Republican Smear Machine in top Gear [Archive]

View Full Version : Republican Smear Machine in top Gear

strandinthewind

08-15-2008, 04:31 PM

strandinthewind

08-15-2008, 04:41 PM

Here are the Biblical verses regarding slavery - again, where is the misinterpretation:

Biblical Verses Condoning and Regulating Slavery
The fact that slavery exists in the Bible is no secret. There are laws regulating its practice; how to buy and sell slaves, what to do if they commit a crime, the degree to which they can be beat, and laws concerning sexual activity with female slaves. Some of these verses are included here. The point here is not to comment on the existence of slavery or the Bible's laws regarding it. My intention is more to increase awareness of its presence in Biblical text. A slave in the Bible (or in Greek, Roman, Islamic, or Egyptian history for that matter) is not the same as a slave in the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade. This new form of plantation slavery was unique in history in that it was based solely on race.

Regarding the emancipation of slaves, Jewish slaves were to be freed after six years, except those who were born by the female slave. Female slaves, sold into slavery by their fathers, would be slaves forever. And the cost of freeing a slave was calculated using the number of years to the next Jubilee Year, ranging between 1 and 50 years.

Exodus 21:1-4 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."
Deuteronomy 15:12-18 "And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him."
Exodus 21:7 "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."
Regarding the beating and killing of slaves, the Book of Exodus contains laws regarding punishment for the one who kills the slave as well as injunctions to avoid injuring the eyes and teeth.

Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."
Exodus 21:26-27 "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."
The Book of Leviticus prohibited the harsh ruling over other Israelites, but that slaves could be taken from the Gentiles.

Leviticus 25:44-46 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."
Also, in Leviticus, a distinction is made between the hired servant and the slave.

Leviticus 25:48-53 "After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him: Either his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself. And he shall reckon with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of jubilee: and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of years, according to the time of an hired servant shall it be with him."
Slaves were to undergo circumcision.

Genesis 17:13 "He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant."
Genesis 17:27 "And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him."
Female captives are considered spoils of war.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."
Deuteronomy 20:14 "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself"
The punishment for sexual activity with a female slave who is engaged consisted of animal sacrifice in the Temple. There is no comment on sexual activity with one who is not married or engaged.

Leviticus 19:20-22 "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him."
It is not permitted to return an escaped slave, nor was it permissable to "oppress" him.

Deuteronomy 23:15-16 "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him."
The Book of Numbers makes references to thousands of female captives who were to be given to the priests.

Numbers 31:28-47 "And levy a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep: Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the Lord. And of the children of Israel's half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the Lord."
Mark 14:66 "And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest."
There were restrictions on reselling slaves. Apparently a Hebrew slave could not be resold.

Exodus 21:8 "If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money."
If one were to purchase his own brother into slavery, laws in Leviticus prevent treating him as other slaves, but rather as a guest or servant. The Living Bible refers to "a fellow Israelite" rather than "brother."

Leviticus 25:39 "And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee: And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return."
The Books of Exodus and Deuteronomy mention that the punishment for kidnapping an Israelite and selling them into slavery is punishable by death. And a debtor who could not pay back creditors could be sold into slavery or have his children sold.

Exodus 21:16 "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."
Deuteronomy 24:7 "If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you."
II Kings 4:1 "Now there cried a certain woman of the wives of the sons of the prophets unto Elisha, saying, Thy servant my husband is dead; and thou knowest that thy servant did fear the Lord: and the creditor is come to take unto him my two sons to be bondmen."
Slaves could, themselves, own slaves. Saul's slave Ziba owned 20 slaves of his own: 2 Samuel 9:10: "...Now Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants."

The Sabbath applied to slaves as well.

Exodus 20:10 "But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates."
The New Testament did not forbid or alter the institution of slavery, nor did it improve their conditions.

1 Corinthians 12:13 "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."
Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
Colossians 3:11 "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."

Sources
The Bible, 21st Century King James Version.
The Bible, King James Version.
The Bible, Modern Language Version.
The Bible, New International Version.
The Bible, New Living Translation.
The Bible, Revised Standard Version.
Ellerbe, Helen, The Dark Side of Christian History, Morning Star Books, 1995.
Wood, Forrest, The Arrogance of Faith, Alfred A. Knopf, 1990.

http://etori.tripod.com/slave-verses.html (cited because quotes were in one place)

Brwn_eyes0511

08-16-2008, 06:53 AM

3. How is he inaccurate? Christ was a pacifist and expressly stated turning the other cheek was the correct thing to do.

You are so correct! It is disgusting to me how the true message of Jesus has been twisted and forgotten by these people. Love, peace and compassion are the lessons that were left to us by Jesus..

strandinthewind

08-16-2008, 08:37 AM

SuzeQuze

08-16-2008, 09:23 AM

Paid for by phforamerica.com. If you go to that site it says their goal is to swiftboat Obama with this ad. They want to air it after the DNC to hault his momentum. I think they are overestimating the impact this ad will have though. I think most people will see it as crazy fundamentalist nonsense. Obama clearly was not mocking the bible. He was shining a light on the inappropriateness of applying the bible to government. Anyone with half a brain will see that. I don't think an ad like this will sway any undecideds, except for fundies, which have likely already decided anyway.

Also, the site doesn't really explain who these people are. I don't know what the PH is for. It's really odd.

Also, saying Jesus would not turn the other cheek to terrorists is absurd.

Brwn_eyes0511

08-16-2008, 11:36 AM

^^^

The only parts of The Bible that really matter are the phrases hating the filthy fags, the use of the decalogue to condemn the godless baby killers (apparently no woman in that situation even thinks about the decision to abortat all; all crarelessly use it as birth control :rolleyes: ) - and, until relatively recently, condone and promote/defend slavery in the US.

Really no other part of it is applied to the lives of many if not most "normal" US citizens, no matter how publicly proclaimed. Look at John Edwards and all the other politicians who are fukcing around on the wives. And, though what Edwards did with the money and all was horrible,m at least he had the decency to cheat with a woman as opposed to soliciting anonymous sex in a bathroom or harrassing under age or barely of age Congressional interns :shrug: This is why I say have an affair and who gives a shiitte; just do not make money holding yourself out as holier than thou.

If you want to fill your pews, preach hate :rolleyes:

Are you out of college yet?

All good points.

And I'm at a stand still with college.. never finished. I've been working as a makeup artist with Bobbi Brown for the time being.. who would have figured.

But.. let's just say I have done a lot of growing up the past couple of years.. from being "out" and making many friends and just living life I have learned a lot, and many of my opinions have changed indeed!

I still consider myself a Republican.. but am sick and tired of President Bush and his lies and also religious nut jobs. I guess you could say I'm more of an old school Republican.. a la Reagan.

As for this election.. I'm not sure I'm voting for anyone.. perhaps Libertarian candidate Bob Barr :shrug:

ajmccarrell

08-16-2008, 11:47 AM

[QUOTE=strandinthewind;768660]^^^

The only parts of The Bible that really matter are the phrases hating the filthy fags, the use of the decalogue to condemn the godless baby killers (apparently no woman in that situation even thinks about the decision to abortat all; all crarelessly use it as birth control :rolleyes: ) - and, until relatively recently, condone and promote/defend slavery in the US.

Really no other part of it is applied to the lives of many if not most "normal" US citizens, no matter how publicly proclaimed. Look at John Edwards and all the other politicians who are fukcing around on the wives. And, though what Edwards did with the money and all was horrible,m at least he had the decency to cheat with a woman as opposed to soliciting anonymous sex in a bathroom or harrassing under age or barely of age Congressional interns :shrug: This is why I say have an affair and who gives a shiitte; just do not make money holding yourself out as holier than thou.

If you want to fill your pews, preach hate :rolleyes:

[QUOTE]

I guess Reverend Wright and Father Flueger ought to know all about preaching hate, Obama attends their churches and their pews certainly are full. In the 20 or so years I went to church, I NEVER heard any minister hate anyone or call anyone a "fag" or anything else like that. The only place I've heard "fag" from in the last year, is YOU. All I heard was the cloying phrase, "hate the sin, love the sinner" I take it you've never actually been to church, you just had someone "tell you about it." :laugh:

Brwn_eyes0511

08-16-2008, 12:01 PM

I guess Reverend Wright and Father Flueger ought to know all about preaching hate, Obama attends their churches and their pews certainly are full. In the 20 or so years I went to church, I NEVER heard any minister hate anyone or call anyone a "fag" or anything else like that. The only place I've heard "fag" from in the last year, is YOU. All I heard was the cloying phrase, "hate the sin, love the sinner" I take it you've never actually been to church, you just had someone "tell you about it." :laugh:

Boy, you sound like me 2 years ago.. :laugh:

While I do agree with you about Reverend Wright Father Flueger and the nasty things they have said.. I do disagree with you about other "churches".. Although they might claim "hate the sin, love the sinner" that is not what most of them do.. they talk about you behind your back and refer to you as "THE gays" like "THE plague" or "THE osmonds" (either way just as bad ;) )

And this is coming from someone who went to church all of their life.. a pretty good church too. My point being.. there is evil on both sides of the court.. and churches are loving less and less, which is a shame.

like someone who thinks a lot like me, recently wrote in their online blog..

"What if one could believe in Jesus and not be a Christian? In the spirit of that question I've decided to call myself a Jesust. Was is a Jesust? A Jesust believes Jesus was an enlightened being, a divine child of God, and spoke about mankind the way it could be. He preached love and forgiveness and sought to inspire all those around him. He was a great leader and in the absence of any currently it is my opinion that he has never been more relevant. Peace."

- Emma Caulfield (Actress/Producer/Director/and yes, believe it or not a REAL Republican!)

ajmccarrell

08-16-2008, 12:13 PM

Boy, you sound like me 2 years ago.. :laugh:

While I do agree with you about Reverend Wright Father Flueger and the nasty things they have said.. I do disagree with you about other "churches".. Although they might claim "hate the sin, love the sinner" that is not what most of them do.. they talk about you behind your back and refer to you as "THE gays" like "THE plague" or "THE osmonds" (either way just as bad ;) )

And this is coming from someone who went to church all of their life.. a pretty good church too. My point being.. there is evil on both sides of the court.. and churches are loving less and less, which is a shame.

like someone who thinks a lot like me, recently wrote in their online blog..

"What if one could believe in Jesus and not be a Christian? In the spirit of that question I've decided to call myself a Jesust. Was is a Jesust? A Jesust believes Jesus was an enlightened being, a divine child of God, and spoke about mankind the way it could be. He preached love and forgiveness and sought to inspire all those around him. He was a great leader and in the absence of any currently it is my opinion that he has never been more relevant. Peace."

- Emma Caulfield (Actress/Producer/Director/and yes, believe it or not a REAL Republican!)

I left the church some 6 years ago. If you recall, I grew up in a right wing radical cult. Even there, I never heard anything like what you are talking about. The only place I've heard this kind of talk is from left wing radicals, such as those on this post here, supposedly quoting "evangelicals" that don't exist. When asked for a mainstream republican that has ever said anything like this, they typically shut down. Frankly, the only place I hear hate of any kind is from leftists that hate right wingers. There was even a rap song I heard yesterday that said that the rappers wanted to kill Bill O'Reilly's family in front of him while he had to watch. You NEVER hear this kind of anger and hate coming from the right wing. Left wingers are just angry, hateful, spiteful and ignorant people who create characatures of people on the other side to hate with a wild eyed intensity.

Brwn_eyes0511

08-16-2008, 12:38 PM

. Left wingers are just angry, hateful, spiteful and ignorant people who create characatures of people on the other side to hate with a wild eyed intensity.

Yes.. AND so are Right wingers.. they are guilty of the same.

Anyone who calls themself anything that ends in "winger" isn't thinking reasonably if you ask me. This has been my experience anyway. The political landscape in this country has gone awry. What ever happened to reasonable, rational thinking.. The major parties (or at least those that represent them) are too extreme!

BombaySapphire3

08-16-2008, 01:14 PM

I left the church some 6 years ago. If you recall, I grew up in a right wing radical cult. Even there, I never heard anything like what you are talking about. The only place I've heard this kind of talk is from left wing radicals, such as those on this post here, supposedly quoting "evangelicals" that don't exist. When asked for a mainstream republican that has ever said anything like this, they typically shut down. Frankly, the only place I hear hate of any kind is from leftists that hate right wingers. There was even a rap song I heard yesterday that said that the rappers wanted to kill Bill O'Reilly's family in front of him while he had to watch. You NEVER hear this kind of anger and hate coming from the right wing. Left wingers are just angry, hateful, spiteful and ignorant people who create characatures of people on the other side to hate with a wild eyed intensity.

Tell that to the people in the Knoxville Unitarain church that were gunned down by a rightwinger who hated "liberals"I don't recall any rabid leftwingers in this country shooting anyone in recent times who did not agree with their politics.In fact the worst homegrown terrorist attack in this country's history was commited by a clear rightwingnut in Oklahoma City .Have you ever thought of going through a cult deprogramming ?

Johnny Stew

08-16-2008, 02:37 PM

When asked for a mainstream republican that has ever said anything like this, they typically shut down.

Frankly, the only place I hear hate of any kind is from leftists that hate right wingers.

You NEVER hear this kind of anger and hate coming from the right wing.

Oklahoma State Representative, Sally Kern:
"Studies show, no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted for more than, you know, a few decades."

"I honestly think it’s the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam."

"They want to get them into the government schools so they can indoctrinate them. They are going after our young children, as young as two years of age, to try to teach them that the homosexual lifestyle is an acceptable lifestyle."

"You know, Gays are infiltrating city councils. Did you know that the city council of Eureka Springs is now controlled by gays? They are winning elections."

"This stuff is deadly and it is spreading. It will destroy our young people and it will destroy this nation."

Ohio Secretary of State, Kenneth Blackwell:
"I don't know how many of you have a farming background but I can tell you right now that [same-sex relationships] even defies barnyard logic... the barnyard knows better."

Minnesota State Senator, Michele Bachmann:
"Little children will be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal and natural and perhaps they should try it."

"This is not about hating homosexuals. I love homosexuals. But should we allow them to teach sinful ways [to] our children?"

Colorado Congresswoman, Marilyn Musgrave:
"I believe that when you’re in a cultural war like this, you have to respond with equal and hopefully greater force if you want to win this battle. But this battle is the most important issue that we face today, and what an honor it has been to serve in the United States Congress and carry the Marriage Amendment."

"The future is grim unless we do what we need to do to win this battle."

"As we face the issues that we are facing today, I don’t think there's anything more important out there than the marriage issue."

Pennsylvania Senator, Rick Santorum:
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. All of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. And that’s sort of where we are in today’s world, unfortunately."

Then, of course, there's Trent Lott who compared homosexuality to kleptomania and other "problems" and "addictions," and Dick Armey who referred to openly gay Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank as "Barney Fag."

Plus there are the many and numerous Republican politicians whom, while at least knowing to keep their mouths shut, never fail to vote against civil rights of any form when it involves gays & lesbians (such as wanting to exclude sexual orientation from Hate Crime legislation, blocking homosexuals from adopting, denying health-care benefits to homosexual couples, etc., etc.)

And if we're not limiting our discussion to politicians, I can fill the next four or five pages of this thread with anti-gay quotes from the likes of Ann Coulter and Michael Savage.

Left-wingers may not be angels, AJ, but let's not pretend that Right-wingers are all sweetness and love.

estranged4life

08-16-2008, 02:58 PM

Sally Kern is a blittering idiot...Now she thinks she is 'Marshall Dillon' (I would have said Annie Oakley, but she is a relative of mine) :

Firearm Possession (from wikipedia)

"On July 23, 2008, Kern was stopped by security guards in the Oklahoma State Capitol when she tried bringing a loaded gun into the building. The gun was a .380 caliber semiautomatic handgun. Kern had a permit for the gun and claimed she brought it into the building by accident. It was later confirmed that a second incident in which Kern made it into the building with a gun occurred in June 2008. Kern was not charged for either incident."

vivfox

08-16-2008, 03:08 PM

Um I'm still not sure who I am gonna vote for. You all teach me a lot, just to let you know. When I do make up my mind it will be because of your influence.

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd169/cielosharon/th3anew.gif

David

08-16-2008, 03:43 PM

Sources
The Bible, 21st Century King James Version.
The Bible, King James Version.
The Bible, Modern Language Version.
The Bible, New International Version.
The Bible, New Living Translation.
The Bible, Revised Standard Version.
Ellerbe, Helen, The Dark Side of Christian History, Morning Star Books, 1995.
Wood, Forrest, The Arrogance of Faith, Alfred A. Knopf, 1990. How come you didn't take your translations of the Hebrew Bible from the Jewish Publication Society edition?

I've often thought it would be kinda cool to own slaves, but it would be unfair to the slaves because all people should have liberty & opportunity to live freely.

David

08-16-2008, 03:48 PM

What ever happened to reasonable, rational thinking.Read the excellent cultural criticism in THE NEW CRITERION, edited by Roger Kimball.

strandinthewind

08-16-2008, 05:53 PM

I guess Reverend Wright and Father Flueger ought to know all about preaching hate, Obama attends their churches and their pews certainly are full. In the 20 or so years I went to church, I NEVER heard any minister hate anyone or call anyone a "fag" or anything else like that. The only place I've heard "fag" from in the last year, is YOU. All I heard was the cloying phrase, "hate the sin, love the sinner" I take it you've never actually been to church, you just had someone "tell you about it." :laugh:

I think Rev. Wright was wrong in his intent and spirit. If I have ever said otherwise, let's see it. Moreover, why do you always fail to address the instant point and instead point to the bad acts of others in an attempt to obscure the bad act being talked about. This ad is cr*p. Do you not admit that? Then again, you think Rove is some sort of saviour, which is actually beneath you. Are you really for the Rovian smears and lies as opposed to the truth.

As for "fags," I am employing exaggeration for emphasis - but clearly it is the thought of many - a google of "dirty fags obama" or similar wording will prove that - much less the people who kill people just because they are gay, which I do not think any left wing person has done :shrug: Also, if you google "baby killer obama" or similar language -- you'll see enough of your ilk using it :shrug: I suppose you actually think R's never think in those terms, which I suggest is far from the truth.

As for other ministers - I suppose blaming 9/11 on "homosexuals" and abortionists is slightly better when it's sugar coated like that :rolleyes:

You always suppose the oddest things about me. I have gone to Church since I was a baby. I was an acolyte and an alter boy until I was 16 or so, when you had to stop being one. I also taught Biblical studies for years and worked with Cahtolic charities (Covenant House) for a few years. Perhaps those events in my life give me some knowledge in the area :shrug:

I just think that govt. and religion do not belong together. The Founding Fathers readily agree with me. Or, in this context, do you, like most R's lose that strict constructionist/Federalist argument?

strandinthewind

08-16-2008, 06:01 PM

. . . You NEVER hear this kind of anger and hate coming from the right wing. Left wingers are just angry, hateful, spiteful and ignorant people who create characatures of people on the other side to hate with a wild eyed intensity.

:laugh: :laugh:

Do actually expect to sell that Shiitte here?

But, for fun, here's Rush saying that if Elizabeth Edwards had not been a yappy woman, maybe John would not have cheated -- sounds like an "angry, hateful, spiteful and ignorant" person to me:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/53Ef739Vlkg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/53Ef739Vlkg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

KO is fab and right on the mark on this one. Rush L. is a hole.

BTW - KO is not ignorant in this -- he is just angry and accurate :wavey:

strandinthewind

08-16-2008, 06:02 PM

Oklahoma State Representative, Sally Kern:
"Studies show, no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted for more than, you know, a few decades."

"I honestly think it’s the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam."

"They want to get them into the government schools so they can indoctrinate them. They are going after our young children, as young as two years of age, to try to teach them that the homosexual lifestyle is an acceptable lifestyle."

"You know, Gays are infiltrating city councils. Did you know that the city council of Eureka Springs is now controlled by gays? They are winning elections."

"This stuff is deadly and it is spreading. It will destroy our young people and it will destroy this nation."

Ohio Secretary of State, Kenneth Blackwell:
"I don't know how many of you have a farming background but I can tell you right now that [same-sex relationships] even defies barnyard logic... the barnyard knows better."

Minnesota State Senator, Michele Bachmann:
"Little children will be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal and natural and perhaps they should try it."

"This is not about hating homosexuals. I love homosexuals. But should we allow them to teach sinful ways [to] our children?"

Colorado Congresswoman, Marilyn Musgrave:
"I believe that when you’re in a cultural war like this, you have to respond with equal and hopefully greater force if you want to win this battle. But this battle is the most important issue that we face today, and what an honor it has been to serve in the United States Congress and carry the Marriage Amendment."

"The future is grim unless we do what we need to do to win this battle."

"As we face the issues that we are facing today, I don’t think there's anything more important out there than the marriage issue."

Pennsylvania Senator, Rick Santorum:
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. All of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. And that’s sort of where we are in today’s world, unfortunately."

Then, of course, there's Trent Lott who compared homosexuality to kleptomania and other "problems" and "addictions," and Dick Armey who referred to openly gay Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank as "Barney Fag."

Plus there are the many and numerous Republican politicians whom, while at least knowing to keep their mouths shut, never fail to vote against civil rights of any form when it involves gays & lesbians (such as wanting to exclude sexual orientation from Hate Crime legislation, blocking homosexuals from adopting, denying health-care benefits to homosexual couples, etc., etc.)

And if we're not limiting our discussion to politicians, I can fill the next four or five pages of this thread with anti-gay quotes from the likes of Ann Coulter and Michael Savage.

Left-wingers may not be angels, AJ, but let's not pretend that Right-wingers are all sweetness and love.

Oh Johnny - it's been too long!

strandinthewind

08-16-2008, 06:04 PM

How come you didn't take your translations of the Hebrew Bible from the Jewish Publication Society edition?

Just lazy I suppose.

strandinthewind

08-16-2008, 06:28 PM

. . . And I'm at a stand still with college.. never finished. I've been working as a makeup artist with Bobbi Brown for the time being.. who would have figured.

But.. let's just say I have done a lot of growing up the past couple of years.. from being "out" and making many friends and just living life I have learned a lot, and many of my opinions have changed indeed!

Good for you - take your time, it's your life :shrug:

I still consider myself a Republican.. but am sick and tired of President Bush and his lies and also religious nut jobs. I guess you could say I'm more of an old school Republican.. a la Reagan . . . . [/QUOTE]

RR was no great leader, though I think he was a nice and likeable guy. Delve into his politics a little and you will see he was a religious nutcase, though likely less so than W and his ilk. After all, the AIDS crisis exploded with 20,000 some odd deaths and countless more cases happened before Reagan could even bring himself to address the issue six years later. In his authorized biography, RR is quoted as saying that "maybe the Lord brought down this plague," because "illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments." This you admire :eek:

Here is one sided site with lots RR bad acts http://prorev.com/reagan.htm -- there are other ones, this will get you the point. Here is a likely more even toned one http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ronald_Reagan_Health_Care.htm

As for this election.. I'm not sure I'm voting for anyone.. perhaps Libertarian candidate Bob Barr :shrug:

The pickins are slim to be sure. But, I cannot take four more years of this shiitte - so I am voting for Obama, though it pains me to do so. I mean even though Obama is not that great, I truly think we cannot take four more years of the current R party.

David

08-17-2008, 10:42 AM

The pickins are slim to be sure. But, I cannot take four more years of this shiitte - so I am voting for Obama, though it pains me to do so. I mean even though Obama is not that great, I truly think we cannot take four more years of the current R party.I refuse to vote. I have refused to vote since I was 18.

BombaySapphire3

08-17-2008, 12:47 PM

Oh Johnny - it's been too long!

now if dissention would just come back ajmccarrell would really have his hands full.:lol:

strandinthewind

08-17-2008, 12:51 PM

now if dissention would just come back ajmccarrell would really have his hands full.:lol:

Lord Child - that comunist has likely gone underground :eek:

ajmccarrell

08-17-2008, 01:20 PM

Lord Child - that comunist has likely gone underground :eek:

People can dissent all they like. It's a free country.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/08/14/new-rap-song-advocates-killing-bill-oreilly-michelle-malkin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulcGldJlKiA

strandinthewind

08-17-2008, 02:15 PM

People can dissent all they like. It's a free country . . . .

Well, yes they can. I am unsure anyone said anything to the contrary. Note - the dissent must be truthful or it usually gets called out.

BTW - you never commented on the veracity of the ad in question :wavey:

Brwn_eyes0511

08-18-2008, 12:42 AM

RR was no great leader, though I think he was a nice and likeable guy. Delve into his politics a little and you will see he was a religious nutcase, though likely less so than W and his ilk. After all, the AIDS crisis exploded with 20,000 some odd deaths and countless more cases happened before Reagan could even bring himself to address the issue six years later. In his authorized biography, RR is quoted as saying that "maybe the Lord brought down this plague," because "illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments." This you admire :eek:

Yes I am aware of those things.. doesn't mean I have to always agree.

And let’s not forget some of the good things as well; One being his opposition to California Proposition 6 (aka Briggs Initiative). May not seem like much, but for such a strong conservative to take a stand against such an issue at that time said a lot.. at least to me. But I don't want to get into a debate about Reagan.. We'll just disagree forever I'm sure. ;)

But overall he found a great balance between the two flavors of conservatism, IMO. There has always been unresolved tension between those two flavors. You had your western and southern conservatives. Western was more Libertarian and focused more on small government and fiscal responsibility. Southern conservatism seem to only deem social issues important, essentially they are what we call today the religious right. I find myself a western type and more of a libertarian.. But sadly these days the religious right seems to rule the roost in the Republican Party!

Maybe one day we'll see a change.. eh?

ajmccarrell

08-18-2008, 03:52 AM

Yes I am aware of those things.. doesn't mean I have to always agree.

And let’s not forget some of the good things as well; One being his opposition to California Proposition 6 (aka Briggs Initiative). May not seem like much, but for such a strong conservative to take a stand against such an issue at that time said a lot.. at least to me. But I don't want to get into a debate about Reagan.. We'll just disagree forever I'm sure. ;)

But overall he found a great balance between the two flavors of conservatism, IMO. There has always been unresolved tension between those two flavors. You had your western and southern conservatives. Western was more Libertarian and focused more on small government and fiscal responsibility. Southern conservatism seem to only deem social issues important, essentially they are what we call today the religious right. I find myself a western type and more of a libertarian.. But sadly these days the religious right seems to rule the roost in the Republican Party!

Maybe one day we'll see a change.. eh?

I don't know how you can say that the Republican party is dominated by the southern conservatives when John McCain was far and away beyond Huckabee or Thompson in votes and delegates. I mean, McCain was at 1100 delegates and Huckabee had about 280 when he dropped out. Methinks no one on here has any idea what they're talking about; they're just vomiting up a bunch of drivel because it "feels" right, rather than any of it being based on anything besides pure supposition. How about some source for some opinions, folks? If you can bring up something like, "McCain used the word 'fags' in his townhall meeting" I could understand being offended. But just throwing around random accusations such as "Republicans only pay attention to the verses that condemn fags for all their problems" is a bunch of hooey that isn't supported by anything. Cite someone that said that for dang's sake. Don't just pull vile hate-filled opinions about people out of your collective A$$es and pass it off as fact. The only people I see being prejudiced anywhere are the libbys who accuse other people of being prejudiced. I guess making Republicans into straw men onto which you can transfer your own burning hatreds and vile thoughts is therapeutic. I, for one, don't hate anyone. You can't convince me that I do.

iamnotafraid

08-18-2008, 05:26 AM

Western was more Libertarian and focused more on small government and fiscal responsibility. Southern conservatism seem to only deem social issues important, essentially they are what we call today the religious right.

Maybe one day we'll see a change.. eh?

Southern conservatives care about all the issues.

Being religious doesn't make you a member of the religious right.

Brwn-eyes this isn't directed at you but more at the overall tone on
board concerning the South.

I would actually consider voting for a Libertarian if they had a chance at
winning, but in this presidential race that would be like voting for Obama.

Maybe ajm should run for president?

Brwn_eyes0511

08-18-2008, 06:06 AM

Southern conservatives care about all the issues.

Being religious doesn't make you a member of the religious right.

I'm sure some do,

I know some that do.. seeing as how I'm from the south.

I myself am not religious at all.. however I am VERY spiritual.

Brwn-eyes this isn't directed at you but more at the overall tone on
board concerning the South.

No problem.. Again, I'm from the south and didn't mean to say anything negative against it. "Southern Conservatives" is just a term.

I would actually consider voting for a Libertarian if they had a chance at
winning, but in this presidential race that would be like voting for Obama.

Once upon a time I too felt that way until I decided it didn't matter whether the candidate could win or not. It only mattered that I was speaking my mind.. even if I were the only one to vote for them. It is our right to speak our mind in this country and damn it.. that doesn't mean I have to vote for a Republican or a Democrat!

iamnotafraid

08-18-2008, 06:16 AM

Once upon a time I too felt that way until I decided it didn't matter whether the candidate could win or not. It only mattered that I was speaking my mind.. even if I were the only one to vote for them.

That's understandable and I can respect that. I really just wish everyone would vote. No matter who they vote for.

BTW, Carly Simon.........one hot mama.

What song of hers' is that?

Brwn_eyes0511

08-18-2008, 07:32 AM

BTW, Carly Simon.........one hot mama.

What song of hers' is that?

It's a song called "The Best Thing" from her first album. It wasn't a single or anything. The hit from that album was, of course, "That's The Way I've Always Heard It Should Be".

strandinthewind

08-18-2008, 09:30 AM

strandinthewind

08-18-2008, 09:33 AM

I don't know how you can say that the Republican party is dominated by the southern conservatives when John McCain was far and away beyond Huckabee or Thompson in votes and delegates. I mean, McCain was at 1100 delegates and Huckabee had about 280 when he dropped out. Methinks no one on here has any idea what they're talking about; they're just vomiting up a bunch of drivel because it "feels" right, rather than any of it being based on anything besides pure supposition. How about some source for some opinions, folks? If you can bring up something like, "McCain used the word 'fags' in his townhall meeting" I could understand being offended. But just throwing around random accusations such as "Republicans only pay attention to the verses that condemn fags for all their problems" is a bunch of hooey that isn't supported by anything. Cite someone that said that for dang's sake. Don't just pull vile hate-filled opinions about people out of your collective A$$es and pass it off as fact. The only people I see being prejudiced anywhere are the libbys who accuse other people of being prejudiced. I guess making Republicans into straw men onto which you can transfer your own burning hatreds and vile thoughts is therapeutic. I, for one, don't hate anyone. You can't convince me that I do.

Once again, do not try to sell that shiitte around here. The R party demonized and is demonizing gay people for poltical gain. It is laughable that you assert that just because they do not actually use the word "fag" in public somehow lessens that patently obvious stance.

Once again, please comment on the BO ad that is the issue of this thread. I want to see you actually try to defend it.

strandinthewind

08-18-2008, 09:50 AM

. . . Being religious doesn't make you a member of the religious right . . . .

I totally agree. And, it sickens me when the current R party blurs that line.

A good example is gay marriage. Heterosexual, married people get greater Federal rights based solely on a religious ideal. How is that fair or even legal? Yet, when you ask that question or make that point, the R party lambastes you as against Christianity as a whole; you are called a "liberl" and you are placed in a category on being un American. In reality, all you are asking is why one religious group gets special treatment from the govt., an ideal seemingly prohibited by the US Const. Put it this way, other than the religious reason behind not wanting gay marriage or even civil unions, what other reason is their for not wanting it? I can't think of one :shrug:

The public displays of the decalogue, prayer in schools, and other officially sanctioned religious worship are other good examples. If you question the idea of the govt. sponsoring one religion over another in public displays (let's see the Son's of Satan or the Wiccans get a public dime :shrug: ) -- then the current R party paints you as someone who is taking away an individual's right to worship their God in every context. You are a "liberal" and not a true American; you should go live somewhere else because you are personally offending Jesus. That is an incorrect argument - a bait and switch if you will. All you (general) are doing is asking why public money should be being spent to support essentially one religion, again, an ideal seemingly prohibited by the US Const. You are not in any way telling someone that they cannot go every day to their Church and pray on their own time or that they cannot pray on their own in school or where ever. You are not trying to take away anyone's personal and private rights. It is a red herring of an argument. Moreover, I do not understand why the govt. has to officially sanction your right to be a Christian or in any religion. To me, that is an insult to the religion.

Sadly, the current R party cannot stand the idea of a complete separation of church and state.

Interestingly, abortion is not really the separation of church and state, although it eventually winds up there. In Roe -- the Court weighed the mother's right to control her own body and the state's right in protecting life. The Court determined that the state's valid right to protect a human life was outweighed by the mother's valid right to control her body. To reach this holding, the Court in Roe had to determine when the state's right outweighed the mother's right. The Court concluded it was at the end of the first trimester because that is when the fetus in theory become viable out side of the mother; prior to then the fetus is parasitic to the mother.

For me, the Court's holding in Roe should stand because although I do not think I could abort a child in the first trimester, I will never be faced with that choice. I think that the consequences of that choice are betweem the aborting mother and her maker. I have, though, euthanized my anmials (like my children) and pulled the plug on relatives. Those were agonizing decisions - to take the life of something is not easy -- but, it was the humane thing to do IMO. I am prepared to defend that decision when I meet my Maker.

Brwn_eyes0511

08-18-2008, 09:51 AM

I agree, but the religious crizies are also in the West, Colorado is a good example.

and Utah.. again I go back to the Osmonds! :D (Of course I tease them because I love them!) :laugh:

strandinthewind

08-18-2008, 10:10 AM

. . . Once upon a time I too felt that way until I decided it didn't matter whether the candidate could win or not. It only mattered that I was speaking my mind.. even if I were the only one to vote for them. It is our right to speak our mind in this country and damn it.. that doesn't mean I have to vote for a Republican or a Democrat!

I used to have your ideal. However, after seeing what that ideal caused with W and the R Congress and those disasterous years that set back civil rights so inhumanely, I think voting not to let the R's back in power is the only way to go. Put it this way, if I vote for some third party candidate and McCain wins and the R party is back in power, the chipping away at civil rights in the name of some religion will continue. I cannot see how Obama, even with all of this faults, could possibly be worse than that.

Again, the R party has vociferously sponsored, promoted, defended, and prosecuted people under laws that wanted to put gay people on jail for having consensual sex. Hitler anyone?

Remember, some members at the R convention in an officially sanctioned event turned their backs on Jim Kolbe (R - AZ) solely because he is openly gay -- when he spoke at the R National Convention on international trade. And, to my knowledge, not one member of the upp eschelon of the R party or even Kolbe himself had the sand to say one thing against that act - they disrespected an honored member of the U.S. Congress. Yet, some have the effrontery or ignorance to assert the R party somehow does not demonize gay people. Could you imagine if they turned their backs on a black guy?

But, why take my word for it (emphasis supplied) :

Delegates consider boycott of Kolbe speech

By Jeff Barker

August 1, 2000

Web posted at: 2:26 PM EDT (1826 GMT)

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (The Arizona Republic Online) -- This isn't at all what Rep. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., had in mind, not on his big night at the Republican National Convention.

Kolbe, the only openly gay Republican in Congress, just wanted to deliver a businesslike speech tonight on international trade, a subject he probably knows more about than anybody in Congress.

But word filtered out Monday that a contingent in the Texas delegation is considering a silent walkout during Kolbe's address to protest the selection of a gay man to deliver a prime-time GOP convention speech.

The irony, Kolbe said in an interview Monday, is that he doesn't plan to discuss gay issues in his speech, or even refer to his sexual orientation. In fact, some gay-rights groups have wished Kolbe would adopt a higher profile regarding their concerns in Congress.

"I've never denied my sexual orientation. I just don't make a point of it. It isn't what I do," Kolbe said. "Clearly, I'm known for the work I've done on trade and Social Security."

Kolbe was silent for a moment when an Arizona Republic reporter asked him if he had heard that some in the Texas delegation thought that his delivering tonight's speech posed a moral issue, and that a protest was being considered.

"No," he said. And then: "I have no comment on that."

Pat Carlson, chairwoman of the Tarrant County Republican Party, said many of the Texas delegates have told her they want to send a message to Gov. George W. Bush in a "quiet way" and have discussed walking out, according to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's online edition.

She told the newspaper she was disappointed that Bush, the GOP presidential nominee, selected Kolbe to address free trade issues.

"I think it (a silent protest) is appropriate if we get a speaker like that, who is not representative of most of the delegates' beliefs," Carlson said.

Texas delegate Cathy McConn of Houston told The Republic, "There was concern that he (Kolbe) was chosen because he was openly gay - kind of like a quota" But McConn said she had not taken a position.

Ironically, Mary Cheney, 31, one of GOP vice presidential nominee Dick Cheney's daughters, is openly gay, and plans to actively campaign for her father.

Kolbe arguably will become the most prominent openly gay Republican to address a GOP convention, according to the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund and other advocacy groups.

Ray Sullivan, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, said that as of early Monday evening, there hadn't been any communication about Kolbe's speech between the Texas governor and Carlson or the other delegates.

"We hope and believe that the delegates will be respectful of all the speakers. Congressman Kolbe is speaking because of his expertise and leadership on the issue of free trade," Sullivan said

A Texas walkout would be certain to provoke a spirited defense of Kolbe by Arizona's lawmakers and other delegates.

Arizona Republicans strongly supported Kolbe when he disclosed his sexual orientation in 1996.

"My response to him was very brief," Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., recalled the following year. "I said, 'Jim, it doesn't make a difference to me whatsoever. I could care less.' "

On Monday, Mike Hellon, the Republican national committeeman from Arizona, said, "It (a walkout) would be a black mark on an inclusive, positive convention. For Governor Bush's own delegation to do that, it would be mind-boggling."

For years, Kolbe, first elected to the House in 1984, declined to confirm or deny rumors that he was a homosexual. He finally disclosed it rather than be "outed" on the Internet by activists angry with his vote in favor of a Republican-sponsored bill to deny federal sanction of same-sex marriages.

After he came out, Kolbe told The Republic, "I would rather be known as 'Jim Kolbe, the trade expert in Congress who happens to be gay,' rather than 'Jim Kolbe, gay congressman from Arizona.' "

Sloan Wiesen, spokesman for the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, said Monday, "My sense is that most openly gay and lesbian elected officials have to overcome attempts to pigeonhole them based on their sexual orientation."

Kolbe has quietly been an active member of the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay political group that plans to honor him here at a reception before the speech. He has consistently supported legislation to ban employment discrimination against gays and lesbians.

David Smith, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign Fund, said of a possible protest against Kolbe: "I couldn't think of a meaner thing that could happen."

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LOCAL/pacific/08/01/azc.kolbe/index.html

strandinthewind

08-18-2008, 10:12 AM

and Utah.. again I go back to the Osmonds! :D (Of course I tease them because I love them!) :laugh:

I, too, love The Osmonds :nod:

Brwn_eyes0511

08-18-2008, 10:34 AM

I used to have your ideal. However, after seeing what that ideal caused with W and the R Congress and those disasterous years that set back civil rights so inhumanely, I think voting not to let the R's back in power is the only way to go. Put it this way, if I vote for some third party candidate and McCain wins and the R party is back in power, the chipping away at civil rights in the name of some religion will continue. I cannot see how Obama, even with all of this faults, could possibly be worse than that.

I disagree with you here, my friend. I don't see a vote for a third party candidate as a "wasted vote" at all. I don't see my vote as wasted unless I vote for someone that I don’t really want to win! Voting for the “lesser of two evils” is the quintessential “wasted vote.” This is why were are in financial and social shambles right now, IMO!

"Be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi.

strandinthewind

08-18-2008, 11:16 AM

. . . This is why were are in financial and social shambles right now, IMO!

Actually, we are in those shambles right now directly because of W. Four more years under McCain will only further this wanton degrading of civil rights, careless spending , and fighting a war that was over and mostly won years ago (we got rid of SH (who was never a threat) and set up a D govt. in Iraq years ago. But, there is no clear win so, the R's want to keep fighting it.

I get it is your vote and the only way to promote change is through the electoral process, there ought to be more than two parties, etc. But, clearly, the situation at hand is exigent and that exigency IMO outweighs any lofty ideals I may have. If we have four more years of a R party rule, I hope you want no rights at all as a gay male. In fact, I hope you want to live in Jesusland and you like prison because that is where the actions of the R party indicate they want you to be. Are your ideals worth that?

Consider the facts of the Lawrence case, which was a R baby (emphasis supplied) :

Lawrence v. Texas: The initial trial:

In 1998, police in Texas responded to a false report, which may have been phoned in by a disgruntled neighbor. They entered the apartment of John Geddes Lawrence, and found him engaged in anal sex with another male: Tyron Garner. Both were arrested and jailed overnight. They are an inter-racial couple -- a factor that may have influenced the police to arrest them, but which has been studiously avoided by the media. They were tried under Texas' Homosexual Conduct Law which defines anal or oral sex between two men or two women as deviate sexual intercourse. The same law permits this behavior if it is between a man and woman. They were found guilty and fined. These convictions for a "crime of moral turpitude" could prevent the two men from getting certain jobs in the state. In some jurisdictions, they would be required to register as sex offenders.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_laws4.htm

To quote Rick Perry (R) - the Governor of Texas "I think our law is appropriate that we have on the books."

To quote the District Attorney Charles A. Rosenthal (R), representing Harris County, TX, in his argument to the court -- "[morality] is a fluid concept, and public opinion regarding moral issues may change over time, but what has not changed is the understanding that government may require adherence to certain widely accepted moral standards and sanction deviation from those standards, so long as it does not interfere with constitutionally protected liberties."

Can you imagine that what you do in your own bedroom is not a basic freedom or "contitutionally protected liberty?" Moreover, could you imagine being a legally sanctioned sex offender on a publicly posted list just because you were having consenual sex in the confines of your own home :eek: That is what the R stands for via its actions. You do not see the D party doing this type of thing.

Suddenly, the phrase "filthy fags" doesn't seem so off the mark does it?

Brwn_eyes0511

08-18-2008, 12:19 PM

Actually, we are in those shambles right now directly because of W. Four more years under McCain will only further this wanton degrading of civil rights, careless spending , and fighting a war that was over and mostly won years ago (we got rid of SH (who was never a threat) and set up a D govt. in Iraq years ago. But, there is no clear win so, the R's want to keep fighting it.

I get it is your vote and the only way to promote change is through the electoral process, there ought to be more than two parties, etc. But, clearly, the situation at hand is exigent and that exigency IMO outweighs any lofty ideals I may have. If we have four more years of a R party rule, I hope you want no rights at all as a gay male. In fact, I hope you want to live in Jesusland and you like prison because that is where the actions of the R party indicate they want you to be. Are your ideals worth that?

I see your point, and it is valid. But below is a little scenario of how I view the voting process.

"Hey Brandon, I just voted to increase my taxes because I wanted the possibility that I could get married someday to the person I love.” Or, better yet, “Gee, Brandon, it feels great to give up my social liberties so that I can keep the money I earned!” :shocked: (Either way SUCKS in my book)

It would be much easier for me if I were a socialist and believed in large government, then I could simply be a Democrat seeing as how socially I agree with just about all of their positions.

So my choice is to say "F you" to both parties and align myself with someone who has most of the same ideals that I do. Not to say that could never be a Democratic or Republican candidate.. it's just not in this election!

Don't be mad at me strand.. I really do understand what you are saying.. but I just can't bring myself to vote for a candidate I can't stand behind 100%

strandinthewind

08-18-2008, 12:54 PM

. . . Don't be mad at me strand.. I really do understand what you are saying.. but I just can't bring myself to vote for a candidate I can't stand behind 100%

I am not angry. I was stating what I thought and why I am voting for Obama even though I am not that impressed by him :cool:

strandinthewind

08-18-2008, 01:02 PM

. . . but I just can't bring myself to vote for a candidate I can't stand behind 100%

Have you ever stood behind any candidate 100% ?

Certainly, you do not stand behind any of the current candidates 100%, including Barr :shrug: History has rpven his whole let the state's determine everything and the Fed Govt. should stay out of it just does not work. See the Commerce Clause. Moreover, you'd have to strike the word marriage from all areas of the Fed. Govt. I can assure you he is not for that though he may imply he is.

gldstwmn

08-19-2008, 01:23 PM

. I really do understand what you are saying.. but I just can't bring myself to vote for a candidate I can't stand behind 100%

Then you have to resign yourself to the fact that you may never vote. :laugh:

strandinthewind

08-19-2008, 01:26 PM

Then you have to resign yourself to the fact that you may never vote. :laugh:

I know -- but, to his credit, he earlier said in a hypothetical situation " . . . and align myself with someone who has most of the same ideals that I do." So, there is yet hope for his being able to vote in some election :cool:

estranged4life

08-21-2008, 04:16 PM

the following gif file I found isnt currently being used by the GOP as one of their campaign slogans for the upcoming November Presidential circle jerk, Oops, I meant Presidential Election:

<div align=center><img src="http://chickenhead.com/bannertown/art/jesuslovesyou.gif"></div>

Brian "The INDEPENDENT - Win the rights for my vote, Bids start at a minimum $20,000" j.

SuzeQuze

08-21-2008, 09:14 PM