Zen and the Art of Alaskan Politics
(Sarah Palin)
picture: dunno source, via our Our LOL builder. lol caption: randyincv
-
-
Copy & paste this:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous POT | They said there would be hurdles Next »
Zen and the Art Alaska Politics
» 419 comments
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
Majken on Famous Alumni itsybit on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… Bob the eternally un… on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… itsybit on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… Bob the eternally un… on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… Geary on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… Tommycat on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… Geary on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… itsybit on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… Tommycat on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… 
Cheezburger Company BlogPrint on Demand
More I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
I Can Has Cheezburger? - Lolcats n Funny Pictures
Animal Videos: Baby Penguin Cuddle
Lolcats - Lolcats n' Funny Cat Pictures
Kappa Alpha Tau
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies
Cyoot Puppy ob teh Day: Redy 4 mai kloseup
Animal Capshunz - All of the Internet's Animals. Captioned
I Know the Answer
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
THE BREAD. ITS TOO MUCH.
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode.
Not So Shy Panda
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
Poor Reginald
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
Let's Get Hammered!
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
He's Right About Almost Everything
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz
HELENA BONHAM CARTER
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
This Strawberry Totally Looks Like Goldfish Cracker
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
Tweedy Squirrels
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
Wow. Hasn’t this one been done except using Bush?
What is it… recycle week at PK?
We can has original LOLs?
I’d say *this one* was done to a crisp around the time of the Couric interview.
so… old…. she’s not edumacated, we get it.
The sad thing is, on paper, she *is* educated- attended how many colleges in search of her sports journalism degree?
Is a sports journalism degree education?
She received her bachelor’s degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho and attended the following schools
* Hawaii Pacific University (Fall 1982),
* North Idaho College (Spring 1983 & Fall 1983),
* University of Idaho (Fall 1984 – Spring 1985),
* Matanuska-Susitna College (Fall 1985) and
* University of Idaho (Spring 1986, Fall 1986 and Spring 1987 ).
Thank you for the research.
For the record, I don’t think there’s anything wrong, per se, with having attended multiple colleges in search of a degree. However, I do question why she moved so often, before even completing her bachelor’s, and the uniformly adequate nature of her schools. Actually, if she were the manager of a local car dealership, or a regional director in any company, I wouldn’t even question; it’s just that, at the national level, I’d like to see deeper thinkers than such colleges usually produce.
Agreed, but don’t discount the University of Idaho as “such colleges”. It has a well known engineering program and also a law school. Link to alums.
A lot of students transfer because of out-of-state tuition cost, staying home to assist with the family, attending a “satellite” campus of a university, desire to travel and go to school concurrently, etc.
Having said that, I don’t necessarily believe the president needs to have attended an Ivy League School (actually, that turns me off somewhat, as I’m cheap and can’t fathom spending hundreds of thousands on an education) but do agree committing to one institution and sticking to said institution does look better on the whole.
I stand corrected on UofI.
I don’t demand Ivy League schools either, but somehow, I don’t want some business graduate of University of Portland, say, with their finger on the button.
I think the thing about Ivy League schools isn’t just the (admittedly great) education, but the exposure to the sons and daughters of the people who currently run the world. I’m sure it helps a president to call up and say “Hey Bill, you old so and so, you still beer bonging on weekends? Man those were good times. Hey, lemme tell you why I’m calling- your company needs to back the heck off on all that illegal waste dumping, okay? All right then. Give my best to Summer- tell her I’m still mad she chose you over me…”
Absolutely agreed on all counts.
Academics is only one piece of the edumacation pie. You are spot-on regarding building those relationships and using them to one’s advantage in politics.
But… I do believe sometimes those relationships contribute to the rampant elitism and abuses of power at the highest levels if not applied ethically. It’s a fine line, I tells ya’
Your last point is well made.
I guess to be frank i didn’t just want to call her thick.
Ignorant is probably better.
If so, it’s willful ignorance: she’s been exposed to the wider world but ignores it/ doesn’t think it’s important/ fill in whatever reason makes sense to you.
Hurt. Unable to trust others, and thus forced to seek every advantage, fair or not. Raised with a privileged mid-set, taught humans are bad and that they need beating, and that you are either the one wielding the stick, or the one getting hit. Sucks to be either, because you can’t trust or empathize with other humans if you are either, but it sucks much less being the one with the stick. Pretty enough to get things handed to her undeservedly.
I think that about covers it.
And one of the undeserved things handed to her has been…the stick.
Funny thing though, when the world notices you don’t deserve it? It tends to take the stick back.
I’ll be honest, I went to three colleges and universities to complete my Bachelor’s degree. However, I had breaks in tuition that made it feasible and better for me to do so, and I wasn’t able to pass Chem in one Uni, while the slightly less difficult program (and MUCH better teacher) allowed me to pass with a B. Which is good, because I’d hate to think that Chem is what kept me from getting my degree!
There’s certainly no shame in attending multiple universities, depending on why you had to move. Better opportunities, programs, teachers, scholarships? Good on you. There are other, less reputable reasons (referring to Palin here), but speculating with no information would just be mean spirited.
Well, I went to 3 different schools. The first one, I practically dropped out of following a major depression (close friend died my freshman year). The second one was a community college I attended to get back on my feet. The third one was a far more prestigious university than my original, so I ended up better than I started. So as long as someone gets their degree, I don’t worry too terribly much about how many schools it took them, or even the reasons why. A lot of people go through hard times, esp. when starting school. My wife dropped out of college when she took her first shot at it over 10 years ago. Today she graduated from a local community college summa cum laude. Different strokes for different folks, ya know?
She’s both educated *and* intelligent. Even Tina Fey was taken aback by her intelligence, and could barely raise her eyes when questioned later about the reality of the woman she’d met versus the parody she’d been playing. And few people argue that Tina Fey is not an intelligent woman. But then there was that editor that said the same thing – who was it, the former editor of MS magazine, I believe, who traveled with Palin for a few months and couldn’t believe how intelligent she was. I’m sorry, but just because Couric’s people sliced and diced that interview and Palin got p*ssy about a perceived (and likely quite real) slight doesn’t equal a stupid person. Stop being such a dam* baby about it. Aren’t you idiots happy enough that she lost the race and your guy won? What a bunch of whiners.
Forget the interview, she didn’t act like an intelligent person would at most points of the campaign. Perhaps she’s just less politically aware than most that get to that point but I think she acted as stupidly as Bush. Seemed pretty ignorant to me.
I was only saying that we should be over this already- and I also didn’t want to directly call her stupid, i guess because I’m *trying* to be kinder about it, and hey, I don’t know her either, just her public persona which is hardly ever real for anyone
She wasnt’ able to act intelligent because she was being forced to be less Conservative than John McCain. That’s a pretty tough thing to do, as McCain is about as Conservative as a bear is green. The problem with being told to say something that you don’t really believe in is that you have to think about what to say, and you come off as insincere and stupid, since you have to pause to make sure you give the “right” answer. I have no doubt that her trouble with coming up with court cases or magazines are not because she is stupid, but because she couldn’t remember the answer she had been told by staffers to give.
-
Everyone who has met her in person, including Lorne Michaels, Tina Fey, and Alec Baldwin have all said what a bright, intelligent, and room altering person she is, and how she is a force to be reckoned with. There was a chop-job done on her, and it started with the McCain campaign.
I really hope you’ve been able to watch “Media Malpractice” because ALL of this is explained and it is all you have just said plus more. It is obvious this college-educated woman is NOT stupid – what was even more interesting was Judge Judy on the View being asked about Palin and being encouraged to mock her, but Judy (while still being fairly liberal in some ways) was NOT willing to dismiss the qualifications and intelligence of Palin so easily. She tried to get them to acknowledge that running a state – and YES, a BIG one (call it less populous than many; who cares – it’s still a state with MANY resources) was NO small accomplishment, and in fact it is not a small accomplishment whatsoever.
I had to lol at your quite true assessment of having to appear MORE liberal than McCain – that’s true, and for an honest person (as I believe Palin to be) it must be doubly hard don’t you think? Plus she was insulted by the implications of some of the questions – the woman knows when she’s being condescended to, and while it’s not necessarily *politic* to get snitty, I can’t blame her for doing so. She’s…one of us. (Us, the people, that is. With sincerity and a low tolerance for condescension.)
I suppose I can believe that. Doesn’t make me like her any more though. In fact, it just makes me fear her.
LOL
Cool. Ask Piper how “fearsome” this woman you “fear’ is, by the way. Fear. LOL
Well, before I figured she was just an idiot with people skills who managed to slither her way into office, kinda like Bush. But if she’s actually smart, that’s frightening considering how much I disagree with her on so many things. I’ll go on record saying that if she were to run for president and win, it would be twice the disaster of having W in office.
Hehe – yeah, she is. And if that scares you – oh well. Here’s hoping!
She’s not stupid, but she is utterly lacking in wisdom. She has two or three times the usual politician’s degree of difficulty with the truth, she’s incredibly vindictive, and she’s got a very screwed up sense of how her own interests and prerogatives can and should weigh against external considerations. (This is without getting into her Dominionist beliefs, which are truly disturbing.)
If she were capable of attaining and holding serious power, I’d be frightened…but now her mask is off, even her home state is becoming disenchanted with her.
There was a fly buzzing around a barn one day when he happened on a pile of fresh cow manure. Due to the fact that it had been hours since his last meal, he flew down and began to eat. He ate and ate and ate.
Finally, he decided he had eaten enough and tried to fly away. He had eaten too much though, and could not get off the ground. As he looked around wondering what to do now, he spotted a pitchfork leaning up against the wall. He climbed to the top of the handle and jumped off, thinking that once he got airborne, he would be able to take flight.
Unfortunately he was wrong, and dropped like a rock, splatting when he hit the floor dead.
The moral to the story: Never fly off the handle when you’re full of crap.
if the empty thought bubble fits….
then it probably belongs on you
lol, even at my worst i’ve never been empty-headed, incoherent maybe, confusing and befuddling, but never vacuous…best try again
Yeah, it was MINE. This is sad.
{{{hugs}}} it’s ok. some people are incapable of self-entertainment so they whine about no new captions or that the captions aren’t funny, yet never seem to submit any creations of their own (with certain exceptions to this rule of thumb). so create & submit away, secure in the knowledge that you are doing something instead of whining about the lack of being spoon fed your entertainment.
It was also already done by ME during the elections.
HAHAAHAHAAHA!!
Oh wait, wrong LOL.
?
exactly
Indubitably
All else would palin comparison.
Oh GOD my brain hurts
You just lost the game for that
It’s okay, you still haven’t won either.
This wasn’t even funny when it was Joe Biden.
Probably cause Biden’s brain isn’t empty…it’s chock full of stupidity that’s just waiting to emerge and make Obama’s life more difficult.
What is the sound of one wingnut snapping?
Now, young grassmoker, if you can snatch this small, round, brown, pebble-like object out of my hand using only your mouth, the student will become the master!
*chuckles*
if a wingnut snaps in the forest and there is nobody there to hear it, are they still inconsequential?
Right wingnut, or left wingnut?
And left or right, does the wingnut fall far from the tree?
(i forgot to delete a link that is waiting to be moderated from another thread, so if this gets posted twice, sorry, my fault)
i guess the distance from the tree would depend on the speed, trajectory, and possibly the specie of tree that the nut holding the wing together fell from
(and as a trivia snit, wingnuts are only right, lefties are moonbats)
It’s unkind to make fun of the handicapped.
The president did it, so why can’t I?
Because you touch yourself at night, day, dawn, dusk, etc, etc…
oooh lookie who’s talking
The guy would makes a profit selling HST’s video stream to the Japanese?
You forgot high-noon!
That’s covered under Day, sir.
Mebbeh. But high-noon is when I’m at the chokay-corral…
Chickens fear meh!
Ride ‘em cowboy …
Do you work for froo?
froo has cowboys?
No, she works in a chicken processing plant.
That’s what she said…
When I think about you….ROFL!
Now, that just shows bad taste. Pittypat is way more appealing.
Well, that’s my Devinyl offer…
Not that that’s saying much …
Oh pishtosh, I find you very delightful, Don’t make Prezzie spank!
Ah, the presidential paddle. Might just be the diversion I’m looking for.
*drags Pitty into the back office for a motivational meeting of the minds*
Yes, well, it’s true. I’ve been bad. I think I’m in need a presidential pardon.
*twirls paddle in handle and gives it a couple of warm up swing*
That you are. Luckily, this helps with what ails ya.
Oh show me some Clemency Mr. head of state.
Clemency? Now where’d that girl go off to?
*closes door and issues paddling* This is for your own good…
Next I want to try that exciting waterpouring torture game! I mean, even Nancy Pelosi has known about it since 1993. Our congress has been misled!
Ya know, I’ve been meaning to make a lol of that, just haven’t found a picture I liked.
[link] eyeshadow mishaps and everything.
*gets to work*
*bows head after crossing arms*
LOL GRANTED!!!
LOL!
I might have added “California” politician, to link it up with surfing, and ditz-boy Arnold.
Eh, 20/20 hindsight and all that. I am satisfied with my words. I was edging fast towards too wordy as is.
Glad you liked it all the same though. ^_^
@Pogonip – it depends on the handicap…myself, i’m missing part of the right side of my brain from brain damage and i’ve forgotten my own name (at a very embarrassing moment i might add), but i so appreciate the irony to all the phrases that go along with not being right in the head. and not in my right mind is one of my fav’s simply because the comeback to that is ‘no, i’m in what’s left of my mind’ ;>
Epic win AND major lemonade maker!
*gets on her knees and bows towards bad fairie’s direciton*
gah! “direction”
thank you, thank you
some days i’m like charley after his surgery, other days charley is smarter than me
and a whole box of internetz to anyone who gets that reference, bwahahah
Flowers for Algernon?
a whole box of internetz for you! and an extra box of stale cookies if you know the name of the movie based on the book
Charley?
close, but no stale cookies for you, but i’ll let you have the crumbs
charly was released in 1968 with cliff robertson as charly
and a remake called flowers for algernon in 2000 with matthew modine
one last trivia nugget: who was algernon?
The mouse.
score special nuggets for froo
the mouse was my favorite character in the book, i was more upset that it died than i was when charly regressed. but then what can you expect from a person who’s favorite pets as a kid were frogs and toads
Oh how I love that story. Seriously, anyone reading this, “Flowers for Algernon,” by Daniel Keyes, read it, it isn’t that long and it is very, very good.
it wasn’t one of my favorites, but does have a lot to recommend it even today (brains stem research would be current comparison), and it goes hand in hand with one flew over the cuckoos nest for demonstrating how people with mental disabilities have been treated in the recent past
My fondness for the story may have something to do with the fact that I first read it when I was ten.
My current favorite science fiction book is “Permutation City” by Greg Egan.
i just finished a compilation of bolo stories, but for favorites, it’s easier to list authors than it is books, lol. the foundation series was good, as well as asimov’s robot series, and bradbury, heinlein, drake, clarke, asprin, anthony, cherryh, bradley, de lint, and the series set in a bar and most of the regulars are anything but regular – callahans cross time saloon is the only title i can think of… great series, full of killer puns…. the mechwarrior series is good too, and mcaffrey
Heh – one of my favorite books of all time. I actually have the copy I kept from my high school (didn’t return it when I was supposed to)) so it means all the more. I read it fairly regularly.
so just out of curiosity, how does theft jibe with being a christian?
Faerie – that’s Spider Robinson with the Callahan’s books. He and his wife Jeanne co-wrote Stardance which was also pretty terrific, and he’s done a whole bunch of other stuff of varying interest. Mindkiller was pretty twisty stuff. Telempath was just odd.
Yay internetz!!!
The movie’s title is ‘charly’, all in lower case letters and printed to look like handwriting.
To this day, I can’t read (or re-read, actually) the book, because if I get to the sentence at the end about how “I still got my rabbit’s foot and lucky penny and maybe they’ll help me”, I’ll cry.
Good book, though, and good movie.
ok, today must be one of those not so smart days: i meant to say that some day’s i’m like charley after his treatment, other days charley is smarter than me before he received treatment.
but the reward of internetz still stands, and i’ll even toss in some stale cookies
Eh, we all have bad days. ((((fairie))))
Tasteless.
I bet none of you know anything about Sarah Palin besides Tina Fey’s impressions.
TOOOOOOOOO SOOOOOOOOOON!!
Wowzerz! Yer right, wut, lol, I don’t no nuffin bout the real Sarah Palin. Why dontcha tell us all aboot her?
ah yes, when in doubt, make a cultural slur. Sign of real inteligence that is.
That’s right, because we all know that Seth is one of PK’s least intelligent …
Actually, good sir, that’d be a “regiolect” slur.
FYI, of course.
You are the one making the slur. I did not imply that talking or writing that way is in any way bad or wrong, you did. Why would you assume that someone who talks that way is of lesser intelligence, are you some kind of elitist?
Don’t worry, V, eventually you’ll figure out how not to walk right into my traps.
Don’t worry, I have better things to do with my time.
Yet here you are…
He meant, “I have better things to do with my time than figure out how to stop making myself look like an idiot getting lead around by the nose and laughed at.” And I’m sure he does. Things like telling us he has better things to do with his time. Important stuff like that.
Very, very important.
Well can you think of anything better to do in your spare time then laugh at the stupidity your fellow interweb members display on a public forum?
The difference between me and you is I don’t really care about trying to prove you wrong. Ths fact that you actually “set traps” for people, in an online forum no less, is petty and juvenile. I bet you hit the refresh button every 2 seconds to see if you “caught” someone. Goodnight all.
If you don’t like the game, you don’t have to play. Nobody can make anyone else take offense, we all just choose to because, hey, who doesn’t like to act self righteous and hurt? There’s nothing more self indulgent nor less appealing than someone nursing a wounded pride.
You can take your ball and go home if you like. I didn’t really want to play with your balls anyhow. But when you act all wounded and hurt like that, it kind of proves you aren’t really the Internet tough guy you like to play. I believe the saying goes something like, “Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.”
Shorter V:
Wahhhhh!
@v – writing in dialect is a time honored and respected way of literary characters to express themselves
Mark Twain is still reviled in many quarters for doing the exact same thing.
Anyone catch the “American Experience” on Mark Twain on PBS recently? I loved that show. I had no idea he was so sad.
yet robbie burns and (please pardon the major brain spaz here) that guy that wrote the book with the travelers who take turns telling stories… want to say it was a french book, but maybe they were merely on the road to/from paris?
and robert lewis stevensen (most notable in kidnapped and treasure island)
cr@p, left half my thought out.
those authors used dialect in one way or another and are considered classics. twain would be in their tier, only he wrote in southern dialect and in ways not pc by todays standards. only he wrote about the time period and how people behaved. he’s reviled for his portrail of midwest life during his lifetime ( +/- ) yet Harriet Beecher Stowe walks on water… and she used the same ‘tricks’ but because she had a socio-political axe to grind, her single book is revered and people want to ban his works because he described life without making judgements.
How do you know she is? She may taste just like chicken!!
Chicken? No, I’m guessing it’s more like spoiled salmon, wet beaver pelts, and just a hint of fine Wisconsin cheddar.
Pabst Blue Ribbon splashed behind the ears and knees for subtle effect…
I have it on good authority that she tastes like scrapple.
Ain’t nothin’ wrong wid a lil scrapple an grits, missy…
So she’s a hipster now?
No, hipsters wear Sex Panther. It’s got bits of real panther, so you know it’s good. Sixty percent of the time, it works every time.
I like Scotch. Scotchy-scotchy-scotch…
Ron Burgundy should descend from the clouds and slap you like a spendthrift Saudi husband for comparing him and his crew to dirty hipsters.
WTF? PBR is for rednecks, last I heard…
It used to be, sure. But I’ve seen way more of it at douchey hipster bars than in the sticks lately.
What are you doing at douchey hipster bars?
Fu(k. Guess I’m a hipster.
*two snaps up in a Z formation*
This. Cracks. Me. Up. My regular bar has PBR as their “cheap” draft (hey, it’s $1…) and I’m pretty sure we don’t have any douchey hipsters.
It does seem to be getting generally more popular, I’ll admit. But in the neighborhoods I frequent, a sign advertising a PBR special usually means the place is sick with skinny jeans.
As long as they don’t have faux-hawks you should be safe. Also, my dad enjoys a nice PBR on occasion and no one who knows him (as some of those present do) would qualify him as a hipster. That being said, I have noticed a hipster trend of taking things you would normally make fun of and using them “ironically”, so I can see how PBR might have started becoming popular with that set in that way.
It’s drunk locally by young folks rebelling against the domination by local “microbrewing giants”. I laugh; when I was their age, microbrewers were rebelling against the domination by PBR and other, less savory, lagers…
Have these “young folks” had their taste buds surgically removed?
Well, to be fair, they’re not making a lot of money. They tend to be college kids with jobs on the margins of the service industry, so perhaps they’ve turned financial necessity into a virtue.
Point taken, but I’d rather have fewer good beers than more bad ones. Also, draft microbrew doesn’t tend to be significantly more (about 15c US a pint on a typical $4 a pint cost) than draft c”at’s p!$$ from an industrial chemistry plant” here.
There’s a restaurant here in Portland where you can get a big bottle (40 oz? I’m not a beer drinker, so I don’t know) of PBR in a bucket of ice, as though it were champagne. Cracks me up.
*That* would be hilarious. No one does that here, but I bet they will soon!
Aren’t you in PDX, Mark? I’m referring to the Delta Cafe on SE Woodstock and (??) 39th? 42nd?? 46th? Somewhere in that neighborhood, anyway. Good BBQ and Southern “cuisine” if you’re partial to it.
Wow, never heard of it- I live in NW. Sounds like a good place to bike to tomorrow or the next day!
Hey, they were the seventies version of hipsters! Not quite the original, but I don’t think you were referring the fifties version, were you, daddy-o?
So how do you get from Ron Burgundy to today’s douchey, skinny-jeans-wearing, Williamsburg/Wicker Park moron?
What a long, strange trip it’s been. I blame the eighties for the decay of hipster culture.
wasn’t the 80′s, it was disco
And there went the beverage all over the monitor.
Well done, sir.
It could be true. It’s been my experience that conservatives generally try to fight modern liberalism on intellectual grounds, with arguments. In contrast many liberals oppose conservatism by what basically amounts to namecalling – if your opponents aren’t bigots (racists or homophobes), then they’re either dumb (see above), or just don’t care about anyone but themselves (“rich Republicans”).
If you don’t believe me, look at the gay marriage debate. Now, I know many people who oppose allowing gay marriage, and they make that argument based on societal grounds, or because they think homosexuality is immoral. But I don’t think I’ve met a single person who actually hates gay people – but what do we see on the signs at pro-gay marriage rallies? “Stop the hate.”
So they think of homosexuals as less than themselves morally, thus society should keep them from marrying and that isn’t a form of hate, how?
Nah dude, I get where’s he’s going with it. The act is immoral.
It’s a Christianity thing.
I think it’s a little easier to target homosexual behavior as immoral because it’s easy to see. I bet if BDSM couples walked around in their leather and chains (not like these little Goth pretenders), they would be castigated just as badly. And there are a lot of behaviors that are thought to be immoral by Christians and others but aren’t as publicly spoken against mainly because they are already legal and can’t be “prevented in the future”.
Nope, still not seeing the lack of hate. The stance of Homosexuality as immoral is based on a moral superiority, otherwise, you can’t condemn on moral grounds. So my statement still stands.
Also, last I checked, we don’t legislate morality, we legislate ethics so that the laws are fair and equal across the board with no eye towards race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.
If we legislate against gay marriage based on the moral debate, then we need to legislate against other sins such as infidelity, wearing cloth of dual fibers, working on the Sabbath, etc.
As far as protecting society, I will ask for proof that the particular naysayer is personally affected by the fact that two gay men are married in MA and probably getting it on at this very moment.
HST said “the act of homosexuality”. You rounded it up to just homosexuality — that’s not equivalent at all.
“they think homosexuality is immoral.”
That is what David said, exact words. HST said something else but I was talking about David from the beginning and I haven’t stopped.
So yes, homosexuality still equals homosexuality.
It’s much less effort to hate the position without first bothering to understand it, I’m sure.
That’s true which is why I am glad I read David’s post before setting my argument. HST tried to imply a different meaning and I went with David’s actual words.
Glad we agree.
No, HST posited a clarification (and quite a germane one, by my understanding of the matter), but you shot it down.
Unfortunately, I can only go with with what David said, not what HST interprets as an apologist.
Dude, not an apologist.
Just a recovering Catholic, and thus I speak teh lingo.
Except that David didn’t actually say it — he just appears to be repeating what he thinks the argument is. I’d think it would be important to make sure you have the details right — otherwise, who’s to say you’re not just setting up an echo chamber?
It is still the context of legislating against sin, not theirs of course, but another’s. They aren’t going by a guideline that all things should be fair and thus leave it to God to handle sin while we worry about a level playing field.
Ergo, since they are deciding whose sin to legislate against and it sure isn’t “their” sin and they are, in fact, legislating against the sinner.
So instead of hating the sin, which would be to let people decide for themselves whether or not to get married, they decide to legislate against the sinner, IE not let them make the decision in the first place.
Before the murder is sin argument is leveled, that is an ethical issue as murder causes harm to another directly and others indirectly. Marriage only affects the two consenting directly and without anybody being hurt. Two completely different issues.
I understand the argument Dhoti, the question is Do you? It isn’t a matter of hating the sin as that would require them to back off and let the gays decide if they want to get married. They are hating the sinner as they are denying them the choice they allow themselves.
Besides, if we are going to hate the sin as code for legislation, I don’t see them making laws against infidelity with such fervor and that ACTUALLy damages marriage.
Don’t play semantics games with me as you aren’t up for it in this. I stopped bothering with economics with you because it isn’t my strength but I fu(king dare you to play the semantics game with me on this.
Dwn, you’re the only one playing games here. You’ve clearly carved out a comfortable niche of moral superiority in debating your canard, and no amount of clarification or introduction of actual mainline thought, Christian or otherwise, is going to change that.
So have fun with your moral masturbation. Clearly, the participation of anyone else is just going to interfere.
My morals have no actual place in this discussion as this is a legal discussion. I have no moral superiority as I don’t want my morals legislated. I want fair treatment legislated. If my morals were legislated, I would have a harem and a palace and a number of you would be dead.
As for the mainline thought, you stated they do not hate. That’s funny that you keep on that tone but can’t address what I have said.
So feel free to retreat, it is refreshing.
Okay, now that’s funny DWN!
*secretly covets palace and harem*
HST: Inorite? Seriously I don’t try to get my morals into things because deep down I have the brain of a wannabe god. I’m just not stupid enough to believe that I could ever get away with it so I figured being a relatively nice guy is a good second choice.
But SO MANY so called positive rights laws are based on morality, and thus, arbitrary…
I hear ya’ though, about the morality issue and personal application. Absolute power would absolutely corrupt me. I’m weak like that.
THUS…
This is my domain, and I protect those who come here… for I am HST, lord of the underbridge…
*cue extended holler*
Least I would be a relatively nice God on Earth, I would just demand my share of slave girls and food and set up a group of advisors to make sure the rest of the populace was taken care of. I would review things from time to time to make sure the subjects were well attended with fair taxes and freedoms before going back to my palace to indulge my vices some more.
dwn – being a relatively nice guy is soooo muuuch betttter than being a god in your own mind and wanting everyone else to think so too. this world has more than enough of the latter and frequently not enough of the former. relatively nice guys rock for what my opinion is worth
But but… My vices!
*sigh* Fine, being a nice guy works just fine for me. *kicks pebble*
DWN, are you familiar with the Bloodhound Gang’s song “Hell, Yeah”?
My favorite line from that: But would I be a good Messiah with my low self-esteem?/ If I don’t believe in myself would that be blasphemy?
@Diss: I hadn’t heard that one but it sounds hilarious. XD
@dwn – it isn’t the vices that determines how nice a person is or not, but their innate (_*_)ness. it’s sort of the difference between consentual s&m and assault & battery.
vices just gives character to those who otherwise would be described as ‘huh, there’s a person there? ‘
Ick, ignore the “posited” — it sounds really dumb there.
We used to legislate the sh!t out of morality, and there are still laws on the books that do so.
Bad Fairie — are you aware that you are not allowed to breastfeed in public right here in Washington…
Hey diss — did you know that giving and receiving oral sex in Tennessee is still forbidden by law….
DWN — did you know a man with a moustache may never kiss a woman in public in Iowa…
and Frou — in Texas, homosexual behavior is a misdemeanor
offense!
Link
There is talk of overturning the sodomy laws here, but yes, I am aware of it.
What can I say….I’m a rebel and a rulebreaker, HST.
Ditto…
And were it illegal here, I’d be too
I’d probably be serving several consecutive life terms by now if I were busted on this one.
In Massachusetts, it’s illegal for a male and female to live in the same dwelling unless they are related. Tell that to all of the students sharing apartments in the Boston area! Of course it is legal to co-habit if you are the same sex–!
In Arizona, it is also illegal for men and women to co-habitate unless they are married or otherwise related.
I thought Arizona was one of the states with common law marriages. How do you get to that point if you are not, in fact, living with someone unrelated to you?
Nope.
States which recognize common law marriage:
Alabama
Colorado
Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)
Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)
Oklahoma (possibly only if created before 11/1/98. Oklahoma’s laws and court decisions may be in conflict about whether common law marriages formed in that state after 11/1/98 will be recognized.)
Pennsylvania (if created before 1/1/05)
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah
Washington, D.C.
Man, not even New Mexico! There goes my notion of the South West.
Most glaring omission (IMHO) — New York!
AND, I believe that in Texas, you are considered common law married after 6 months of portraying yourself as married. I know a LOT of common law marriages that don’t know they’re legally married
My roomie got all high and mighty on my pot smoking hubby once about breaking the law so I told him he was breaking the law by living with me. He argued it’s not the same thing and I said “You either break the law or you don’t. There is no ‘degree’ of law breaking” It was nice to deflate the ego a bit.
To which I would have stated, “Let’s call the cops and see who gets taken away…”
But then again, I would only say that if he was smoking in my presence as I can’t stand it. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have gotten high and mighty in the first place.
Oh no he had a shed out back where he smoked it and roomie lived in the front part of the house.
Hmmm, iffy but I wouldn’t have made a big deal of it. As for the legal is legal thing, it is unfortunately a weak argument as a number of laws are still on the books but unenforced as they aren’t practical to enforce in the first place.
In fact, there is a law in California stating that anyone classified as “ugly” may not walk around outside.
ROFL!
Forgot to add the link…
HEH!!
Understandable, but breaking the law is still breaking the law. There is no degree of lawbreaking. Just because no one is enforcing it doesn’t make it more “right” to break this law instead of that one. It just makes it easier.
It becomes a slippery slope when we start to choose which laws to obey and not, because they are unenforced.
I looked it up and while still on the books cohabitation has been decriminalized in AZ, but not before the whole moral superiority thing.
DWN your argument reminds me of the episode of the Simpsons where they banned alcohol and found there was a law requiring ducks to wear long pants.
I still don’t see moral superiority in breaking a law that isn’t enforced over breaking a law that is. Roomie also speeds when he drives. That’s against the law too.
@HST LMAO that is hysterical. It seems to me that back in the day morals WERE legislated and not Human Rights. I agree these laws should be repealed, they’re just ridiculous. Like making ducks wear long pants. But I guess all the ugly people can’t be smug and morally superior to the pot smokers cause they ain’t allowed outside.
Oh, DWN, maybe I should explain. Roomie didn’t mind that hubby smoked pot out back. It really was a moral superiority thing wherein he said something along the lines of us being better because we aren’t lawbreakers, where I pointed out we in fact WERE due to the cohabitation and the fact that we speed when we drive, and have also driven under the influence, consumed alcohol as minors etc. etc. etc. Being as the only illegal act taking place at the time was the cohabitation I used it as the feather in my cap.
If he objected to the marijuana use on any grounds, it wouldn’t have taken place. He is one of those people who likes to feel better than other people. He just felt smug and superior because he is a law abiding citizen where hubby is not.
Sorry for all the posts I’m kinda out of it today.
I don’t know about the mighty part, but if he’s smoking it in your presence you might get high. LOL
hahahahah nice. contact high.
honey, at my age, it ain’t the law that keeps me from breastfeeding, in public or otherwise
and i personally would like to see the old adultery laws brought back, scarlet a ring a bell anyone? that sure would look good on those televangelists wouldn’t it? not to mention then we could tell who we can’t trust our spouses around, or that we can’t trust our spouses without a chastity belt welded on
HairySexyTroll…the behavior ITSELF? I’m from Texas, and my speech professor is gay. I haven’t changed my opinions, because I think that homesexuality is “scientifically” wrong and against the natural law. Two homosexual creatures cannot reproduce…but he’s really made me think. Humans are different in a way…
Observe animals, see gay animals, redefine natural law…
You’re welcome.
it’s not scientifically wrong, there’s no proof. people overpopulate as it is, homosexuality might be a natural built-in tendency for population control. just an idea.
besides, those people basing their argument on “morality” and not hate are just hiding their hate behind their own view of superiority. they’re right, they know it, the bible tells ‘em so, even though they themselves pick and choose which part they listen to.
it’s simply cruel, outdated and did i say cruel? to keep this form of “separate but equal”
Nah man, that’s how the Christians I know see it — hate the sin, love the sinner. Like Jesus loves you, man, even if you sin against him as long as you repent.
You know, the whole Romans 3:21-26 business: “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
I attended to this flawed Christian thinking above.
They hate the sin but are legislating against the sinner. It is legislating against the sinner as they are denying the sinner what they allow themselves.
“I can have this and you can’t because it’s a sin.” Oh yes, that needs to be legal…
Be that as it may, flawed or not, it’s the reality of the mindset.
Which is why I oppose it, because it is flawed… Glad we established that.
…
Ya know, I gotta stop taking the bait when your name is obvious that you are just dicking with me here.
Not dicking with you at all, and actually I was replying to yasoup and not you above.
I’m just adding to the debate the rational explanation behind the “1111!!!!RAGEELEBENTY” comments. Most of these types of posters are too busy slathering to give any reasoned response, so I tossed it out there.
The problem is that we already do understand their thinking. They think that legislating against a sinner for something they themselves do is “hating the sin” but it punishes the sinner which is supposedly God’s job.
And Portland Mark already pointed out how it IS hate down below.
So yes, I already get their hate, I had it for quite a while myself before I actually analyzed my beliefs.
Dwn, it’s beyond obvious that you actually don’t understand “their” thinking. I assumed earlier it was simple knee-jerk close mindedness, but now I’m not so sure — you may have just been educated improperly, or perhaps there’s some emotional trauma that forces you to characterize in a certain way.
In any event, your dedication to intellectual freedom is inspiring.
The way I always understood it was that “we” didn’t hate gays. “We” ACTUALLY felt sorry for them because they were so far away from g-d in their behavior (ie sin) and “we” prayed for their redemption. Seriously, there’s really no hate coming from “real” Christians.
Like I said, I think there’s a lot of overgeneralization going on here. People glom on to the outliers of the bell curve because they are so noticeable and assume all mindsets within that end of the spectrum are as such.
Dhoti: Again, you aren’t quite getting the problem. I am all for intellectual freedom but I don’t think it is made by making the case for martial restriction between consenting adults.
Intellectual freedom is simply that, in your mind. I am free to believe whatever awesome, stupid, horrible, lovable, magical, divinie, irreverant, or profound thing I want. That is intellectual freedom. I take issue with the idea of one person’s “moral stance” deciding the law should inhibit for one person what they themselves take advantage of.
HST: Very well, I will feel sorry for those “real” Christians for being so far from God in their behavior (loving thy neighbor, judge not, and the plank from their own eye) and pray for them.
Also, I HAVE met people who straight out hate gay people.
I have too. It’s stupid.
my kids are related to a whole passel of people who hate not only gays, but also anyone who speaks with an accent (other that their brand of uneducated louisiana gibberish), and yankees, and uppity “coloreds”, and basically anyone who isn’t southern baptist (the loud, hating kind)
stupid doesn’t even begin to describe hating people for not being a cookie cutter image of themselves. what a boring world this would be if everyone was identical!
(((((fairie)))))
TBH, I’d want to get as far away from them as possible, and fast, family or not.
lol, just because my kidsare related to the need to be living under luddites doesn’t mean that i am, but yeah, we stay as far away from the whole klan as possible
I’ve never met anyone who hates them but the local baptists are seriously squeamish about even mentioning them…
Sure, because Conservative ‘pundits’ like Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, NEVER descend into name-calling. Absolutely, 100%, never-ever, nuh-uh.
As far as hating gay people, ever seen the ‘church’ that used to ‘protest’ at soldier’s funerals? Looks like a clear-cut case of hate to me!
One church, already debunked as nuts. Not an accurate portrayal of the whole.
wish it were the same bunch, but our local protesters were from the antioch bible church in redmond wa and the paster/minister is ken hutcherson of nfl fame
i haven’t found the article that covered his church’s protest at the high school, but will give it another shot if anyone is interested
bad fairie — I remember that. Here it is. Link
thank you for remembering, and for posting.
and for anyone interested in the day of silence movement, here’s the link { http://www.dayofsilence.org/index.cfm }
Chill, man. He’s guilty of overgeneralizing, but he doesn’t seem to be gunning for a battle…
Eh, when you state that only one side is being intellectual in its thinking and then go on to state stances such as morality, which is faith not logic based, then you are asking for the mine field to take your foot off.
But he qualified it with “in my experience.” That tells me someone is open to adding new experiences…
Possibly though I don’t see how name calling his possible detracters as all name callers is very open…
I assume by the quotes around ‘pundit’ you actually mean ‘entertainer’. I might as well do the same thing to, say, Olbermann. Best to keep the distinction clear.
Westboro? Um, really? You’re going to take a group of ~80 people that are condemned by practically every segment of the debate and use them to discredit your opponents? That’s just lazy. (What’s next — are you going to dig up a ranch of polygamists next time you want to hate on the Mormons?)
It’s more like ~30, all of whom are related to Phuckhead Phred either by blood or marriage.
My experience has been exactly the opposite. Liberals debate intellectually, conservatives are name-callers. I wonder why I would see it that way, while you see the opposite?
The thing about Gay marriage is that there are no valid intellectual arguments against it, in fact, all the arguments against it that I have heard are internally inconsistent. The arguments the haters use are transparent, they simply don’t hold up. So, we are left with two explanations for their advancing these arguments: one, these people are very dumb, and can’t see their own hypocrisy, or two, they hate gays and they don’t care if their arguments make sense, because those arguments are just code for “Let’s all hate teh gays together!”
“Homosexuals are pedophiles who want our little boys.” No, actually looking up what Professionals think disproves this.
“It will weaken marriage!” If your marriage can be affected by people having sex hundreds of miles away, perhaps your problem isn’t the gays.
“It doesn’t produce children!” Neither does marriage from sterile couples, child free couples, and postmenopausal couples, are we banning them next? Also a married gay couple could adopt or foster children and get them out of the orphanages.
“It’s against God!” So is infidelity, working on the Sabbath (a killable offense if I recall,) etc etc etc… There is a reason we don’t legislate morals.
“The word marriage belongs to religion.” But atheists get married and your marriage isn’t worth a legal damn until the contract is signed, which can be done years before you ever step foot in a church.
“It will leading to marrying dogs and children!” It is nice that you share your fantasies but neither dogs nor children are consenting adults with capacity to sign contracts, so no.
I think that covers most of their arguments though I know I missed a couple.
The “doesn’t produce children” model can be used as an argument FOR brothers and sisters marrying. Or first cousins. Or anyone of legal age. As children are not the main goal here, love is, why are we preventing that?
It wasn’t an attack on you. Stop taking it personally. It’s an argument that you don’t hear a lot lately, and it should be argued for. I mean, if we’re going to have adult marriage, it should be between all adults.
-
I personally don’t care who gets married, have we not had that discussion as well?
Just making a comment. Geez, you’re on edge today.
My fault. I dissed his mama!
First cousins CAN marry in a surprisingly large amount of states. Also, there are a few states that ban marriage between first cousins unless they are over a certain age or unable to bear children, then it’s allowed.
[link]
thanks for the link, most interesting, especially nc. what the heck is a double cousin? is that where the parents were also cousins or closer?
Double cousins are when a brother pair marries a sister pair. I’ve seen weird ones where twin brothers marry twin sisters. All the kids look alike.
Let me amend that: a brother and sister can marry a brother and sister and the kids will be double cousins. It’s a case of siblings falling in love and marrying siblings. It’s confusing, and causes your family tree to branch just a little less
sounds like my ex’s family tree – no branches to speak of, but they were carpetbaggers
Children of the Corn. Or Village of the Damned.
Genetically double cousins are the same as half siblings. In the case of identical twins marrying identical twins they are genetically the same as full siblings.
I can see that but I still get a shudder thinking about it.
Odd that you left out the social/libertarian “keep your laws off our church” argument.
Oooooh, good one. Thanks.
“They will force churches to marry gays!” Nope, the licensing is done through legal paperwork. The church isn’t even needed or even asked to participate.
I haven’t heard that one much lately. I meant the “They’ll pull public funding/public support/the non-profit status from churches that refuse to marry gays”, a la Canada.
I hadn’t heard that one and I haven’t seen any proof of that kind of threat.
Thanks for telling me one I hadn’t heard.
Also last summer I heard that folks in California had been in the process of suing one church because the church had refused to rent their reception hall out for a post-gay-wedding rehearsal. I’m pro-gay marriage, but that case had made me uncomfortable. However, Prop. 8 made that lawsuit null and void, I assume? (info via NPR)
The church is a private entity, an as such, should not be forced to be open to all. I disagree strongly with the lawsuit. And why does the couple have to have THAT reception hall? Is it the only one in town? Were they trying to get it for free? What are the details here?
I checked up on it, and tried to give an explanation and link, but PK ate it. Sorry if this ends up being repetitive… The church in question is a Methodist church in Ocean Grove, NJ. A very small community, more a village than a town even. The church used to rent out their pavilion to almost everyone, but balked when a lesbian couple tried to rent it for a post-civil union ceremony. Their suit is progressing. Another lesbian couple tried to rent the pavilion later, and was refused–but since the church has since changed their rules and only rents to church-related functions, the second couple’s suit has been refused by the NJ courts. Info from ‘box turtle’, a site that sounded pretty balanced.
“The church is a private entity, an as such, should not be forced to be open to all.”
I agree with the rest of your argument completely. On this point I just have one comment: wouldn’t the fact that the church is allowed to make that money, tax free, argue they owe the local community some consideration?
No, why would they? Churches don’t “make” money. Or they shouldn’t. They are non-profit organizations with private contributors. If the church was being supported by the government (which would be a whole other issue — a separation of church and state one), then you could make a case that they owe something to the community.
So you stand in opposition to MegaChurches?
I don’t know about P&R, but I am STRONGLY against mega-churches. They herd people like sheep, literally and figuratively, pay their pastors ungodly (pun intended) sums of money, and breed more sin than your local wh0re house during Christmas. A church was never intended to get that big, or be that obscene, or be that far away from a one-on-one relationship with the members.
-
As far as the wedding hall is concerned, VG’s article still hasn’t changed my mind. Why did it have to be THAT wedding hall? Is it the only one in town? The nicest? Were they just trying to piss people off, considering the result of the last gay couple who tried to use it?
Sorry to be so late in answering–yes, the Pavilion owned by the church is the only hall in town. And the town was originally a summer gathering-place for Methodists, but has since become a combination bedroom community/summer place/lesbian-friendly community. I am pro-gay marriage, but a bit uncomfortable about this situation. However, the church did let themselves open to the problem in that they were renting the pavilion to just about everyone, up until that first lesbian couple showed up. If they had limited rentals to church-connected folks, that first case would have been also thrown out of court.
@PortlandMark – Yes I oppose MegaChurches, but I’m not sure what that has to do with this. They aren’t for profit either, although they typically love to spend the money they collect on themselves, which is selfish and unbiblical.
I just agreed with you three times – on this, on mega-churches, and on the future of the GOP.
Isn’t that supposed to the fifth horseman of the apocalypse or something? We should be doing something now – stocking up on water, maybe.
Honestly, you and I agree on more than you’d probably like to admit. It’s the delivery of said opinions where we differ.
-
And I’m stocking up on Twizzlers, because no one should face a world-wide Apocalypse without Twizzlers.
Oh I know that (about agreeing about stuff.) I’m kind of just surprised that you actually SAID it. Said, in fact, some of the things I would have said if I had chosen to engage Seth on the topics, which I did not choose to do for reasons already explained.
Well I’m stocking up on Xanax then.
It’s all about picking battles, and not being overly confrontational going in. Seth and I are having a completely civil discussion on something I believe in whole-heartedly, and he thinks is asinine. It’s a balancing game.
Well I disagree, frou. I don’t think it was civil at all of him to barge into a discussion on the scriptures, deigning to tell people what to believe about them and how they should understand them, when he thinks the entire subject is asinine. People who ask “Come on, what would JESUS do” who in fact think themselves far above the pettiness and stupidity of Christianity or religion are loathsome, despicable, and low.
So the fact that you are being polite does not make this a civil conversation, does not make Seth a civil person, and does not exactly speak well of anyone involved. I thought I’d note that you were saying what I would have said though – because it’s interesting how different the reaction would be if I said it. Even if I said it exactly the way you are saying it.
He’s playing Devil’s Advocate, I’m answering. My beliefs are so strongly rooted that I don’t feel threatened when someone questions them in the way he questioned them. It only goes to show me that I am able to stand up to anything. My reaction is geared in such a way to show that my beliefs are what they are, and someone trying to sway me doesn’t bother me
-
Your statement about not getting into a Biblical discussion with you because you’ll win seems a little over the top for the subject. There is no reason to immediately jump into fighting when someone is trying to make sure you actually believe what you say you believe. But that’s just me
-
And honestly, if you build up a reputation as someone who can hold your temper when pressed, the reaction to you saying exactly what I’m saying will be much different.
Mine aren’t threatened either, hon
I assure you. Unless you’d care to hear some biblical admonition about whether we’re to argue God’s word with fools, because there’s plenty in there about it – when someone asks *sincere* questions I always, 100% welcome them and answer all to the best of my ability (yes it does happen occasionally that atheists ask sincere questions about why one believes – wait until you meet these people; you’ll drop PK like the bad habit it is.) When an atheist is trying to use the bible as a political club, that’s a whole other kettle of fish, and not one we’re supposed to entertain. So just watch who you’re judging and why and how, ok?
On the rare occasions I have engaged with what I knew to be insincere people on the subject, I go in to FINISH and that takes effort, tenacity, and actual work. I don’t lose because I know what I’m talking about on the subject (as I do a couple other subjects that I take seriously.) That is not why I did not engage with Seth, as I have already explained. It is not because I would “win” but because he is not worth the effort due to his insincerity, and because I would be compelled to fight through to the end, again – not worth the effort in this case. It’s a rare occasion when it’s worth the effort to do that with an insincere person. Actually…I should have a link prepared showing the last time I went to the effort (thanks for the idea) so people would know what they were in for if I chose to go toe to toe with them on it. But right now I have work work to attend to; so maybe later when I’m having a little booze-up, eh? It’s Friday and I’m off this weekend and my next college course doesn’t start for a few weeks so it’s Miller fecking time!
P.S. The biblical definition of “fool”, which of course I am using above, is one who has said in his heart “There is no God.”
Without giving you a wall-o-text as a reply (as I’m about to leave work myself), I will address a couple of things you said.
You told me once that you didn’t think I was aware of the number of rocks I throw. I’m not sure you’re fully aware of the number that you throw as well. We’re two of the very VERY few vocal conservatives here, let’s try to keep it clean between each other 
-
I do have atheist friends IRL, and we have spirited debates with each other about everything from politics to religion and back again. It’s fun to hear their side, and it’s fun for them to hear my side. The understood part of the debate is that I already have my mind made up about the subject, as do they, and as open-minded as we try to be on each other’s views and beliefs, we aren’t changing anyone’s mind. So as far as me dropping PK like the bad habit that it is, I doubt that will happen any time soon, and it wont’ be because I have more intelligent conversations outside of here than in it. It’s a tension reliever and a time-waster at work, so I’m here. Also, some of the more spirited debaters live in here, and are fun to talk with, as long as we don’t thump each other over the head with our own special brand of beliefs.
-
Also, don’t condescend to me. It’s beneath you, and unnecessary. You and I can get along fine, and I see no problem with us agreeing vocally about the things we agree on. But, condescension and name-calling is something I won’t tolerate in someone I call an ally. You didn’t drop into name-calling here, and I truly appreciate that. Let’s try to keep it clean
-
Have a great weekend, and don’t drive! Drink one for me, as I still can’t for another 5 months. ARGH!
LOLZERS you obviously haven’t seen the news about gays being targeted in terrible violence. And if you’ve ever seen a talk show with a conservative arguing against a liberal, it generally ends with the conservative cutting his mike and screaming over him. And if you don’t believe gays have the right to marry, than you are a bigot. Simple as that.
Chris Matthews was doing a lot of talking over and yelling when Mike Pence was on his show the other week……..it’s not localized to one side or the other.
Chris Matthews only has one volume. I don’t think he is physically capable of lowering his voice. That having been said, Matthews does (at least when I’ve seen him) give his guests a chance to defend himself/herself. O’Reilly on the other hand, screams, cuts his/her mike, and then shouts that it’s all the time they have.
Want the transcript of the Matthews “interview” of Pence on global warming?
No thanks I’m not a big Matthews fan.
And Olbermann never has any of them on; just spouts his hatred of them without opposition. Maddow is quite the objective little thing too, isn’t she? And Norah? Oh yeah, they don’t ever shout anyone down. Neither do they on The View, either. LOL Get real. One lousy station (and only one host who does this thing you’re upset about) out of ALL the other countless stations – ABC, CBS, NBC, PMSNBC, CNN, blahdefreaking blah – and you’re still bleating about it? Get a grip, man.
Actually no, Maddow never does shout anyone down. She’s invited numerous Republicans and conservatives to be on her show and some have taken her up on it – Ron Paul more than once, Col. Wilkerson, Gen. Powell, even David Frum. And she was far more respectful to Frum than he was to her despite his being her guest.
I would very much like to see Olbermann bring Republican talking heads on from time to time. I would like to see whether he can keep the rules of engagement clean whilst fact-checking them within an inch of their lives; it would be an interesting challenge for him to keep the high dudgeon in check. But it is worth noting that he does now and then think that Obama and the Democrats are wrong and isn’t afraid to say so bluntly.
WOW, she kept her cool around leftists like Frum and Powell? I’m shocked, I tell you. David Frum can take a long walk on a very short pier. Over boiling lava. Then her can fornicate himself if he can get his limp noodle to stand up. Then maybe Jack Nicholson will hit him in the chest with an ax.
I don’t believe someone as unrelentingly foul, abusive, and hate filled not only claims to be a Christian, but also throws her religion in our collective face as proof of her moral superiority.
Oh wait, yes I do. You’re not the first evangelical I’ve encountered.
This is a very new and interesting definition of “bigot.” How did you come about it? Has it been accepted as authoritative? By whom?
And – holy socialist, batman! That makes Obama a bigot! That makes 70% of black people in the entire state of California bigots. (And if Marion Barry is to be believed, at least 70% or more of the black constituency in DC.) So…is racism still bigotry or just being against gay marriage?
A scrupulous examination of the data shows far more reliable correlation between gay marriage opposition and churchgoing rather than race.
“But I don’t think I’ve met a single person who actually hates gay people – but what do we see on the signs at pro-gay marriage rallies? “Stop the hate.” ”
Where I think you fall down, is not recognizing the hate that’s right in front of you. Even the most noxious right wing homophobe knows that saying they hate any group automatically loses them the argument. Instead they resort to sophistry: “I hate homosexual behavior, and I don’t want gays teaching my children, or working as doctors or nurses. I don’t think they should be allowed to marry, or hold hands or kiss in public. I don’t my children should be taught to accept homosexuals. I don’t trust politicians or celebrities who are gay. I believe that when three big guys get together to beat the crap out of some little fairie they see on the street, it should be prosecuted like any other barfight, not as an act of terrorism.”
“Still, though, I don’t hate gays! They should be allowed to live their lives unmolested; just, you know, silently and out of my sight.”
I don’t have a lot of respect for your argument, at all, at all.
Pretty much the blunt version of what I have been saying for years now.
“Yep, I don’t hate them. I just don’t want them in my sight, they can live as long as I don’t have to put up with them or give them any rights I take advantage of.”
Bull. I happen to deeply love on a very personal and private level quite a goodly number of gay persons, both male and female. I have had occasion to do so throughout my life, having had gay teachers and other community staples as well as those you love from afar like actors and such.
What I do hate, and what the gay people I have occasion to discuss this with also hate, is the behavior of a lot of extremist gay activism. Some are mad that they have squandered the goodwill that used to exist; especially with the push for gay marriage, which 20 years ago gay groups SWORE was not on the table and never would be.
But then again I don’t love or hate people by identity politics and groups – I tend to value individuals, something you identity politic people never understand.
And you know, you’re never going to succeed in legislating attitudes. You’re only going to cause backlash and real hate. You can legislate against discrimination of certain types, justifiably so, but you’ll never be able to tell people how they have to feel or that they HAVE to embrace or celebrate something. Really, you’d best get over it there – like I say it’s only going to cause real backlash, just as discriminatory anti-male feminism has.
Thing is, 20 years ago, the LGBTs were trying to get by without being beaten, murdered, fired, denied housing, denied employment, etc because of their orientation. It’s one step at a time, man.
As for marriage, it’s either for *everybody*, or it needs to be abolished completely.
You are so full of hate you just can’t see it.
I don’t know what “Council of Gays” you heard about that SWORE they wouldn’t want to get married as long as we let them live in peace.
I sure don’t credit your “I have many gay friends” statement. It’s such a trite comment that it’s become a cliche’ that anyone who utters any variant on it is actually bigoted against whatever group they refer to.
I truly don’t believe that you would be okay with an openly gay teacher teaching your kids that they should accept homosexuals. I’m pretty sure you’d be the first to ask they be fired, but I admit I’m just prejudiced against all fundamentalists, be they Muslim, Christian, or Jewish.
Oh ZING! Man, you are clever!!!!
Failure
its funny cause shes dumb right?
lame; palin is yesterdays news
whats next dan quayle?
YAWN!. . .Shit man, I’m a lefty liberal and I’m bored by this.
Agreed. I’d like for her to just go away now. I can’t stand the woman, but sh really needs to go from the spotlight now, and Good riddance.
Minimalism win!
Less is Palin.
We know… She can see Russia from her house. *yawn*
It concerns me that her thoughts(or lack thereof) are coming from her neck.
Behold, a metalol, irony, and my own hypocrisy in one lol!!!
That is a strike 2 for me this week. Dammit.
She’s just thinking about 0′s management experience.
Or how much McCain’s vouched for her for 2012.
Either or.
&
Good point.
or all those newspapers she reads everyday
I know what you mean, I read three newspapers a day and rarely find a coherent thought in any of them. Just a bunch of recycled spin. Need something to line the birdcage though.
He’s got 100 days experience as the President of the United States, think that outdoes most people’s management experience.
I guess that would be that in spite of the most gracious transition period* in history, he still hasn’t completed the most basic task of staffing his administration?
* – Especially compared to the Gore insurgency in 2000.
Wouldn’t have anything to do with the posts still unfilled being filibustered, jackass. OLC held up because the nominee worked for abortion rights 15 years ago? Really?
interestingly enough… you used a zero rather than a capitalized “o”.
gee, that was subtle.
:rolls:
dammit, that’s supposed to be
at the end.
I thought maybe you went into heat and were rolling on the ground…
*headdesk* Pardon me, been without for a couple of days and it is effecting my mind.
It sure seems to be affecting it
Having said that, I’m with ya’, dude. Dry spell.
Hate those but she is feeling under the weather. She was feeling better today but I couldn’t afford to take off work AND the kids would still be there…
Empathize totally.
My SO has been mostly absent for the past month — work related stuff.
Wow… ya, that would drive me mad. I already dealt with that in college for months at a time when Lynn stayed in IA while I went to college in MN.
*shudder* I won’t do that again…
the pseudo bf lives in virginia. i live in ohio. we see each other for about a week every 4 months. you do the math.
some days i really hate my life.
I remember that… Still wow… Shall I assume that he isn’t supposed to wear any clothes that will be missed when he shows up?
right now i couldn’t give two sh!ts whether or not he ever shows up again. lemme run something past you… you’re a straight male, so you can answer this (maybe).
my big brothers best friend is getting married in august. my big brother is the best man. i’m obviously invited. i’m probably going to have to help my niece walk down the aisle (she’s the flower girl). i contacted the pseudo-bf (who is out of work and has been since december) to see if he would be available to be my date to the wedding… in august. giving him plenty of time to schedule time off work (if he’s got a job by then) or find cheap flights or whatever. his reply back was “well i hope i have a job by then so i don’t know”…. this was 6 days ago. i sent a follow up email saying “well, i’d like you to be my date. and i need to rsvp soon, let me know”. no reply since then. he’s online daily (because he’s unemployed with nothing better to do) and he’s out drinking with the guys and fcuking around all day long and he can’t reply to an email? and when he does reply it’s short and snippy.
i’m so over him right now. i love him but i can’t take this crap…
congrats to the lucky couple
about the bf – box him up and toss it onto a bonfire – guy is a louse. there are good men out there, but going to a wedding without a date isn’t the end of the world, and who knows, by not bringing him it will leave you free to mingle and talk to so many more people. and who knows, maybe you’ll talk to someone who will think you’re just the right person for someone they know – think of it as romance networking (like job networking only fun-er)
As Dear Abby would say, “Are you better of with him, or without him?” You’re young and he sounds pretty immature. Find someone who’s going to put you first and if you have to be single for awhile until you DO find that guy, it’s not the end of the world either.
I have to agree with them. You? Are worth more than that. You deserve to be treated better than that. It doesn’t sound to me like he’s terribly interested in or committed to your relationship. Have you considered the possibility that he may be seeing someone in Virginia and trying to avoid the necessary confrontation/breakup with you?
Making a clean break of it may hurt at the time, but I suspect you’ll be happier in the long run. A LOT happier.
bf – i already have a date lined up for the wedding. and not the pseudo bf. lol. i don’t have a problem with being single… life is usually a lot easier that way. but when you’re “with” someone it’s nice to be able to count on them for things like that.
jane – i love the dear abby reference. in my case it’s “dear gay best friend”. they’re the cattiest bunch of queens you’ll ever meet but they won’t mince words. and networking through the gays actually found me the other date i’ve got lined up.
diss – i actually had a little side convo with froo about the other person idea. and it’s the one thing i KNOW in our “relationship”. neither of us have seen anyone else since we met in feb 2008. a lot of things are really murky in our “relationship” but that’s not one of them. i think that he’s just so confused about the rest of his life that he’s not able to commit to anything. and i’m at the point where i’m looking for commitment. so eff him. i haven’t contacted him since the email he ignored he contacted me today and i just ignored him. the new guy i’m interested in is cuter anyway!
btw, you girls are all awesome. i love complaining about something totally off topic and getting feedback. PK’s kinda like a dysfunctional family sometimes. lol.
Damn, I missed actually being helpful. No, it shouldn’t be a bother to play nice with the sex provider. Yes, that was blunt and crude on purpose for bad humor effect.
With that kind of heads up, I personally would say yes and then ask that you help me remember it. I know that sounds annoying but I like to shore up my possible defects so I don’t end up forgetting in the two months plus time.
Perhaps I would write it down… Anyway, enough about me as that is an annoying subject that I bring up too much.
Simply put, he can make the time. You’re both in “love” so he can at least make more than a token attempt to act like it.
Just a thought, as sometimes with long-distance stuff that happens when people just don’t want to have the confrontation…. I’m guessing you are planning on telling him you’ve got another date for the wedding and you’re moving on, then? Never a fun conversation. Good luck & keep us posted!
Christian homophobes should just turn the other cheek.
that’s what they’re afraid of – turning the butt cheek and either getting some, or not taken up on it… i’m never sure about that
Hmm, like your comment, which we hear on nearly every page? Love your use of profanity, btw, makes you seem quite articulate.
“zen and the art alaska politics”
.
zen and the art of completely butchering a sentence…
sometimes, sometimes the little monsters have to rebel and go the other way. 3 kids, one libertarian, one conservative (but i’m hoping she’ll grow out of it) and the 3rd is getting sucked into the conservative way of thinking by outside influence (out of the obstinate need to be different from me) silly teen
My brother rebelled against our liberal parents by being even more liberal. He taunts my mother that he’s going to vote for Ralph Nader every election, it pisses her off so much.
I LOL’d
me too, and it sounds like something i would have done way back when
hahahahaha awesome!
@ jacob — like the declaration of independence, the constitution, or the bill of rights? those were produced by men who were rather liberal for their time period….or how about civil rights, or public education for all, or plato or galileo or da vinci or shakespeare, and even your beejeebuz fits the liberal label all the way down to paying taxes
Jeeeeeezus was a total pinko! Long hair, sandals, going around feeding the poor and dissing the hierarchy….
There’s an enormous difference between giving of your OWN resources (or creating them out of thin air – still your own resources when you’re God) and stealing from earners to distribute those resources.
Jesus was nothing close to a pinko; that’s just stupid leftist socialist spin. You’re thinking of a “hippie”. He might in some manner fit in that category, but socialist he was not.
He asserted it was our duty to minister to the sick and poor, a duty the ardent capitalists choose to deny or ignore whenever possible.
AN INDIVIDUAL DUTY, dependent on individual believers – making up the BODY/GROUP of the CHURCH not the government. **Christians** – as individuals and as churches, have the duty mandated by Jesus to look after the sick, and so they do – who do you think started hospitals and orphanages in this country?
Still, nope. Nothing socialist here to see.
A church can be socialist. That’s what we’re trying to say. And your counter argument is ‘a church can’t be socialist.’ Well, it is a political entity just like any other. Jesus taught socialism, there is no way to deny it. Voluntary socialism, which is what all socialism is these days.
Dead wrong. And I’m not discussing pretzel logic with an open socialist who should be ashamed to speak in public in the first place.
Is greed good or bad, in your opinion? I want socialism to cover all of the basic necessities of life, what the capitalists do over and above that is just fine with me.
Welcome to America. We have free speech here. Just FYI.
You can only speak freely if it agrees with Anniee. Anything else is forbidden by the Ministry of Thought.
She’s just scared of me. I can empathize with her plight.
Heh – how ironic that it’s a *free* country that gives you the right to preach socialism. Free speech exists here for us all, and that includes my right to *stigmatize*, or the right of the many to socially stigmatize, that which it finds loathsome. You disgust me both with your socialism and with your lies, so on both counts I choose to stigmatize you. Most decent people would, which is why froofrou has decided instead to rush to your defense. Cute. Like a boil on the anus.
Not rushing to a defense. Merely pointing out the obvious in a statement.
Poor thing, I’m not saying you can’t hate me. In fact, I kind of enjoy it. You don’t speak for America, sweetie. You and your kind are a dying breed, and there is nothing you can do. We’ve already won, like it or lump it. What are you going to do about it? Right. Whine, which is exactly what I want you to do. You keep that sniveling up, emo kid, I drink your tears.
your right to ‘stigmatize’ others ends at their right to not be stigmatized and by no means do the many have the right to stigmatize those they find loathsome. government has the obligation to protect the rights of the few against the demands of the many
have you looked up the meaning to socialism and not just repeat it because of indoctrination from one of the blovating radio personalities?
So, see you all in room 101?
tee-hee-hee – hats off for that one
Bush practiced socialism for the rich, don’t forget, he started the bailout. Why shouldn’t the poor have socialism? Hell, we have socialism for druggies. That’s all the drug war is. The whole idea is, we’re doing it to protect them from themselves, that’s socialism, once again of the wrong kind, but it is.
The Republicans have been engaging in class war for the last thirty years. Real wages in that time have been stagnant for the poor, and barely kept up with inflation for the middle class. Most of the huge gains in productivity over the last thirty years went to the top 1%. Class warfare and socialism for the rich, that’s what you stand for you privileged little princess.
Last but not least, just because you are incapable of keeping up with logic so simple a ten year old could follow it, does not mean that it is ‘pretzel logic.’
Mmmmmmm, pretzels.
Are we talking the little hard stick kind or the big soft kind you dip in fake cheese? Mmmmmmmm, fake cheese.
The big soft kind with the cinnamon!!!
ZOMG!!! Even better! *drools*
No, you are applying twisted illogic to misreadings of the scriptures – I’m sorry, but you will not be able to defeat me in a biblical debate – you LOL. I’ve gone up against far better than the likes of you who aren’t even a believer and come out the other side victor, believe me. There are a couple topics you do NOT want to debate me on and one of them is the scriptures. Fortunately for you, I wouldn’t bother debating you on them anyway. I was discussing them a bit with slan agat and that perhaps would have turned into a debate – maybe it still will if you butt out. We’ll see. There is a certain point, you must understand, where it is genuinely against my morality as a Christian to debate certain things with certain people. Foolish controversies and fools…one must choose one’s battles.
But considering you just asked where the prohibition against usury came from if not from Jesus (LOL – not much into the OT, eh?) I assure you you will run into plenty of children who will be just as capable of defeating your biblical “knowledge” and might debate you on it.
You’ve already crossed so far over the line of acceptable Christian morality, I don’t think you can even see it anymore.
“You and your kind are a dying breed, and there is nothing you can do.”
LOL – yes, all 48 million not to mention the millions who stayed home. This is why Fox news is the highest rated cable news by a huge margin and Rush Limbaugh has 20 million regular listeners, why Levin has been #1 for HOW many weeks now on the bestseller list and Coulter is a bestseller too…because people that you assume I am like (despite that I’m actually a libertarian, which those people don’t like) are a DYING BREED, right? Bwahaha!
“We’ve already won, like it or lump it.”
My God, that is like the shortest-sighted, stupidest thing you could possibly have said. Now check this out – just imagine that in 2000 I had said to you “You socialist leftists are a dying breed! We won, like it or lump it” as though time STOPS HERE AND NOW. Is that what you believe it does? That time has stopped here and now, and Obama’s win and the win in the legislature is permanent? Do you know something I don’t? Are we going to stop holding elections? Already the conservatives are furiously throwing off their dross and demanding genuine conservatives to drive the bus from here on in. The tea parties were massive and there are bigger ones coming.
You may console yourself with your temporary (which elections are because of a little thing called term limits, moron) win and the idea that those scary people are dying out but…it ain’t happening. Quite the opposite; they seem to be more energized than ever.
Republicans are a dying breed, even in their stronghold in the south. The youth of the country just don’t respond to your message of hate anymore.
I can agree with part of your statement, Seth, and part of Anniee’s. The Republicans as you’ve known them the last 40 years or so are dying out because they lack a firm foundation to stand on. They have allowed themselves to be the Democrate Lite of Congress, and there is really no difference in the two parties when you get down to it. What the Republican party is doing now (and I think is a wise move) is moving away from that mish-mash of philosophy that has driven them for so long, trying to stay in Washington as long as possible by kow-towing to to leading party.
-
It’s going to be a seriously painful process, and possibly will cost the Republican party leadership for a LOOOOOOONG time, but I believe that when the come out on the other side, they will have a strong platform and stick to it, as they haven’t been able to do since before Reagan. It won’t be anything you agree with, coming from a left-wing stance, but it has to be somewhat hard core and unwavering if it has a chance to last. The Democrats don’t give up their ideals (which are clearly stated) in order to remain in power, why should Conservatives? If it’s really a better idea, time will out. What we’ve had since Reagan (especially) isn’t Conservatism.
48 mil (16%) out of 300 mil — that’s better than limbaugh bragging about his listener base of 20 mil (7%) at least
BF: For a media source, that’s still pretty damn good. And leading his field, FWIW.
there is a major problem with radio listener statistics, regardless of who is on air — listeners are counted for either the entire hour or the entire program if, while flipping stations they stayed on a given station for as little as a couple minutes.
and while his 20 mil listeners might be ligit, it still isn’t very much when taken as a percent of population (not against other radio programs). and when used as a gloat as to how the conservative christians are on the verge of a come-back it loses credibility simply because 7% isn’t a very big slice of the whole
David Frum actually made a rather astute observation about this: That each party in turn, when it gets its ass handed to it, comes back next time with an even more intensified distillation of what the people rejected. You didn’t like Nixon in ’60? Have a little Goldwater, Scarecrow! You didn’t like Humphrey? Here, try McGovern. The trick never works and the party’s left with another term of soul-searching and adapting its message.
So, you didn’t like McCain? What do you think of Palin? Fail.
So pretty much your argument was that nobody wants to mess with your because you’re a box of tornados wrapped in a tsunami.
Um… No, still not impressed.
BF you are actually correct – I was referring to the fact that 48 PERCENT of the people that voted voted Republican (not necessarily conservative). If that’s still something to be scoffed at then I take it you’ve no objection to me scoffing at the 52% that voted for the commie, right?
Once again, your turn of phrase is awe inspiring. I’m stealing this one!
sorry, i saw no registered communists on the ballot here so who exactly are you referring to?
but if you want to crow about the 16% of the population that voted republican, i won’t stand in your way.
and the name is BAD FAIRIE, not bf. i am not your bf, nor do i appreciate my name being altered by you.
Who were the only people Jesus ever actually got angry with?
People who were misusing the Temple for filthy lucre. The cheats, the moneygrubbers, and the politicians in the Temple. I believe the exact quote was “whited seplichures” (sp).
People who lent money for profit. Capitalists. The same people who tell us to worship greed at the false idol of the almighty dollar, praise self.
People who cheated others for profit. There is a difference. The money lenders in the Temple were selling bad goods at jacked up prices to people who had no choice but to buy them, or be thought unworthy by the Pharisees.
Weren’t they fleecing people over sacrificial animals?
Punnily, yes.
Oh good, just wanted to be up to date with my bible based history.
Read below.
So if it wasn’t Jesus who created the original Christian prohibition against lending for profit, who was it? Usury used to be a sin, now it’s not, what’s up with that? Did God change His mind?
You’re assuming that Jesus never had a problem with cheating others. The profit part was never the problem, it was the blatant misuse of the Temple as part of a money grab that cheated the poor and ill-equipped to pay.
-
The details (as I understand them) of the situation were these: The money lenders had a kickback option with the Pharisees to sell sub-par stock to the pilgrims who came in once a year to make sacrifices. As the sacrifice had to be deemed pure by the Pharisees in order to serve as the “scape goat” for the sins of the entire family, you couldn’t just bring your own sheep or goat from home. So, the money lenders would get inferior stock that was blemished in some way for a cheap price, have it “blessed” by the Pharisees as holy and pure, then sell it for premiums to those who had no choice but to buy it. That’s what Jesus was upset about, not the profit. The ability to make money for you and yours has been fine since the beginning of time. It’s the cheating that’s the problem.
Why was usury considered a sin, and why is it not now? That’s how Jews became known as moneylenders, Christians couldn’t do it. Who started that, and who stopped it, and why?
You’ll have to allow me to expand my knowledge of the word, LOL. I apparently understand usury differently than you do. However, I’m not talking about the practice of LENDING money. That’s not what Jesus was upset about. He was mad at the unfair practices and straight out cheating of His people. Also, the improper sacrifices that were being offered were an affront to the Lord and the entire practice of the forgiveness of sins. He was pissed at that. It was straight out thievery happening in what amounts to His Room at Home, and that’s why He kicked them out at the lash end of a whip, screaming “You have made My Father’s House into a den of thieves!”
Well, I think it was St Anselm who equated lending for profit with theft, and then Thomas Aquinas also argued against lending for interest. Cardinal Hostiensis relaxed the rules against lending for profit in the 13th century. But it was still a sin to charge too much interest, to take too much of a profit, for a long time after that.
usury is a sin. it’s called predatory lending. it is illegal as well.
I can’t say that I argue with that. It’s the taking too much part that’s a problem, not the taking at all. Profiting is not a sin. Profiting at the expense of others might be.
I took things too far because Annie pissed me off so much. Yeah, you got to me, happy now?
Everyone is entitled to the fruits of their labor, and money is just a measure of stored labor. However, abstract storage of labor is a function of society, not the individual. Without other humans functioning in a society, you wouldn’t be able to store your labor in a portable form.
One of the primary functions of any society is the equitable distribution of risk and reward. Lending money (stored work) to another, when they have the option of going bankrupt and not being thrown into debtor’s prison to work of their debts, is a risk. If your stored labor enables another to reap a reward, it is only right that you share in that reward, beyond the mere repayment of the stored labor.
However, it is immoral to seek the maximum in that division of reward. The moral thing to do is to seek the middle ground, to split the profit fairly. Capitalism is founded on the idea of seeking the maximum, of taking every advantage, fair or not. That is the problem I have with it as a system for taking care of people’s basic needs. For luxuries, it’s perfect, but people can’t think rationally when their basic needs aren’t being met and lives are on the line.
And what’s worse about capitalism is that it allows moral people to commit immoral acts by abrogating personal responsibility. By diffusing responsibility for immoral acts amongst a group, each individual who profits can claim that it wasn’t them that committed the sin.
@seth, it’s late and my brain is hurting so bear with this jumble — wasn’t there a quote, concept, idea put forth by the founding fathers that had something to do with one of the purposes of government was to protect/enable/insure the well-being of all members of society. gawk, every time i try to stick my finger on it, i end up agitating a viscous black hole.
FWIW Seth, I didn’t intentionally “get to you” to that degree. I am not 4chan and I don’t deliberately seek to anger people to a REAL degree, or hurt them, or get them to cry. For the lulz. Maybe I can learn to
It’s funny Anniee has dropped out of this particular religious discussion. Thanks Seth for the info!
I have other things to do. I’m working full time and going to school full time. When I take on a religious discussion I take it seriously and I take it to the end. TO. The. End. One way or another.
But I’m a busy person, ok?
Yeah, but you never seem to acknowledge that your religion is *supposed* to be liberal in principles; the way you practice it, it’s more like the “YAHWEH as War God” religion. To me, that’s a very ugly and insultingly limited version of Christianity, and a major reason I came to realize I’m not a Christian.
I don’t acknowledge what isn’t true. There is a world of difference between people voluntarily giving of THEIR OWN goods and services, and an oppressive, totalitarian government doing the same with stolen money. Or do you want a Christian theocracy? Because I don’t. I don’t want any theocracy. How stupid can you be?
the ban on usury isn’t biblical, it’s rabbinical law which left it outside the early christian church since there were no rabbis involved in establishing papal laws. part of why jews became money lenders throughout europe was because of extended trust and knowledge from one banker to another. even if they didn’t know each other personally, there would be someone who could vouch for the other, and many times they were related (rothschild, etc) this made it easy to carry a letter of credit. these letters would provide a safe way of carrying funds without having to actually take coinage from one locale to another (original travelers checks?)
anyway, the difference between then and now on usurious moneylending would be in the perceptions and teachings of the rabbis not hte torah
My understanding was that medieval Jews were not forbidden to charge interest, but Christians were, and that was why they got into banking.
Also, I’m told the institution of travelers checks arose with the Knights Templar, who offered them as a safe way to transfer wealth from Europe to the Holy Land. I’m not an expert, so I may be wrong.
Ahem. “…and that was why *the Jews* got into banking.”
You’re forgetting the Pharisees. He called them sons of the devil for putting legal burdens on people which they themselves couldn’t bear. He said they were liars and the sons of the liar. He called them a brood of vipers. It wasn’t all just money; he got plenty pissed off about the law too.
What do you think of Leo Tolstoy’s “The Kingdom of God Is Within You,” Annie, froo, and any other Christians out there? Although I’m specifically interested whether or not you have read it, Annie, because I suddenly have a sneaking suspicion that you might be a Christian Anarchist at heart and not a right wing Republican at all.
Is that the one where the protagonist takes in various people? I love that story.
Queen Elizabeth’s dress makers?
Milli Vanilli?
Mic Jagger?
Party poopers?
Bob Saget!?
Robin Williams?
Bernie Madoff’s ancestors?
One internet for the person who sources this for me:
“For behold, it is far easier to fit a camel through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to get into the Kingdom of Heaven”
matthew 19:24 and mark 10:25
willing to trade that internet for brain bleach: it burns, not good for the witches and the fey, it burns that i knew those….i need punished!
Now, if Annieeeiee will just explain how this doesn’t really mean what it says…
Sorry you react badly to the bible, btw- I consider myself pagan but the only reaction I have to it is sleepiness.
actually it doesn’t bother me unless it is being used as either a weapon or by an ijit who thinks if they quote enough of their book that i’ll become a beleiver too…logic fail on their part
I’m not sure what about the meaning is unclear to you, Portland Mark.
Meh, screw you, randyincv. This is asinine.
By the way – she’s back in Alaska. Your guy won. She didn’t get the VP slot – that genius BIDEN has it. (He’s SOOOooo much smarter than her lol.) So what in hell are you still whinging and yipping and yelping about? Jackass.
how about the fact that she just got a multi-million dollar book deal?
or that she’s going to run for pres in 2012?
or maybe it’s that she is currently considered a ‘leader’ of the GOP…
Palin: “As New President, of the United States, 1st I’m moving the capital to ALASKA. And Second, EVRY CHILD WILL LEARN TO HUNT!”
Lol!
Quite ignoring, of course, that there are more children than game animals.
but the other half the equation is the shooting the game animal. technically to hunt is to look for, doens’t mean actually finding, let alone being able to hit the broadside of a wolf even if you are right over it in a copter…
That’s why they call it “hunting” instead of “finding”, and why I only got one deer last year
-
And kudos to the person who can hit a wolf from a helicopter while said wolf is running flat out over rocky, tree-covered terrain. Anyone who can do that can take on Chuck Norris and possibly live to tell about it.
You can bag more than one deer per year in TX?
I mean, besides the special hunt lottery…
One buck, depending on the county, and one doe. Some counties are two buck counties as well, so you can get three deer in those counties. Also, if you and your hubby hunt together, you can conceivably get 6 deer total if they are running right. I had the chance to bag two bucks last year, and the wily bugger (the second HUGE one) got away. Bastard. I’ll get him this year!
*packs bags*
Can I bunk with you?
ok this boring. you can all shut up now.
Seriously. Stop whining about this. She lost. She’s an air-headed hillbilly with no integrity. Don’t make yourselves look like a bunch of sore losers. Just remember, if she’d won, this entire page would be nothing but mocking her.
Not very smart, are you? That’s all kind of the point – SHE LOST so what are you people still b*tching about? Seriously? Are you mental?
And as to this entire page being nothing but mocking her if she’d won, that makes zero sense considering Obama/Biden won and the entire page isn’t mocking *them* or even Pelosi. You’re just acknowledging your complete and utter prejudice, you know – which is fine, so long as you’re up front about it. I’m biased against the left because they’re wrong, and have no integrity, and are destroying the country, and don’t give a d*mn about liberty, so so long as you’re being honest and not pretending objectivity, I guess it’s ok. But you still come off like a moron.
you forgot to fill in the speech bubble
BRILLIANT!
If you liked this LOL, paulious, check out this one:
http://cheezburger.com/View/4142067712
At least she can continue a speech when the teleprompter fails, unlike a certain president I know of.