What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

near as i can figure he must be a freaking idiot

  • Thread starter rattler
  • Start date
  • #21
Well, I meant Nikki lol. I don't really like leaving the choice whether or not to discriminate to the states. Last time that happened, there was some war...
 
  • #22
as far as i understand all that is wanted in gay marriage is so that one parter has power of attorney, right to visit sick loved ones in the hospital when only family is allowed in ect.....i cant see how this cant be accomplished in all 50 states now with a simple legal document stating that each of you holds power of attorney ect over the other in the case of emergency. i would think this would hold up in court RIGHT NOW in all 50 states..........least that is my understanding that its all that is wanted by the gay ppl i know. legally i dont see how its any different than me handing over the same stuff to my good friend if i wasnt married and didnt want my parents or siblings involved in the matter.........

kinda like medical marijuana and such the states are make headway leaps and bounds ahead of anything on the federal level...........
 
  • #23
Hate to bet the bearer of bad news, Trapper, but McCain's "pastor problems" are far worse. McCain sought out and received the endorsement of Hagee and Parsley, both of whom said and believe far worse things than Obama's EX-pastor. In the last couple weeks, McCain has been forced to expel both of them from his campaign.

That's a nice twist on reality. Hagee endorsed McCain, McCain didn't seek him. Secondly what Hagee said was not anywhere near the lines of Rev. Wright. Thirdly, I don't believe McCain sat in a pew for 20 years in Hagee's church and had his children baptized and then sitting in that same pew to hear the same antisemitic rhetoric.
 
  • #25
McCain is anti-choice,

Are you anti-capital punishment? If so why is it OK to kill an innocent life but not OK to kill a monster who murders or commits hideous acts?


Shouldn't all options be on the table?

for immunity for the telecos that illegally spied on us,

Yes because bankrupting the telecos for helping out the government in a time of desperation is the appropriate thing to do. Tell me did you make outgoing calls to known terrorist regions? Tell me has your privacy or anyone you know been effected?

anti gay marriage,

We've had this debate already :).

and panders to the religious right!

As do the majority of this democratic country that was founded on the basis that there is a God.

Even if just to get us out of the stupid, illegal Iraq war, I'm voting Obama.

Capslock

How is this war illegal compared to previous wars that we have engaged in that didn't result from someone attacking us first?
 
  • #26
Yes because bankrupting the telecos for helping out the government in a time of desperation is the appropriate thing to do. Tell me did you make outgoing calls to known terrorist regions? Tell me has your privacy or anyone you know been effected?

And if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about!
 
  • #27
As do the majority of this democratic country that was founded on the basis that there is a God.
And you have citizenship? Appalling. The founding fathers were above all, secularists, and even some of them were atheists (Jefferson, for one, IIRC).
 
  • #28
Because while it's alive, it's only alive in the same sense that a tumor is alive. A tumor is a growth of cells, which are alive, and it is not sentient. It is alive, but does not possess "life". Even a totally benign tumor, shaped like a smiley face. And it's not so much as "killing a fetus" as much as it is "refusing to carry the fetus". If you could keep it alive in a jar, I seriously doubt women would care what you did with it as long as it did not affect them any more than having an abortion in which the fetus was terminated would. Personally, I could NEVER have an abortion if I was a woman, and I could never perform one as a doctor. It has nothing to do with religion, not even a tiny bit, but it would be my personal choice. It would be an emotional, not scientific or ethical, issue for me. It would be because not of what it was, but what it could have become. Because it would have been nothing with no reason to care for it at all more than a benign tumor, but the thought of what it could have become would make me feel unable to have an abortion. At the same time, If a woman told me she had an abortion, it would be no different than saying she had a lipoma or a wisdom tooth removed. It wouldn't be an issue, it wouldn't be uncomfortable, and it wouldn't affect my opinion of her negatively. If anything, it would make me think better of her for not cranking out another unwanted kid in this world. The idea of people who oppose stem cell research just confuses the hell out of me. OK, OK, even if you don't agree with abortion and think women would be better off trying it themselves or with unqualified "doctors", the fact of the matter is that it IS legal now, so we may as well recycle the stem cells instead of throwing them away. That's just wasteful.

We need more sex education. Free condoms and birth control. We need to do away with the archaic notion of abstinence only education, because no one cares about it unless you go to a private Christian school. We ignore the religious lady who tells us to wait until we marry (of course they neglect the gay student's...) and we pass notes and text each other about hooking up. It's really a very ironic thing, and the people who think anyone cares or takes it seriously are the real joke.

The majority do not pander to the religious right. It's not that simple. If it was we'd always have conservative officials. The majority of people are Christians. That's nice and all, but the majority of Christians are secular, and there are just as many liberal Christians as there are conservative. I guess we just aren't so inflammatory and shove things down people's throat so we aren't noticed.
 
  • #29
(Stands back and reads these interesting discussions/debates)
 
  • #30
Because while it's alive, it's only alive in the same sense that a tumor is alive. A tumor is a growth of cells, which are alive, and it is not sentient. It is alive, but does not possess "life". Even a totally benign tumor, shaped like a smiley face. And it's not so much as "killing a fetus" as much as it is "refusing to carry the fetus". If you could keep it alive in a jar, I seriously doubt women would care what you did with it as long as it did not affect them any more than having an abortion in which the fetus was terminated would. Personally, I could NEVER have an abortion if I was a woman, and I could never perform one as a doctor. It has nothing to do with religion, not even a tiny bit, but it would be my personal choice. It would be an emotional, not scientific or ethical, issue for me. It would be because not of what it was, but what it could have become. Because it would have been nothing with no reason to care for it at all more than a benign tumor, but the thought of what it could have become would make me feel unable to have an abortion. At the same time, If a woman told me she had an abortion, it would be no different than saying she had a lipoma or a wisdom tooth removed. It wouldn't be an issue, it wouldn't be uncomfortable, and it wouldn't affect my opinion of her negatively. If anything, it would make me think better of her for not cranking out another unwanted kid in this world.

Well that's your opinion JLAP. It is my opinion that once those two cells combine, there is more than cells there. To say that everything before the birth of the baby is not life is just flawed. Just because it isn't pissing and screaming outside of the womb doesn't mean it isn't a life. I have never heard of a tumor or wisdom tooth turning into a human life. It is a fact that a fertilized egg produces a human life.

The idea of people who oppose stem cell research just confuses the hell out of me. OK, OK, even if you don't agree with abortion and think women would be better off trying it themselves or with unqualified "doctors", the fact of the matter is that it IS legal now, so we may as well recycle the stem cells instead of throwing them away. That's just wasteful.

Embryonic stem cells are no longer needed, there is a better method out now.

We need more sex education. Free condoms and birth control. We need to do away with the archaic notion of abstinence only education, because no one cares about it unless you go to a private Christian school. We ignore the religious lady who tells us to wait until we marry (of course they neglect the gay student's...) and we pass notes and text each other about hooking up. It's really a very ironic thing, and the people who think anyone cares or takes it seriously are the real joke.

The problem is you can't preach both abstinence and condoms. That's like telling someone who's on a diet that they should avoid junk food but if they were to choose a junk food eat some deep fried twinkies. Lastly I think the major failure here is at the hands of the parents who fail to educate their own children and instead let the public school system do it for them.

If you want to continue to break down the traditional family and create more households that are headed by women who have multiple children and no father to be found then by all means lets keep shoving the condom agenda down our next generations throats.

The majority do not pander to the religious right. It's not that simple. If it was we'd always have conservative officials. The majority of people are Christians. That's nice and all, but the majority of Christians are secular, and there are just as many liberal Christians as there are conservative. I guess we just aren't so inflammatory and shove things down people's throat so we aren't noticed.

A Christian doesn't have to necessary vote down a particular party lines. Both parties aren't static in their platforms either. So the notion that we'd always have conservative officials is wrong. The majority of Christians being secular is an oxymoron. You're either a Christian or a secular. You can't serve two masters. The notion of shoving things down people's throats is really a perspective issue. Half the time the people claiming to be victim to this are doing their own throat shoving.
 
  • #31
Well, you said 'I have never heard of a tumor or wisdom tooth turning into a human life" which would imply that you're saying the fetus isn't a human life but will become one... so you're giving me conflicting information.

I'm not so sure it's better :) That's very debatable. And you can preach abstinence (though you shouldn't) AND safer sex. You can say "Wait until marriage, but IF you don't, here's how to use a birth control.". I do believe the parents should do it, but parents just don't care or would rather get around an awkward discussion my letting the school do it.

You lost me. A single mother with multiple kids... how does that stem from condom use? I'm not shoving condoms down their throats (oh my) any more than you're shoving abstinence down their throats. The difference is they're a LOT more likely to sleep around, so they should know about birth control rather than NOT know about it because they've been told to uphold archaic (Really. Few people "save themselves" until marriage. Really.) notion that sex before marriage is bad. Yeah, it probably is way more meaningful if you wait until your married, and definitely safer, but today that's really seen as lame, and young people don't do it. They just don't as a large majority.

No, it's not an oxymoron. I can believe in God, have Jesus as my personal savior, and still be an ultra-liberal, not go to church, not read the bible, not go to christian rock concerts, not evangelize, not bring up my religion unless prompted, have premarital sex, be gay, etc. etc. If you don't believe that you can not be christian and secular at the same time, then a lot of the people in the statistics who say they are Christian, by your defininion, are not really Christian at all. If they were, seven our of ten people would have Bible quotes in their, Jesus fish on their car, WAY more churches, etc. Secularism just means that religion (which doesn't equate God) doesn't play a daily role in your life. It is NOT atheism. It means to exist separately from religion, and to have non-religious policies when at least in a public setting. In THAT sense, you can STILL go to church, read the Bible, and be totally secular as long as you separate it from your public life and policies and pretty much keep it private. Obama and Hillary are examples of this. A secular state is neutral in religious matters, so as much as you may not want to admit it, the US is a secular nation. At least until it officially endorses one religion over another, and that will NEVER. EVER. EVER. happen this country was founded on the opposite. Freedom, including of religion.
 
  • #32
That's a nice twist on reality. Hagee endorsed McCain, McCain didn't seek him. Secondly what Hagee said was not anywhere near the lines of Rev. Wright. Thirdly, I don't believe McCain sat in a pew for 20 years in Hagee's church and had his children baptized and then sitting in that same pew to hear the same antisemitic rhetoric.


Awww, you beat me to it Outsider. Well said.
 
  • #33
And you have citizenship? Appalling. The founding fathers were above all, secularists, and even some of them were atheists (Jefferson, for one, IIRC).


This sounds like something taught to kids in the government-run schools. I was taught this as well until I got out and did some searching. The facts ARE out there, you just gotta look for 'em a bit. ;)
 
  • #34
Why republican over democrat? From what I've read, you don't seem to be socially conservative. Maybe fiscally?

I don't know, lol. I'm actually really not into politics and I'm sick of seeing it on tv all the time, but when your husband is really into watching it, you don't have much choice, lol. I think all three candidates this year would suck at being President.
 
  • #35
The problem is you can't preach both abstinence and condoms.

Um... The problem is not that we can't teach both; but rather that we don't. It is negligent to not have both conversations. It is the only responsible thing to do.

xvart.
 
  • #36
I read the title and I already knew this was about George R. Bush. He has earned the title of an idiot, probably one of the few things he's ever earned in his whole life.

It doesn't matter who against the republicans, they will demonized like they did with Bill Clinton, Hilliary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry and now Obama. It's just their pattern, and the only way they can win an election.

I can't vote for a republican this election and I probably never will be able to bring myself to vote for a party that supported an murdering idiot.

He put his own interest ahead of Americas interest. To me that makes him guilty of treason. The punishment for treason is to be put to death. He deserves nothing less.
 
  • #37
Before I start, I just want you to know that I respect you, Outsiders71. You are a participant, you have a point of view, and you argue it in the face of a lot of opposition. A movie critic once said that anything they write about movies is a pale accomplishment compared to the creation of even a bad movie. I appreciate those who are out there doing their thing, and fighting their fight, even if I disagree, over those who sit on the sidelines and do nothing. So please take this in that spirit.

Are you anti-capital punishment? If so why is it OK to kill an innocent life but not OK to kill a monster who murders or commits hideous acts? I don't think of a blastocyst or embryo as a human life, so abortion is not the same. Do we really want to start this debate though? :)

I'm anti-capital punishment, not because of the sanctity of human life, but because we have an imperfect judicial system, prone to bias, prejudice, and emotion. It puts innocent people on death row, many of whom have been exonerated. See the Innocence Project, which has freed many wrongfully convicted people. I think many people have forfeited their right to live with their actions, but we're just not good enough at discerning who they are.

Shouldn't all options be on the table? (with respect to McCain being pro war)
Yes. I am not a pacifist. War is necessary sometimes. However, the war in Iraq is the product of a deranged policy led by a mentally disturbed President. Just yesterday, former Press Secretary, Scott McClellan revealed what many of us already knew - Bush invaded Iraq because he wanted the legacy that only a "war President" can have. It was a sick campaign based on outright lies and propaganda. In illegal and immoral war. Yet McCain supports it.

(in McCain supporting immunity for telcos)
Yes because bankrupting the telecos for helping out the government in a time of desperation is the appropriate thing to do. Tell me did you make outgoing calls to known terrorist regions? Tell me has your privacy or anyone you know been effected?
We have protections against illegal invasions of our privacy for darn good reason. The last President who decided he was above the law used mass surveillance like this to investigate political opponents. No doubt Bush has too, but regardless, he simply violated the Constitution. You can't do that, ever, no matter how right you think you are.

We've had this debate already :). (on McCain opposing gay marraige)
Yep, don't want to rehash, just pointing out where McCain stands.

As do the majority of this democratic country that was founded on the basis that there is a God.
That's just a preposterous notion. This nation was founded in part to escape the official Church of England and the imposition of religion. We enshrine protection against religious tyranny into the Constitution. This nation was founded on the basis of FREEDOM. Freedom of and from religion. God is NOT in our Constitution, and that's on purpose. Some of the founding fathers, unclear on the concept, argued for the inclusion of God. They lost. Which is good! Having a secular government protects the ability of all of us to choose our religious path, whether atheist or fundamentalist.

How is this war illegal compared to previous wars that we have engaged in that didn't result from someone attacking us first?
It was illegal on many fronts. First, it was prosecuted based on lies - there was no evidence of WMDs, nor did the administration really care about that issue. Iraq didn't pose any imminent danger to us, was not a participant in 9/11, and didn't support Islamic terrorists. Hell, they were the most secular country in the region, and were the avowed enemy of al Qaeda, who were infuriated with Hussein's lack of Islamic rule. We've killed over 100,000 citizens of Iraq for nothing. The crimes against humanity are staggering in their scope, including using white phosphorous (a WMD) against human targets, another violation of international law that we've signed on to (like the Geneva Conventions that Bush's lackeys referred to as "quaint". McCain supports this invasion and occupation.

Capslock
 
  • #38
Hey Fryster, FYI, if McCain didn't seek Hagees endorsement, why did they release a statment where they "conceded it was probably a mistake to seek and accept the endorsement of televangelist John Hagee". He did seek it out.

Meanwhile, let's look at some of the things he's said:

"Well Islam in general -- those who live by the Koran have a scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews."

"I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans."

"The whole purpose of the (Harry) Potter books is to desensitize readers and introduce them to the occult."

On Catholicism, Hagee called the Catholic Church "The Great *****," an "apostate church," the "anti-Christ," and a "false cult system."

On Judaism: "It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God's chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day... Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of antisemitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come.... it rises from the judgment of God upon his rebellious chosen people"

and ominously, on Iran: "a confrontation with Iran is a necessary precondition for Armageddon (which will mean the death of most Jews, in his eyes) and the Second Coming of Christ."

To me, these are worse than the Rev. Wright's comments. They demonize virtually the whole world outside of the fundamentalist evangelical Christians. They seem to gleefully anticipate war and confrontation in order to hasten Armageddon. This is a dangerous and deranged man.

And the bad thing here is, the other guy, Parsley, is even worse than Hagee!

Capslock
 
  • #39
We have protections against illegal invasions of our privacy for darn good reason. The last President who decided he was above the law used mass surveillance like this to investigate political opponents. No doubt Bush has too, but regardless, he simply violated the Constitution. You can't do that, ever, no matter how right you think you are.

pointing out a fact since violating the Constitution has come up....in all reality the Constitution hasnt really stopped any president from doing what they wanted since Lincoln.....you can argue that Lincoln did it for the betterment of the country but he still wiped his rear with the Constitution and tossed it in the trash.......
 
  • #40
I haven't read everything everybody has said but...I just wanted to say that I think having the media and campaign managers focusing obsessively on every single word any candidate says is just BS. Democrat or Republican or Independent, they often misspeak because they are SO freakin' tired. They travel all the time and are constantly speaking before so many crowds. All 3 current candidates have said stupid things at one time or another from a dead-tired brain.

The fact is Obama misspoke to some degree about his great uncle but essentially what he was trying to say was correct. Clinton has twice brought up the Kennedy assassination. So what?? I don't really care about these minor flubs. A momentary poor choice of wording has nothing to do with what a candidate plans to DO about the war, healthcare, illegal immigration, security, the economy, etc. if elected. I mean really...how much DOES it matter to a presidency which concentration camp Obama's great-uncle went to?? Or that Clinton stupidly mentioned Kennedy's death (at a rather sensitive time for the Kennedy family)? They'll be forgotten words once someone is in the White House.

I DO care more if a candidate fabricates entire scenarios like Clinton's Bosnia tale or comes up with stupid ideas like cutting out the gas tax just to win votes. The Bosnia story wasn't just a mix up on a word or two. How in the world do you "forget" there was NOT a hail of bullets as you were debarking a plane? I DO care when a candidate says we might be in Iraq for another 100 years and we will never "admit defeat."

I welcome Obama's youth, optimism and inexperience. What good did political experience do Bush? He and most other long-time policitians are just part of a political machine who cares nothing about "common folk." I think you can't get any worse than George W. Bush. He is rock bottom. And just plain long STUPID.

Oh-bama.
Oh-eight.
Oh-yeaaahhh!
 
Back
Top