Kingdom on Earth (Re: Barack Obama comments)

When did I say it was immoral to have sex with animals (and I presume you mean animals other than humans)? You may think it's immoral...but I never said that I did. Hey, if the sheep don't care, why should I care? I'm confused...what's your point? Are you now comparing gay marriage to being a carnivore? But I'm not talking about morals. I'm trying to figure out why you can't see the differences between gay marriage, having sex with a sheep, and having sex with a one year old child. To equate them is ridiculous.To get this somewhat back on topic...you said in another post that the clincher for you would be whether or not Obama could run the Country effectively. So, would it matter to you one way or another if he were gay? And let’s further suppose that he then went on to say that as President, he’d fight for a Constitutional Amendment to allow for gay marriage. What then?

who said it was moral to eat meat? Or to slaughter cattle (and all other animals we eat)?Or did you think someone has said it is moral to slaughter the animals? Because that is what your argument is now resting on.And then there is a separate dilemma--should I kill the cow and eat it to survive, or should I starve because it is imoral to kill it?Further, even if consent is a slippery slope argument it does not necessarily diminish it's ability to qualify what is moral or imoral or even amoral. The two are separate ideas and arguments. Not quite sure which fallacy your employing, but it's there.

To EVERYONE: If people are interested in a debate on consent (simple or informed) let's please open a new thread on it. I will happily answer the recent points made here by Flies, Nator, Jar, and lately Kuresu. Until one is opened I'm going to bite my tongue. But if one is not, then don't go claiming later that your arguments have been established as valid.To Flies: I agree that Obama has been uhmmmm... acting more the politician. But I still agree with his statements of intent, his eloquence, and his demeanor. I think the only two people who haven't slid into the crowd are Kucinic, and Richardson. Its weird but I worry that they couldn't get elected, despite being better candidates.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

i wonder why only politicians seem to run for public office...as it is, having been looking at websites and platforms (god, i'm glad i vote when there's internet.) i really appreciate that he clearly and fully states his intended programs. he doesn't leave much to the imagination, and he doesn't use some vague paragraph about what a great leader he is. he's very honest about his plans, which seem to be the standard democratic answer, but he states them all clearly nonetheless. i like that he puts everything out on the table. you know. except that stupid "faith and politics" page with his crackpot speech. i'm sure it sounds much better that it was portrayed, but i'm just not ready to deal with it yet. oh yeah, and he's the only person i've heard talking about the congo. cause yeah. we did nothing in 94 in rwanda and it's still there, just next door, and it's being encouraged by the ethnically centered, tyrannical regime that came into power in rwanda.

Kucinich, while perhaps the most up front and honest candidate is, I feel, unelectable. Plus, I do not agree with some of his major tenets. The war, for example. While I'm opposed to the war, (and think (wish) Bush and Cheney should both be impeached for their actions regarding not only the war, but a few other "events" as well...can you say Valerie Plame), I am also of the opinion that we simply cannot pull out. Don't take this to mean that I think we should follow along at the status quo...far from it. But I'm afraid that we also cannot leave. I think we are stuck there for the foreseeable future. And just to show what a sexist pig I can be...I will state for the record that if Kucincih were elected President, we'd also have a damned nice First Lady .As for Richardson...to be honest, I do not know enough about him yet. I will look more deeply at each candidate as our own Michigan Primary draws nearer.As for Obama (again)...I just don't feel that I trust him anymore. But hey, the vote isn't tomorrow.

Agreed in total...

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

You know, I want to know why Kucinich is unelectable. Not that I am disagreeing with you. I hear lots of people say it, and when I look at him I think the same damn thing... while agreeing with him as much as or more than other candidates! If this guy could rise to win the elected offices he has, and at his age manage to score a babe of that hotness, why can't he score with the US??? I wants to know!Also, I agree with you on Iraq. Though 100% against the war itself, once we broke it, we bought it. If people feel upset now, don't take it out on the Iraqis, take it out on Bush and the neocons... heheheh, make them serve some tours over there as "diplomats".My one caveat on that position is that if the Iraqis want us out, or if it can be shown our presence is no longer useful at all to them, then I'd agree to move out.The fact that Bush has recently been working out agreements for a long term presence, just goes to show how we'll be there, whether we're needed or not.{AbE: I wonder if Kucinich could win if his wife would agree to a spread in Playboy if he makes it. Well maybe that's have to be Hustler to get a large republican turn out as well.}Edited by Silent H, : spread

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

because he's weird. forget his politics, it's very, very hard to get elected if you're not tall and handsome and a white, protestant male. and, he's weird. it has nothing to do with politics; most people choose people they think they like. the fact that people have a platform misses most people. he's small, he's a little funny looking, he's kinda whiney, and let's face it, he's got an ethnic name. oh, and his wife is a redhead and has a pierced tongue (according to fox news, that means she'll probably suck your dick, according to chris rock). fox takes the initiative to mention that she's a brit, i dunno, does she have an accent? i'm sure someone's concerned about her loyalties.he's not electable, because people are really not interested in policy.

Sadly, this is all too true in most cases. That's why giving platitudes, like, "I'm gonna end this war," "Together, we can revitalize this nation," "Read my lips, no new taxes," etc, gets people elected without having the candidate actually explain how they are supposedly going to do it.As long as it sounds pretty, and you look pretty, you stand a better chance than someone who stands for real reform and has the technical know-how to accomplish it.Blech... Americans are so fickle.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

and this is the (another) reason why hillary will never get elected. she's got cankles.

I don't know. She is doing well in the straw polls; even better than her closest contender, Obama.I think another thing that sways fickle voters is exposure. Kucinnich is basically screwed because no one knows who he is.Look at the Republican straw poll results. Guliani is ahead. Why? Probably because people know who he is because of 9/11.Every one knows Hilary. Sure, old girl might have some cankles and a scary cackle to boot, but at least people know who she is. And fickle American voters are too lazy to actually do any investigating on who they want as president.Its really kinda of scary.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

9/11!well, here's what i see. giuliani has no pull with social conservatives. huckabee is gaining momentum, but has no attraction whatsoever for economic conservatives. oprah, unfortunately has a strong pull on american women (unfortunately because she's crazy, not for who she supports) and i think she'll pull a lot of the female vote away from hillary (gender is no reason to support a candidate, and i really, really dislike her stand on censorship). further, she's said nothing about faith, and, even with democrats, that's important. we'll know better after the primaries, but i think hillary is gonna lose her name-based lead. we democrats may love clinton, but she is no bill. albeit, hillary has a stronger position with black voters (funny, that), i think oprah might make a big difference.the democrats are the team to watch, cause i really don't see huckabee winning, or ron paul, and the fundies will never support giuliani. ever. even though he's changed his stances on some things, he cheated on his wife. really.

They also don't like his flip-flop on abortion, which McCain, Romney, and Thompson have also done. Its very evident that its a political move, not one felt from the heart. I don't really like any of the candidates all that much, but so far he's the only one I'm even considering at this juncture. Yeah, I know what you mean. It'll either be Obama or Hilary for her, I think. And what is her stance on censorship? She usually does. (How has that show not been canceled by now?!? She's been on the air for like 15 years now).If this election is anything like most elections, a Democrat will be in office. It seems to go in alternating cycles pretty consistently-- certainly not the rule, but its interesting to think why it is.George Bush (R), Bill Clinton (D), George Bush Sr (R), Ronald Reagan (R), Jimmy Carter (D), Gerald Ford (R), Richard Nixon (R), Lyndon Johnson (D), John Kennedy (D), Dwight Eisenhower (R), Harry Truman (D), etc No, I don't think very many conservatives will vote for Giuliani for a plethora of reasons. I'm pretty sure a Dem will take this election. Question is, which one?

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

oprah is currently campaigning for obama. [npr]
listen, it's easy. the bullshit she's been on about on cds and movies and video games for 20 years. she's absolutely unconcerned with freedom of speech and it is my opinion that censorship of any kind is the single biggest way to undermine democracy. if a parent can't look at the cover of a cd with a half naked man carrying a gun and tell that it's something they shouldn't buy for their 8 year old kid, then that's their issue. we should probably know by the end of march, unfortunately.

Personally I really hope a Republican wins, preferably a nutjob like Hunter.Frankly I think we have pretty much wasted all the economic slack in the system and there is a high probability we are heading into a major economic nightmare. Since it was the Republican economic policies that got us into this mess, particularly the criminal Reagan, it sure would be nice if one of the same folk were in power when the US tanks.If we can get a Republican elected this time and the country survive four more years of mismanagement, there is a great chance that the Republican party can be assigned to the trash heap of history.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion