Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I was right in my predictions about pretty much everything bad that has come out of the Iraq war: Posted by me, here, on March 27, 2003, exactly one week after the start of the war.
The world SAFER? I predict that this war will only make things much less safe for Americans. I predict that it will make it much more likely that a fundamentalist moslem dictatorship will take over in Iraq eventually as well as promoting radical anti-American sentiment throughout the Arab and Moslem world, making terrorism more likely. I think that we will have to work very, very hard to gain back our prestige and credibility internationally. I think this war has made our future dealings with North Korea even more difficult. I must be a military strategy genious. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1366 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I must be a military strategy genious. what a brilliantly ironic typo. that's the thing i hate the most, really, when politicians try to excuse their votes for the war now. "nobody knew then..." they say. well, i knew. you knew. everybody at the protests i attended knew. why didn't they? i don't want to vote for a politician that got it wrong (but at least was smart enough to realize his mistake). i want a politician at least as smart as you or i, who isn't suckered by lying warmongers in the first place. bush may say "fool me once, shame on you..." but i'd much rather someone who just isn't a fool in the first place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Women relegated to being nothing more than mobile uteruses sounds like a Christian Utopia, I know.
quote: Yes. The fact that he is taken seriously at all, anywhere in the country is frankly terrifying and disgusting to me. I am ashamed of so many Americans for being so ignorantly, gleefully Fascist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Oh, right, which explains why they so fervently go after Al Qaeda, while those on the Left harbor them????? I assume you can provide names and dates to support that assertion.
The problem for me comes when someone tries to redefine what a marriage is and to try and amend the Constitution. You didn't really say that did you? The ones trying to change the laws and the Constitution are those opposing Same sex Marriage. They are also the ones changing the definition. Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: ...except for places like Sweden, which has a much better educated populace and a much higher standard of living than we have here in the US. Right? And, last I checked, US citizens no longer enjoy the right of habeas corpus, are not free from secret government wiretapping, not free from being "disappeared", are not free from all sorts of rights that people in other countries still enjoy. We are becomeing much more like a South American banana republic than a free democratic republic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: No, not "invariably". People are only ridiculed if their beliefs are worthy of ridicule. Take President Carter. He is a devout, practicing Christian that has stated many times that his decades of helping and empowering underprivilaged people and in being a moderating voice in world conflicts are a direct manifestation of his religious beliefs. Only the most cynical, coldhearted (and lame) people ridicule Carter for the amazing work he has done. George Bush, however, wages a lot of needless war, ignores an awful lot of worldwide suffering, and has, by all accounts, had no hesitation or difficulty in executing a lot of Texans for someone who professes to follow the "Prince of Peace". Actions speak much louder than words, and most of the time, when people are "ridiculed" for their personal religious beliefs, it is because what they are really doing is being ridiculed for wanting to force everybody else, by power of law, to adhere to their personal religious beliefs. Or their personal moral code based upon their particular religious beliefs. Like the Christian version of Sharia. That is worthy of ridicule.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: damn.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1366 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
's ok. i do it all the time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: quote: See, here you are wrong, so very wrong in your facts again (the second quote being an offensive, outrageous, Coulteresque slander), and I am willing to bet that you will ignore the rebuttals/corrections by Rhavin and jar as if they never happened. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
we're all well aware that you think that just because a group of people have "always been discriminated against" means they should continue to be discriminated against. I don't think people should be discriminated against, or receive special compensation. I like to remain neutral on such issues.
quote: bullshit. How could that possibly NOT be the case? “First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2285 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
How could that possibly NOT be the case?
I hate to pull out the Nazi card so soon, but are you saying Hitler's christianity defined his moral outlook? soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
I must be a military strategy genious. no, just someone with some common sense There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.2 |
but a persons religion defines their moral outlook. quote: How could that possibly NOT be the case? Well, for instance, I have no religion, yet have a system of ethics and morality. How could that be the case for me, or any other Atheist? Aside from that, NJ, the fact is, morality hasn't come directly from the Bible for a long time. Morality changes with time independently. Once, Christians thought Inquisition was okay. Now it's not. They thought it was okay to forcibly convert natives when new land was discovered. Now, they (well, most of them) would be horrified by such a concept. Once, divorce was considered a huge sin. Now, divorcees are almost universally accepted. Once, women were treated as property in marriage. Now, that's (usually) not the case. Did the scriptures change? Did the religion itself change? People decide morality for themselves. The Bible is only used to justify what they already think to themselves and others. Fortunately for them, the Bible is so riddled with contradictions and excuses to overlook whatever bits and pieces you want that Christians tend to not have a problem finding support for any position at all, from racism to charity work to snake handling. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024