100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > Delsoldamien
|
Topic:
rush limbaugh
|
|
If you are a supporter of Abortion( 50 million babies killed since Roe vs. Wade, almost 8 times the amount of people slaughtered during Hitlers reign) then will you support the next step in eliminating the elderly, since most in our society have pushed them to the side and feel they are inconvienient? What happens when they lose all their memory and lay in bed like a baby, needing and depending on someone to nurture them and take care of them?? Since most people support abortion feel that it is ok to kill their baby when they are not ready to be parents, or it is at the wrong time in their lives, or they are inconvienient?? I know no one that supports abortion. They support choice. Period, but there's no debating that with you or Gio. It's always the same old hot button issues. Choices start before you start the reproduction process..once it is fertilized, it begins to grow and live..you may not say you support abortion, but that just means you choose to kill... We are faced with alot of life choices everyday, some result in good or great situations and others result in difficult situations, but it is how you deal with them that paints the picture of who you are..killing them may be the easy part for you, but it says alot about us in the process... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why? Dont you read the news? Obama warns Pakistan on al-Qaeda Wednesday, 1 August 2007, 19:47 GMT 20:47 UK Mr Obama made the comments in a speech outlining his foreign policy positions. Pakistan's foreign ministry said any threat to act against al-Qaeda from within its territory should not be used for political point-scoring. Earlier this month, Mr Obama's chief rival, Hillary Clinton, described him as "naive" on foreign policy. The attack from Mrs Clinton came after a televised debate between Democrat presidential hopefuls. During the debate Mr Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of states such as Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions. In his speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, in Washington, Mr Obama criticised the Bush administration's focus on al-Qaeda in Iraq, saying US President George W Bush was "confusing" the mission. He said Americans were more vulnerable to terrorist attacks than before the 9/11 attacks because of a war in Iraq "that should never have been authorised and should never have been waged". "The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan," he said. Aid conditions Mr Obama said General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president, must do more to end terrorist operations in his country. He said he would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in US military aid to Pakistan conditional on the following actions by the Pakistani government: substantial progress in closing down terrorist training camps evict foreign fighters prevent the Taleban from using Pakistan as staging area for attacks in Afghanistan "It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005," he said, referring to reports that the US had decided not to launch a strike for fear of harming ties with Pakistan. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Mr Obama said. The BBC's Jonathan Beale, in Washington, says such comments are clearly designed to bolster his credentials among a domestic audience. But a spokeswoman for Pakistan's foreign ministry, Tasnim Aslam, told the AFP news agency that talk of military action was a serious matter and political candidates and commentators should "show responsibility". White House spokesman Tony Snow defended Pakistan's leadership, saying it was working hard to fight al-Qaeda and Taleban fighters within its borders. Gen Musharraf has been a key US ally in its so-called "war on terror" since the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. But US officials have publicly said recently that they believe Pakistan has let al-Qaeda and Taleban militants reorganise themselves in tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6926663.stm Funny how he continues to do exactly what he said he would. Finally a President who says what he means and does what he says. You go Mr.. President. Take the war to those who attacked us! But to attack a soverign nation pre-emptively is against the UN and international laws... besides, these men don't pose any threat to us..they are sitting in little huts in the mountains..not on the shores of the USA.. Looks like your guy is following in the footsteps of that guy you hated so much before him... Yeah and he really followed through on his campaing promises and does what he says...no lobbiests, he has two...most ethical administration..he has two tax evaders for his choices for leadership positions..tax breaks for the poor...they don't even pay income taxes.. and he is just getting started... Take a few minutes away from that Move on group to pay attention..Iraq was issued UN Security resolutions, I think 17 of them to provide it with information about their nuclear and chemical weapons capabilities, they refused.. These resolutions called out for negotiations and if those failed, military action to punish Iraq. After repeatedly ignoring these resolutions, and along with information recieved ( in which dems and repubs alike agreed with) We along with the coalition invaded Iraq. What good does it do to tell someone to provide you with the info along with the threat of military action, if you don't follow through with action if they are ignored?? PLZ enlighten me. We supported Saddam because we could not allow Iran to invade Iraq. That's a stepping stone into Saudi Arabia, control of the Persian Gulf and straights of Hormuz and the worlds oil supply we could not let happen! Iraq fully armed and with our support could only fight Iran to a stand still. The Iran-Iraq war. So do tell how we can pull out now or in 16 months, 3 years, or a 100 years. How can Iraq defend its self? How can they control their own unrest????? We will never be out of Iraq..like we have never left Japan, Korea, Europe and other places as well...that is unless Obama brings world peace and all that good stuff.. Are you going to fight against all the cuts that Obama will make in our intelligence agencies, just like Clinton did?? The problem with the intelligence agencys is not the funding but how they are managed. Will Obama fix this probably not. Why put more money into something that fails to provide what it is intended to. Its time to make them work not give more money for the same!!! You sound like me on public schools...more money is the cry but the scores keep going down...will Obama fix it...not a chance..they need under-educated people to become dependant on the government handouts to maintain power... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Skewed Views of Science
|
|
but on the topic of the video, there wasn't much there to disagree with. everyone has their biases, even the strictest and most rigid of scientists. I know geologists with PhD's that will swear up and down that global warming is hands-down, man-made, no doubt about it, in the face of contradictory evidence because it fits their political view. Ivory tower intellectuals, the lot of them. Hardly ever spent a day outside the golden cloak of academia, so... It appears there is more than enough ego and arrogance and bullheadedness on both sides of the issue of global warming. So do you believe that global warming is man made?? Well, I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that there has been a slight uptick in the global temperatures in the last 100-200 years, if that's what the climatologists tell us. But it is also worth pointing out that that comes on the heals of what the same climatologists,and even dendrochronologists, tell us that from the 1500's to the 1700's was a slight down time in global temperatures. Some people say that 'ittle ice age' and the wood from the trees that grew during that time explains the almost mystical sound of Stradivari voilins. the nature of sinusoidal trends is that lows are followed by highs, so it's only expected that a little ice age would be followed by a little greenhouse. Pointing back to the Industrial Revolution and the upshot from it stinks a little of Kafka and socialist thinking. For a hundred and fifty years people have railed against the industrialization of the west. This is just the latest salvo in the in a shooting match that's been going on since before any of us was born. what? did people not burn coal, or wood or even oil before the invention of the steam engine?? Let me sell you a bridge. When a volcano goes, like Mt St Helens or Krakatoa, it belches forth gases and particulate pollution of all kinds, more than all the cars on the planet running nonstop for years.. They've shown that bovine flatulence produces the dreaded methane gas that's one of the most aggresive of the greenhouse gases. So what should we do? go and kill all the cows and let millions upon millions go without food? My point is that while there's an outside chance that man is solely responsible for current episode of global warming, there isn't a chance on God's green Earth that the evidence would stand up in a court of law if the case were to be tried by a jury. Yet, politicians would have us scrap our cars and revert to the middle ages out of guilt. As the video wisely points out, when evidence and science fails people will resort to fear and guilt to push their agenda. That's all I see going on when I read one of Al Gore's books or force myself to stay awake through that abomination of a "documentary" he was showered with awards for someone else's research.. Yes, I'm a skeptic. All good scientists should be. It'll take a heck of a lot more convince evidence for me, for one, to get on board with scrapping the entire economy so that we might "save" the planet.. I might point out too that those same scientist were talking in the 1980's about a coming Ice Age too. I agree with you that we should be careful about how we treat the environment, but we can do that and still maintain our standard of living...unless all these global warming freaks get their way... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
rush limbaugh
|
|
If your Presidential votes are mostly about abortion, then you are in other people's lives. If you are a supporter of Abortion( 50 million babies killed since Roe vs. Wade, almost 8 times the amount of people slaughtered during Hitlers reign) then will you support the next step in eliminating the elderly, since most in our society have pushed them to the side and feel they are inconvienient? What happens when they lose all their memory and lay in bed like a baby, needing and depending on someone to nurture them and take care of them?? Since most people support abortion feel that it is ok to kill their baby when they are not ready to be parents, or it is at the wrong time in their lives, or they are inconvienient?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why? Dont you read the news? Obama warns Pakistan on al-Qaeda Wednesday, 1 August 2007, 19:47 GMT 20:47 UK Mr Obama made the comments in a speech outlining his foreign policy positions. Pakistan's foreign ministry said any threat to act against al-Qaeda from within its territory should not be used for political point-scoring. Earlier this month, Mr Obama's chief rival, Hillary Clinton, described him as "naive" on foreign policy. The attack from Mrs Clinton came after a televised debate between Democrat presidential hopefuls. During the debate Mr Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of states such as Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions. In his speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, in Washington, Mr Obama criticised the Bush administration's focus on al-Qaeda in Iraq, saying US President George W Bush was "confusing" the mission. He said Americans were more vulnerable to terrorist attacks than before the 9/11 attacks because of a war in Iraq "that should never have been authorised and should never have been waged". "The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan," he said. Aid conditions Mr Obama said General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president, must do more to end terrorist operations in his country. He said he would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in US military aid to Pakistan conditional on the following actions by the Pakistani government: substantial progress in closing down terrorist training camps evict foreign fighters prevent the Taleban from using Pakistan as staging area for attacks in Afghanistan "It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005," he said, referring to reports that the US had decided not to launch a strike for fear of harming ties with Pakistan. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Mr Obama said. The BBC's Jonathan Beale, in Washington, says such comments are clearly designed to bolster his credentials among a domestic audience. But a spokeswoman for Pakistan's foreign ministry, Tasnim Aslam, told the AFP news agency that talk of military action was a serious matter and political candidates and commentators should "show responsibility". White House spokesman Tony Snow defended Pakistan's leadership, saying it was working hard to fight al-Qaeda and Taleban fighters within its borders. Gen Musharraf has been a key US ally in its so-called "war on terror" since the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. But US officials have publicly said recently that they believe Pakistan has let al-Qaeda and Taleban militants reorganise themselves in tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6926663.stm Funny how he continues to do exactly what he said he would. Finally a President who says what he means and does what he says. You go Mr.. President. Take the war to those who attacked us! But to attack a soverign nation pre-emptively is against the UN and international laws... besides, these men don't pose any threat to us..they are sitting in little huts in the mountains..not on the shores of the USA.. Looks like your guy is following in the footsteps of that guy you hated so much before him... Yeah and he really followed through on his campaing promises and does what he says...no lobbiests, he has two...most ethical administration..he has two tax evaders for his choices for leadership positions..tax breaks for the poor...they don't even pay income taxes.. and he is just getting started... Take a few minutes away from that Move on group to pay attention..Iraq was issued UN Security resolutions, I think 17 of them to provide it with information about their nuclear and chemical weapons capabilities, they refused.. These resolutions called out for negotiations and if those failed, military action to punish Iraq. After repeatedly ignoring these resolutions, and along with information recieved ( in which dems and repubs alike agreed with) We along with the coalition invaded Iraq. What good does it do to tell someone to provide you with the info along with the threat of military action, if you don't follow through with action if they are ignored?? PLZ enlighten me. We supported Saddam because we could not allow Iran to invade Iraq. That's a stepping stone into Saudi Arabia, control of the Persian Gulf and straights of Hormuz and the worlds oil supply we could not let happen! Iraq fully armed and with our support could only fight Iran to a stand still. The Iran-Iraq war. So do tell how we can pull out now or in 16 months, 3 years, or a 100 years. How can Iraq defend its self? How can they control their own unrest????? We will never be out of Iraq..like we have never left Japan, Korea, Europe and other places as well...that is unless Obama brings world peace and all that good stuff.. Are you going to fight against all the cuts that Obama will make in our intelligence agencies, just like Clinton did?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Bush Lovers & Haters
|
|
as we all no. terrorist plane stuff real well. so George w bush. had nothing to do with keeping us safe. this moron cant walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. he is living proof. daddy can buy you anything. But I think he can spell better then you...it is "Know" not "no"..."Plan" not "plane" ... and it's 'better than', NOT 'better then.' -Kerry O., "Hoisted by his own petard."  gee...you guys are really fast...and you hurt me so.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
First Geitner, Now Daschle
|
|
Yeah, he can do anything, how wonderful? He's just another empty-suited messiah saying empty words...two Guantanamo prisoners that were released already are on videos... Wow a video, how scary.  Obama has been in office for 11 days, give the man a chance. No, kidding. Give the man a chance. I'm sure you weren't saying the same thing when Bush took office..since the dems tried to steal the election in Florida they have been at his throat...and in eleven days time, he as embarrassed the American people, apoligizing to the Muslums, going against his promise to do things in Washington different then they have before and then hiring all the crooked people from the Clinton administration....Some change, then hires people that cheat on their taxes, when those same people would have gotten fire immediately by the organizations they control..and hired those demons...those lobbyists which he promised he would be free of....if we work now, maybe we can stop him before he turns us into another France or Soviet country..Trillions of debt...if Iraq was so expensive and a waste of money like they claim...Obama is pouring trillions of dollars down the drain and it will only hurt average Americans the most..your children and your childrens children...give him a chance??? I think not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who owns what media first... and who pays for whose president's party first? Ole Rupert Murdoch owned Bush's testes... so of course the media was slanted. So who holds Obamas testes??? Everyone who holds that office is owned by someone, and none of them care about the average citizen...you are foolish to believe anything different.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why? Dont you read the news? Obama warns Pakistan on al-Qaeda Wednesday, 1 August 2007, 19:47 GMT 20:47 UK Mr Obama made the comments in a speech outlining his foreign policy positions. Pakistan's foreign ministry said any threat to act against al-Qaeda from within its territory should not be used for political point-scoring. Earlier this month, Mr Obama's chief rival, Hillary Clinton, described him as "naive" on foreign policy. The attack from Mrs Clinton came after a televised debate between Democrat presidential hopefuls. During the debate Mr Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of states such as Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions. In his speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, in Washington, Mr Obama criticised the Bush administration's focus on al-Qaeda in Iraq, saying US President George W Bush was "confusing" the mission. He said Americans were more vulnerable to terrorist attacks than before the 9/11 attacks because of a war in Iraq "that should never have been authorised and should never have been waged". "The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan," he said. Aid conditions Mr Obama said General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president, must do more to end terrorist operations in his country. He said he would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in US military aid to Pakistan conditional on the following actions by the Pakistani government: substantial progress in closing down terrorist training camps evict foreign fighters prevent the Taleban from using Pakistan as staging area for attacks in Afghanistan "It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005," he said, referring to reports that the US had decided not to launch a strike for fear of harming ties with Pakistan. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Mr Obama said. The BBC's Jonathan Beale, in Washington, says such comments are clearly designed to bolster his credentials among a domestic audience. But a spokeswoman for Pakistan's foreign ministry, Tasnim Aslam, told the AFP news agency that talk of military action was a serious matter and political candidates and commentators should "show responsibility". White House spokesman Tony Snow defended Pakistan's leadership, saying it was working hard to fight al-Qaeda and Taleban fighters within its borders. Gen Musharraf has been a key US ally in its so-called "war on terror" since the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. But US officials have publicly said recently that they believe Pakistan has let al-Qaeda and Taleban militants reorganise themselves in tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6926663.stm Funny how he continues to do exactly what he said he would. Finally a President who says what he means and does what he says. You go Mr.. President. Take the war to those who attacked us! But to attack a soverign nation pre-emptively is against the UN and international laws... besides, these men don't pose any threat to us..they are sitting in little huts in the mountains..not on the shores of the USA.. Looks like your guy is following in the footsteps of that guy you hated so much before him... Yeah and he really followed through on his campaing promises and does what he says...no lobbiests, he has two...most ethical administration..he has two tax evaders for his choices for leadership positions..tax breaks for the poor...they don't even pay income taxes.. and he is just getting started... Take a few minutes away from that Move on group to pay attention..Iraq was issued UN Security resolutions, I think 17 of them to provide it with information about their nuclear and chemical weapons capabilities, they refused.. These resolutions called out for negotiations and if those failed, military action to punish Iraq. After repeatedly ignoring these resolutions, and along with information recieved ( in which dems and repubs alike agreed with) We along with the coalition invaded Iraq. What good does it do to tell someone to provide you with the info along with the threat of military action, if you don't follow through with action if they are ignored?? PLZ enlighten me. We supported Saddam because we could not allow Iran to invade Iraq. That's a stepping stone into Saudi Arabia, control of the Persian Gulf and straights of Hormuz and the worlds oil supply we could not let happen! Iraq fully armed and with our support could only fight Iran to a stand still. The Iran-Iraq war. So do tell how we can pull out now or in 16 months, 3 years, or a 100 years. How can Iraq defend its self? How can they control their own unrest????? We will never be out of Iraq..like we have never left Japan, Korea, Europe and other places as well...that is unless Obama brings world peace and all that good stuff.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Homosexuality is not natural in nature, since if dogs and cats and others species were homosexual, there would be no procreation, that species would no longer be passed on. Is it an infrequent phenomenon, I don't know of any studies that show that animals bind together in homosexual relationships..doen't mean they don't exsist, so if you know of any, send them my way..now is is true that animals exhibit some tendancies that can be preceived as homosexual, but companionship is not the same as homosexual relationships.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals It is understandable if you do not trust Wikipedia as a source. However, if you scroll all the way down, you'll find ample reliable news sources, books, etc. Note that when they say homosexuality in animals, they mean the full gamut: from affection to parenting to male on male anal sex. Your not liking that private schools and their ability to choose who and what standards is not the point, the supreme court has ruled that private religious schools cannot be made to follow laws concerning discrimination. Remember the part about making no law hindering or restricting the free exercise.. We may not always like it, and agree with some aspects of it, but it is protected under the constitution. I made a clear and distinct difference between church and government practices of marriage or whatever word you want to use for it, but churches should not be forced to marry people they chose not to for whatever reason. I must disagree: Not liking this private school's judgment as well as the Supreme Court's judgment is the point. We make no law about hindering the free exercise, but we also have laws protecting the free exercise of this and that. I contend that freedom of sexual preference should be protected as well, and that discrimination against LBGT individuals should be illegal in all institutions. As for churches marrying LGBTs, I agree with you. Oddly enough - that is, in light of the above paragraph - I do not think the government should force unwilling churches to marry LGBT individuals. Either way you slice that issue, though, you're going to be discriminating against either a couple or a religious sect. *shrug* It does not matter what the history of multiple people marriages are, should history be a determinate factor in making this law??. I asked what grounds she uses to justify her disagreement with it, and since those that oppose homosexual marriages because if religious faith are bigots and we can't use their faith values to make laws against it, buy what standards should they be opposed? Why wouldn't the history matter? When making any decision, it is generally good to consider precedents as well as theory of practice. Therefore, I think history should always be *among the factors* that decide how a law is written. And, I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you wrote, beginning with "since" and ending with "opposed?" And I agree with your conclusion about bestiality, and take your stance also, but was wondering by what standards these decisions are made, since religious moral standards are oppressive and repressive, and cannot be considered. I do not understand your question: Are you asking, "By what standards should these decisions be made?" I would say the moral standard by which we make such decisions is a humane moral stance, as well as a stance that is nurturing towards nature and nature's creatures. Such a moral standard, at least for me, leads me to the above views on bestiality and polygamy. I ask these questions for discussion and debate and sharing of ideas, but seldom find anyone that will, so I do enjoy when someone or more do. :) Yes, it's nice to discuss and debate ideas. ^_^ Religous schools are extentions of the church..and protected by the constitution, this is plainly stated, you may not like it, but you have the freedom to either except it or stay away from it, that is the choice that everyone has. Laws that discriminate?? you've got to be kidding, most anti-discrimination laws are by nature discrimitory to someone. When a white male applies for entrance into a public school, anti-discrimination laws prevent him from attending even if he is the most qualified person to apply. Intead he will be turned away and someone of another ethnic group will take the place that he should rightly get..isn't that discrimination?? I think so. You cannot right the wrongs of the past by continuing or refocusing the discrimination to another group.. I had a situation where I was hiring for some positions I had open..a man came in and before I even introduced myself, he stated that he was gay and wanted to know if I had a problem with that...to which I said that it didn't have anything to do with the job..he turned around and yelled that I was a gay basher and would sue me for discrimination...now I know that it was not a common practice, but these kind of things make it hard for me to see LGBT point of view with that kind of thing going on.. When the movement for equality for gay people was starting, people were saying that I could not use my moral standards to discriminate against them, and so I wanted to know by what standard should laws be made..if you throw out all faith based beliefs and laws that are perceived as faith based, then there are no common moral standards by which to make laws based on...you say humane moral standards...wouldn't that arguement be a bad one because...who is to establish humane moral standards...since all standards are perceived to be different by many different people?? I know it can be confusing and maybe I am not making clear, but if people say we cannot use past moral standards to pass laws to prevent discrimination..there has to be a standard that is common and stable enough to base our decisions on, otherwise there would be chaos..What is ok for me is not ok for you, and what is ok for you may not be ok for someone else..how can you make laws that have no baseline standard? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Bush Lovers & Haters
|
|
as we all no. terrorist plane stuff real well. so George w bush. had nothing to do with keeping us safe. this moron cant walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. he is living proof. daddy can buy you anything. But I think he can spell better then you...it is "Know" not "no"..."Plan" not "plane" Better watch out.. they don't like it when you correct misspelled words here!  must be that good urban education system...where did he come from,,Chicago, New York, DC, Atlanta, LA or Seattle?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Which side is the media on????? there side our side???? aren't they the same???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
First Geitner, Now Daschle
|
|
I just keep thinking to myself, "4 years of Carter brought 8 years of Reagan." I'm hoping that this happens again. Obama has already done so many things that are wrong. Hey stop that!! His administration will be the most ethical(you have to be if you walk on water!) and he will be a man of his word...no Lobbyists, no tax cheaters, just good men, great policies and soon to come...world peace and heath!!  Sorry, I couldn't help myself...that was a good one! Hey don't hate me man..It'll be great when he starts filling up my gas tank in my car , and paying my mortgage...Can't wait for free health care and no more disease, no more famines, the clouds will part, the seas will heal themselves and it will be like heaven on earth...sigh.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hahaaha I guess you are right...but I guess now he has the freedom to throw it at anyone he wants now doesn't he..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Skewed Views of Science
|
 oh no, we've entered the political realm I think we agreed that politics has reduced the chances of anything being accomplished in this area.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as I am concerned, he's lucky it was just a shoe, the puppet extraordinaire... the idiot... the murderer.... the egotistical incompetant fool. It was two shoes...not to split hairs.. and if that man had done that in Saddams time, he would have been gutted and duct taped and dropped from a second story building, or publicly tortured to show everyone how good of a man Saddam is.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
First Geitner, Now Daschle
|
|
I just keep thinking to myself, "4 years of Carter brought 8 years of Reagan." I'm hoping that this happens again. Obama has already done so many things that are wrong. Hey stop that!! His administration will be the most ethical(you have to be if you walk on water!) and he will be a man of his word...no Lobbyists, no tax cheaters, just good men, great policies and soon to come...world peace and heath!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
rush limbaugh
|
|
No we are just mean spirited, bigotted, self absorbed, narrow minded, religious right winged wackos...hahahaha Ah finally he admits it.  Your right, I wouldn't have expected you to understand.. Understand what? Why some folks are meanspirited, bigotted, self absorbed, narrow minded religious right winged wackos? Because they have a bible that allows it? Could be a few good reasons. But that one will be the biggest reason for some time to come. Oh Boo, you sound so bitter and angry..You got your miricle man in office now, so everything is going to be ok...hahahaha |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the end, however, if this is a private religious school that receives no public money and uses no public facilities then I think it's their right to admit or dismiss whom ever they'd like. I might take issue with the idea that they are not a business. Do they have employees? Pay taxes? So, hypothetically, if I'm the headmaster of a private school, is it my right to decide that no black students are allowed in join? I think this sort of discrimination should be illegal whether a school is public or private. Anyhow, in general, US schools suck and skipping a year or two and going directly to college is not always such a bad thing. Hopefully, these two girls will have a good time at college. If you read my previous statements, I said that marriage is a church function, not to be mistaken for the state requirements of a legal document they sign to signify their union. If two people want to go before a judge and join in a legal union or contract with each other, that has nothing to do with a church wedding. After all, you can be married in a church, but not recognized by the state as being married, or united by a judge, and not be married as far as the church is concerned.. people want to blurr the lines between the church and the government santioned ceremonies. If the state wants to pass laws for people to join in a legal binding agreement, just as they do now, then so be it, I did not comment on that activity. About being natural, procreation is only possible in humans between a man and a woman, not being able to do that is un-natural, is it not? I didn't say one way or the other whether it was right or wrong, just that it was un-natural. Two people that chose not to have children is not natural, because unless barren, they have to take un-natural steps to prevent it. I have noticed that since people have changed the meaning of words to no longer mean what they were designed to say, there is alot of confusion, and I believe that this is the case here. I also stated that I did not support the homosexual agenda, but belive that in this country, a person can believe or do whatever they want.If law makers passed laws making homosexual contracts legal, then that is up to them, I do not pass laws and only have my one vote. But if they pass laws allowing two men or two women to join in a union, why can't 3 people or more join in a union or contract also?? Or as disgusting as it is to think, why not between humans and animals? In california they want animals to be treated as humans, with the same rights as people..Now I wouldn't support that for obvious reasons, and it disgusts me to even think about it, but my feelings about it shouldn't make it wrong right?? But what grounds do you have to object to multiple people getting married and animals being people getting married? 1) In many traditions, marriage has not been a union by a church. What's more, there are plenty of people these days (and before) who choose to marry without involving a church or religion. There is nothing about the agreement or contract of marriage that says it HAS to be done under God, or that it has to be religious. Examples: China, Slavic countries, and many European countries have high numbers of atheists or agnostics who marry everyday without involving religion. Thus, even with legal documents aside, marriage is not defined to be a holy union of two individuals. This means that all the fuss about changing the definition of marriage has little grounding, because for *some* people, marriage was *never* defined as being a holy union. 2) Homosexuality *is* natural. It occurs in nature among several species: cats, dogs, dolphins to name but a few. Secondly, how can you say that the sole purpose of sex is procreation? If that was the only purpose, then why all the endorphins? Why all the relief of Why is sex and sexual desire such a complicated emotion? Obviously, there is more to sex than simple procreation. What's more, humanity does not need to procreate like it did before. The majority of our children survive and the human population continues to escalate to the point where an entire planet of resources may not be enough in 50-100 years at this rate. We are not rabbits designed for sex (although even rabbits are not designed explicitly for sex) - there is more to Mankind than that! One more reason why homosexuality is natural: humans are homosexual. I mean, you wouldn't call being left-handed unnatural just because less of us are left-handed, would you? So, why wouldn't the same apply? And, for example, what about being good at golf? Isn't that unnatural because it doesn't help us reproduce? Honestly, not many girls are turned on by golf... In conclusion: 1) marriage has been and can be a secular union of two individuals. 2) Homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon. As for multiple people getting married, historically, such arrangements end up with one gender being treated poorly or unfairly. I would say that is the main reason why it isn't legal. If I was assured that such gender inequality could be 100% eliminated, then why would polygamy be bad? Now, when it comes to bestiality, I do feel we must draw a line. In terms of intellect and understanding, I feel animals are more like children or babies like adults. With that in mind, marriage to or sex with an animal would be like statutory rape. If a viewpoint such as mine is taken, the animal issue is, well, not an issue. As for giving animals the same rights as man, I would have to agree, especially when it comes to freedom of speech. I've always wondered what my cat thought about the way we painted the house a few years back, but he never felt that he could express himself without persecution... ;-) I find noting about your statement about unions to be at fault, I have said the same thing. If there are laws that provide for that, then it is legal and acceptble for society. Homosexuality is not natural in nature, since if dogs and cats and others species were homosexual, there would be no procreation, that species would no longer be passed on. Is it an infrequent phenomenon, I don't know of any studies that show that animals bind together in homosexual relationships..doen't mean they don't exsist, so if you know of any, send them my way..now is is true that animals exhibit some tendancies that can be preceived as homosexual, but companionship is not the same as homosexual relationships.. Your not liking that private schools and their ability to choose who and what standards is not the point, the supreme court has ruled that private religious schools cannot be made to follow laws concerning discrimination. Remember the part about making no law hindering or restricting the free exercise.. We may not always like it, and agree with some aspects of it, but it is protected under the constitution. I made a clear and distinct difference between church and government practices of marriage or whatever word you want to use for it, but churches should not be forced to marry people they chose not to for whatever reason. It does not matter what the history of multiple people marriages are, should history be a determinate factor in making this law??. I asked what grounds she uses to justify her disagreement with it, and since those that oppose homosexual marriages because if religious faith are bigots and we can't use their faith values to make laws against it, buy what standards should they be opposed? And I agree with your conclusion about bestiality, and take your stance also, but was wondering by what standards these decisions are made, since religious moral standards are oppressive and repressive, and cannot be considered. I ask these questions for discussion and debate and sharing of ideas, but seldom find anyone that will, so I do enjoy when someone or more do. :) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Union Way Up
|
|
My mom is a RN and worth every penny she makes...I read your posts and know what you do. Would I want a underpaid RN giving care to my child...NO!!! I want the best trained and most skilled one working on her..I'm sure you are and well deserve the pay you make. Would I want an under paid less skilled person building the car she will be driving on highways that are posted at 70mph? No way man!!!! Would I want some backyard mechanic servicing the auto? NO!!! If I need heart surgery would I want the least trained less paid surgeon? NO! YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!!! No offense...I really couldnt compare the value of a human life to a car..and I have let my papa who is a BACKYARD mechanic service my car many many times. but i really wasn t tryting to compare the two jobs...just discuss employment terms and agreements.. and reasons why I would not like to be a union. and why I would not agree with nurses being in a union. and a union run hospital..is not gonna guarantee that you GET the best nurse for the job...just whoever has the most senority. that being said I cant imagine even how surgeons could be unionized. unions arent horrible. My x works for teamsters, my papa retired truckdriver from teamsters, my uncle retired from Ford.... Im saying with the economy, these companies need to restructure there employment terms....especially given the near (inevitable) collapse of the auto industry. You are right about these companies need to be restructure, but they can do that through chapter 11, I am not in support of giving them money to bail them out from bad decisions. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
