Political & Religious Debate

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:11 pm

This topic is to debate polital & religious beleifs. Please be warned that I am a "master debator" so things could get sticky.

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:12 pm

Oh pishaaaaa...bring it on Daddy....

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:22 pm

Because I am the "master debator" or ("mass debator" for short) I think that we should tackle the issue of Hillary Clinton running for 2008 presidential election. Could Hillay be the first woman president of the US or will she even run.

Gooch · Post by **Gooch** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:53 pm

Glenn wrote:This topic is to debate polital & religious beleifs. Please be warned that I am a "master debator" so things could get sticky.

"There are three things I have learned never to discuss with people: religion, politics, and the Great Pumpkin." -- Linus van Pelt in It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:58 pm

WAIT. Is Glenn calling himself a masterbator???? What did my eyes just see???

Hilary as President...never happen.

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:59 pm

Hillary will run in 2008. That's for sure.

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:01 pm

I can run for President....doesn't mean that I will win. There are too many people that hate her (either for being a panty waist about Bill or for being a bitch on wheels about Bill...you pick) to ever get her elected. I personally have no problems with her, but the religious right, being what they are in this country, will never go for a woman or a woman that doesn't "know" her place.

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:02 pm

gidgetgoestohell wrote:WAIT. Is Glenn calling himself a masterbator???? What did my eyes just see???

You have a pervert mind. I said "master debator" or "mass debator" for short.

Mixing sex with politics is a bad idea. Ask Bill. Soon to be first gentleman of the whitehouse.

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:05 pm

You are just catching on to that, eh??? Little slow on the up swing too??? LOL

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:14 pm

gidgetgoestohell wrote: I personally have no problems with her, but the religious right, being what they are in this country, will never go for a woman or a woman that doesn't "know" her place.

Tell that to Maggies Thatcher...ok she is conservatice but Helen Clark PM of New Zealand is liberal, liberal liberal.

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:20 pm

That might be true, in Britain or New Zealand. But we are talking about America. How in the world can you expect a woman to be elected President when we can't even earn the same rate of pay for doing the same job?

The problem with Senator Clinton is that she has a certain ability to piss conservatives off and that is who is running the country right now. Bush will have to screw the pooch, and hard, to help Sen. Clinton into the White House. And I don't see that happining anytime soon. The GOP likes the hold that they have over the heartland.

assholitis · Post by **assholitis** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:36 pm

I have to agree with Sandra Dee, there. I think Hilary will run in 2008, but there's no way she'll actually get elected. I think the idea of a woman president scares off even a few "liberal" voters, and a whole heck of a mess of a lot of "Right-wingers." You couple that with the fact that many people already have a problem with her from her days as First Lady and you don't make for a very likely candidate. Now let me just point out that I neither have a problem with a woman president OR Hilary Clinton in general. Whatever happens, though, just let us NOT let Jeb Bush get elected. He somehow makes Dubya look like FDR.

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:42 pm

Well thank you Sire. And you are right, there really IS only one Highlander!!!

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:46 pm

gidgetgoestohell wrote:WAIT. Is Glenn calling himself a masterbator???? What did my eyes just see???

I supose if I said six you would giggle because you are thinking sex!

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:50 pm

[quote="assholitis"] I think Hilary will run in 2008, but there's no way she'll actually get elected. I think the idea of a woman president scares off even a few "liberal" voters, and a whole heck of a mess of a lot of "Right-wingers." quote]

She won't run as a liberal but as a centrist democrat. She is already moving closer to the center and by 2008 her voting record will not be liberal. This is si,ilair to Bill's strategy

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:54 pm

Gooch wrote:
Glenn wrote:This topic is to debate polital & religious beleifs. Please be warned that I am a "master debator" so things could get sticky.

"There are three things I have learned never to discuss with people: religion, politics, and the Great Pumpkin." -- Linus van Pelt in It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown

Was it a liberal pumplin?

Post by **jack** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:18 pm

Heh, gidgetgoestohell, I love your avatar.

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:22 pm

Jack...commere...lemme lick ya to your oooie gooie chewie center!!!

Post by **jack** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:25 pm

Yikes! My virgin eyes

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:29 pm

This topic is for Political & Religious debates only. As "master debator" I must ask you to either stay on topic or post your babble somewhere else. Maybe Yahoo! group.

Post by **jack** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:29 pm

I'm an athiest, does that count? :)

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:34 pm

jack wrote:I'm an athiest, does that count?

Repent now! You can still be saved

Technically athiest does not qualify for religious.

Post by **jack** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:42 pm

Darn... *wanders over to the other topics*

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:47 pm

OK. You can debate that athiest is a religin. Even though it's not one.

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:55 pm

Doesn't matter. She could run as a conservative democrat and still not get the votes. It's like I said before, she has a habit of rubbing people the wrong way. When she was the first lady, I thought she was great. She pissed people off and that always works for me.

Now that we are far enough away from her husband's Presidency, I believe that she was the one in control of the operation and that the president didn't make a decision without her input. That would mean that she was in knee deep with all of her husband bad decisions. I don't think that I am in the minority in this regard with my feelings about Hilary either. There is just something about her, a certain, je ne sais quois.

I don't care one way or another if she does run, I jut know that I won't vote for her. Elizabeth Dole I might consider voting for.

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:14 pm

gidgetgoestohell wrote:
I don't care one way or another if she does run, I jut know that I won't vote for her. Elizabeth Dole I might consider voting for.

You may as well vote for Condie Rice.

I seriously think that Hillary is currently the strongest demo candidate for presidency. I don't think that the world in this day in age is so appauled for a womam candidate.

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:25 pm

I am a registered Libretarian. I vote which ever way my feelings and research lead me. I don't much care for Connie Rice because I don't care for the war. I was throwing Dole's name out there to simply show that I wouldn't have a problem voting for a strong female President. The problem is that many registered voters do have a problem with the possibility of a woman in teh white house.

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:25 pm

assholitis wrote:Whatever happens, though, just let us NOT let Jeb Bush get elected. He somehow makes Dubya look like FDR.

I doubt that Jeb will even run. Just the Bush name is enough to sicken most american at this point. Maybe 2012 but not 2008.

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 11:07 am

Glenn wrote:
gidgetgoestohell wrote:WAIT. Is Glenn calling himself a masterbator???? What did my eyes just see???

I supose if I said six you would giggle because you are thinking sex!

well YEAH. DOH. Who's the blonde here???

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 11:09 am

Glenn wrote:
assholitis wrote:Whatever happens, though, just let us NOT let Jeb Bush get elected. He somehow makes Dubya look like FDR.
I doubt that Jeb will even run. Just the Bush name is enough to sicken most american at this point. Maybe 2012 but not 2008.

Never under estimate the American public.

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 11:20 am

Naaaa - you full of it.

clearly I win this debate hands down which means I can retain my title of "Master Debator" of "mass debator" for short.

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 11:42 am

Huh??? Wait a minute. You can't declare the debate over and yourself the winner. Unless, that is, YOU are related to the Bushes and you are pulling a Florida on me.

RECOUNT......I see that there are missing CHADS....RECOUNT!!!!

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:08 pm

I did a recount and I still won. I can't show you the data though, it is confidential.

The next issue is Neocon Warmongers in the whitehouse. Is this good for America or bad for America?

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:39 pm

That would have to depend on the type of neocon that you were. Trostkyite or Jacobian.

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:17 pm

Okokokokokokokok....I win....NEXT!!!!

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:24 pm

They are not neo-cons - what are talking about. They be commies.

No winning for you today

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:29 pm

Neocons=New Conservatives, right?

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:31 pm

And Glenn...the Trotsky/Jacobite thing...was a joke....~wink wink~

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:32 pm

We are talking about the Bush admin.

I win - see I am the master debator.

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:50 pm

Umm. Lemme look up the definition of DEBATE. BRB

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 3:35 pm

Main Entry: 1de·bate
Pronunciation: di-'bAt, dE-
Function: noun
: a contention by words or arguments: as a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides

MicheBel · Post by **MicheBel** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:49 pm

Glenn wrote:Because I am the "master debator" or ("mass debator" for short) I think that we should tackle the issue of Hillary Clinton running for 2008 presidential election. Could Hillay be the first woman president of the US or will she even run.

Well, while I agree with Gooch about not talking about politics, I'm pretty fuming about today's events in the political world, so YES, bring on Hillary! Bring it on. She'll kick some booty in Congress.

--Miche

(Course, it won't matter who we vote for, since the Republican is always winning now forever more.)

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:53 pm

I still think Hillary is the next president. Time will tell.

MicheBel · Post by **MicheBel** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:55 pm

I'm with you, Glenn. She's so in, it's not funny.

--Miche

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 8:34 am

ok you two...back AWAY from the crack pipe....

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:21 pm

politics is fun to discuss but too hard to type

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:23 pm

~eye roll and head shake~

robert · Post by **robert** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 12:15 pm

Me personally, im so tired of "sides" in politics. i want a nice moderate in there like McCain. When the country started sides were great. We should have a National Bank versus should not. That was the stuff. Now its just: "you f-ed up Social Security" versus "No, you did" and i end up suffering. Thanks a lot baby boomers!! (directed at no one specifically)

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 2:54 pm

robert wrote: i want a nice moderate in there like McCain.

That's my prediction. 2008 will come down to McCain (r) vs Hillary C (d) and both will run as moderates.

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:34 am

I disagree. I think that given the current political climate, that the conservatives will continue with their stranglehold over America. The problem with our society is that we sit and piss and moan and let a few (who ARE registered to vote) do our talking for us come election time.

I voted for a third party candidate this past election becuase I am sick and tired of mediocrity. I don't want to be branded either Republican or Democrat when I go into the voting booth.

I am an American and I believe that my one vote makes a difference. I know that sounds naive, but if more voters thought outside the box, we wouldn't be in the situation that we are in right now. I can't even count the amount of "you wated your vote" comments that I heard. My point was that I didn't care if I split the vote or threw mine away. I was dissatisfied with both candiates and chose not to vote for either of them. If more people got together and voted their concious instead of party lines we would have a better country...

~rant off~

robert · Post by **robert** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:44 am

The problem with that is that the last 2 elections have been so close that while i wanted to vote for a third party candidate to give them better representation, there was a candiate that i didnt want in office. If it were a relatively hands down campaign like the 2 during the Clinton Adminstration, then i would be more likely to vote 3rd party

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:07 am

Robert:

If you voted for one candidate over another, that means that you made a choice to do so. I am sure that your choice was the right one for you. I, on the other hand, could not choose between the two major parties because I like neither enough to do so. I also didn't dislike the other enough to vote that way either.

I am all for voting your mind and for a choice that you make. I was just unwilling to vote for a lesser evil.

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:56 pm

gidgetgoestohell wrote:I disagree. I think that given the current political climate, that the conservatives will continue with their stranglehold over America. The problem with our society is that we sit and piss and moan and let a few (who ARE registered to vote) do our talking for us come election time.

The key here is too change the balance congressional in the 2006 midterm elections in the swing states. O and there are some juicy issues like Social Security, deficit that will heat things up. This will be a hot debate. I wonder who is the "master debator"?

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:59 pm

mememememememememememememe!!!

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:03 am

I notice that Dicky Barret will have a Monday Morning debate on his show. Why wasn't I notified? They can't just have a debate without consulting the master debator. If they want mass appeal they need to ask the mass debator.

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:07 am

Todays topic

Terry Schaivo...pull the plug or let her live.

Your thouhgts...

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 11:04 am

I have a problem with an administration that would fight tooth and nail to save one life yet have no problem executing people that are on death row resulting from convictions that are purely circumstantial.

Also, my mother had a massive stroke and I made the decision to pull the plug. The joke was on me, she woke up. She was never the same, but I would never have made a decision to starve her or deny her water. That is not a peaceful death and whether or not she "feels" pain is irrelevant.

I am all for humane euthenasia, but I do not support a slow, lingering death. Even those convicted of heinous crimes receive a better death than that.

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:03 pm

This is a really tricky situation. I tend to agree with both sides to the arguement. They both have good points. I feel sorry for Terry though. being the political football. It's also scary that congress and the pres intervened. Big Borther.

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:55 pm

I also don't appreciate the fact that Bush involved the Federal Government in what amounts to a State's rights issue. The State has made abundantly clear that they do not want to interfere in the husband's choice to end his wife's life. I have a problem when the Fed's decide to step into a person decision and trample over that choice.

It almost seems that the Bush Administration is a little kindergardener crying to the Supreme Court for a lollipop that Florida has taken away from him.

assholitis · Post by **assholitis** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:59 pm

Mm...couldn't agree more, Glenn. That's exactly how I've been feeling this past week about everything. It's sad, cause it seems like no matter who "won" in this decision there clearly was going to be no winners. As for ol' Dubya getting involved, well yeah, I think that's got a great deal to do with his brother being one of the strongest proponents in this battle.

And Kristee:

I have a problem with an administration that would fight tooth and nail to save one life yet have no problem executing people that are on death row resulting from convictions that are purely circumstantial.

Yeah, did you see Bush's interview after signing the bill saying how he "valued" and wanted "to protect all human life." yadda yadda. Oh man, I just burst out laughing. How he could actually say that with a straight face is beyond me. I immediately thought of the war in Iraq where dozens of "human lives" are being lost every day on both sides. But yeah, the death row thing definitely seems pretty hypocritical of him as well.

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:14 pm

Death with diginity....not

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:26 pm

Not to diverge from the issue at hand, but abortion is one of the reasons that I am not a Republican. I am a pro choice Catholic (trust me, I understand the contradiction there. God and I will have it out when I get to heaven, I assure you) and I believe in choices. I also believe in personal freedoms and not having those choses or freedoms trampled by a group or political party to further their religious agenda. I find it ironic that the Republican party wants to do away with abortion and yet eliminate welfare. To go a step further, they have no solutions for the parents of children who are raising them with no support of the other parent and yet they don't want to allow a woman the choice of when and where to end an unwanted pregnancy. Also, as I said earlier, they have no problem whatsoever executing a living, breathing human being who is on death row because 12 people say that they should be.

Your point about the war is yet another reason that I hadn't even thought of. Thanks for adding to my ever growing arsenal, Kev!

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:34 pm

Yes but Jack would argue that there is no god being the Athiest that he is and that would negate your entire arguement according to Jack.

(Since Jack is not depabasting I am arguing on his behalf. Hope you don't mind Jack?)

It's a power of attorney type thing.

MicheBel · Post by **MicheBel** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:17 pm

Where is Jack, dangit?

--Miche

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:51 pm

Pishhhaaaw Glenn...you still puckered up???

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 2:17 pm

Wait!! I was wha??? Depabasting??? Is that anything like playing Scabble?????????

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 pm

gidgetgoestohell wrote:Wait!! I was wha??? Depabasting??? Is that anything like playing Scabble?????????

This is a real word. Just use it in conext to the sentemce.

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:13 am

Anonymous wrote:
gidgetgoestohell wrote:Wait!! I was wha??? Depabasting??? Is that anything like playing Scabble?????????
This is a real word. Just use it in conext to the sentemce.

Well....if you can use sentemce in a sentence I am willing to try and depabaste.

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:29 am

I was wondering when the Shiavo family would start bandying about with the 14th amendement. Oh boy.

assholitis · Post by **assholitis** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 11:43 am

Gidget/Trix/Kristee said:

Since Glenn has clearly lost his mind, due to cerious of the livah....I have taken the inititive to post a depabaster subject....

Let's get ready to rrrrrrumble...

Gay marriages: Yay or Nay?

assholitis · Post by **assholitis** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 11:47 am

I posted that quote from Kristee so it would be in the right Debate forum.

Anyways, I'm all for gay marriages. I believe that in no way does gay marriage affect and/or tarnish the sanctity of heterosexual marriages. Not only that, but by outlawing gay marriage we are violating their civil rights (as well as various monetary benefits that legal marriage provides).

-Kevin

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 11:54 am

Kev:

I agree with you. Also don't like politicians mixing the law with Judeo/Christian values.

*Annie* · Post by ***Annie*** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:21 pm

PLease note that I am yet undecided on this subject, but I do have something to say.
The way I first looked at this was: It doesn't affect me in any way if gay couples get married, so why not stay out of it. Let them get married, it doesn't change anything, gay relationships are out in the open either way. I didn't really understand where all the opposition was coming from.
After discussing it with my older sisters, they made an interesting point to me. They said that if gay marriages were legal and common, soon the very way we view marriages will change. I said "who cares"... but my sisters, being parents worried that soon children's books would be contain stories about gay parents. Children's movies and shows will be based on gay families, and everything around them as well. The only problem they see with this is that in recent years with the increse in our openly gay society, it has been stressed to young kids that "it's soooo normal to be gay" (how normal it is, becomes more of a personal call... but it is a known fact that most homosexuals were abused at a young age, not all but most, and abuse is not the recipie for a normal development)... so all this availability to children of "gay is the norm" creates confusion for them at such a young age when they are still developing and vulnerable. Not only that but there is now more reservations from a gay person aproaching someone to basically 'hit on them' and gay marriage over the years being so widely accepted, would make it OK for a gay 14 year old boy to aproach a straight 14 year old boy which might confuse him about his sexual orientation. I once met a girl who's parents were over-protective and she wasn't allowed to go out. Well, along comes the lesbian of the school and in her own words "seduced" her, she gave in because she felt suffocated at home and saw her as a way out. She told me that she had never felt attracted to girls before, and if it hadn't been for her relationship with that girl at such a young age, she truly believes she would have turned out straight. I think it's possible and the concerns of people like my sisters is justified... maybe I can't completely relate because I'm not a parent, but I have to admit when I think of my neices and nephews having to go through that as they grow up, does worry me. Some might think "so what if they do end up gay? What's so bad about being gay." maybe it's not bad, but I don't believe it's healthy, because like I said before it's not usually the result of a healthy childhood. It may be fine for others, but parents always want the best for their own children.
I know there are a lot of other factors involved and that the debate of "born gay or turned gay?" is always open... but like I said undecided as I am, I think this was just something that made me reflect on the fact that maybe those who oppose it have valuable reasons after all.

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 1:01 pm

Goodness Annie...I am not sure just where to start....

I am a single parent of a 16 year old son...with that said....I am in no way concerned that should he view gay families on tv that that will in anyway change the fact that my son is, for all intents and purposes, a hetrosexual male....I firmly believe that the issue of straight and gay is one of nature...not nurture....I also believe that the whether or not you are abused in your home has nothing to do with sexual orientation...as I stated...to me it's biology...

as for your friend in school, the same girl could have hooked up with a drug addled abuser who might have harmed her simply because she was looking for love and affection....

I also know that coming from a home where I was around gay men and women a large majority of my life that it's not like they sit and stew over straights and wonder how they can "turn" them gay...some people do have repressed bisexual tendencies and it's easier to say that somebody "turned" them than to admit that they were either curious or liked it....

I will come back with more in a bit....

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 1:30 pm

Part Two:

There are also many happy, well adjusted gay couples that do not beat one another, harm their children or desert them. I cannot say that this is true of a large part of the hetrosexual world. Being a family law paralegal...I see the damage that conventional couples do to their children, yet our society would choose to not allow openly gay couples to adopt children that are unwanted.

Should my son come to me one day and tell me that he is gay, I will be fine with that. I don't have to love the person, he does. It's not my choice nor would I ever think to discourage him from finding happiness simply because I was uncomfortable with his life choice. It would be so much more upseting to find out that he beat his girlfriend and left her pregnant than if he were to start sleeping with men.

~RANT OFF~

*Annie* · Post by ***Annie*** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:59 pm

Good points there Trix, and I agree with you on many. Like I said, I'm not sure I stand anywhere on this issue. I think it's just one of those things that become a personal call, and it's mostly based on wheter you believe people are born gay or not. Religion abviously plays a major role. I find this subject very redundant the more it's discussed because everyone has their own moral standards and they can't be easily changed or swayed by debate. I just shared that thought before because it did shed more light on the opposition side of things for me.... I thought it was an interesting way to look at it. I don't expect people to agree.

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 3:27 pm

I think that it is clear. Everyone should have the same rights under the law of the land. The government should not have the authority to offer some rights to some and different rights to others. I't wasn't that long ago that an inter racial marrige was illegal/unaceptable and now is common place.

The rules of the church should be up to the church and clearly the church cannt agree within itself. Throughout history the church has been split into factions over beleifs and this is another classic example of this. I do beleive that the church has the right to create it's own policy as a religious institution i,e (not allowing gay marrige or allowing gay marrige for it's followers) but the government that belongs to everyone should not be able to pick & choose who it represents.

Unfortunately at the moment the religious right is so powerful in the US for financing Bush that it is pay back time. The religious right also think that they are the government voive right now.

Which brings us to the new topic of the Supreme court. Is the current republican government getting too powerful.

They run Presidential office...
Congress
Seante
and soon, it looks like the Supreme court.

Is this too much power for a democracy? Where is the balance of power?

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:00 am

Don't forget that Warren was appointed by a Republican president and he ended up being the most liberal of justices ever. Also, his decisions are probably the most pivitol of the century.

I'd hope, and maybe this is naive of me. but I'd hope that any person elected to the Supreme Court would vote their conscious and not their particular party platform.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 10:27 am

gidgetgoestohell wrote:
I'd hope, and maybe this is naive of me. but I'd hope that any person elected to the Supreme Court would vote their conscious and not their particular party platform.

Does not your concious somewhat reflect your political views also? I think so. i.e Christian right are always trying to say religion is the foundation of US government and the liberals are saying that it is entirely freedom of religious and seperation of church & state.

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 10:32 am

I believe that religion or lack thereof, is something that makes you who you are. But, as a strict constructionist, the framers of the Constitution specifically separated church and state so that any church would not have the power to contol the government.

With that said, I understand that religion colors whatever goes into a person's "black box". I am naive, but I am not stupid. What I would hope is that when an issues is brought before the Supreme Court, very much like the Schiavo case, that the justices first honor what the State wants and when that doesn't occur, to involve themselves.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 10:57 am

gidgetgoestohell wrote:I believe that religion or lack thereof, is something that makes you who you are. But, as a strict constructionist, the framers of the Constitution specifically separated church and state so that any church would not have the power to contol the government.

True, but there are many Christians who beleive that the founding fathers set up the US constitution "by Christians for Christians" in order to espcape Christain prosecution from abroad. Odd isn't it.

So when they agree that no Church can have power to control the government, they are assuming that the government constitution is written with the intent of the wishes of the Christian founding fathers.

Sussed.

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 11:03 am

I have also heard that the religious right belives that they have been discriminated against. It disgusts me to think of all of the things that have been done against humanity in the name of religion.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 11:26 am

Yes it would be interesting to measure the amount of good vs the amount of destruction caused by religion.

Anyhow, It's not just the Christians it is also the Catholics, Muslims, Jews. It's a never ending battle to be right. And when they disagree with their own religions they make splinter factions to be right rather than compromise with their own. It is crazy.

Have you read The Di Vinci Code? Puts a very interting spin on religion that the church don't like. Loved that book.

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 11:42 am

No, I haven't. I really haven't had the time to sit down and read for reading sake, more's the pity. It is on my list for when I finally get vacation.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 1:52 pm

The movie will be out by then. Gotta reaf the book though.

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 1:58 pm

I was supposed to be on vacation last week, hopefully, I will be gone daddy gone come June. I plan to read it though, for sure.

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 7:31 am

*Annie* wrote:Good points there Trix, and I agree with you on many. Like I said, I'm not sure I stand anywhere on this issue. I think it's just one of those things that become a personal call, and it's mostly based on wheter you believe people are born gay or not. Religion abviously plays a major role. I find this subject very redundant the more it's discussed because everyone has their own moral standards and they can't be easily changed or swayed by debate. I just shared that thought before because it did shed more light on the opposition side of things for me.... I thought it was an interesting way to look at it. I don't expect people to agree.

Annie:

I hope that you understand that what I was saying was just the opposite position. I am a firm believer in stating what you believe in and having a forum to do so. I respect that you aren't decided and are open to another's perspective. I also hope that you don't feel that I was slamming you for how you feel either.

It would be hypocritical of me not to respect and honor your position, and I in no way meant for you to feel like I disregarding your stance.

*Annie* · Post by ***Annie*** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 2:01 pm

wow, look at all those replies... I didn't read them, but I just noticed I hadn't been here in a while...

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:31 pm

New Pope "Egg Benedict" as Jonsey calls him.

Nazi Youth members - good for the Catholic image or bad?

Please remember that I am the master debator...

discuss?

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:35 pm

I know that many German's say that they were "only doing what they were told" but I firmly believe that in this instance, that this is the case. He was forced to join the Nazi Youth, but he didn't attend the functions and when he was drafted into the army, he deserted. I am not sure what we Americans would expect a German during that time to do exactly, other than what he did do.

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:45 pm

I don't agree or disagree with that, if "may" be true. However the Vatican is notorious for protecting Nazi war criminals after WWII. In fact they helped many top brass for the Nazi party escape to Argintina and empoyed many into the church ranks to help them escape war crime charges against the Jews. Thousands of real Nazi's SS (not innocent Germans) where aided by the Vatican.

I am not convinced at all that this is the right thing to do given these circumstances. This has plagued the Vatican since the end of WWII and here it comes again.

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:02 pm

I find it ironic that people around the world can find fault with a religion and a religious leader because of his country of origin, yet not find fault with the governments that gave succor and safety to the exiled Nazis.

Also, the Swiss government is just as complicent regarding autrocities against the Jews, yet people tend to look first to the Catholics and their dirty fingers. The Swiss in fact refused to turn monies over to the relatives of SURVIVNG Jews. I say shame on them. Shame on anybody that was active in the depriving a people of their lives, dignity and birth rights. Shame, shame, shame.

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:07 pm

That's right. Damn those Swiss bastards!

Heidi can go suck my weiner!

ole de la ol de ou o del lay whooooo

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:23 pm

The Swiss and their Satan Spawn sister, Canada!!!

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:27 pm

gidgetgoestohell wrote:The Swiss and their Satan Spawn sister, Canada!!!

LOL. I think you mean the French

Ask Jonsey where the French can go.

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 7:04 am

Glenn:

Oh yes, France too...mais bein sur!!! LOL

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 8:52 am

Yip so the French & the Swiss can go straight to the hot place! Andwhat's up with those damn Yankees.

If it wasn't for us level headed Kiwi's the world would be a mess today. Someone give me the nobel peace prize. (and some coachella tix too)

assholitis · Post by **assholitis** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:01 am

Glenn wrote:And what's up with those damn Yankees.

Do you mean Americans, or that supergroup with Ted Nugent and Tommy Shaw?

-Kevin

gidgetgoestohell · Post by **gidgetgoestohell** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:16 am

Did anybody watch W last night on the telly?? If somebody else did watch, could you please provide the transcripts? I didn't understand half of what he said....

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:00 am

gidgetgoestohell wrote: could you please provide the transcripts? I didn't understand half of what he said....

I basicly boiled down to "Bend over casue we are going to ream you from behind"

indie1031.punkrockdemo.com

Political & Religious Debate

Political & Religious Debate

Re: Political & Religious Debate

Re: Political & Religious Debate

Hillary

Hill on the Hill

Jack is Off

Gay marriages: Ya or Nay?