Your Vote, Your Reasons

[MannyIsGod]

it's easy. simply reply "get off the race crap!!!"

I predicted this replay in an email to Jekka the moment I made my post.

But here's a question for you, Viva.

Do you believe the African American male is viewed as a net positive or net negative figure in our society?

[AntiChrist]

This not the United Christian States...but THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA!! We are ALL Americans be us white, black, brown, yellow, red, republican, democrat, independent, green, Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Jewish, non-denomination, male or female. THAT is what America is all about and if we pull together we can accomplish great things and the time is now. YES WE CAN!!!!!


now what you hear is not a test--i'm rappin to the beat
and me, the groove, and my friends are gonna try to move your feet
see i am wonder mike and i like to say hello
to the black, to the white, the red, and the brown, the purple and yellow

but first i gotta bang bang the boogie to the boogie
say up jump the boogie to the bang bang boogie
let's rock, you dont stop
rock the riddle that will make your body rock

[BacktoBasics]

She completely fails to realize that eliminating religion would likely eliminate a large portion of war, death and destruction this world sees.

[Jekka]

I predicted this replay in an email to Jekka the moment I made my post.

True story.

[RandomGuy]

Obama realistically addressing the religious make-up of our diverse country bothers you?

Well... to be honest, it bothers me a bit, too. He forgot Hindu.

Don't forget the native american religions, b'nai b'rith, vodoo, various african religions, confucianism, daoism, a shinto or two, polynesian polytheism, wicca, sufi, gnosticism, mormons, and whatever else Christian sects that aren't considered real "Christians"...

Just off the top of my head.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

I'm not sure why you guys are trying to argue with her about the separation of church and state.

Do lulz count?

[AntiChrist]

Don't forget the native american religions, b'nai b'rith, vodoo, various african religions, confucianism, daoism, a shinto or two, polynesian polytheism, wicca, sufi, gnosticism, mormons, and whatever else Christian sects that aren't considered real "Christians"...

Just off the top of my head.


Don't forget Obamaism.

[Damien]

Don't forget Obamaism.

You only wish you were the anti-christ. I've got your number.

[DWest30]

Don't forget Obamaism.

And CP3ism! :lol:

[clambake]

Don't forget Obamaism.

as it turns out, your avatar is all the proof angel needs.

[RandomGuy]

One has to tip one's hat to Angel Luv for sticking with the thread.

I don't agree with her, but she has been pretty gracious in the face of a lot of criticism.

In that, she is probably a better person than I am. :toast

[angel_luv]

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/januaryweb-only/104-32.0.html?start=2

"I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn't 'fall out in church' as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn't want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals."

I'm not sure how much clearer that could be.



Thank you for posting.

A sincere question:
Have you read anything in which Senator Obama states that he believes Jesus is the only way?
I would personally like to know whether or not he and I have that belief in common.

Also, the above comments were made to a Christian magazine... so how much of a testimony is that really. How does that alone suffice in attempting to makethe rest of the country aware of his faith in Christ, as many of our citizens do not read Christian literature or those who do ( like myself) still may have missed that particular article?

Again, I have the same complaint about McCain. The only reason McCain is getting my vote is because he is pro-life.

[Tully365]

The problem is that crazy people have been allowed to define what it means to be "Christian".

Most good Christians don't know this, but kinda go along, because it is emotionally appealing groupthink..

It seems that all believers in any system of religion, philosophy, or lifestyle tend to mold and contort the system to their minds in ways that put the unstoppable stamp of personality on it. One example: Rush Limbaugh, Al Sharpton, Mother Teresa, Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kennedy, Leo Tolstoy, and Charles Darwin are all members of the same religion-- Christianity.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm not sure why you guys are trying to argue with her about the separation of church and state. She already said she'd vote for a religious person without hesitation. No matter what kind of leader they were or what policies they had, she'd vote for him/her. She wants a Theocracy.

I'll put it this way. I feel far more comfortable that Angel Luv - whom you believe to be crazy - would be more open minded and civil in a discussion than you. What does that tell you?

[Damien]

I'm pro-life too.

[Extra Stout]

She completely fails to realize that eliminating religion would likely eliminate a large portion of war, death and destruction this world sees.
People would simply find another pretext for murder and mayhem.

[RandomGuy]

And CP3ism! :lol:

the Flying Spagetti Monster, the Church of the Subgenius, the Force, whatever it is that the Klingons believe in... :lol

[MannyIsGod]

Again, I have the same complaint about McCain. The only reason McCain is getting my vote is because he is pro-life.

Is this a conclusion you've come to recently because this is not what you've been saying?

[DarkReign]

I'm pro-life too.

Of course you are. In the small chance that more than one antiChrist could exist, its better to be safe than sorry, no?

[Shastafarian]

I'll put it this way. I feel far more comfortable that Angel Luv - whom you believe to be crazy - would be more open minded and civil in a discussion than you. What does that tell you?

It tells me you're a biased person who thinks someone with an african-american parent is racist.

[MannyIsGod]

People would simply find another pretext for murder and mayhem.

Well I dispute the notion that we'd ever be able to remove religion from our lives. That would basically amount to have the answer to every possible question which is simply incomprehensible.

However, in that regard I do believe if we ever did have the answer to every possible question there would be no war or general strife.

[DWest30]

Thank you for posting.

A sincere question:
Have you read anything in which Senator Obama states that he believes Jesus is the only way?
I would personally like to know whether or not he and I have that belief in common.

Also, the above comments were made to a Christian magazine... so how much of a testimony is that really. How does that alone suffice in attempting to makethe rest of the country aware of his faith in Christ, as many of our citizens do not read Christian literature or those who do ( like myself) still may have missed that particular article?

Again, I have the same complaint about McCain. The only reason McCain is getting my vote is because he is pro-life.

OK, Ive tried my best to rationally engage in a discussion here, but there's nothing coming back that doesnt appear to be a constitutionally prohibited religious test for the Presidency.

My prediction: Obama by a significant majority but not a landslide (375+ ECV). Senate moves more democratic but (hopefully) not a fillibuster-proof majority.

House is always a tossup.

[MannyIsGod]

It tells me you're a biased person who thinks someone with an african-american parent is racist.

No one ever claimed reading comprehension was your strong point so what can I say?

[BacktoBasics]

I still can't figure out why she thinks that this election should be about religious beliefs over the well being of her country.

This is the fundamental problem here.

[Extra Stout]

Well I dispute the notion that we'd ever be able to remove religion from our lives. That would basically amount to have the answer to every possible question which is simply incomprehensible.

However, in that regard I do believe if we ever did have the answer to every possible question there would be no war or general strife.
People don't attack you because their questions aren't answered. They attack you because you have something they want and they mean to take it from you.

Whenever somebody figures out how to end selfishness and greed, war might end.

[DWest30]

I still can't figure out why she thinks that this election should be about religious beliefs over the well being of her country.

This is the fundamental problem here.

To her, religious beliefs define the well being of the country.

[RandomGuy]

The only reason McCain is getting my vote is because he is pro-life.

So if the Anti-Christ was pro-life...?

My thoughts:

I don't think Obama is really that religious at all, but in America you can't come out and admit that you aren't a reverent bible-thumper.

His mother was not really a religious type, he never really met his real father, and most accounts of his early adult life at college don't indicate any real emphasis on religion.

He is probably mildly religious, and that just won't do for some people.

[Shastafarian]

But where you see a gut feeling I see a psycological and sociological fear based upon teh color of the mans skin. And while you make think I'm calling you a racisist - and I may very well be



Manny,

First of all, you do realize I am half black, right?




No one ever claimed reading comprehension was your strong point so what can I say?

Me fail at redin comprehentin? That's unpossible!

[angel_luv]

Angel I guess my point is that government can no more make a believer out of an unbeliever than any other form of coercion so I'm not sure what the value in oppressing the beliefs of others would be in our country?

I also wonder if you can think of any of our nations leaders - political in nature - that have met the standards you are currently setting for our 2 presidential candidates?

Likely not.

That does it, no candidate past or this election gets my vote. :lol

Our ( so sorry to use this word) fundamental difference is that for me faith determines my politics and to most of you faith and politics should not be combined.

We could have this arguement for eternity.

I respect each of your right to have your own view, for your own reason and to vote accordingly.

The majority of you seem willing to show me the same consideration for which I am grateful.

No arguement I give in this thread is going to satisfy the masses.

So if anyone wants to know about my faith or views, feel free to message me.
But I am no longer going to post in this thread because I am just aggravating people by rehashing beliefs of mine which you are already all aware of.


Thanks to all for taking the time to talk with me.

[Tully365]

I'll put it this way. I feel far more comfortable that Angel Luv - whom you believe to be crazy - would be more open minded and civil in a discussion than you. What does that tell you?

Yes, I agree completely. This is supposed to be an open society, and I support angel luv's right to speak her thoughts freely. I don't agree with her on many issues, but that doesn't matter to me. The whole point of dissent being allowed in a society is to bring disagreements to the table for discussion-- not to turn every debate into a name-calling contest.

[Shastafarian]

No one ever claimed reading comprehension was your strong point so what can I say?

Why do you feel the need to personally attack me? I see a pattern here. You come after me when I have a "heated" conversation with timvp, whottt, and now angel_luv. I get it now. Whenever I offend one of your internet crushes you hop to and try and defend them!!! Sorry man, I didn't realize. If you just tell me who you love here I'll stay away from them.

[Extra Stout]

I still can't figure out why she thinks that this election should be about religious beliefs over the well being of her country.

This is the fundamental problem here.
There are people whose goal is to replace the existing form of government of the U.S. with one that is explicitly Christian. Only Christians would be able to hold office. Others would be tolerated in society, but would be secondary in stature.

angel probably hasn't thought through her beliefs to that degree, but I'm guessing if that coup happened, she'd applaud it.

[Shastafarian]

Yes, I agree completely. This is supposed to be an open society, and I support angel luv's right to speak her thoughts freely. I don't agree with her on many issues, but that doesn't matter to me. The whole point of dissent being allowed in a society is to bring disagreements to the table for discussion-- not to turn every debate into a name-calling contest.

Where did I call her a name?

[clambake]

isn't it strange that her boyfriend hasn't entered the fray.......even after she spoke for him?

[DarkReign]

People would simply find another pretext for murder and mayhem.

Absolutely true on all accounts. Blaming the world's ills (or even historical ills)on religion is limited in scope.

It is in our nature to be violent, selfish and otherwise deviant towards our fellow man.

But, imo, that doesnt absolve the Church of the past of its sins.

To be frank, I just cant understand why some (most?) people would believe so whole-heartedly in a man-made institution. Sure, one can claim they only believe in the Bible, but do you attend church?

Its participating and propogating a mechanism of control. The earliest form of non-violent control this species has ever known. I am NOT saying the Bible is horrible, or that religioius people are insane or delusional.

My entire problem with faith is NOT faith itself. On the contrary, I believe in a grand creator (to an extent). My entire problem is organized religion. I think its a farce, I think its a man-made selfish intreptation of the universe and our place in it. If you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, thats totally acceptable. You believe in Jesus and the Holy Trinity, youre awesome.

But dont expect others to believe what you believe just because your beliefs came with an instruction manual. Thats bullshit.

[MannyIsGod]

People don't attack you because their questions aren't answered. They attack you because you have something they want and they mean to take it from you.

Whenever somebody figures out how to end selfishness and greed, war might end.

We're delving into philosophy here, but what would be the point of selfishness and greed to a society where everything was known? I just don't see how they could jive or how there would be any want in such a society.

[MannyIsGod]

Me fail at redin comprehentin? That's unpossible!

Taking statements out of their original context to try to prove a point certainly reinforces my assertion.

[DarkReign]

We're delving into philosophy here, but what would be the point of selfishness and greed to a society where everything was known? I just don't see how they could jive or how there would be any want in such a society.

:lol Hasnt this thread in its entirety been about philosophy ultimately?

[Shastafarian]

Taking statements out of their original context to try to prove a point certainly reinforces my assertion.

She has one african-american parent. You were playing Psychologist (what a surprise for an internet know-it-all) and asserted that even if she didn't realize it, you thought she harbored some irrational fear of black mean. That means that although she may not know it, she has racist tendencies. Care to clear things up Dr. Phil?

[nkdlunch]

well sorry but angel is missing a few screws. The ones that make logical thinking possible.

- First says obama might be the antichrist.
- Then said, all Obama had to do is show his devotion to God and that would rule him out from being the antichrist.
- Then after countless of proofs of that, she now says Obama the "antichrist" could be faking when talking like this

the poor girl is missing something up there that is preventing her from adding up. Like someone else said, at least she's not armed.

I would suggest she talks to her parents/family/friends/priest. Someone hopefully will be able to guide her.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I predicted this replay in an email to Jekka the moment I made my post.
well you are all knowing.


Do you believe the African American male is viewed as a net positive or net negative figure in our society?
well i can't speak for society as a whole so i can't answer the question the way you're leading me to answer. i'm sure you already have a reply ready, but i can say this. i give every person a clean slate until they screw up. normally i allow them to screw up quite a bit before i see them for what that person is. notice i say person, not race, society, culture, what not. i'll let people with the same mindset as you to pull the race card. it's a cop out. plain and simple. i'll be more than happy to support and vote for a black/man or woman, or any race for that matter, that runs for the presidency, but this time around i won't be voting for that black man. all races have their positive and negative figures. any person should know that.

[Shastafarian]

well you are all knowing.

:lol

I'm glad I'm not the only one who has noticed he believes this.

[Extra Stout]

To be frank, I just cant understand why some (most?) people would believe so whole-heartedly in a man-made institution. Sure, one can claim they only believe in the Bible, but do you attend church?

Its participating and propogating a mechanism of control. The earliest form of non-violent control this species has ever known. I am NOT saying the Bible is horrible, or that religioius people are insane or delusional.

My entire problem with faith is NOT faith itself. On the contrary, I believe in a grand creator (to an extent). My entire problem is organized religion. I think its a farce, I think its a man-made selfish intreptation of the universe and our place in it. If you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, thats totally acceptable. You believe in Jesus and the Holy Trinity, youre awesome.
Depends on the church. I can't say mine exercises "control" unless "control" is "hey, since we all love Jesus, let's get together and rebuild hurricane-damaged homes" or "let's raise money for this school in Kenya for AIDS orphans."

There's preaching about practicing self-denial too. I guess if people don't like it, next week they go down the road to the next one.

The ones that in the past have really tried to control people would be more like the RCC, CRC, some Southern Baptists, etc. where they really lay the guilt on thick.

[RandomGuy]

It would seem to me that if there were a real anti-christ who was bent on leading people astray the easiest way to do that in the US would be to be solidly pro-life.

That would lull the mental defenses of the faithful enough to get them to go along with you. Give them a little of what they want, then, while they aren't looking, sneak things in that corrupt them. Because you have built up a lot of "cred" with fundamentalists, they won't notice things like thought police until it is too late.

Institute policies that they believe in like school prayer, and so forth, so you can have a free hand to define what that prayer is. Over time, change it just a little here and there, and start pointing the finger at those who aren't fervent enough.

Start herding the people who aren't fervent enough or who aren't even christian into ghettos. After a while, this becomes socially accepted, so you start snipping at the edges for fringe sects who don't quite believe the mainstream othodoxy that you have instituted through your mandatory prayers.

You will have created tendencies for the population to go along with such oppression, and that you are the only "truly" righteous leader, by precedent.

[cheguevara]

well sorry but angel is missing a few screws.

a few???

[Extra Stout]

We're delving into philosophy here, but what would be the point of selfishness and greed to a society where everything was known? I just don't see how they could jive or how there would be any want in such a society.
Resources would still be finite.

[BacktoBasics]

Why do you feel the need to personally attack me? I see a pattern here. You come after me when I have a "heated" conversation with timvp, whottt, and now angel_luv. I get it now. Whenever I offend one of your internet crushes you hop to and try and defend them!!! Sorry man, I didn't realize. If you just tell me who you love here I'll stay away from them.
You should attack me and see what he says.

[Tully365]

:lol Hasnt this thread in its entirety been about philosophy ultimately?

:lol Isn't everything?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

:lol

I'm glad I'm not the only one who has noticed he believes this.
meteorologist, economist, political scientist. the list grows each and every day.

[Shastafarian]

meteorologist, economist, political scientist. the list grows each and every day.

You forgot Psychologist.

[rascal]

I will never apologize for saying Jesus is the One and Only way.

I may suspect incorrectly about Obama being the anti- christ, but I am ONE HUNDRED percent, without a doubt, never changing my mind sure of who Jesus is.


So are you saying all other religions other than what you believe are a path to hell and damnation? Thats the type of thinking that turns off rationality. Your literally taking a line or two from the Bible and misinterpreting it. When Jesus says i am the way and only through me why could it not mean his basic teachings and message is the way.

Jesus teachings are basically the same message in other religions.
In your close mindedness all Jewish Hindus Muslims ect. are doomed.

Are you not against the war in Iraq (Jesus preached peace)? Would you not vote in the president(Obama) more likely to put an end to it?

[MannyIsGod]

Resources would still be finite.

Nuh uh! Wouldn't the question of where to get adequate resources from have to be answered in an all answers known society?

Man I'd hate to get a degree in philosophy.

[BacktoBasics]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think Manny was calling her racist like "she hates black people". Its was racism thought by definition not based in actual color. I skimmed a lot so I could be wrong.

[Shastafarian]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think Manny was calling her racist like "she hates black people". Its was racism thought by definition not based in actual color. I skimmed a lot so I could be wrong.

Yeah I know. Subconscious racist fear I guess you would call it. Even though one of her parents is black.


She has one african-american parent. You were playing Psychologist (what a surprise for an internet know-it-all) and asserted that even if she didn't realize it, you thought she harbored some irrational fear of black mean. That means that although she may not know it, she has racist tendencies. Care to clear things up Dr. Phil?

[MannyIsGod]

meteorologist, economist, political scientist. the list grows each and every day.


You forgot Psychologist.

And you both forgot pollster.

But the real question is, why do you guys have trouble proving me wrong in areas of fact? And when I'm proven wrong in such areas, do I acknowledge it or do I simply go on as though it never happened?

Its funny, I've never had a problem earning the respect of the smartest posters on this forum but for some reason the mental midgets love to toss around the "know it all" as if I'm supposed to be ashamed of having multiple interests that I seek out information on.

My next goal in life is to become a private investigator like Shasta.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Thanks to all for taking the time to talk with me.

angel_luv, I say this with as much respect as I can muster from a person who only knows you by this thread. There's a really great Abraham Lincoln quote. "If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will." I can't help but notice that at every turn you are looking for the bad in Obama even when you have no evidence. When presented with evidence contrary to your bias, you move to a new misgiving. I don't think any of us really thought we could change your mind, but I certainly cannot fathom the lengths you go to to demand a civic choice conform to your personal religious view.

You have maintained that no one here has the right to disenfranchise you from your right to vote as an American. I agree. But in reading all you've posted, the obvious truth to me is that you are determined to disenfranchise yourself. You might want to pray on Matthew 22:21 and how it applies to you as both a citizen of the nation of the United States of America and as a follower of Christ's teachings.

On a personal note, thank you for electing not to vote rather than cast an unsure ballot. Some people might consider it a cop out, but I think it is a responsible choice.

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah I know. Subconscious racist fear I guess you would call it. Even though one of her parents is black.

This is pretty funny because you have no idea who Angel was raised by and I do.

[RandomGuy]

Resources would still be finite.

That they are.

But if energy were free, resources would essentially be infinite.

The sun puts out more energy in 2 seconds than mankind has used in its entire history.

If we somehow truly find a way to tap even a small fraction of that energy, we would have what would seem to be infinite resources.

All material goods flow from some sort of energy. Before oil, it was coal, and before coal, it was water/wind.

The only reason the modern world exists is because we have found ever more efficient methods of extracting energy.

If you had all the free energy you wanted, you could extract thousands or tens of thousands of tons of gold from seawater or very weak ore strikes, making gold, as a trading commodity worthless.

If you had all the free energy you wanted, you could easily build massive desalinization plants to make all the fresh water for irrigation you would anywhere in the world.

Just something from the top of my head. I think about energy a lot. Sorry.

[Extra Stout]

Nuh uh! Wouldn't the question of where to get adequate resources from have to be answered in an all answers known society?

Man I'd hate to get a degree in philosophy.
Where can we get more resources?

On another planet.

How do we get there?

Build a spaceship.

Can I do that?

No.

Why?

You don't have enough resources.

[MannyIsGod]

well you are all knowing.


well i can't speak for society as a whole so i can't answer the question the way you're leading me to answer. i'm sure you already have a reply ready, but i can say this. i give every person a clean slate until they screw up. normally i allow them to screw up quite a bit before i see them for what that person is. notice i say person, not race, society, culture, what not. i'll let people with the same mindset as you to pull the race card. it's a cop out. plain and simple. i'll be more than happy to support and vote for a black/man or woman, or any race for that matter, that runs for the presidency, but this time around i won't be voting for that black man. all races have their positive and negative figures. any person should know that.

So you basically feel that you harbor no preconceived notions about anyone at all? You do not feel you have any visual associations that kick in during an absence of any overriding information?

And I'm not trying to trap you Viva, I'm asking questions.

[MannyIsGod]

Where can we get more resources?

On another planet.

How do we get there?

Build a spaceship.

Can I do that?

No.

Why?

You don't have enough resources.


You refuse to think within my all answers box ES. :rollin

[Shastafarian]

And you both forgot pollster.

But the real question is, why do you guys have trouble proving me wrong in areas of fact? And when I'm proven wrong in such areas, do I acknowledge it or do I simply go on as though it never happened? What would you like me to prove you wrong in? Is it fact that angel_luv has subconscious feelings of fear toward black men?


Its funny, I've never had a problem earning the respect of the smartest posters on this forum but for some reason the mental midgets love to toss around the "know it all" as if I'm supposed to be ashamed of having multiple interests that I seek out information on.

My next goal in life is to become a private investigator like Shasta.

You shouldn't be ashamed of learning or having multiple interests. I just think you're an asshole who thinks he knows everything. I learned in college that flaunting a superficial knowledge is as bad as being an idiot. So I set out to learn what I wanted to learn but not flaunt it every chance I get. If you want me to I can.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I had put this is the I voted thread, but will repost it here.

Is this a conclusion you've come to recently because this is not what you've been saying?

the following was quoted early in this thread

I had put this is the I voted thread, but will repost it here.

posted yesterday

I do not trust Senator Obama at all. I think he is dangerous.
Can I prove that he is? No.
But that is what concerns me. I think Senator Obama has ulterior motives and is such a good liar that he will fool the majority of the world before being finally found out.

That said, there would be no one more happier than myself if I were proven wrong. I just don't expect to be.


Senator McCain has not impressed me as a candidate either, but is the least disappointing choice.
I hope Senator McCain will govern in a way that I can look back and in retrospect be pleased I voted for him.

If nothing else, at least McCain is pro life, which is one thing I certainly support.

and you even replied to it.

I'm going to rant here for a second and you may get some flak Angel but its nothing personal.

I am sick of the abortion issue being such a major decider in people's presidential vote. Almost everyone I talked to this weekend who was undecided but wanted to vote for Barak brought up the abortion issue. Many of them were incredibly misinformed on both candidates stances on the issue to begin with some going as far as saying at least McCain had promised to make it illegal. O Rly?

The abortion issue is completely irrelevant to a president because no president is going to be able to change it. You can go as far as to talk about possible judicial appointments but I really doubt that even many conservative judges would overturn roe v wade simply on the basis of being appointed by a Republican president. Its foolish and for me its the equivalent of voting for a president based on his shoe size.


you must love hearing yourself talk.

[DarkReign]

Depends on the church. I can't say mine exercises "control" unless "control" is "hey, since we all love Jesus, let's get together and rebuild hurricane-damaged homes" or "let's raise money for this school in Kenya for AIDS orphans."

There's preaching about practicing self-denial too. I guess if people don't like it, next week they go down the road to the next one.

The ones that in the past have really tried to control people would be more like the RCC, CRC, some Southern Baptists, etc. where they really lay the guilt on thick.

Yeah alright, thats totally fair.

I should have stated in that previous post that I fully recognize the charitable contributions to the community churches are responsible for. Whether its their time, their money or both, churches have made huge differences in the lives of those they have touched.

Its just that, IMO, organized religion has instilled an air of superiority into its flock. Someone had said it was like a "members only" club, which I find to be true. Your church may certainly not be like this, and admittedly I speak about church from a Roman Catholic perspective.

I just find organized religion to be divisive in its nature by causation, not necessarily intent. Its an "us and them" mentality no matter how benign. Its just the same as national borders and patriotism, only the implications are far more vague and emotional creating a rift between people of the world based on (im sorry to be harsh with you, ES) nothing more than their preferred Invisible Man in the Sky.

At least national borders are concrete, based on resource and economy, tangible items on interest to be secured and defended. Religion on its own is metaphysical only, yet its power of allegiance is more profound than any flag waving patriot has for his country.

[Shastafarian]

This is pretty funny because you have no idea who Angel was raised by and I do.

:lmao

ooooooo you have super secret knowledge of the third level!! Please share it with us oh powerful being from the future.

[Shastafarian]

I also think it's funny that you presume to know how smart I am by evaluating my posts on an internet forum. Real scientific Dr. Oppenheimer.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Yes, I agree completely. This is supposed to be an open society, and I support angel luv's right to speak her thoughts freely. I don't agree with her on many issues, but that doesn't matter to me. The whole point of dissent being allowed in a society is to bring disagreements to the table for discussion-- not to turn every debate into a name-calling contest.

So, I got a discount on devil's advocate sneakers last week. Touting the benefits of open society doesn't just mean you get to applaud angel_luv's right to speak her own mind and state her religious beliefs and those who engage with her in what you deem to be civil discourse, but also the rights of those who challenge her, even if their tactics involve the name-calling you disapprove of.

Again, I don't understand why "I think you're going to hell if you don't agree with me, but I will pray for you" coming from a fundamentalist is any more or less offensive than "you are a few elephants short of a box of animal crackers" or, as some put it "you're fucking nuts."

It's all really the same sentiment in different packaging and it's all speech. It's all valid. It's just not all pretty.

Yes?

[MannyIsGod]

What would you like me to prove you wrong in? Is it fact that angel_luv has subconscious feelings of fear toward black men?


Did I say it was?



You shouldn't be ashamed of learning or having multiple interests. I just think you're an asshole who thinks he knows everything. I learned in college that flaunting a superficial knowledge is as bad as being an idiot. So I set out to learn what I wanted to learn but not flaunt it every chance I get. If you want me to I can.

Lol @ flaunting it in a place meant for discussion.

Ok.

[MannyIsGod]

the following was quoted early in this thread


posted yesterday


and you even replied to it.



you must love hearing yourself talk.

She named it as the sole primary reason today as opposed to yesterday where it was the "if nothing else" reason. But OK?

[Shastafarian]

Did I say it was?

What "facts" would you like me to prove wrong? You mentioned that I never proved any of your facts wrong. I'm waiting for some facts.



Lol @ flaunting it in a place meant for discussion.

Ok.

So you admit you're an internet know-it-all?

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

ooooooo you have super secret knowledge of the third level!! Please share it with us oh powerful being from the future.

Actually I think its knowledge a decent amount of the posters within the thread have. Its just apparent from the point you keep trying to make that you don't have it. You can PM Veronica and I'm sure she'd talk to you about it since you've been nice enough to refer to her as crazy several times here.

[MannyIsGod]

What "facts" would you like me to prove wrong? You mentioned that I never proved any of your facts wrong. I'm waiting for some facts.




So you admit you're an internet know-it-all?

So you're saying I never provide facts, so I guess an I'm an internet know it all of my opinion?

Sure, I'll admit to that.

[MannyIsGod]

I also think it's funny that you presume to know how smart I am by evaluating my posts on an internet forum. Real scientific Dr. Oppenheimer.

Oh I don't know if you're smart or not, but you definitely showed a lack of reading comprehension in this thread or you choose to disregard it in favor of making a non existent point so at the very least this thread has shown you as being intellectually dishonest.

[Shastafarian]

Actually I think its knowledge a decent amount of the posters within the thread have. Its just apparent from the point you keep trying to make that you don't have it. You can PM Veronica and I'm sure she'd talk to you about it since you've been nice enough to refer to her as crazy several times here.

Anyone can guess by your super secret posts that she was raised by her non-black parent (or a grandparent). That's fine. Where did I ever say she was raised by an african-american?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

So you basically feel that you harbor no preconceived notions about anyone at all? You do not feel you have any visual associations that kick in during an absence of any overriding information?

And I'm not trying to trap you Viva, I'm asking questions.any human would have these visual associations/preconceived notions. i'm not saying i don't, but i don't cling to that notion. i interact with everyone until i see them for what they are and i handle them accordingly. show me a person in this world that doesn't have preconceived notions about an initial meeting. one doesn't exist. it depends on how you handle yourself after that initial meeting.

[Shastafarian]

So you're saying I never provide facts, so I guess an I'm an internet know it all of my opinion?

Sure, I'll admit to that.

Now who needs some help with reading comprehension? I'm asking you what facts you want me to refute.

[TheMadHatter]

The ones that are most often questioned by some liberal scholars are Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus, not 1 Corinthians, which is cited by the earliest patristic sources.

Your remaining argument appears to be that 1 Corinthians cannot truly mention the resurrection because it was interpolated, and it had to have been interpolated because it mentions the resurrection.

As I have repeatedly said before, the burden of proof is on you to prove to me that the historicity of Jesus is true as indicated in the NT Gospels.

The situation we are in here is akin to you trying to explain to me that Bigfoot is real. The burden of proof is on you the believer to prove to me that Bigfoot indeed existed, not on me the disbeliever to come up with evidence to the contrary. If you cannot provide me with sufficient evidence then I can reasonably conclude that your argument is not valid, I cannot say that Bigfoot doesn't exist since I don't hold that proof but I can say that your argument isn't valid. Thus far you've provided me with no sufficient evidence to support your argument.

This is central to my point, Christians have no valid historical argument to make about the historicity of Jesus. I'm sorry the facts simply don't exist. What we do know is that the NT Gospels contain fabrications and that important early Christian writings were doctored by the Church to support the view of Jesus indicated in NT Gospel writings. In fact there is more evidence to suggest just the opposite, that the NT Gospel writings were completely fabricated.

[Shastafarian]

Oh I don't know if you're smart or not, but you definitely showed a lack of reading comprehension in this thread or you choose to disregard it in favor of making a non existent point so at the very least this thread has shown you as being intellectually dishonest.

Where did I lack reading comprehension? Did you or did you not claim she had at the very least an irrational fear of black men?

[clambake]

any human would have these visual associations/preconceived notions. i'm not saying i don't, but i don't cling to that notion. i interact with everyone until i see them for what they are and i handle them accordingly. show me a person in this world that doesn't have preconceived notions about an initial meeting. one doesn't exist. it depends on how you handle yourself after that initial meeting.

what?

[RandomGuy]

Where can we get more resources?

On another planet.

How do we get there?

Build a spaceship.

Can I do that?

No.

Why?

You don't have enough resources.

The interesting thing about investing in energy, is that you get a return on invested energy, just like you do on invested cash.

Build a few solar panels, and you have energy to build more solar panels, you drill for oil, and you have energy to drill for more oil.

At some rate, you can calculate the return of "free" energy you get out of of any unit of energy, just as you can for a return on invested capital.

Oil's return has been estimated at about 20-30:1 depending on where you get the oil, and how easy it is to refine into something usable. (i.e. one barrels worth of energy gets you 30, one of which has to be put towards the next 30 barrels, so you really have 29 barrels available for other purposes)

Coal has been estimated at about 10-25 depending and so forth.

wind and solar were estimated at about 5-10, but technology is likely making this a larger factor as we type.

http://www.abelard.org/briefings/energy-economics.php

[MannyIsGod]

any human would have these visual associations/preconceived notions. i'm not saying i don't, but i don't cling to that notion. i interact with everyone until i see them for what they are and i handle them accordingly. show me a person in this world that doesn't have preconceived notions about an initial meeting. one doesn't exist. it depends on how you handle yourself after that initial meeting.

Exactly my point. And I think we can both agree that the more likely preconceived notion that someone would have of a black man in our society would not be a favorable one. Now, I'd venture to say that the vast majority of us get past that rather quickly because I'd like to believe that as you say we all make up our own minds after gathering information on someone. For instance I don't believe that you're against Obama because he's black but because you have fundamental disagreements on how the country should be run.

That being said, when someone cannot explain why they believe about a certain candidate and explicitly states they distrust them but do not know why I believed it is certainly justified to examine what preconceived notions someone may have. I think even Veronica understood that and so as much in one of her posts.

[DarkReign]

what?

POTY

[101A]

This year, more than I can ever remember, we needed ANOTHER choice. The party in power was doomed; the party "out of power"; is really only out of power in a single office; and they are about to complete the trifecta. They are most likely going to obtain a fillibuster proof Senate.

A vote for McCain, IMO, is wasted; he has no chance. The best my vote can do this year is register a "none of the above". I will vote for Barr.

I am apprehensive as hell about what a Congress that is THAT far to the left can do in the two years before the (relatively much more conservative) population register buyer's remose. Obama's platform doesn't scare me; it is moderate and reasonable. Congress, on the other hand, will probably not be so. The Speaker of the House is from San Francisco for goodness sake!

The Congress WILL pass legislation to allow Unions to hold "signature" elections; meaning employee's votes will be public; at least to the Union organizers. How this is anything BUT against free-will is completely beyond me. It is wrong - but our new Congress will pass it. I don't know if Obama will sign it.

The "Fairness Doctrine" will be reinstated - and enhanced. Station's licenses will be up for renewal every TWO, and not EIGHT years. The party in power RIGHT NOW can threten your license if you don't adhere to their definition of "fairness". Scary stuff.

I watched the PBS biography on LBJ this week, and watched his speaches for the "Great Society". HIS plans were going to eliminate poverty and would give healthcare to all. The opponents claimed that those programs, along with Social Security would eventually take up over 25% of the Federal Government's budget. These people were shouted down as being alarmist, racist, elitist, and wanting to keep the poor down. "Impossible" was the response to the claim of out of control costs for the program. Well, their is no less poverty now, and their is less movement out of it. And the programs, combined, do now account for more than 25% of the Federal Budget; in fact, it is nearly 50%; and climbing rapidly. The programs, passed as LBJ had designed them, have been abysmal failures based on what the politicians AT THE TIME claimed they were going to accomplish. They have not; and they are more expensive than ANYONE dreamed at the time. Any more of that is not a good thing, but I feel their is nothing to do to stop it.

Trust me, I am NOT arguing that the past 8 years have been fantastic, and I can give a litany of reasons Bush has completly failed. However, the tantrum this country is going to throw next Tuesday is response might be something we regret, well, forever. Eventually we WILL be out of Iraq. New govt. entitlement programs, however, are forever. If Barrack is who he says he is, we could be alright. If he has run to the middle to get elected - and is going to return to the left once that is accomplished, we are probably fucked.

[MannyIsGod]

The interesting thing about investing in energy, is that you get a return on invested energy, just like you do on invested cash.

Build a few solar panels, and you have energy to build more solar panels, you drill for oil, and you have energy to drill for more oil.

At some rate, you can calculate the return of "free" energy you get out of of any unit of energy, just as you can for a return on invested capital.

Oil's return has been estimated at about 20-30:1 depending on where you get the oil, and how easy it is to refine into something usable. (i.e. one barrels worth of energy gets you 30, one of which has to be put towards the next 30 barrels, so you really have 29 barrels available for other purposes)

Coal has been estimated at about 10-25 depending and so forth.

wind and solar were estimated at about 5-10, but technology is likely making this a larger factor as we type.

http://www.abelard.org/briefings/energy-economics.php

Your doing your best to get energy into this thread too? Jesus Christ. When does the economic discussion start and when do the truthers get here?

[clambake]

Exactly my point. And I think we can both agree that the more likely preconceived notion that someone would have of a black man in our society would not be a favorable one. Now, I'd venture to say that the vast majority of us get past that rather quickly because I'd like to believe that as you say we all make up our own minds after gathering information on someone. For instance I don't believe that you're against Obama because he's black but because you have fundamental disagreements on how the country should be run.

That being said, when someone cannot explain why they believe about a certain candidate and explicitly states they distrust them but do not know why I believed it is certainly justified to examine what preconceived notions someone may have. I think even Veronica understood that and so as much in one of her posts.

you lost me on that one.

[BacktoBasics]

Exactly my point. And I think we can both agree that the more likely preconceived notion that someone would have of a black man in our society would not be a favorable one. Now, I'd venture to say that the vast majority of us get past that rather quickly because I'd like to believe that as you say we all make up our own minds after gathering information on someone. For instance I don't believe that you're against Obama because he's black but because you have fundamental disagreements on how the country should be run.

That being said, when someone cannot explain why they believe about a certain candidate and explicitly states they distrust them but do not know why I believed it is certainly justified to examine what preconceived notions someone may have. I think even Veronica understood that and so as much in one of her posts.:lmao did he think he proved himself wrong or right?

[DWest30]

So, I got a discount on devil's advocate sneakers last week. Touting the benefits of open society doesn't just mean you get to applaud angel_luv's right to speak her own mind and state her religious beliefs and those who engage with her in what you deem to be civil discourse, but also the rights of those who challenge her, even if their tactics involve the name-calling you disapprove of.

Again, I don't understand why "I think you're going to hell if you don't agree with me, but I will pray for you" coming from a fundamentalist is any more or less offensive than "you are a few elephants short of a box of animal crackers" or, as some put it "you're fucking nuts."

It's all really the same sentiment in different packaging and it's all speech. It's all valid. It's just not all pretty.

Yes?

Oh yeah?!?!?! Well....well....well....youre a HEAT fan!!!!eleventyone!!!

:P

[Shastafarian]

:lmao did he think he proved himself wrong or right?

I don't know. I'm a mental midget because I lack reading comprehension.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't know. I'm a mental midget because I lack reading comprehension.

Apparently so because B2B wasn't talking about me. :lmao

[Shastafarian]

Apparently so because B2B wasn't talking about me. :lmao

Never said he was...

[TheMadHatter]

The problem with modern Christianity is that it is divisive at its core towards non-believers. There is no way around that, modern Christians fundamentally believe non-believers aren't joining them in heaven.

The problem is they have zero factual evidence to support this notion. They have zero historical evidence to support this notion. They refuse to admit that what they believe is COMPLETELY faith-based and not grounded in any sort of reality.

[BacktoBasics]

The more I read this stuff the more I wonder if Angel Luv masterbates.

Is her boyfriend allowed to kiss her....feel her up....hell is he allowed to rub her leg? All in gods name of course.

[MannyIsGod]

The problem with modern Christianity is that it is divisive at its core towards non-believers. There is no way around that, modern Christians fundamentally believe non-believers aren't joining them in heaven.

The problem is they have zero factual evidence to support this notion. They have zero historical evidence to support this notion. They refuse to admit that what they believe is COMPLETELY faith-based and not grounded in any sort of reality.

Oh I don't think Angel Luv would deny what she believes is completely faith based at all. In fact I think she's stated the opposite.

[Shastafarian]

The more I read this stuff the more I wonder if Angel Luv masterbates.

Is her boyfriend allowed to kiss her....feel her up....hell is he allowed to rub her leg? All in gods name of course.

He accepted Jesus as his one true path to salvation. He doesn't need bodily temptation.

[Tully365]

So, I got a discount on devil's advocate sneakers last week. Touting the benefits of open society doesn't just mean you get to applaud angel_luv's right to speak her own mind and state her religious beliefs and those who engage with her in what you deem to be civil discourse, but also the rights of those who challenge her, even if their tactics involve the name-calling you disapprove of.

Again, I don't understand why "I think you're going to hell if you don't agree with me, but I will pray for you" coming from a fundamentalist is any more or less offensive than "you are a few elephants short of a box of animal crackers" or, as some put it "you're fucking nuts."

It's all really the same sentiment in different packaging and it's all speech. It's all valid. It's just not all pretty.

Yes?

You haven't been here very long, but I think you will soon see that many threads in the political forum quickly dissolve into a dozen rapid-fire posts that say 1) fuck you your (sic) an idiot, 2) Oh yeah STFU you dumb bitch 3) fuck you ya pole-smoking fag 4) youre a moron i hope get cancer, etc., etc... The thread you jumped in on was astonishingly free of nastiness by comparison and full of passionate opinions. That's where my comment stemmed from.

Btw, I'll take this opportunity to use Whitman & Dickinson as a contradiction to your O. Wilde quote... tho I do find him very entertaining as a 19th century Paul Lynde.

Welcome again. I think you're a great addition to the fray.

[TheMadHatter]

Oh I don't think Angel Luv would deny what she believes is completely faith based at all. In fact I think she's stated the opposite.

To them, faith-based is no different than fact based because they believe the Bible is factual.

[DarkReign]

This year, more than I can ever remember, we needed ANOTHER choice. The party in power was doomed; the party "out of power"; is really only out of power in a single office; and they are about to complete the trifecta. They are most likely going to obtain a fillibuster proof Senate.

[sic]

Trust me, I am NOT arguing that the past 8 years have been fantastic, and I can give a litany of reasons Bush has completly failed. However, the tantrum this country is going to throw next Tuesday is response might be something we regret, well, forever. Eventually we WILL be out of Iraq. New govt. entitlement programs, however, are forever. If Barrack is who he says he is, we could be alright. If he has run to the middle to get elected - and is going to return to the left once that is accomplished, we are probably fucked.

:tu

Big props to 101A and ES for stating their take on the election.

Its weird, I am constantly called a liberal here, yet I have almost universally agreed with 2 conservatives on almost every issue of (my personal) importance (abortion just doesnt rank for me, ES).

Could it be *GASP* that we are not all so entirely different as our country says we are? Nah, that cant be it. You guys are different because I was told so, and thats that.

[Tully365]

:tu


Could it be *GASP that we are not all so entirely different as our country says we are? Nah, that cant be it. You guys are different because I was told so, and thats that.

:toast

[RandomGuy]

Your doing your best to get energy into this thread too? Jesus Christ. When does the economic discussion start and when do the truthers get here?

Sorry. Bad habit. Do continue.

Perhaps I should simply stick to "what if resources were really infinite?", would we still have wars?

Better?

[DWest30]

:tu

Big props to 101A and ES for stating their take on the election.

Its weird, I am constantly called a liberal here, yet I have almost universally agreed with 2 conservatives on almost every issue of (my personal) importance (abortion just doesnt rank for me, ES).

Could it be *GASP* that we are not all so entirely different as our country says we are? Nah, that cant be it. You guys are different because I was told so, and thats that.

Welcome to a post-culture war America. We can all get along and merely disagree instead of demonizing each other.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh dude I don't care - I just just making a joke. This thread has already bounced off a shitload of walls might as well take it everywhere.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

You haven't been here very long, but I think you will soon see that many threads in the political forum quickly dissolve into a dozen rapid-fire posts that say 1) fuck you your (sic) an idiot, 2) Oh yeah STFU you dumb bitch 3) fuck you ya pole-smoking fag 4) youre a moron i hope get cancer, etc., etc... The thread you jumped in on was astonishingly free of nastiness by comparison and full of passionate opinions. That's where my comment stemmed from.

Yeah, I was already welcomed by whott in another thread. I just have a knee-jerk reaction to people who admonish name-calling, but champion a religious person's right to tell me I'm going to hell. I'm a twat that way.


Btw, I'll take this opportunity to use Whitman & Dickinson as a contradiction to your O. Wilde quote... tho I do find him very entertaining as a 19th century Paul Lynde.

Welcome again. I think you're a great addition to the fray.

Did you seriously just try to pwn me with circle-gets-the-square? lol

I maintain that barbaric yawps are their own form of decadence. And I don't talk about Emily. She annoys me ;)

[RandomGuy]

Welcome to a post-culture war America. We can all get along and merely disagree instead of demonizing each other.

Only the anti-christ would say something like that.

[DWest30]

Only the anti-christ would say something like that.

wasntmenobodysawmedoityoucantproveanything...

[RandomGuy]

Oh dude I don't care - I just just making a joke. This thread has already bounced off a shitload of walls might as well take it everywhere.

I know you were mostly joking, but I do have a bad habit of bringing that up in places where it isn't really germane.

[Tully365]

Yeah, I was already welcomed by whott in another thread. I just have a knee-jerk reaction to people who admonish name-calling, but champion a religious person's right to tell me I'm going to hell. I'm a twat that way.

Did you seriously just try to pwn me with circle-gets-the-square? lol

I maintain that barbaric yawps are their own form of decadence. And I don't talk about Emily. She annoys me ;)

Nice internal rhyme of whottt and twat in that first paragraph.

I'd call A. Ginsberg's derivative yarps decadent (i'd go as far to say totally unnecessary since people should be reading his citymate Frank O'hara much more anyway) but not Whitman. Emily's style predates and anticipates The Kinks and later punk rock, so she deserves props, c'mon.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Does anyone else just keep going back to Bartleby's post on Page 1 of this thread and get the giggles all over again? Seriously, he had to think it was a rhetorical question.

[DWest30]

Does anyone else just keep going back to Bartleby's post on Page 1 of this thread and get the giggles all over again? Seriously, he had to think it was a rhetorical question.

32 pages later, I think he deserves an award.

[Extra Stout]

:tu

Big props to 101A and ES for stating their take on the election.

Its weird, I am constantly called a liberal here, yet I have almost universally agreed with 2 conservatives on almost every issue of (my personal) importance (abortion just doesnt rank for me, ES).

Could it be *GASP* that we are not all so entirely different as our country says we are? Nah, that cant be it. You guys are different because I was told so, and thats that.
I'm pretty sure I've apostasized from conservatism. Last week, someone called me a liberal communist sympathizer because I said that if Obama were elected, I wasn't going to pull the "he's not my President" card or call him "that n***** in the White House." So I'm out of the club. I am basically a pro-life moderate now, still slowly trending leftward.

Somewhere back there conservatism changed.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Emily's style predates and anticipates The Kinks and later punk rock, so she deserves props, c'mon.

You're one of those guys that likes girls all Bell Jarish, aren't you?

[Shastafarian]

You're one of those guys that likes girls all Bell Jarish, aren't you?


You're not one of those "Obama is the anti-Christ" people, are you?

Uh oh...

[Tully365]

You're one of those guys that likes girls all Bell Jarish, aren't you?

:lol You are wrong there sister-- never liked Sylvia. Tho, of course, I am happy allowing her to say her crazy stuff, me being so openminded...

[DWest30]

I'm pretty sure I've apostasized from conservatism. Last week, someone called me a liberal communist sympathizer because I said that if Obama were elected, I wasn't going to pull the "he's not my President" card or call him "that n***** in the White House." So I'm out of the club. I am basically a pro-life moderate now, still slowly trending leftward.

Somewhere back there conservatism changed.

Youre not trending leftward. The far right keeps pulling the goalpost towards them and away from you. Its the political Doppler Effect in action.

[Tully365]

Uh oh...

:lol here we go again! Pandora's box #2!

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

:lol You are wrong there sister-- never liked Sylvia. Tho, of course, I am happy allowing her to say her crazy stuff, me being so openminded...

:rollin

[Tully365]

The more I read this stuff the more I wonder if Angel Luv masterbates.


i gotta admit-- I literally laughed out loud at this.

[Jesus]

Angelluv has my vote.

[BacktoBasics]

i gotta admit-- I literally laughed out loud at this.I don't know what I'd do if I lost the ability to jerk off or worse could still jerk off but believe I would go to hell for it.

[LnGrrrR]

If God is God, then he is a first cause. If he is a first cause, then there is nothing that comes before him. If nothing comes before him, then time cannot come before him. If God comes before time, then he is not necessarily subject to it.

We define causality in terms of causes coming before effects. To say that a cause comes before an effect is to make a statement in time. If God is not subject to time, then a statement in time does not necessarily apply to him.

If God is a first cause, then all other things are effects of that cause. But if statements in time do not apply to time, then we cannot conclude that effects come after his causation in time. Ergo, temporal causality does not apply to God.


If temporal causality does not apply to God, then the effects of his causation can be in the past, present, or future.

Wow. Those are some huge leaps right there. (I'd like to throw out here that quantum physics is punching huge holes in the idea of causality, but that's a separate topic.)

If temporal causality does not apply to God, then how can he act on it? How can he CAUSE differences in temporality without temporality acting on his being? It's a version of the mind/body problem.

[DWest30]

i gotta admit-- I literally laughed out loud at this.

I think she'd be kinda fun to have around under the influence of some shrooms.

[BacktoBasics]

I think she'd be kinda fun to have around under the influence of some shrooms.:giggles: like on a pizza mmmm good

sin,

Angel Warrior

[Shastafarian]

I don't know what I'd do if I lost the ability to jerk off or worse could still jerk off but believe I would go to hell for it.

Does this mean you'd do it anyway? :lol

[Viva Las Espuelas]

This year, more than I can ever remember, we needed ANOTHER choice. The party in power was doomed; the party "out of power"; is really only out of power in a single office; and they are about to complete the trifecta. They are most likely going to obtain a fillibuster proof Senate.

A vote for McCain, IMO, is wasted; he has no chance. The best my vote can do this year is register a "none of the above". I will vote for Barr.

I am apprehensive as hell about what a Congress that is THAT far to the left can do in the two years before the (relatively much more conservative) population register buyer's remose. Obama's platform doesn't scare me; it is moderate and reasonable. Congress, on the other hand, will probably not be so. The Speaker of the House is from San Francisco for goodness sake!

The Congress WILL pass legislation to allow Unions to hold "signature" elections; meaning employee's votes will be public; at least to the Union organizers. How this is anything BUT against free-will is completely beyond me. It is wrong - but our new Congress will pass it. I don't know if Obama will sign it.

The "Fairness Doctrine" will be reinstated - and enhanced. Station's licenses will be up for renewal every TWO, and not EIGHT years. The party in power RIGHT NOW can threten your license if you don't adhere to their definition of "fairness". Scary stuff.

I watched the PBS biography on LBJ this week, and watched his speaches for the "Great Society". HIS plans were going to eliminate poverty and would give healthcare to all. The opponents claimed that those programs, along with Social Security would eventually take up over 25% of the Federal Government's budget. These people were shouted down as being alarmist, racist, elitist, and wanting to keep the poor down. "Impossible" was the response to the claim of out of control costs for the program. Well, their is no less poverty now, and their is less movement out of it. And the programs, combined, do now account for more than 25% of the Federal Budget; in fact, it is nearly 50%; and climbing rapidly. The programs, passed as LBJ had designed them, have been abysmal failures based on what the politicians AT THE TIME claimed they were going to accomplish. They have not; and they are more expensive than ANYONE dreamed at the time. Any more of that is not a good thing, but I feel their is nothing to do to stop it.

Trust me, I am NOT arguing that the past 8 years have been fantastic, and I can give a litany of reasons Bush has completly failed. However, the tantrum this country is going to throw next Tuesday is response might be something we regret, well, forever. Eventually we WILL be out of Iraq. New govt. entitlement programs, however, are forever. If Barrack is who he says he is, we could be alright. If he has run to the middle to get elected - and is going to return to the left once that is accomplished, we are probably fucked.
there's only been 2 filibuster proof congresses. one at the start of The Great Depression and one at the start of the Great Society. hmmmmm. history is about to repeat itself.

[Tully365]

I don't know what I'd do if I lost the ability to jerk off or worse could still jerk off but believe I would go to hell for it.

:lol I'm sure you'd find a way...

[cheguevara]

this thread is not much fun without a radical fundamentalist posting in it. We need to find another one ASAP

[Shastafarian]

this thread is not much fun without a radical fundamentalist posting in it. We need to find another one ASAP

The Anti-Christ didn't do it for ya?

[hater]

"Newsweek has an interesting story about a guy who for years was an aimless drunk but one day, in an attempt to overcome his addiction, accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. By secluding himself with a small group of intensely devoted followers of Christ, he transformed from an aloof alcoholic into a man who now saw the world as divided into Good and Evil, with Christians as the good people and everyone else as doomed to Hell. Instead of drinking, he would read the Holy Bible and the writings of evangelist ministers, and his slurred, drunken monologues were replaced by exhortations to everyone around him about the "power, wonder-working power" of the Lord and the duty of Christians to convert non-Christians (i.e., the evil ones) into followers of the One True God.


While this might sound like the creepy loner down the street whom everyone avoids, Newsweek's story is about a more public man, one who openly told a Jew that only Christians are welcome in Heaven. Newsweek's story is about the President of the United States. "

Maybe angel was in Bush's bible study group?

[cheguevara]

The Anti-Christ didn't do it for ya?

he's nothing compared to the mind of people like angel luv

[MannyIsGod]

I'm pretty sure I've apostasized from conservatism. Last week, someone called me a liberal communist sympathizer because I said that if Obama were elected, I wasn't going to pull the "he's not my President" card or call him "that n***** in the White House." So I'm out of the club. I am basically a pro-life moderate now, still slowly trending leftward.

Somewhere back there conservatism changed.

I think a lot of the country is with you. Which begs to question, why did McCain reach right instead of left? Had he moved to secure moderates and independents could he have actually won this election?

You know, I really wonder if McCain could go back and select Joe Lieberman as his VP if he would do that now.

[RandomGuy]

My vote goes to Obama.

I was an independent who tended to lean Democratic on social issues, and Republican when it came to fiscal matters.

The last 8 years have finished me on the Republican party. When Dick Cheney said "deficits don't matter" and the trickle down voodoo economics became the mantra, that started losing me. The stupidity that is Iraq was what finished it and made me turn my back on the GOP, probably for the rest of my life.

As a vet and one with enough knowledge about the subject to know how unnecessary Iraq was and how negligently it was run, at the cost of lives in the thousands of servicemembers, I feel that Bush and his administration betrayed a sacred trust to provide our military with the best possible leadership. For that I cannot forgive Bush, and am angry beyond words. That so many Republicans questioned my patriotism for criticising this and bought into the lies, makes my decision to be a Democrat much easier.

I have stood aghast at the level of incompetence, and naked hubris of the current administration.

That it was so cavalier with our government, imposing ideological litmus tests on hiring for non-political posts, a war on science that surpressed data that contradicted its ideology, seizing new powers and really going for what is best described as an "imperial" presidency, simply reinforced my belief that the Republican party really didn't represent the best interests of the nation, and that the radicals had taken power.

After years of seeing the Dems shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to picking a presidential candidate, I was horrified when I saw the same thing about to happen with Hillary being the front runner. I personally don't have a problem with the woman, but knew that she would lose in any national election.

I looked around, did a bit of digging and found Obama to be the best out of a pack of good alternatives.

He was obviously intelligent, and spoke to audiences on topics as if they were grown ups. The speech in Philidelphia on race sealed it.

I do not agree with everything in his platform, I do not think he is some earth-shakingly new type of politician who has never said something because it was convenient or because it would increase his support.

Since the primaries, he has shown himself to be disciplined, driven, intelligent, and able to learn things quickly, and has developed an obvious grasp of all sorts of issues.

Inexperienced? Meh. Some of our best presidents have been inexperienced, and what really truly prepares you to be the president of the United States?

Given all this, I voted, cacuased, and call-banked for him in the primaries. I met the campaign workers from his national staff that came to my county, and was impressed at their drive, their intelligence, and their motivation.

This country needs a person who can attract such people to the next administration. Obama has looked more and more presidential every day, especially when put next to the McCain/Palin ticket.

I don't buy the hyterical doom and gloom scenarios of a country in ruins for electing Democrats. It is time for a change, and time for moderates to take back the government from the radicals who have been in charge.

[101A]

I think a lot of the country is with you. Which begs to question, why did McCain reach right instead of left? Had he moved to secure moderates and independents could he have actually won this election?

No. Bush's numbers, along with the banking collapse literally doomed him. NOTHING he could do about this. HE HAD to throw the Hail-Mary that was Palin; ANYTHING typical, or expected, was doomed.


You know, I really wonder if McCain could go back and select Joe Lieberman as his VP if he would do that now.

Their would have been pandemonium at his own convention had he chosen Leiberman. "Conservatives" would have stayed home, or written in "Ronald Reagan". Seriously.

[BacktoBasics]

My vote goes to Obama.

I was an independent who tended to lean Democratic on social issues, and Republican when it came to fiscal matters.

The last 8 years have finished me on the Republican party. When Dick Cheney said "deficits don't matter" and the trickle down voodoo economics became the mantra, that started losing me. The stupidity that is Iraq was what finsihed it and made me turn my back on the GOP, probably for the rest of my life.

As a vet and one with enough knowledge about the subject to know how unnecessary Iraq was and how negligently it was run, at the cost of lives in the thousands of servicemembers, I feel that Bush and his administration betrayed a sacred trust to provide our military with the best possible leadership. For that I cannot forgive Bush, and am angry beyond words. That so many Republicans questioned my patriotism for criticising this and bought into the lies, makes my decision to be a Democrat much easier.

I have stood aghast at the level of incompetence, and naked hubris of the current administration.

That it was so cavalier with our government, imposing ideological litmus tests on hiring for non-political posts, a war on science that surpressed data that contradicted its ideology, seizing new powers and really going for what is best described as an "imperial" presidency, simply reinforced my belief that the Republican party really didn't represent the best interests of the nation, and that the radicals had taken power.

After years of seeing the Dems shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to picking a presidential candidate, I was horrified when I saw the same thing about to happen with Hillary being the front runner. I personally don't have a problem with the woman, but knew that she would lose in any national election.

I looked around, did a bit of digging and found Obama to be the best out of a pack of good alternatives.

He was obviously intelligent, and spoke to audiences on topics as if they were grown ups. The speech in Philidelphia on race sealed it.

I do not agree with everything in his platform, I do not think he is some earth-shakingly new type of politician who has never said something because it was convenient or because it would increase his support.

Since then, he has shown himself to be disciplined, driven, intelligent, and able to learn things quickly, and has developed an obvious grasp of all sorts of issues.

Inexperienced? Meh. Some of our best presidents have been inexperienced, and what really truly prepares you to be the president of the United States?

Given all this, I voted, cacuased, and call-banked for him in the primaries. I met the campaign workers from his national staff that came to my county, and was impressed at their drive, their intelligence, and their motivation.

This country needs a person who can attract such people to the next administration. Obama has looked more and more presidential every day, especially when put next to the McCain/Palin ticket.

I don't buy the hyterical doom and gloom scenarios of a country in ruins for electing Democrats. It is time for a change, and time for moderates to take back the government from the radicals who have been in charge.
Good post

[tp2021]

My vote goes to Obama.

I was an independent who tended to lean Democratic on social issues, and Republican when it came to fiscal matters.

The last 8 years have finished me on the Republican party. When Dick Cheney said "deficits don't matter" and the trickle down voodoo economics became the mantra, that started losing me. The stupidity that is Iraq was what finished it and made me turn my back on the GOP, probably for the rest of my life.

As a vet and one with enough knowledge about the subject to know how unnecessary Iraq was and how negligently it was run, at the cost of lives in the thousands of servicemembers, I feel that Bush and his administration betrayed a sacred trust to provide our military with the best possible leadership. For that I cannot forgive Bush, and am angry beyond words. That so many Republicans questioned my patriotism for criticising this and bought into the lies, makes my decision to be a Democrat much easier.

I have stood aghast at the level of incompetence, and naked hubris of the current administration.

That it was so cavalier with our government, imposing ideological litmus tests on hiring for non-political posts, a war on science that surpressed data that contradicted its ideology, seizing new powers and really going for what is best described as an "imperial" presidency, simply reinforced my belief that the Republican party really didn't represent the best interests of the nation, and that the radicals had taken power.

After years of seeing the Dems shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to picking a presidential candidate, I was horrified when I saw the same thing about to happen with Hillary being the front runner. I personally don't have a problem with the woman, but knew that she would lose in any national election.

I looked around, did a bit of digging and found Obama to be the best out of a pack of good alternatives.

He was obviously intelligent, and spoke to audiences on topics as if they were grown ups. The speech in Philidelphia on race sealed it.

I do not agree with everything in his platform, I do not think he is some earth-shakingly new type of politician who has never said something because it was convenient or because it would increase his support.

Since the primaries, he has shown himself to be disciplined, driven, intelligent, and able to learn things quickly, and has developed an obvious grasp of all sorts of issues.

Inexperienced? Meh. Some of our best presidents have been inexperienced, and what really truly prepares you to be the president of the United States?

Given all this, I voted, cacuased, and call-banked for him in the primaries. I met the campaign workers from his national staff that came to my county, and was impressed at their drive, their intelligence, and their motivation.

This country needs a person who can attract such people to the next administration. Obama has looked more and more presidential every day, especially when put next to the McCain/Palin ticket.

I don't buy the hyterical doom and gloom scenarios of a country in ruins for electing Democrats. It is time for a change, and time for moderates to take back the government from the radicals who have been in charge.

Sir, this isn't what this thread is about at all!

[tp2021]

The more I read this stuff the more I wonder if Angel Luv masterbates.

Is her boyfriend allowed to kiss her....feel her up....hell is he allowed to rub her leg? All in gods name of course.

Pics or it didn't happen.

[DarkReign]

I'm pretty sure I've apostasized from conservatism. Last week, someone called me a liberal communist sympathizer because I said that if Obama were elected, I wasn't going to pull the "he's not my President" card or call him "that n***** in the White House." So I'm out of the club. I am basically a pro-life moderate now, still slowly trending leftward.

Somewhere back there conservatism changed.

Invariably, Ive always thought myself a conservative....that was until I got here at Spurstalk and was told by the whottt/clanny/Yoni/Xrays of the world that I'm a terrorist loving liberal sociopath and then they provided links to other people to prove it.

I took stock of who I am and realized that if conservatism were a mental-health hospital, then the inmates had taken over the asylum without me noticing.

That more or less, removed me from their inner circle, and could never have cared less.

[DarkReign]

You know, I really wonder if McCain could go back and select Joe Lieberman as his VP if he would do that now.

He would have my vote, hands down, with no further thought.

Nothing to do with Lieberman, everything to do with balance in the Federal government.

[101A]

I don't buy the hyterical doom and gloom scenarios of a country in ruins for electing Democrats. It is time for a change, and time for moderates to take back the government from the radicals who have been in charge.

If you don't think Pelosi and Reed are radical, you have fallen way outside of the mainstream.

Nobody has answered, or commented, but I have brought it up twice; what do you think of the allowance of non-private voting for unionization?

[AntiChrist]

this thread is not much fun without a radical fundamentalist posting in it. We need to find another one ASAP


You rang?


Do not attack Angel_Luv. She is merely a messenger.

[Trainwreck2100]

this thread is not much fun without a radical fundamentalist posting in it. We need to find another one ASAP

All you fuckers are going to hell but me. REPENT!!!!!1 REPENT!!!!!!! I say

[DWest30]

If you don't think Pelosi and Reed are radical, you have fallen way outside of the mainstream.

Nobody has answered, or commented, but I have brought it up twice; what do you think of the allowance of non-private voting for unionization?

Ive been union and dont know anyone who is, so the issue doesnt resonate with me at all.

[DarkReign]

If you don't think Pelosi and Reed are radical, you have fallen way outside of the mainstream.

Nobody has answered, or commented, but I have brought it up twice; what do you think of the allowance of non-private voting for unionization?

In the sense that making the vote public would, in turn, demonize the nay-sayers with those in agreement with unionization?

[DarkReign]

Ive been union and dont know anyone who is, so the issue doesnt resonate with me at all.

:lol You dont live in Michigan, obviously.

I am not union, btw.

[LnGrrrR]

:tu

Big props to 101A and ES for stating their take on the election.

Its weird, I am constantly called a liberal here, yet I have almost universally agreed with 2 conservatives on almost every issue of (my personal) importance (abortion just doesnt rank for me, ES).

Could it be *GASP* that we are not all so entirely different as our country says we are? Nah, that cant be it. You guys are different because I was told so, and thats that.

I think Angel_Luv blasted apart that notion on page 1.

[MannyIsGod]

Invariably, Ive always thought myself a conservative....that was until I got here at Spurstalk and was told by the whottt/clanny/Yoni/Xrays of the world that I'm a terrorist loving liberal sociopath and then they provided links to other people to prove it.

I took stock of who I am and realized that if conservatism were a mental-health hospital, then the inmates had taken over the asylum without me noticing.

That more or less, removed me from their inner circle, and could never have cared less.

I always considered myself more conservative before as well. That being said, I know my personal ideology has shifted to the left and I'm OK with that. I don't think I can consider myself anything but a liberal now.

[101A]

In the sense that making the vote public would, in turn, demonize the nay-sayers with those in agreement with unionization?

Yes.

And "demonize" is the least of what I imagine might happen.

What is wrong with secret ballot?

[Damien]

You rang?


Do not attack Angel_Luv. She is merely a messenger.

STFU message boy

[RandomGuy]

I'm pretty sure I've apostasized from conservatism. Last week, someone called me a liberal communist sympathizer because I said that if Obama were elected, I wasn't going to pull the "he's not my President" card or call him "that n***** in the White House." So I'm out of the club. I am basically a pro-life moderate now, still slowly trending leftward.

Somewhere back there conservatism changed.

Welcome to the club.

I used to consider myself a centrist, and somewhere along the line was called a liberal, and since then I have simply given up and worn the label with pride.

I revel in the fact that I get to f*** with what a lot of "conservatives" believe about "liberals".

Quite frankly I really believe the modern conservative movement has become morally and intellectually bankrupt.

It has been remarked that "revolutions tend to eat their children", i.e. after a revolution, the radicals tend to be the ones in power and pillory moderates for not being revolutionary enough. This seems to have happened with the Republican Revolution as well, and is evidenced by Palins recent remarks, and the RINO designation/ostracism of moderates in the GOP.

There seems to me to be something of a Democratic Revolution, and hopefully the moderates will be the ones in charge of this one.

[DWest30]

Invariably, Ive always thought myself a conservative....that was until I got here at Spurstalk and was told by the whottt/clanny/Yoni/Xrays of the world that I'm a terrorist loving liberal sociopath and then they provided links to other people to prove it.

I took stock of who I am and realized that if conservatism were a mental-health hospital, then the inmates had taken over the asylum without me noticing.

That more or less, removed me from their inner circle, and could never have cared less.

The GOP has fundamentally abandoned its traditional conservative principles in favor of a far-right ideology. Im hoping the spanking the GOP takes this year sends them into the wilderness where the sane conservatives eat the neo-cons for sustenance and come back led by another William F Buckley.

[101A]

Ive been union and dont know anyone who is, so the issue doesnt resonate with me at all.

Yeah, I'm in Pennsylvania now.

Just the concept of Congress passing a law TAKING AWAY the guarantee of a secret ballot seems anathema to most of what I believe, and I THOUGHT other Americans believed.

[JoeChalupa]

I always considered myself more conservative before as well. That being said, I know my personal ideology has shifted to the left and I'm OK with that. I don't think I can consider myself anything but a liberal now.

I'm pretty conservative when it comes to my home but have a progressive view on politics.

[AntiChrist]

STFU message boy


Hey, white boy! STFU! You only PRETENDED to be me in that movie.

[DWest30]

Yeah, I'm in Pennsylvania now.

Just the concept of Congress passing a law TAKING AWAY the guarantee of a secret ballot seems anathema to most of what I believe, and I THOUGHT other Americans believed.

Sorry, I mean Ive never been union.

[101A]

Welcome to the club.

I used to consider myself a centrist, and somewhere along the line was called a liberal, and since then I have simply given up and worn the label with pride.

I revel in the fact that I get to f*** with what a lot of "conservatives" believe about "liberals".

Quite frankly I really believe the modern conservative movement has become morally and intellectually bankrupt.

It has been remarked that "revolutions tend to eat their children", i.e. after a revolution, the radicals tend to be the ones in power and pillory moderates for not being revolutionary enough. This seems to have happened with the Republican Revolution as well, and is evidenced by Palins recent remarks, and the RINO designation/ostracism of moderates in the GOP.

There seems to me to be something of a Democratic Revolution, and hopefully the moderates will be the ones in charge of this one.


Ummmm. We already know who is going to be in charge. Not a single one of them is remotely "moderate".

It's actually ironic as hell. You are ranting about wanting moderates, and labeling the ONLY one who has a history of being one as a "radical conservative".

You aren't liberal. You are simply partisan.

[RandomGuy]

If you don't think Pelosi and Reed are radical, you have fallen way outside of the mainstream.

Nobody has answered, or commented, but I have brought it up twice; what do you think of the allowance of non-private voting for unionization?

I don't much like Pelosi. She is a bit more radical. Reid isn't much better.

I am not scared of unions. Providers of capital get to pool their capital into corporations for collective bargaining, and providers of labor should be do the same.

As for secret/non secret ballots, I don't really know enough to have much of an opinion.

I am generally for whatever allows people to more freely express themselves in such a vote.

[AntiChrist]

You'll never guess what's playing on my radio right now.


"Sympathy for the Devil" Rolling Stones


Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith


And I was 'round when Jesus Christ
Had His moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed His fate


Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you is the nature of my game

[DarkReign]

Yes.

And "demonize" is the least of what I imagine might happen.

What is wrong with secret ballot?

Nothing is wrong with a secret ballot and any attempts to further unionize certain industries in this nation will do nothing except further exclude non-right-to-work states from the list of potential suitor-states for the creation of new plants/offices (3 letter word.....jobs).

[RandomGuy]

Ummmm. We already know who is going to be in charge. Not a single one of them is remotely "moderate".

It's actually ironic as hell. You are ranting about wanting moderates, and labeling the ONLY one who has a history of being one as a "radical conservative".

You aren't liberal. You are simply partisan.

Darn tootin' I'm fairly partisan. I have bought into being a Democrat, and try to be as fair as possible. Given what I see going on on the Republican side with all sorts of nasty distortions and really really nasty partisanship, ala Aggie Hoopsfan, I would say that makes me a moderate.

Which moderate Republican have I labeled as a "radical"?

[101A]

I don't much like Pelosi. She is a bit more radical. Reid isn't much better.

I am not scared of unions. Providers of capital get to pool their capital into corporations for collective bargaining, and providers of labor should be do the same.

As for secret/non secret ballots, I don't really know enough to have much of an opinion.

I am generally for whatever allows people to more freely express themselves in such a vote.

The way it is now: employees at a company vote by ballot as to whether they want to be a Union shop. Majority wins. The way it WILL be. The Union sets up a table, and employees who want to unionize go up in public and sign their names; or they get visited at home by Union organizers, and are urged to sign. Once 50% is reached; they are unionized.

My wife is in a Union. It DOES NOT exist to give the employees power; it exists to give the union leaders power. She is far more beholden to them than she ever has been to an actual employer; however, this thread has been hijacked enough, that's enough for that subject; I'll start a thread when the law comes up early next year.

[DarkReign]

...to put a bow on the union discussion, I believe that to be a states-rights issue. Let each state have their own laws, just like it is now.

Federally legislating everything is what has started the ruin to this country and it will surely be the end as well.

[DarkReign]

this thread has been hijacked enough, that's enough for that subject; I'll start a thread when the law comes up early next year.


Fuck that. Keep going :tu

[101A]

Darn tootin' I'm fairly partisan. I have bought into being a Democrat, and try to be as fair as possible. Given what I see going on on the Republican side with all sorts of nasty distortions and really really nasty partisanship, ala Aggie Hoopsfan, I would say that makes me a moderate.

Which moderate Republican have I labeled as a "radical"?

Might have mislabeled, but the gyst of your post suggested to me that you were voting against radicalness (Republican - McCain), and FOR Moderation (Democrat - Obama). Obama's lifetime voting record is more outside the mainstream of US citizens than that of McCain - not even close. Their platforms, frankly, are within a whisker of each other. Obama has some new entitlements that McCain doesn't - but tax rates are w/in 3% at every income level.

As I said, if Obama ACTUALLY governs as his platform says he will; we'll be alright. Frankly, however, that will make him far more moderate than he has ever actually been.

[hater]

Angel, you think people are going to take your silliness seriously????

Go ahead, pray to your fake God. There's not stopping me!

Mwahahhahahahahaah!!!!!!

http://www.anti-christ.com/newspics/obama.jpg


SmAJC6TUogo

[101A]

...to put a bow on the union discussion, I believe that to be a states-rights issue. Let each state have their own laws, just like it is now.

Federally legislating everything is what has started the ruin to this country and it will surely be the end as well.

You're State's Rights, too?

Dude, you are not even a little bit liberal.

We need to form a new "Common Sense" party. Be like those firfighters on that commercial.

"Need clean water boys?" AYE!

[RandomGuy]

Invariably, Ive always thought myself a conservative....that was until I got here at Spurstalk and was told by the whottt/clanny/Yoni/Xrays of the world that I'm a terrorist loving liberal sociopath and then they provided links to other people to prove it.

I took stock of who I am and realized that if conservatism were a mental-health hospital, then the inmates had taken over the asylum without me noticing.

That more or less, removed me from their inner circle, and could never have cared less.


I'm pretty sure I've apostasized from conservatism. Last week, someone called me a liberal communist sympathizer because I said that if Obama were elected, I wasn't going to pull the "he's not my President" card or call him "that n***** in the White House." So I'm out of the club. I am basically a pro-life moderate now, still slowly trending leftward.

Somewhere back there conservatism changed.


I always considered myself more conservative before as well. That being said, I know my personal ideology has shifted to the left and I'm OK with that. I don't think I can consider myself anything but a liberal now.


I used to consider myself a centrist, and somewhere along the line was called a liberal, and since then I have simply given up and worn the label with pride.

I revel in the fact that I get to f*** with what a lot of "conservatives" believe about "liberals".

Quite frankly I really believe the modern conservative movement has become morally and intellectually bankrupt

Anybody else sensing a theme here?

This is why Republicans are losing elections. That people like Aggiee Hoopsfan or Wild Cobra might not see it says to me that the Republicans are doomed.

[DWest30]

You're State's Rights, too?

Dude, you are not even a little bit liberal.

We need to form a new "Common Sense" party. Be like those firfighters on that commercial.

"Need clean water boys?" AYE!

Um....Libertarian?

[hater]

Anybody else sensing a theme here?


you're all satanists?

[Tully365]

My vote goes to Obama.

I was an independent who tended to lean Democratic on social issues, and Republican when it came to fiscal matters.

The last 8 years have finished me on the Republican party. When Dick Cheney said "deficits don't matter" and the trickle down voodoo economics became the mantra, that started losing me. The stupidity that is Iraq was what finished it and made me turn my back on the GOP, probably for the rest of my life.

As a vet and one with enough knowledge about the subject to know how unnecessary Iraq was and how negligently it was run, at the cost of lives in the thousands of servicemembers, I feel that Bush and his administration betrayed a sacred trust to provide our military with the best possible leadership. For that I cannot forgive Bush, and am angry beyond words. That so many Republicans questioned my patriotism for criticising this and bought into the lies, makes my decision to be a Democrat much easier.

I have stood aghast at the level of incompetence, and naked hubris of the current administration.

That it was so cavalier with our government, imposing ideological litmus tests on hiring for non-political posts, a war on science that surpressed data that contradicted its ideology, seizing new powers and really going for what is best described as an "imperial" presidency, simply reinforced my belief that the Republican party really didn't represent the best interests of the nation, and that the radicals had taken power.

After years of seeing the Dems shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to picking a presidential candidate, I was horrified when I saw the same thing about to happen with Hillary being the front runner. I personally don't have a problem with the woman, but knew that she would lose in any national election.

I looked around, did a bit of digging and found Obama to be the best out of a pack of good alternatives.

He was obviously intelligent, and spoke to audiences on topics as if they were grown ups. The speech in Philidelphia on race sealed it.

I do not agree with everything in his platform, I do not think he is some earth-shakingly new type of politician who has never said something because it was convenient or because it would increase his support.

Since the primaries, he has shown himself to be disciplined, driven, intelligent, and able to learn things quickly, and has developed an obvious grasp of all sorts of issues.

Inexperienced? Meh. Some of our best presidents have been inexperienced, and what really truly prepares you to be the president of the United States?

Given all this, I voted, cacuased, and call-banked for him in the primaries. I met the campaign workers from his national staff that came to my county, and was impressed at their drive, their intelligence, and their motivation.

This country needs a person who can attract such people to the next administration. Obama has looked more and more presidential every day, especially when put next to the McCain/Palin ticket.

I don't buy the hyterical doom and gloom scenarios of a country in ruins for electing Democrats. It is time for a change, and time for moderates to take back the government from the radicals who have been in charge.

Posts like this are the reason I visit this forum.

[101A]

Um....Libertarian?

Libertarians do not have a tenable platform. We will never put the Genie that is the Federal Government back in a bottle they would consider small enough.

[JoeChalupa]

I visit this forum for the entertainment value.

[RandomGuy]

...to put a bow on the union discussion, I believe that to be a states-rights issue. Let each state have their own laws, just like it is now.

Federally legislating everything is what has started the ruin to this country and it will surely be the end as well.

The problem with doing everything at the state level is you get an explosion of burocracy.

Can you imagine 50 different FBI's? 50 different sets of aviation rules? Drug regulation?

What happens if you, say, get rid of the FBI, and a large international drug cartel infiltrates and dominates a thinly populated state like Wyoming, Alaska, or South Dakota?

The US economy depends on uniform rules that allow companies from Texas and New York, to set up in say, Kansas, and know that the laws apply evenly for the most part.

[101A]

Anybody else sensing a theme here?

This is why Republicans are losing elections. That people like Aggiee Hoopsfan or Wild Cobra might not see it says to me that the Republicans are doomed.


Yes, everybody is punishing the moderate McCain for the radical behavior of people that came before

[DWest30]

Libertarians do not have a tenable platform. We will never put the Genie that is the Federal Government back in a bottle they would consider small enough.

No, you cant put the genie back inthe bottle, but you can contain them and protect individual rights at the same time.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

The way it is now: employees at a company vote by ballot as to whether they want to be a Union shop. Majority wins. The way it WILL be. The Union sets up a table, and employees who want to unionize go up in public and sign their names; or they get visited at home by Union organizers, and are urged to sign. Once 50% is reached; they are unionized.

Not exactly true. Right now, employers can recognize unions when a majority of workers sign auth cards, or the employer can stall and demand a secret ballot. Traditionally this time is used to stonewall and intimidate. the EFCA doesn't eliminate secret ballot. it just doesn't allow an employer to call for one unless under 50% of the work force signs.

Unions and employers both use unfortunate tactics, but the act isn't as sinister or radical as you imply.

[Tully365]

Anybody else sensing a theme here?


Very true. That's a theme I support 100%.

[RandomGuy]

[Randomguy's post on who is voting for and why]
Posts like this are the reason I visit this forum.

Thanks.

[RandomGuy]

Very true. That's a theme I support 100%.

Heh, type in your own bit, and I will add it in an edit.

It might be an interesting topic of discussion in and of itself.

[JoeChalupa]

I support civil unions.

[Findog]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/hewitt-award--5.html


"On the one hand, Barack Obama is a true wolf in sheep's clothing. On the outside, he's nice, pleasant, handsome, well-spoken, has cute little kids, dresses well, looks like someone we would all like to know. But underneath, he resembles an anti-American Marxist who believes the following: ... Murdering innocent babies - through abortion - is an inalienable "right." (I think Adolf Hitler supported this same position. That marriage should be redefined to include homosexual relationships. (Inner-city poverty rates correlate with no father in the home. Imagine what it will be with no mother in the home.)... Now is the time to focus on ideology! And now is the time for everyone to vote in the candidates who support our ideology - at all levels of government," - Walker Johanson, Washington Times.

[RandomGuy]

My wife is in a Union. It DOES NOT exist to give the employees power; it exists to give the union leaders power. She is far more beholden to them than she ever has been to an actual employer; however, this thread has been hijacked enough, that's enough for that subject; I'll start a thread when the law comes up early next year.

That is the problem with unions. It is, however, a problem that can be overcome.

Given the chance to resturcture a union, how would you build one that was more representative of workers interests?

[RandomGuy]

Might have mislabeled, but the gyst of your post suggested to me that you were voting against radicalness (Republican - McCain), and FOR Moderation (Democrat - Obama). Obama's lifetime voting record is more outside the mainstream of US citizens than that of McCain - not even close. Their platforms, frankly, are within a whisker of each other. Obama has some new entitlements that McCain doesn't - but tax rates are w/in 3% at every income level.

As I said, if Obama ACTUALLY governs as his platform says he will; we'll be alright. Frankly, however, that will make him far more moderate than he has ever actually been.

I would like to think he is more of a centrist than you seem to believe.

Hmm. I guess we will get to find out.

I am a pragmatist at heart. I am for what works, and a lot of things seem to be broken to me now.

[Tully365]

For me, a simple crystallization of the political climate came last week with the Joe the Plumber situation. Joe asked Obama a totally fair question, and Obama answered him honestly, being respectful towards him the entire time, admitting that their opinions were different on the topic, and doing his best to explain his side of it. But somehow this very civil and instructive interaction went through the meatgrinder of media, blogs, internet forums, etc., and became "joe the plumber disrespected and disenfranchised" and "obama hates the working man." I don't see how anyone with a shred of objectivity could watch that interaction and come away from it thinking that anything mean-spirited or conspiratorial had transpired.

[RandomGuy]

For me, a simple crystallization of the political climate came last week with the Joe the Plumber situation. Joe asked Obama a totally fair question, and Obama answered him honestly, being respectful towards him the entire time, admitting that their opinions were different on the topic, and doing his best to explain his side of it. But somehow this very civil and instructive interaction went through the meatgrinder of media, blogs, internet forums, etc., and became "joe the plumber disrespected and disenfranchised" and "obama hates the working man." I don't see how anyone with a shred of objectivity could watch that interaction and come away from it thinking that anything mean-spirited or conspiratorial had transpired.

Yup. Things are getting a bit hysterical.

Hopefully we as a nation will take a giant chill pill, and find some civility somewhere.

[LnGrrrR]

Might have mislabeled, but the gyst of your post suggested to me that you were voting against radicalness (Republican - McCain), and FOR Moderation (Democrat - Obama). Obama's lifetime voting record is more outside the mainstream of US citizens than that of McCain - not even close. Their platforms, frankly, are within a whisker of each other. Obama has some new entitlements that McCain doesn't - but tax rates are w/in 3% at every income level.

As I said, if Obama ACTUALLY governs as his platform says he will; we'll be alright. Frankly, however, that will make him far more moderate than he has ever actually been.

Yeah, we totally see how non-radical McCain would be by picking Palin. How'd that ditty go? Bomb bomb Iran?

[nkdlunch]

But somehow this very civil and instructive interaction went through the meatgrinder of media, blogs, internet forums, etc., and became "joe the plumber disrespected and disenfranchised" and "obama hates the working man."

I don't think the media portrayed this at all. At least not the media I been watching. CNN,ABC,CBS,NBC

[JoeChalupa]

For me, a simple crystallization of the political climate came last week with the Joe the Plumber situation. Joe asked Obama a totally fair question, and Obama answered him honestly, being respectful towards him the entire time, admitting that their opinions were different on the topic, and doing his best to explain his side of it. But somehow this very civil and instructive interaction went through the meatgrinder of media, blogs, internet forums, etc., and became "joe the plumber disrespected and disenfranchised" and "obama hates the working man." I don't see how anyone with a shred of objectivity could watch that interaction and come away from it thinking that anything mean-spirited or conspiratorial had transpired.

I concur. :tu :tu

[101A]

That is the problem with unions. It is, however, a problem that can be overcome.

Given the chance to resturcture a union, how would you build one that was more representative of workers interests?


Good question, and one I am not versed enough to answer. My wife's experience in hers (she's a professor, it is a union of professors of all things), is the extent of MY experience. I lived in Texas until 3 years ago, and that is still where I have my job; will have to study on the subject. Have to learn more about the law I've been ranting on, as well; somebody in the thread has already taught me something about it.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

But somehow this very civil and instructive interaction went through the meatgrinder of media, blogs, internet forums, etc., and became "joe the plumber disrespected and disenfranchised" and "obama hates the working man." I don't see how anyone with a shred of objectivity could watch that interaction and come away from it thinking that anything mean-spirited or conspiratorial had transpired.

Let's be fair. First of all Joe asked Obama a question based on a lie and specifically designed to put forth a worst-case scenerio of Obama's proposed policy. Obama answered him honestly and Joe has every right to ask Obama any question he wants - based on lie or not. And the incident could have ended there as an interesting footnote.

McCain then made Joe a household name and the press vetted him. Joe has held more press conferences than Palin.

I get you, but Joe's situation is largely of his own and McCain's making. How was the press supposed to give attention to McCain's soundbites without vetting?

[timvp]

Damn, every time I want to respond to something I refresh the thread and it has headed in a new direction :lol

[101A]

For me, a simple crystallization of the political climate came last week with the Joe the Plumber situation. Joe asked Obama a totally fair question, and Obama answered him honestly, being respectful towards him the entire time, admitting that their opinions were different on the topic, and doing his best to explain his side of it. But somehow this very civil and instructive interaction went through the meatgrinder of media, blogs, internet forums, etc., and became "joe the plumber disrespected and disenfranchised" and "obama hates the working man." I don't see how anyone with a shred of objectivity could watch that interaction and come away from it thinking that anything mean-spirited or conspiratorial had transpired.

"We need to spread the wealth around" - frankly is divisive language to me, and inflammatory. I understand it is just his side of it. Unfortunately it is a gut reaction to that kind of language. Kind of like when somebody says, "Jesus is Lord" to several of the posters on this forum - they just HAVE to react to it.

McCain picked up on that - he got a little traction, so he tried to milk it (give the guy a break - he's getting his ass kicked).

oooops, misunderstood you.

[LnGrrrR]

On a somewhat related note, I really wish that every person who says that America is going to be destroyed under either McCain OR Obama, or that the Apocalypse is coming, or that we'll be turned into socialists, be required to post again online four years from now about how wrong and stupid they were.

[Findog]

"We need to spread the wealth around" - frankly is divisive language to me, and inflammatory.

What do you think taxation is? Progressive, Regressive, even flat tax, involves taking money from one tax bracket and spending it elsewhere.

[DarkReign]

The problem with doing everything at the state level is you get an explosion of burocracy.

Can you imagine 50 different FBI's? 50 different sets of aviation rules? Drug regulation?

What happens if you, say, get rid of the FBI, and a large international drug cartel infiltrates and dominates a thinly populated state like Wyoming, Alaska, or South Dakota?

The US economy depends on uniform rules that allow companies from Texas and New York, to set up in say, Kansas, and know that the laws apply evenly for the most part.

You exagerated that statement I made. I only stated I believe Unions to be a state's-rights issue. Nothing more (yet), nothing less.

To address the two points you brought up (FBI, FAA), of course they should still exist. There has to be a tenable balance to the organization of the Federal government that allows it to excercise the law across state borders, to regulate trade and travel across state borders that doesnt put the federal government in a position to decide every, freaking detail of our lives.

Here is a slopped together list (that is subject to change) of the role of Federal government as I see it.

1. National Security from all Enemies, Foreign and Domestic (ie military and intelligence agencies)
2. The Coining and Regulating of Money, of Free Movement and Trade (ie transportation included)
3. A Federal Law Enforcement Force (ie FBI, US Marshalls, etc)
4. Taxation for the above purposes and the above purposes ONLY (with a pre-ordained surplus %)
5. A Court of Law System
6. To Insure the Rights of American Citizens are not Impinged, in any way

Thats like a barebones list, but it is exactly what limited government should be. Do I have additions to the list I would like to make from a personal standpoint? Sure, who doesnt? But I would be more than happy if this were the entire scope of the Fed.

There needs to be more responsibilty given the lower portion of our government, on down to its citizens. States should be able to balance their respective budgets for education, healthcare, welfare, housing, etc.

Obviously, the last item is broad, but its meant to be. I would write it as..

To make no Law unto the Country that is outside the scope of the protection to personal freedom and our rights to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness".

Simple. No morality laws at the Federal level. No laws for funding of national programs, or state reimbursement, pet projects and the like. The Federal Government is nothing more than a representative to the capitulant 50 states.

Anyway, Im dreaming here, so I'll stop. I honestly wish I could articulate this better, but that would require an immense amount of time to do so for a forum post.

[Tully365]

Let's be fair. First of all Joe asked Obama a question based on a lie and specifically designed to put forth a worst-case scenerio of Obama's proposed policy. Obama answered him honestly and Joe has every right to ask Obama any question he wants - based on lie or not. And the incident could have ended there as an interesting footnote.

McCain then made Joe a household name and the press vetted him. Joe has held more press conferences than Palin.

I get you, but Joe's situation is largely of his own and McCain's making. How was the press supposed to give attention to McCain's soundbites without vetting?

Sweet jesus you are an ignorant slut!! Hee-hee, just kidding...

Whatever happened after the "incident" with McCain or inquiries into Joe's personal life are different from what I'm talking about. I'm focusing on the fact that a civil dialogue became known to many out there as a contentious rumble, which in fact it was not. My point being that extremism of the temperament tends to look at everything as contentious and difficult, even a conversation that clearly wasn't. This ties back to our initial conversation about name-calling in discourse, no?

[RandomGuy]

Damn, every time I want to respond to something I refresh the thread and it has headed in a new direction :lol

That's kinda why I broke out what I thought seemed to be a interesting discussion here:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107651

Unfortunately, I have got to go.

Cheers all. :toast

[RandomGuy]

You exagerated that statement I made. I only stated I believe Unions to be a state's-rights issue. Nothing more (yet), nothing less.

Sorry about that, it wasn't quite intentional. I have had a run-in with the occasiona uber-libertarian who wants to get rid of all federal regulation, and wanted to head off that off at the pass.

[DarkReign]

Sorry about that, it wasn't quite intentional. I have had a run-in with the occasiona uber-libertarian who wants to get rid of all federal regulation, and wanted to head off that off at the pass.

:lmao

Fair.

[101A]

You exagerated that statement I made. I only stated I believe Unions to be a state's-rights issue. Nothing more (yet), nothing less.

To address the two points you brought up (FBI, FAA), of course they should still exist. There has to be a tenable balance to the organization of the Federal government that allows it to excercise the law across state borders, to regulate trade and travel across state borders that doesnt put the federal government in a position to decide every, freaking detail of our lives.

Here is a slopped together list (that is subject to change) of the role of Federal government as I see it.

1. National Security from all Enemies, Foreign and Domestic (ie military and intelligence agencies)
2. The Coining and Regulating of Money, of Free Movement and Trade (ie transportation included)
3. A Federal Law Enforcement Force (ie FBI, US Marshalls, etc)
4. Taxation for the above purposes and the above purposes ONLY (with a pre-ordained surplus %)
5. A Court of Law System
6. To Insure the Rights of American Citizens are not Impinged, in any way

Thats like a barebones list, but it is exactly what limited government should be. Do I have additions to the list I would like to make from a personal standpoint? Sure, who doesnt? But I would be more than happy if this were the entire scope of the Fed.

There needs to be more responsibilty given the lower portion of our government, on down to its citizens. States should be able to balance their respective budgets for education, healthcare, welfare, housing, etc.

Obviously, the last item is broad, but its meant to be. I would write it as..

To make no Law unto the Country that is outside the scope of the protection to personal freedom and our rights to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness".

Simple. No morality laws at the Federal level. No laws for funding of national programs, or state reimbursement, pet projects and the like. The Federal Government is nothing more than a representative to the capitulant 50 states.

Anyway, Im dreaming here, so I'll stop. I honestly wish I could articulate this better, but that would require an immense amount of time to do so for a forum post.

I am now FOR same sex marriages.

You and me, DR, going to Hawaii.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Sweet jesus you are an ignorant slut!!

I killed Jane too :p:


Whatever happened after the "incident" with McCain or inquiries into Joe's personal life are different from what I'm talking about. I'm focusing on the fact that a civil dialogue became known to many out there as a contentious rumble, which in fact it was not.

Ahhh. You mean the day is night syndrome? Yeah, I'm with you on that.

As confessions go, I have to admit I'm exhausted with the childish McLame/nObama type stuff. It's just so silly.

[Tully365]

Ahhh. You mean the day is night syndrome? Yeah, I'm with you on that.

As confessions go, I have to admit I'm exhausted with the childish McLame/nObama type stuff. It's just so silly.

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."

Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan, 1892, Act III

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."

Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan, 1892, Act III

You mean Tennessee didn't make that up for Summer and Smoke?

[DarkReign]

I am now FOR same sex marriages.

You and me, DR, going to Hawaii.

:lmao

You are entirely too forward, sir.

[DarkReign]

As confessions go, I have to admit I'm exhausted with the childish McLame/nObama type stuff. It's just so silly.

Ahhhh, I see you havent met boutons_ yet. Good luck!

[CuckingFunt]

Do you believe the African American male is viewed as a net positive or net negative figure in our society?

well i can't speak for society as a whole so i can't answer the question the way you're leading me to answer. i'm sure you already have a reply ready, but i can say this. i give every person a clean slate until they screw up. normally i allow them to screw up quite a bit before i see them for what that person is. notice i say person, not race, society, culture, what not. i'll let people with the same mindset as you to pull the race card. it's a cop out. plain and simple. i'll be more than happy to support and vote for a black/man or woman, or any race for that matter, that runs for the presidency, but this time around i won't be voting for that black man. all races have their positive and negative figures. any person should know that.

I realize I've gotten several pages behind while at class, but I still have to respond to this.

Where in Manny's question did he ask for your personal opinion on African-Americans? He didn't. He was asking about their portrayal in our society as a whole. Now you may claim colorblindness and that you judge people based solely on the content of their character and all that, which is truly commendable (no bullshit), but to extend that to the belief that this country is not still actively built upon systemic racism is beyond naive. Right now, today, 2008, this country is still employing a power dynamic that is absolutely dependent on perpetuating the belief that "they" are scary and evil and out to get "us." Anyone who can't see that is bound and determined not to.

And, furthermore, yes that does make it possible that Angel's beliefs are based on an internal oppression of which she may not even be consciously aware. Manny is far from off base in that assertion.

[Tully365]

"We need to spread the wealth around" - frankly is divisive language to me, and inflammatory. I understand it is just his side of it. Unfortunately it is a gut reaction to that kind of language. Kind of like when somebody says, "Jesus is Lord" to several of the posters on this forum - they just HAVE to react to it.

McCain picked up on that - he got a little traction, so he tried to milk it (give the guy a break - he's getting his ass kicked).

oooops, misunderstood you.

I always wonder if some politically charged people in church secretly get angry when the donation basket gets passed around? Isn't tithing a way of spreading the wealth?

[101A]

I always wonder if some politically charged people in church secretly get angry when the donation basket gets passed around? Isn't tithing a way of spreading the wealth?

I tithe.

I enjoy doing it.

Studies have shown that religious people, and people who consider themselves conservative, give far more % in charity than others. Kind of ironic, actually.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I realize I've gotten several pages behind while at class, but I still have to respond to this.

Where in Manny's question did he ask for your personal opinion on African-Americans? He didn't. He was asking about their portrayal in our society as a whole. Now you may claim colorblindness and that you judge people based solely on the content of their character and all that, which is truly commendable (no bullshit), but to extend that to the belief that this country is not still actively built upon systemic racism is beyond naive. Right now, today, 2008, this country is still employing a power dynamic that is absolutely dependent on perpetuating the belief that "they" are scary and evil and out to get "us." Anyone who can't see that is bound and determined not to.

And, furthermore, yes that does make it possible that Angel's beliefs are based on an internal oppression of which she may not even be consciously aware. Manny is far from off base in that assertion.

as i stated i cannot and will not speak on behalf of society. i clearly stated that in my first post.

[Tully365]

I tithe.

I enjoy doing it.

Studies have shown that religious people, and people who consider themselves conservative, give far more % in charity than others. Kind of ironic, actually.

That's cool. In the past few years I've had the good fortune to have more money than many of my friends, and have actually been very happy to be able to lend money to them occasionally when needed. It's a pretty good feeling, if you ask me.

[BacktoBasics]

as i stated i cannot and will not speak on behalf of society. i clearly stated that in my first post.I for one am greatful for that.

[Tully365]

I tithe.

I enjoy doing it.

Studies have shown that religious people, and people who consider themselves conservative, give far more % in charity than others. Kind of ironic, actually.

Part of it is the expectation or demand for money.

That's why I've heard the Lottery defined as taxes for people who are bad at math. No one complains about them, even if they've lost thousands to them over the years.

[CuckingFunt]

as i stated i cannot and will not speak on behalf of society. i clearly stated that in my first post.

You weren't being asked to speak on behalf of society, though.

[spurster]

Edit: wrong thread

[Viva Las Espuelas]

You weren't being asked to speak on behalf of society, though.




Do you believe the African American male is viewed as a net positive or net negative figure in our society?

looks like it to me.

[Ignignokt]

You guys are either really beside yourselves or real stupid.

WHen hillary was being labeled a socialist and an antichrist was it becuase she black?

Or what about jimmy carter or Bill Clinton.

Weaksauce.

Using the race card to shut the opposition is just as tasteless as assuming one is the antichrist.

Cucking has no right to complain.

[Ignignokt]

People voted against Bush in 04 because they thought he was the Anti Christ and he created 911.

Cucking was silent there.

People have been using the Masonic Anti Christ card on Bush for the longest of time, and now everyone is using the race card to defend BO for like suspicions.

What a bunch of hypocrites.

[Ignignokt]

looks like it to me.

Owned!! CF was shown up!!

[DarkReign]

gtowns up in this bitch

[ElNono]

So, I got a discount on devil's advocate sneakers last week. Touting the benefits of open society doesn't just mean you get to applaud angel_luv's right to speak her own mind and state her religious beliefs and those who engage with her in what you deem to be civil discourse, but also the rights of those who challenge her, even if their tactics involve the name-calling you disapprove of.

Again, I don't understand why "I think you're going to hell if you don't agree with me, but I will pray for you" coming from a fundamentalist is any more or less offensive than "you are a few elephants short of a box of animal crackers" or, as some put it "you're fucking nuts."

It's all really the same sentiment in different packaging and it's all speech. It's all valid. It's just not all pretty.

Yes?

Yes. She's batshit crazy. You can sugarcoat it anyway you want it, or label it with a more polite medical condition, but her last few posts basically confirmed pretty much everything I said:
1) She's fearful as shit. She lives in fear. Of other religions, of the Antichrist, of a non-catholic leader, of thinking by herself, etc.
2) She's a proud bigot. It's not that she's fighting to prevent Christianity to be a 'second class' religion. She's actively fighting for Christianity to be the one and only religion, openly embracing the idea that if you're not Christian you're an idiot. Complete and open intolerance.
3) She's ignorant. Very ignorant. Anybody that actually knows the law of the land where one is living, knows that her idea of a Christian nation is ILLEGAL under the constitution (Thank God! Phun intended). With the current social fabric of our nation, the odds of that being amended out of the constitution probably hovers on complete impossibility.

What a royal waste of a life...

[Shastafarian]

Yes. She's batshit crazy. You can sugarcoat it anyway you want it, or label it with a more polite medical condition, but her last few posts basically confirmed pretty much everything I said:
1) She's fearful as shit. She lives in fear. Of other religions, of the Antichrist, of a non-catholic leader, of thinking by herself, etc.
2) She's a proud bigot. It's not that she's fighting to prevent Christianity to be a 'second class' religion. She's actively fighting for Christianity to be the one and only religion, openly embracing the idea that if you're not Christian you're an idiot. Complete and open intolerance.
3) She's ignorant. Very ignorant. Anybody that actually knows the law of the land where one is living, knows that her idea of a Christian nation is ILLEGAL under the constitution (Thank God! Phun intended). With the current social fabric of our nation, the odds of that being amended out of the constitution probably hovers on complete impossibility.

What a royal waste of a life...

Are you sure it isn't because she just has an irrational fear of black men?

[CuckingFunt]

looks like it to me.

Then I guess we've got more reading comprehension issues in here.

Being asked your opinion of the society in which you live (and, in theory, with which you interact) is not the same thing as being asked to take responsibility for, or speak on behalf of, that society. I would never willingly or intentionally put myself in the position of speaking on behalf of our nation as a whole either, but I'll damn sure post my impression of our nation based on what I've seen and experienced.

Just a pet peeve of mine, though. I get tired of the frequent confusion that says "I feel our country still harbors racist practices and policies" is the same as "you, and everyone who shares your beliefs, individually, are racists." They're not remotely the same thing. Observation gets mistaken for personal attack, response is defensive, discourse breaks down.

[VaSpursFan]

best.thread.EVER.

lots of good discourse here intertwined with some batshit crazy.

[ElNono]

Are you sure it isn't because she just has an irrational fear of black men?

Very sure. I'm actually complete absolutely sure that race has nothing to do with it. It's all about Christian Supremacy to her.

[Shastafarian]

Very sure. I'm actually complete absolutely sure that race has nothing to do with it. It's all about Christian Supremacy to her.

Did you major in Psychology?

[ElNono]

Did you major in Psychology?

I dated a psychologist once. Does that count? :lol

[Shastafarian]

I dated a psychologist once. Does that count? :lol

haha sure why not. See I just heard from someone smarter than me that she has an irrational fear of black men. I trusted him because he knows everything.

[DWest30]

I dated a psychologist once. Does that count? :lol

Ive never dated a chick who majored in psych who wasn't off the chart nutty.

Then again, they DID all date me, so maybe there's more to this than I thought...

[TheMadHatter]

Back when this thread first started I knew right away it would reach epic status. We've discussed religion a lot on here, but not even the wingnuts like whottt or WildCobra would ever come out and say something like "I think Obama is the anti-christ". At least not in a completely serious manner.

[ElNono]

Back when this thread first started I knew right away it would reach epic status. We've discussed religion a lot on here, but not even the wingnuts like whottt or WildCobra would ever come out and say something like "I think Obama is the anti-christ". At least not in a completely serious manner.

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/9089/legendarythreadco1.jpg

[Ignignokt]

wow, all you internet tough guys are showing alot of bravery attacking Angel Luv out here.

this is getting ridiculous.

THere are people here who believe that 911 was a staged attack, even going as far as believing that the govt used laser beams and special effects.

Some people here sided with a rapper who equated the Cops and Law enforcement with alqueda.

Some of you need to self asses yourselves.

Then you have MannyisGod telling a black girl she's racist.

Wow, this is totally topsy turvy world.

If anybody is racist it's Manny for posing with the obama campaign. The obama campaign doesn't need more vicous monkey metaphors. Our nation is already divided as it is.

[Shastafarian]

wow, all you internet tough guys are showing alot of bravery attacking Angel Luv out here.

this is getting ridiculous.

THere are people here who believe that 911 was a staged attack, even going as far as believing that the govt used laser beams and special effects.

Some people here sided with a rapper who equated the Cops and Law enforcement with alqueda.

Some of you need to self asses yourselves.

Then you have MannyisGod telling a black girl she's racist.

Wow, this is totally topsy turvy world.

If anybody is racist it's Manny for posing with the obama campaign. The obama campaign doesn't need more vicous monkey metaphors. Our nation is already divided as it is.

I've seen this before somewhere...

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104358&page=65

[DarrinS]

For me, a simple crystallization of the political climate came last week with the Joe the Plumber situation. Joe asked Obama a totally fair question, and Obama answered him honestly, being respectful towards him the entire time, admitting that their opinions were different on the topic, and doing his best to explain his side of it. But somehow this very civil and instructive interaction went through the meatgrinder of media, blogs, internet forums, etc., and became "joe the plumber disrespected and disenfranchised" and "obama hates the working man." I don't see how anyone with a shred of objectivity could watch that interaction and come away from it thinking that anything mean-spirited or conspiratorial had transpired.



I didn't see the media spin it that way.

One thing I like about Obama is that he openly says what he plans to do. Obama says "Yes, Joe, I'm going to take some of your money and spread it around to make things more fair". I don't like the idea, but at least Obama's not being sneaky about it.

[TheMadHatter]

I didn't see the media spin it that way.

One thing I like about Obama is that he openly says what he plans to do. Obama says "Yes, Joe, I'm going to take some of your money and spread it around to make things more fair". I don't like the idea, but at least Obama's not being sneaky about it.

What the fuck do you think a graduated income tax is? That's spreading the fucking wealth moron.

[Findog]

I didn't see the media spin it that way.

One thing I like about Obama is that he openly says what he plans to do. Obama says "Yes, Joe, I'm going to take some of your money and spread it around to make things more fair". I don't like the idea, but at least Obama's not being sneaky about it.

Joe the Plumber is actually getting a tax cut under Obama. He doesn't make anywhere near $250K

[ElNono]

wow, all you internet tough guys are showing alot of bravery attacking Angel Luv out here.

this is getting ridiculous.


She's batshit crazy. If you're going to argue that point, please present your case.



THere are people here who believe that 911 was a staged attack, even going as far as believing that the govt used laser beams and special effects.


Delusional people. Thankfully they're the minority in this forum.



Some people here sided with a rapper who equated the Cops and Law enforcement with alqueda.


I missed that one, but we can also chalk it up to either ignorance and/or idiocy.



Some of you need to self asses yourselves.
Then you have MannyisGod telling a black girl she's racist.
Wow, this is totally topsy turvy world.


Well, that's ONE poster in how many that participated in this thread?
Why generalize?



If anybody is racist it's Manny for posing with the obama campaign. The obama campaign doesn't need more vicous monkey metaphors. Our nation is already divided as it is.

Did you tell that to angel? Because what she wants is to divide and conquer.

[LnGrrrR]

Going back to taxes for a moment...

If I ruled the world, I would impose a "Top Ten" list on every tax form that would be filled out by each individual filing. It would list ten categories, such as, "Defense", "Education", "Energy" etc etc. And I would make people order it from 1-10 in order of most to least important to them. And sure, I'd throw a write in too, most likely.

This would be a quick and relatively efficient way, I feel, to get an idea of what the American taxpayer thinks his taxes should go forward to. Not a hard and fast rule by any means, but it would be a great yardstick for determining what the American people would like to see funded. I really can't see the downside. (Apart from H&R Block likely getting a disproportionate amount of votes...)

[J.T.]

My vote's in for Obama (and extending alcohol sales from 12am to 2am in Hays Co.)

[dg7md]

The "Anti-Christ" is a black man, who would have thought... :lol

[Tully365]

I didn't see the media spin it that way.

One thing I like about Obama is that he openly says what he plans to do. Obama says "Yes, Joe, I'm going to take some of your money and spread it around to make things more fair". I don't like the idea, but at least Obama's not being sneaky about it.

Cool. We agree on that. Here's a thread from Wild Cobra that was posted shortly after the story broke: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107244&highlight=plumber

It's stuff like this that I'm referring to, which of course doesn't speak for everyone.

[ratm1221]

wow, all you internet tough guys are showing alot of bravery attacking Angel Luv out here.

this is getting ridiculous.

THere are people here who believe that 911 was a staged attack, even going as far as believing that the govt used laser beams and special effects.

Some people here sided with a rapper who equated the Cops and Law enforcement with alqueda.

Some of you need to self asses yourselves.

Then you have MannyisGod telling a black girl she's racist.

Wow, this is totally topsy turvy world.

If anybody is racist it's Manny for posing with the obama campaign. The obama campaign doesn't need more vicous monkey metaphors. Our nation is already divided as it is.

Who the fuck are you?

[Tully365]

Some of you need to self asses yourselves.


I'll say.

[MannyIsGod]

Some of us also need to learn English but I digress.

[Tully365]

Amazing thread. 30,000 views and closing in on comment #1000!

[duncan228]

Amazing thread. 30,000 views and closing in on comment #1000!

It's an incredible thread.

It's got a ways to go in the views department though.
The "Magic Jack-New Phone Sevice" thread in the Club has 174,415 views. (But only 165 replies).

[LnGrrrR]

Are nude photos allowed? That always seems to jack up a thread's views :D

[tp2021]

Are nude photos allowed? That always seems to jack up a thread's views :D
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107642

[sook]

I already told you that I cannot prove my strong suspicions about Obama. Only time will tell if I am right or wrong.

I am just going to vote according to my inner convictions and gut instincts and be straight up about it.
That is all I am responsible to do.


Its ok to feel like that about a black man, we all have "instincts" that tell us so

[jochhejaam]

No, its called indoctrination.
2 : to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle

Before responding, I'm going to again point out your self proclaimed regarding Christianity; you clearly stated that your knowledge of the Bible consists of having 'read a few pages, and thrown it down', don't proclaim ignorance on a subject and then expect your opinions to be taken seriously, that serves only to compound your ignorance.



Oh really, JJ? And in what capacity have you shown open-mindedness in any subject that objects to your worldview?
On the subjects I'm not well versed in, but am interested in, I read the post and get an education on the subject, I may ask questions, but I don't post as if I have a good grasp of the subject, more often than not you come across looking like an ass (hello!).






You see, the difference between people like you and people like me, is that in our world there is more than enough room for you.
Poignant.



But in your world, I must accept Jesus to be considered equal in your moral eyes.
Your total lack of understanding into Christianity is stunning, you have no insight into the spiritual nature of redeemed man, and in spite of that you insist on posting this nonsensical mess, and because you do, you end up looking like a clown.
I'm saved by the Grace of God, who sent his Son Jesus Christ into this World to free mankind from the bondage of inherent sin. If you feel unequal that's on you, no one's forcing you to reject Christianity, you've made that decision on your own. Likewise, no one coerced me to accept Jesus Christ as my Saviour; born into a Christian home my dad was an ordained minister, yet I was never forced to pray, read the Bible, and most importantly, I was not forced to accept Christianity (no indoctrination), that was a decision I made for myself, a personal, heartfelt confrontation between myself and my Creator.
Don't lecture me about unequality based on my decision to accept the teaching of Jesus, and yours to reject those same teachings. The difference, or unequality as you chose to phrase it, is about redemption, a redemption many choose to take partake of, a redemption that frees one from the penalty of sin and gives them the promise of someday being united with God and Christ in some heavenly realm.
It's not about equality, your where you are because that's where you choose to be and likewise for me.



Sure, you may respect certain portions of m existence, but there will always be that one caveat in the back of your mind that says "Ha, silly heathen. Forgive him, he knows not what he does" or some other condescending shit that youve somehow climbed the "moral ladder" a step or two higher by professing your soul to the Imaginary Man in the Sky.

You've hit a new low on this subject, attributing your words and thoughts to me, and pretending to know what's in the back of my mind
I am a respecter of man to the extent that they have allowed the nature of Christ to overshadow mankind's unredemptive nature.
Your mocking of God as an "imaginary man in the sky" is churlish. This belief puts me in the company of some of the most respected posters on this board, Extra Stout, FromWayDowntown, Spurminator (correct me if I'm mistaken), among many others, and some other rather prominent individuals such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the Pope and his billion or so followers, Billy Graham, and a multitude of others, are the entire lot of us stupid idiots for believing in this God who you dismiss as Imaginary? You, who read all of what, 3 pages before dismissing it as nonsense? That's the heighth of ignorance and arrogance.





So I will always be "less" than you in some way.
That's your categorization, not mine, quit trying to attribute your thoughts to me.



That wouldnt bother me if you could just keep that shit to yourself, but no, you decided to jump in here and try telling me how dumb I am about scripture
I don't care if it bothers you, you don't decide what I keep to myself, and your ignorance of scripture, is what it is, by your own choosing.







Do you know why? Because people like you cant make your fucking mind about what it says in the first place!
Oh wise one, that is a blatant lie, show me one instance where I've wavered or been inconsistent in what I believe.




Is it all true or is it a metaphor? Tell me! If you say its true and real and that it actually happened as it is written, then I am fucked. So are a lot of other people, unless of course on their deathbed they accept Jesus as their Lord an savior.
It's true, and you're screwed only if you wish to be, your choice, and even though your intent is to be sacastic, you are correct in that salvation comes simultaneously with the request, even if it's right before you pass on.








The Bible is either wholly true and to be read as literal, or its an 800+ page metaphor. There is no middle ground on that issue. Its one or the other. Its literal or its a metaphor. Cant have both.
Because you say so, huh? :lol And what qualifies you as the final arbiter of whether or not it has to be totally one or the other to qualify it as being entirely truthful? Let us know when you reach the level of Bible Scholar (hint: reading .1 percent of it and discarding it isn't going to make the grade), and then your opinions will be afforded some weight.





So when I read "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." What does that mean?
Just what is says, that Jesus Christ is the only mediator between man and God.






If the Bible is literal, it means you dont get to meet your maker unless you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior as described in the Bible. No interpretation needed or expected, what is written is exactly what it means. No exceptions, no excuses, period. Fuck the Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, Buddhists, Aborigines and the those poor souls who had a bad luck streak being born in an African jungle who have never even heard of the Bible, much less Christ. Thats a real "all-inclusive" religion you have there, if its meant to be taken literally and as truth (the Bible that is). I think thats an ultimate stretch of the interpretation of such a simple sentence, but I could accept that if the Bible isnt literal. That it shouldnt be used as empirical historical evidence, that some of the obvious divine miracles Jesus performed might not have actually happened like it says it did.
You are free to explore, reject, accept, dismiss, adhere to anything you wish, you are constrained by nothing, or no one, that's the beauty of living in this Country, and the beauty of Christianity.







Which is it, JJ, since you obviously know so much more about scripture than I do (seriously). Since youve spent a better part of your life studying/learning/adhering to the Bible, you tell me, is it all true or a giant metaphor?

Certainly in your lifetime of piousness you could surely answer such a simple question?
There has been plenty of discourse on the subject over the three or so years you have been a member of this forum, to this point you have maintained the same position over those years. In light of that, no answer I give would be sufficient for you, if you are honest and really seek some answers you'll have to find them on your own, there's been ample advice from many different posters. If you ever truly endeavor to search for the Truth, I wish you the best, and I'm confident that if you do, you'll have put yourself in the position to be at the crossroad where man and God are a heartbeat away from each other, and you can then decide for yourself, in his presence, which road you choose to travel.
Christ is the Saviour not man; we are prone to failure, he is not; we strive to reflect his nature as best we can, yet we fall short; we do our best for others, even as one day someone did for us, to lead other to the Saviour, and that's where our mission is complete, anything more than that, the utmost important matter of Salvation, is with him, but the decision rests with you.

It's not complicated at all DR, I'll end this with a couple of Scriptures;

"Behold, I stand at the door (of mans heart) and knock, if any man would open the door, I will come in to him and commune with him, and he with me".

"You will seek me and you will find me when you search for me with all your heart".

[TheMadHatter]

Before responding, I'm going to again point out your self proclaimed regarding Christianity; you clearly stated that your knowledge of the Bible consists of having 'read a few pages, and thrown it down', don't proclaim ignorance on a subject and then expect your opinions to be taken seriously, that serves only to compound your ignorance.



On the subjects I'm not well versed in, but am interested in, I read the post and get an education on the subject, I may ask questions, but I don't post as if I have a good grasp of the subject, more often than not you come across looking like an ass (hello!).






Poignant.



Your total lack of understanding into Christianity is stunning, you have no insight into the spiritual nature of redeemed man, and in spite of that you insist on posting this nonsensical mess, and because you do, you end up looking like a clown.
I'm saved by the Grace of God, who sent his Son Jesus Christ into this World to free mankind from the bondage of inherent sin. If you feel unequal that's on you, no one's forcing you to reject Christianity, you've made that decision on your own. Likewise, no one coerced me to accept Jesus Christ as my Saviour; born into a Christian home my dad was an ordained minister, yet I was never forced to pray, read the Bible, and most importantly, I was not forced to accept Christianity (no indoctrination), that was a decision I made for myself, a personal, heartfelt confrontation between myself and my Creator.
Don't lecture me about unequality based on my decision to accept the teaching of Jesus, and yours to reject those same teachings. The difference, or unequality as you chose to phrase it, is about redemption, a redemption many choose to take partake of, a redemption that frees one from the penalty of sin and gives them the promise of someday being united with God and Christ in some heavenly realm.
It's not about equality, your where you are because that's where you choose to be and likewise for me.



You've hit a new low on this subject, attributing your words and thoughts to me, and pretending to know what's in the back of my mind
I am a respecter of man to the extent that they have allowed the nature of Christ to overshadow mankind's unredemptive nature.
Your mocking of God as an "imaginary man in the sky" is churlish. This belief puts me in the company of some of the most respected posters on this board, Extra Stout, FromWayDowntown, Spurminator (correct me if I'm mistaken), among many others, and some other rather prominent individuals such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the Pope and his billion or so followers, Billy Graham, and a multitude of others, are the entire lot of us stupid idiots for believing in this God who you dismiss as Imaginary? You, who read all of what, 3 pages before dismissing it as nonsense? That's the heighth of ignorance and arrogance.





That's your categorization, not mine, quit trying to attribute your thoughts to me.



I don't care if it bothers you, you don't decide what I keep to myself, and your ignorance of scripture, is what it is, by your own choosing.







Oh wise one, that is a blatant lie, show me one instance where I've wavered or been inconsistent in what I believe.




It's true, and you're screwed only if you wish to be, your choice, and even though your intent is to be sacastic, you are correct in that salvation comes simultaneously with the request, even if it's right before you pass on.








Because you say so, huh? :lol And what qualifies you as the final arbiter of whether or not it has to be totally one or the other to qualify it as being entirely truthful? Let us know when you reach the level of Bible Scholar (hint: reading .1 percent of it and discarding it isn't going to make the grade), and then your opinions will be afforded some weight.





Just what is says, that Jesus Christ is the only mediator between man and God.






You are free to explore, reject, accept, dismiss, adhere to anything you wish, you are constrained by nothing, or no one, that's the beauty of living in this Country, and the beauty of Christianity.







Which is it, JJ, since you obviously know so much more about scripture than I do (seriously). Since youve spent a better part of your life studying/learning/adhering to the Bible, you tell me, is it all true or a giant metaphor?

Certainly in your lifetime of piousness you could surely answer such a simple question?
There has been plenty of discourse on the subject over the three or so years you have been a member of this forum, to this point you have maintained the same position over those years. In light of that, no answer I give would be sufficient for you, if you are honest and really seek some answers you'll have to find them on your own, there's been ample advice from many different posters. If you ever truly endeavor to search for the Truth, I wish you the best, and I'm confident that if you do, you'll have put yourself in the position to be at the crossroad where man and God are a heartbeat away from each other, and you can then decide for yourself, in his presence, which road you choose to travel.
Christ is the Saviour not man; we are prone to failure, he is not; we strive to reflect his nature as best we can, yet we fall short; we do our best for others, even as one day someone did for us, to lead other to the Saviour, and that's where our mission is complete, anything more than that, the utmost important matter of Salvation, is with him, but the decision rests with you.

It's not complicated at all DR, I'll end this with a couple of Scriptures;

"Behold, I stand at the door (of mans heart) and knock, if any man would open the door, I will come in to him and commune with him, and he with me".

"You will seek me and you will find me when you search for me with all your heart".

A few questions for you.

1.) What do you believe will happen to non-believers of Christ when they die?

2.) What will happen to those who by no luck of their own are ignorant of Christ and his teachings and thus had no chance to accept/reject him when they die?

[TheMadHatter]

I will reiterate again that I have no problems with Christians so long as they ALL admit the following about their religion and their beliefs.

1.) There is no compelling argument that the historicity of Jesus is as indicated in the New Testament Gospel. In other words, there is no convincing historical proof that Jesus ever existed the way it says he did in the New Testament Gospels. In fact, there is actually more evidence to believe that it was likely fabricated based on what we do know but I'll let that one slide.

2.) They have no way of knowing with any degree of certainty that what they believe about God is the truth.

If every Christian I ever met held these beliefs the world would be a far better place. The problem with religions like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam is that the religion itself has been distorted over the years by their respective churches to be completely exclusive of non-believers. Even going so far as to preach violence against non-believers.

If God really did reveal himself to humanity I'd wager the Buddhists likely have it right. Let me know when someone starts a holy war in the name of Buddhism.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Let me know when someone starts a holy war in the name of Buddhism.

:::cough::: Sri Lanka :::cough:::

[Trainwreck2100]

I will reiterate again that I have no problems with Christians so long as they ALL admit the following about their religion and their beliefs.

1.) There is no compelling argument that the historicity of Jesus is as indicated in the New Testament Gospel. In other words, there is no convincing historical proof that Jesus ever existed the way it says he did in the New Testament Gospels. In fact, there is actually more evidence to believe that it was likely fabricated based on what we do know but I'll let that one slide.

2.) They have no way of knowing with any degree of certainty that what they believe about God is the truth.

If every Christian I ever met held these beliefs the world would be a far better place. The problem with religions like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam is that the religion itself has been distorted over the years by their respective churches to be completely exclusive of non-believers. Even going so far as to preach violence against non-believers.

If God really did reveal himself to humanity I'd wager the Buddhists likely have it right. Let me know when someone starts a holy war in the name of Buddhism.

no