NationStates Jolt Archive

I've always wondered THIS.

I post this thread in response to the thread about Liberals supposedly wanting to completely ban guns.

Why do so many people vote against their own, and most everyone else's ECONOMIC interests, in favor of the "GAGG issues" (guns, abortion, gays, god?) Why do these issues hold more weight than their own economic best interests?

Is it because they are hard-hearted, cruel, and mean?

Is it because they sincerely enjoy telling others what to do?

Is it because they enjoy pushing their "moral" values down everyone else's throat?

Is it because they are afraid of anyone who is different?

Is it because they are afraid more people will find "different" to be appealing, and more comfortable than the narrow, confining, suffocating, spirit and life-draining social "norms?"

What exactly is it?

I do not get it. Why is their fear so over-riding that it would cause them to vote against their own economic self-interest. The GOP basically cares only for the uber-wealthy. And, by definition, most people...and most conservatives...are not that. So why do they do it?

Why do these issues cause the knee-jerk reaction? I totally do not understand! Do these people not REALIZE they are voting against their own economic intersts? Are they too stupid to see it? Or are they too mean to care? do they so badly want to hurt others that they are willing to be hurt themselves, in order to hurt others?

Please explain.

I'm sure you have correctly gathered, by any reading of these questions...that I am an extremely Liberal person. I'm PROUD to be a Liberal.

If you define "Liberal" as one who stands up for the little guy, the oppressed, the disenfranchised, the minorities of society, the ones who are left out of the system...the ones who put the most into the system, and get the least out...then I am a Liberal, and PROUD to be one.

Because most people would rather be poor in utopia than rich in a moral wasteland.

I've always wondered THIS.

I post this thread in response to the thread about Liberals supposedly wanting to completely ban guns.

Why do so many people vote against their own, and most everyone else's ECONOMIC interests, in favor of the "GAGG issues" (guns, abortion, gays, god?) Why do these issues hold more weight than their own economic best interests?

Is it because they are hard-hearted, cruel, and mean?

Is it because they sincerely enjoy telling others what to do?

Is it because they enjoy pushing their "moral" values down everyone else's throat?

Is it because they are afraid of anyone who is different?

Is it because they are afraid more people will find "different" to be appealing, and more comfortable than the narrow, confining, suffocating, spirit and life-draining social "norms?"

What exactly is it?

I do not get it. Why is their fear so over-riding that it would cause them to vote against their own economic self-interest. The GOP basically cares only for the uber-wealthy. And, by definition, most people...and most conservatives...are not that. So why do they do it?

Why do these issues cause the knee-jerk reaction? I totally do not understand! Do these people not REALIZE they are voting against their own economic intersts? Are they too stupid to see it? Or are they too mean to care? do they so badly want to hurt others that they are willing to be hurt themselves, in order to hurt others?

Please explain.

I'm sure you have correctly gathered, by any reading of these questions...that I am an extremely Liberal person. I'm PROUD to be a Liberal.

If you define "Liberal" as one who stands up for the little guy, the oppressed, the disenfranchised, the minorities of society, the ones who are left out of the system...the ones who put the most into the system, and get the least out...then I am a Liberal, and PROUD to be one.
You're not wrapped too tightly, are ya? :D

I don't know, even though I'm conservative. But when it comes to animal rights, I'm extremely liberal.

Do you know what Josh calls him? Grandma-Man.

I've always wondered THIS.

I post this thread in response to the thread about Liberals supposedly wanting to completely ban guns.

Why do so many people vote against their own, and most everyone else's ECONOMIC interests, in favor of the "GAGG issues" (guns, abortion, gays, god?) Why do these issues hold more weight than their own economic best interests?

Is it because they are hard-hearted, cruel, and mean?

Is it because they sincerely enjoy telling others what to do?

Is it because they enjoy pushing their "moral" values down everyone else's throat?

Is it because they are afraid of anyone who is different?

Is it because they are afraid more people will find "different" to be appealing, and more comfortable than the narrow, confining, suffocating, spirit and life-draining social "norms?"

What exactly is it?

I do not get it. Why is their fear so over-riding that it would cause them to vote against their own economic self-interest. The GOP basically cares only for the uber-wealthy. And, by definition, most people...and most conservatives...are not that. So why do they do it?

Why do these issues cause the knee-jerk reaction? I totally do not understand! Do these people not REALIZE they are voting against their own economic intersts? Are they too stupid to see it? Or are they too mean to care? do they so badly want to hurt others that they are willing to be hurt themselves, in order to hurt others?

Please explain.

I'm sure you have correctly gathered, by any reading of these questions...that I am an extremely Liberal person. I'm PROUD to be a Liberal.

If you define "Liberal" as one who stands up for the little guy, the oppressed, the disenfranchised, the minorities of society, the ones who are left out of the system...the ones who put the most into the system, and get the least out...then I am a Liberal, and PROUD to be one.

Well Gun guys want guns so even if its against there economical interst because they can always overthrow the government is it gets too bad. At least that is what it appears to be...

God guys do this because they learned they can get the leaders of REpublicans to bend over backward for them to get their agenda done. If it hurts them econimically they can always get rewarded in heaven for following their conscience (or what they think it is).

Gays can be seen as gross (two guys kissing is not a pretty picture. For some reason two girls is a turn on for the same guys against gays.) Also since humanity didn't begin with gays it can be seen as unnatural. At best it was a genetic mutation that was done by animals to prevent overcrowding, but stopped afterward.
However that means Bi-sexual not gay. So blame te bI-sexuals they allowed the gay gene to pass.

Of course i think its a subconscious choice caused by Psychological, environmental, and possibly genetical problems.

And most Christians don't know abortion wasn't that serious a crime back in the OLd Testament. It was a fine. Nothing more. Apparentlky in GOd thinks Fetus are worth less than born children.

I think I should point out now that Christanity and Conservatism are not interchangeable terms.

Because most people would rather be poor in utopia than rich in a moral wasteland.

One man's Utopia is another man's HELL.

That definition of "Utopia" espoused by Conservatives...would be my version of Hell. Just as, I suppose, my Liberal version of Utopia would be thier version of Hell.

Why can't we all get along, stop trying to force our views on each other, live and let live, and just leave each other the hell alone if we don't like one another?

One man's Utopia is another man's HELL.

That definition of "Utopia" espoused by Conservatives...would be my version of Hell. Just as, I suppose, my Liberal version of Utopia would be thier version of Hell.

Why can't we all get along, stop trying to force our views on each other, live and let live, and just leave each other the hell alone if we don't like one another?

Sounds good to me.

Do you know what Josh calls him? Grandma-Man.

Is it because they are hard-hearted, cruel, and mean? Yes.

Is it because they sincerely enjoy telling others what to do? Yes.

Is it because they enjoy pushing their "moral" values down everyone else's throat? Yes.

Is it because they are afraid of anyone who is different? Yes.

Is it because they are afraid more people will find "different" to be appealing, and more comfortable than the narrow, confining, suffocating, spirit and life-draining social "norms?" Yes.

I think I should point out now that Christanity and Conservatism are not interchangeable terms.

It sure as hell seems as though they are, especially here in America!

Why do so many people vote against their own, and most everyone else's ECONOMIC interests, in favor of the "GAGG issues" (guns, abortion, gays, god?) Why do these issues hold more weight than their own economic best interests?


Hmm. I am pro-gay (actually, pro-bisexual). I don't believe that men should have a say in abortion. I believe in God. And I need to own a gun.

I'm kind of lost when you say the economic thing. The President (I'm assuming you're talking about the recent election) has less economic clout than the head of a major trading firm on Wall Street. More money changes hands in one day there than the whole US government spends in a year.

I did well economically no matter who was President - Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton. I fail to see how it screws me to have Bush (I'm making better money than I was under Bill, but I hardly see that as having anything to do with the Presidency).

Bill Clinton "ended welfare as we know it" and condemned huge numbers of poor to the equivalent of slave labor at McDonalds. How is that good?

Is it because they are hard-hearted, cruel, and mean? Yes.

Is it because they sincerely enjoy telling others what to do? Yes.

Is it because they enjoy pushing their "moral" values down everyone else's throat? Yes.

Is it because they are afraid of anyone who is different? Yes.

Is it because they are afraid more people will find "different" to be appealing, and more comfortable than the narrow, confining, suffocating, spirit and life-draining social "norms?" Yes.

And you call them bigots?

And you call them bigots?

When it comes to religion or political affiliation, I never said I wasn't a bigot.

I have a very happy life in which I have made it a point to not have one single Christian or Republican friend. Not one. I'm not missing anything.

It sure as hell seems as though they are, especially here in America!

It may SEEM that way but they are not. Chritainity is a religious belief, conservitism is a political ideology. I would wish for people not to tar conservatives and Christians with the same brush.

I have a very happy life in which I have made it a point to not have one single Christian or Republican friend. Not one. I'm not missing anything.

Thats a rather genralising statement, please retract it.

Thats a rather genralising statement, please retract it.

No ... it's the truth.

I do not have one single Christian or Republican friend and I am not missing anything by not having such people as friends.

I will not retract the truth.

Is it because they are hard-hearted, cruel, and mean? Yes.

Is it because they sincerely enjoy telling others what to do? Yes.

Is it because they enjoy pushing their "moral" values down everyone else's throat? Yes.

Is it because they are afraid of anyone who is different? Yes.

Is it because they are afraid more people will find "different" to be appealing, and more comfortable than the narrow, confining, suffocating, spirit and life-draining social "norms?" Yes.

You are so right. I too have come this cynical conclusion.

It may SEEM that way but they are not. Chritainity is a religious belief, conservitism is a political ideology. I would wish for people not to tar conservatives and Christians with the same brush.
When they stop being interchangible... people will stop connecting them.

Tell the Christians to not vote as Conservatives and people will stop saying they are the same.

One man's Utopia is another man's HELL.

That definition of "Utopia" espoused by Conservatives...would be my version of Hell. Just as, I suppose, my Liberal version of Utopia would be thier version of Hell.

Why can't we all get along, stop trying to force our views on each other, live and let live, and just leave each other the hell alone if we don't like one another?

The problem is that it's human nature (or at least capitalist nature) to be greedy. We want everything our way all the time. The best fashion to get your way in democracy is to have elected politicans who share your beliefs. This creates the conflict.

Unfortunately, we all have to work together in society. Due to this we're subjected to each other's beliefs all the time.

Besides, if we all left each other alone what would we post about here?

Why do these issues hold more weight than their own economic best interests? Firstly your assumption of voting for the Dems being in ones economic best interest is rather naive to say the least. Especially since Dems uphold the complete and utter debacle that is the current incarnation of SocSec as a holy pillar of their society. The same can be said for the most part of things like welfare and government housing. If you have any real drive to work hard then what the Republican platform supposedly is would be extremely beneficial. Of course, the reality of both presidential and senetorial political parties sucks major ass but that's another matter.


Is it because they are hard-hearted, cruel, and mean?
No.


Is it because they sincerely enjoy telling others what to do?

Is it because they enjoy pushing their "moral" values down everyone else's throat? Both parties pull shit like this on a depressingly regular schedule, it has nothing really to do with being conservative. In fact, the Dems have completely shifted from their old line about leaving everyone alone to fucking around in everyones lives. Unfortunately the GOP is fast heading in that direction as well.


Is it because they are afraid of anyone who is different?

Is it because they are afraid more people will find "different" to be appealing, and more comfortable than the narrow, confining, suffocating, spirit and life-draining social "norms?" I suppose you could make a case for the CR specifically acting this way for that reason, but the GOP is not composed solely of the CR.


The GOP basically cares only for the uber-wealthy. And, by definition, most people...and most conservatives...are not that. So why do they do it? Not really, the uber-wealthy actually would favor the democrats position because most no longer really pay taxes at all. Case in point, THK and George Soros. The not so uber wealthy or self-made wealthy, on the other hand, most certainly lean in the general direction of the GOP when it comes to taxing procedure.


Why do these issues cause the knee-jerk reaction? I totally do not understand! Do these people not REALIZE they are voting against their own economic intersts? Are they too stupid to see it? Or are they too mean to care? do they so badly want to hurt others that they are willing to be hurt themselves, in order to hurt others?
This was just unnecessary, quit acting like the forums are a LiveJournal.


Oh, and BTW, Chicago is a prime example of Dem philosophy not working in action.

No ... it's the truth.

I do not have one single Christian or Republican friend and I am not missing anything by not having such people as friends.

I will not retract the truth.

And they say conservatives are bigots. :rolleyes:

You are so right. I too have come this cynical conclusion.

Interestingly enough, it's about to be proven by Neo C ... he's already told me what to do by telling me (not asking me) to retract my statement.

1 down ... 4 to go.

Liberals are far-left fascist extremists. :mad:

Unlike liberals, many Conservatives have a moral code which they wish to stick to. Liberals on the other hand genraly have no moral code of their own, but instead try to let everyone else have theirs and practise it. It all comes down to the model of democracy that they believe is taking place. It is either the delegate or the mouthpiece varity. The delegate model states that the reason the public votes for someone is that they agree with that persons ideologies and want them to have their say in Parliament. The mouthpiece model however is where a representive is elected because the public believes that he/she will listen to what they say to them and then take the public's viewpoints to Parliament. So Conservatives it would seem agree with the delegate model, IE they have stated their views at the election, the public agrees with them and wants to see those views enacted in law where as Liberals believe in the mouthpiece model IE they have to be a mouthpiece to everyone elses views execpt their own.

No ... it's the truth.

I do not have one single Christian or Republican friend and I am not missing anything by not having such people as friends.

I will not retract the truth.

You may or may not have no republican or Christian friends but you have no way of knowing if your missing somehting or not. You are generalising, which is something liberals always hate. Please retract said genralisation.

Unlike liberals, many Conservatives have a moral code which they wish to stick to. Liberals on the other hand genraly have no moral code of their own, but instead try to let everyone else have theirs and practise it. It all comes down to the model of democracy that they believe is taking place. It is either the delegate or the mouthpiece varity. The delegate model states that the reason the public votes for someone is that they agree with that persons ideologies and want them to have their say in Parliament. The mouthpiece model however is where a representive is elected because the public believes that he/she will listen to what they say to them and then take the public's viewpoints to Parliament. So Conservatives it would seem agree with the delegate model, IE they have stated their views at the election, the public agrees with them and wants to see those views enacted in law where as Liberals believe in the mouthpiece model IE they have to be a mouthpiece to everyone elses views execpt their own.

So you are saying the differencve between a Democrat and a Liberal is that Democrats have Moral codes that they live by?

Unless you are sterotyping and being ignorant and think both are the same.

And they say conservatives are bigots. :rolleyes:

Who is "they"?

Anyway ... yes ... they're bigots. Sometimes being a bigot is a good thing.

Christians, regardless of how well meaning they seem on the surface, have indoctrinated in their spirituality that anyone who does not accept Christ is eternally damned and, thus, is on a lower spiritual plane than they are. Even if they never say it or act on it, they still believe it to be true.

Why would I want those kind of people around my children?

They're bigotted against me and I against them. I tolerate their presense in general life - for example, I will let a Christian ring up my groceries - but I will never befriend one because they can never truly befriend me.

Liberals are far-left fascist extremists. :mad:

Actually, liberal is a rather central standpoint by nature. American politics in general is just far-right.

When they stop being interchangible... people will stop connecting them.

Tell the Christians to not vote as Conservatives and people will stop saying they are the same.

Excuse me! They have the right to vote however they like. Christianity and Conservatism are diffrent things. Look them up in a dictionary or encylopida and you will see why. Please accept this. And also please do not act like America is the world. Christianity is in all parts of the world, I myself am British.

You may or may not have no republican or Christian friends but you have no way of knowing if your missing somehting or not. You are generalising, which is something liberals always hate. Please retract said genralisation.


Trying to force your moral view down my throat ...

2 down ... 3 to go.

You're proving me right with every post.

However that means Bi-sexual not gay. So blame te bI-sexuals they allowed the gay gene to pass.


Thanks. Blame me for passing it on, will you? Not too up on genetics, are you? I bet it's more than one gene - probably a whole host of genes, and a host of environmental variables. Pet theory of mine - no one is truly 100% hetero. So watch out.

I suppose that when you have kids, if the first kid's eye color doesn't match yours or your spouse's, you'll blame the postman instead of recessive characteristics.

So you are saying the differencve between a Democrat and a Liberal is that Democrats have Moral codes that they live by?

Unless you are sterotyping and being ignorant and think both are the same.

I am saying Liberals have moral codes but they do not see it as their job to put them across in government. They see it as their job to be a mouthpiece to the opinon of the general public. Whereas Conservatives (and Socialists on occation) believe that they have been elected because the population agreed with their beliefs/opinions/planned actions etc the most. And so therefore they have a mandate to act as they would do, as that is how they presented themselves during the election.

Trying to force your moral view down my throat ...

2 down ... 3 to go.

You're proving me right with every post.
Explain to me how this is forcing a moral view down your throat?

Liberals are far-left fascist extremists. :mad:

...the hell? If we are referring to the political horseshoe then you are contradicting yourself. In case you have not realised fascism is the extreme right.

Explain to me how this is forcing a moral view down your throat?

If you agree with Neo, it isn't.

Aye ... there's the rub.

Actually, liberal is a rather central standpoint by nature. American politics in general is just far-right.
"liberal" is rather central, but when talking american politics, "Liberal" is not. The nature of the L makes all the difference.

Who is "they"?

Anyway ... yes ... they're bigots. Sometimes being a bigot is a good thing.

Christians, regardless of how well meaning they seem on the surface, have indoctrinated in their spirituality that anyone who does not accept Christ is eternally damned and, thus, is on a lower spiritual plane than they are. Even if they never say it or act on it, they still believe it to be true.

Why would I want those kind of people around my children?

They're bigotted against me and I against them. I tolerate their presense in general life - for example, I will let a Christian ring up my groceries - but I will never befriend one because they can never truly befriend me.

1) Most religions have the same belief about non believers (Islam included)

2) Holding someones beliefs agaisnt them is bigortry of one of the highest kinds (the highest being race/nationality in my opinion)

3) If they dont act on their beliefs then whats your problem. Are not you racist against them?

I might add that I'm probably not fitting into Bucksnort's perfect picture of the world.

I voted for Clinton even though I hated him for driving more gays out of the military in his eight years in office than were thrown out in the entire history of the military.

I voted for Bush because he's in favor of me keeping my gun. But he hates gays, but I don't think he'll be able to do anything about it. Besides, Matthew Shephard would still be alive today if he had been carrying a gun.

I don't believe the hype that a President has that much influence on the US economy. Or even the government.

Our lives are controlled by a combination of the bureaucracy (which wields far more intrusive and unchecked power than a simpleton would realize, regardless of who is in office), and major corporations (who have bought both parties up to the hilt - Enron and the other bad boys of recent infamy donated as much or more money to the Democrats).

You're a simpleton if you believe that "if only Kerry were President" things would be great.

I think you're hash pipe is empty. Perhaps you need to lay off the stuff.

I have a very happy life in which I have made it a point to not have one single Christian or Republican friend. Not one. I'm not missing anything.

Well if you want to live in your own little world, that's your choice.

I do find it amusing that you are so proud to live in the absence of the diversity your political allies are so fond of touting. Not surprising though... This kind of intollerance seems to be more and more common every day.

Excuse me! They have the right to vote however they like. Christianity and Conservatism are diffrent things. Look them up in a dictionary or encylopida and you will see why. Please accept this. And also please do not act like America is the world. Christianity is in all parts of the world, I myself am British.

Vote for Michael Howard!

"liberal" is rather central, but when talking american politics, "Liberal" is not. The nature of the L makes all the difference.

Ah, I see. I'm not too familiar with the American Liberals. All I know is the American media says they're EVIL.

1) Most religions have the same belief about non believers (Islam included)

Islam not included. I've already proven that. You've refused to listen. Typical of someone who fears something different, hence, 3 down ... 2 to go.

2) Holding someones beliefs agaisnt them is bigortry of one of the highest kinds (the highest being race/nationality in my opinion)

Christians are commanded by their God to hold someone's beliefs against them. Religious infused bigotry.

3) If they dont act on their beliefs then whats your problem. Are not you racist against them?

If Christianity were a "race", then I suppose I would be. However, Christians come in all sorts of nationalities, colors, sizes, and ways of life. They all have one single thing in common, though: Belief that they are absolutely right and that everyone who disagrees is going to Hell.

Ah, I see. I'm not too familiar with the American Liberals. All I know is the American media says they're EVIL.

Really? Haven't been watching CBS?

I think I should point out now that Christanity and Conservatism are not interchangeable terms.

I'd hope someone heard that. It's true. There are conservative Libertarians who would obviously have been left of every issue mentioned, and keep true to their economic viewpoints as well.

Generally, we as conservatives are against entitlements, and against taking money away from the working public to give, with no strings attached, to the non-working (and capable) public.

Furthermore, we're sick of having immoral actions portrayed to us as perfectly acceptable (abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia), and we're forced to be tolerant of things we find unacceptable.

I just don't understand the "against one's own economic interest" argument, as Conservatives tend to cut taxes for everyone, and everyone benefits. It's liberals (and Democrats) that tend to tax the hell out of us and give the money to people who don't deserve it.

Just speaking as someone who's tired of seeing his tax money go to support others, when I can't make ends meet.

Well if you want to live in your own little world, that's your choice.

Everybody does. Would you let a serial rapist take your kids to the park ... spirit of tolerance, after all.

I do find it amusing that you are so proud to live in the absence of the diversity your political allies are so fond of touting. Not surprising though... This kind of intollerance seems to be more and more common every day.

I clearly said I was tolerant of them. I let them ring up my groceries, I let them pump my gas, I even let them serve me food when I go to a restaurant. Hell, I even let them hand me their pamphlets and fliers. Tolerate means "to put up with". I can accept them in day to day society ... but when it comes to my personal circle, forget it.

Christians are commanded by their God to hold someone's beliefs against them. Religious infused bigotry.


Wow, you sure have a warped sense of reality when it comes to religion. I was raised Catholic and I was never commanded to look down on or act in any way negative to those of different religious beliefs.

Are you religious Keruvalia and if so which one do you follow?

One man's Utopia is another man's HELL.

That definition of "Utopia" espoused by Conservatives...would be my version of Hell. Just as, I suppose, my Liberal version of Utopia would be thier version of Hell.

Why can't we all get along, stop trying to force our views on each other, live and let live, and just leave each other the hell alone if we don't like one another?

Ummmm, because this is the NationStates General forum. We come here to specifically discuss these issues. Holding hands would be kinda dull via the internet.

Who is "they"?

Anyway ... yes ... they're bigots. Sometimes being a bigot is a good thing.

Christians, regardless of how well meaning they seem on the surface, have indoctrinated in their spirituality that anyone who does not accept Christ is eternally damned and, thus, is on a lower spiritual plane than they are. Even if they never say it or act on it, they still believe it to be true.

Why would I want those kind of people around my children?

They're bigotted against me and I against them. I tolerate their presense in general life - for example, I will let a Christian ring up my groceries - but I will never befriend one because they can never truly befriend me.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Now you are sterotyping and acting ignorant.

Not all Christians believe as such. Granted most Christians assume us Latter Day Saints aren't Christians, but we follow Christ so we are regardless.

Christians, regardless of how well meaning they seem on the surface, have indoctrinated in their spirituality that anyone who does not accept Christ is eternally damned and, thus, is on a lower spiritual plane than they are. Even if they never say it or act on it, they still believe it to be true.


Christians have it all wrong. They always forget there are three Kingdoms of Heaven: Celestrial, Terestrial, and Telestrial. Just think Sea Turtle.
Mentions this a few times in New Testament so its not their fault.

If you do not accept Christ you will not reach Celestrial kingdom with 90% chance. They are correct about that. Sorry very few people are worthy of that Kingdom without meeting Christ.

However, at least half of Christians won't get past Terestrial kingdom. The reason is every kingdom has a requirement. To gain access to the highest you have to be very good, and so forth. Forgiveness still is there so don't worry if you did one or two bad things. Also you must be married in the Temple. Marriage outside Temple lasts till death so it won't help.

And sadly if you are murderer, rapists, and worse you will gain Telestrial kingdom. The lowest Glory. Heavenly Father won'ty be happy if you are this bunch but it is a degree of Glory. Sprit Prison is located here. Basically you are in prison to pay off your debt from your sins if you are stuck in this kingdom. Also you would be preached about Christ till you accepted him willingly.

And if you had full knowledge of the plan of salvation and turned against it. Basically blasphemy agaist the Holy Spirit than you reach hell. Remember very few people reach here without being very close to the Spirit such as Judahs (he knew Christ as the Messiah and still betrayed him to die) and Cain because he knew Heavenly Father and spoke to him personally.

Its hard for me to understand why they chose to go against their own self, but eh.

Also you must be married in the Temple. Marriage outside Temple lasts till death so it won't help.

So there it is. For all its surface niceness, my marriage isn't recognized. Hence, someone with this attitude could never be my friend.

Wow, you sure have a warped sense of reality when it comes to religion. I was raised Catholic and I was never commanded to look down on or act in any way negative to those of different religious beliefs.

Keru feels that he has the obligation to distort other people's religions, especially those that he doesn't follow. Also, like many bigots, he claims not to know or have as friends any of the people he despises.

Kinda like all those guys I knew in the Army who would never have had a bisexual as a friend.

If you agree with Neo, it isn't.

Aye ... there's the rub.
He said this: You may or may not have no republican or Christian friends but you have no way of knowing if your missing somehting or not. You are generalising, which is something liberals always hate. Please retract said genralisation.

In response to this: I have a very happy life in which I have made it a point to not have one single Christian or Republican friend. Not one. I'm not missing anything.
I fail to see how he is forcing his "moral" view down his throat. He may think that you are a bigoted asshole for your attitude towards your friend-making habits, but his opinion is in no way forcing his own "moral" values down your throat.

If Christianity were a "race", then I suppose I would be. However, Christians come in all sorts of nationalities, colors, sizes, and ways of life. They all have one single thing in common, though: Belief that they are absolutely right and that everyone who disagrees is going to Hell.

1) Does or does not Islam believe that at the end of the world all Muslims will be saved and everyone else will go to something akin to hell?

2) Chrisitans believe they are right, but that is true of anyone with faith. They have faith that they are right.

3) By holding this belief that does not make them any better/worse than you, so please stop looking down upon them, or you are just as much as a bigot as those you claim to oppose.

Are you religious Keruvalia and if so which one do you follow?

Deeply. I am an American Indian Muslim.

For one thing, don't get "Republicans" and "conservatives" confused. The Rebublican party on the nation level is very liberal, for an example see Arlen Specter, head of the Senate judiciary committee. He's so liberal it puts a lot of democrats to shame.

Also remember that every piece of economic legislation has pros and cons, there is no such thing as a "100% beneficial" economic law. Anyone voting against economic legislation simply sees the benefits as too insignificant to justify the costs. (this is not always the case, but typically is). Also, don't treat the economic policies and the issues you mentioned as completely separate issues. Economic policy as well as the nation's economic state are influenced by those issues (and more), and vice versa. A quick example: widespread approval for abortion would require the government to spend a large, additional amount of money on public healthcare to cover the additional abortions that would be performed. Studies show that the more government and insurance companies get involved in health care, the more expensive healthcare gets, etc etc vicious cyle..... So, many vote regarding these "moral" issues as you called them and proposed economic legislation thinking about their overall effect and how they work together and affect each other.

Also, don't forget that economic policy is only partialy determined by Congress. The federal reserve is responsible for a lot of it (especially interest rates, and, as a side effect, inflation). Additionally, many real conservatives see that a lot of government spending is outside of their constitutional and legal authority, and they vote against any legislation authorizing the government to spend money on something that they do not have the legal power to do. (see article 1, section 6 of the constitution for the list of what the federal government has the power to do).

Keru feels that he has the obligation to distort other people's religions, especially those that he doesn't follow. Also, like many bigots, he claims not to know or have as friends any of the people he despises.


So I should go get a Christian friend just so I can say, "Some of my best friends are Christian!" ?

That's far more bigotted than most people care to realize.

Ah, I see. I'm not too familiar with the American Liberals. All I know is the American media says they're EVIL.

No, they don't. Well, except for Fox 'News,' maybe.

So there it is. For all its surface niceness, my marriage isn't recognized. Hence, someone with this attitude could never be my friend.
Your marriage is recognized on earth. Never said it would not be.
Jesus said it too as does the law Civic marriages say," Till Death do you part."

A Temple marriage is only marriage that lasts for all eternaty.

Sorry, can't argue with the facts.

Well if you want to live in your own little world, that's your choice.

I do find it amusing that you are so proud to live in the absence of the diversity your political allies are so fond of touting. Not surprising though... This kind of intollerance seems to be more and more common every day.
On BOTH sides of the political fence, I might point out.

The difference is...I'm willing to own up to MY intolerance.

1) Does or does not Islam believe that at the end of the world all Muslims will be saved and everyone else will go to something akin to hell?

No.

2) Chrisitans believe they are right, but that is true of anyone with faith. They have faith that they are right.

I have faith that my religion works .... FOR ME ... there is no "universal right", which Christians claim they have a lock on. "I am the way and the light and none come to the father but through me" comes to mind. They have the right to believe that, yes, but I have the right not to associate with them.

Do you have any friends who are members of NAMBLA or the KKK or any other such group you're opposed to?

3) By holding this belief that does not make them any better/worse than you, so please stop looking down upon them, or you are just as much as a bigot as those you claim to oppose.

When did I ever once claim that I am not a bigot? (I will have to ask you this question again.

I've always wondered THIS.

I post this thread in response to the thread about Liberals supposedly wanting to completely ban guns.

Why do so many people vote against their own, and most everyone else's ECONOMIC interests, in favor of the "GAGG issues" (guns, abortion, gays, god?) Why do these issues hold more weight than their own economic best interests?

Is it because they are hard-hearted, cruel, and mean?

Is it because they sincerely enjoy telling others what to do?

Is it because they enjoy pushing their "moral" values down everyone else's throat?

Is it because they are afraid of anyone who is different?

Is it because they are afraid more people will find "different" to be appealing, and more comfortable than the narrow, confining, suffocating, spirit and life-draining social "norms?"

What exactly is it?

I do not get it. Why is their fear so over-riding that it would cause them to vote against their own economic self-interest. The GOP basically cares only for the uber-wealthy. And, by definition, most people...and most conservatives...are not that. So why do they do it?

Why do these issues cause the knee-jerk reaction? I totally do not understand! Do these people not REALIZE they are voting against their own economic intersts? Are they too stupid to see it? Or are they too mean to care? do they so badly want to hurt others that they are willing to be hurt themselves, in order to hurt others?

Please explain.

I'm sure you have correctly gathered, by any reading of these questions...that I am an extremely Liberal person. I'm PROUD to be a Liberal.

If you define "Liberal" as one who stands up for the little guy, the oppressed, the disenfranchised, the minorities of society, the ones who are left out of the system...the ones who put the most into the system, and get the least out...then I am a Liberal, and PROUD to be one.

Whelp, I did vote for Bush, so I'll anwer:

Gays - I really don't care who's sleeping with whom, this is a non issue to me.
guns - I always vote anti-gun control, as it is a short hop from limiting the 2nd Amendement to limiting the 1st. Or any other.
Abortion - I'm actually pro-choice, assuming it is not past the 1st trimester.
God - As a Catholic, I keep my politics and my religion seperate.

Why didn't I vote for Kerry? He was my choice back during the Democratic debates. But as time wore on, he kept showing (in my opinion) that he was not a man of conviction. He's kind of like Gerald Ford trying hard to play JFK. And it just didn't wash to me.

Economics doesn't enter into it, IMHO. The Economy is so large that no matter who is in office, they only exert so much influence upon it.

So I should go get a Christian friend just so I can say, "Some of my best friends are Christian!" ?

That's far more bigotted than most people care to realize.

What we are pointing out to you is the fact that you refuse to have any Christian friends on the grounds that "they are christain, they believe X which is nasty" is a form of bigotry. In this case, bigotry against belief. You are dismissing people completely on the grounds of belief.

Christians, regardless of how well meaning they seem on the surface, have indoctrinated in their spirituality that anyone who does not accept Christ is eternally damned and, thus, is on a lower spiritual plane than they are. Even if they never say it or act on it, they still believe it to be true.
So, according to your supposedly enlightened religion the same is true of me and about 60% or so of my friends, which group is composed of most of a wiccan coven, several buddhists, and quite a few athiests and agnostics, the latter category being the one I belong to. Big fucking deal.

Your marriage is recognized on earth. Never said it would not be.
Jesus said it too as does the law Civic marriages say," Till Death do you part."

A Temple marriage is only marriage that lasts for all eternaty.

Sorry, can't argue with the facts.

My vows said, "For as long as we both shall live, and, god willing, not even death will separate us."

Not sure where you're getting the "'till death do you part" thing ... but you weren't at my wedding ... unless that was you in the clown suit with the water balloons.

So, according to your supposedly enlightened religion the same is true of me and about 60% or so of my friends, which group is composed of most of a wiccan coven, several buddhists, and quite a few athiests and agnostics, the latter category being the one I belong to. Big fucking deal.


You have to be careful with Keru. This is the same religion that justified shooting a woman in the head in a soccer stadium for listening to a tape of Western music.

I've always wondered THIS. -Snip-

Right, you asked a question, that means you are at least reasonably well prepared for an answer.

The truth is, there are people in this world who do not think about the concequences of their actions.

The truth is also that there are people who wish to make sacrafices in order to achieve certain ambitions.

Case in point...

In broad strokes the Conservative factions within the Republican party are Fiscally Conservative groups and socially conservative groups.

Groups like the Christian Coalition that came to power first in the mid 90's are social conservative with much less emphasis on economic or fiscal matters. Often when pursuing their agenda though, they have too small a backing politically to achieve their goals; this means they have to find allies they can work with.

Fiscal conservatives are often those associated with "buinessmen groups" and "industry lobbies", they pursue the economic policies that would help their businesses grow quickly, that would free them from burdens of heavy beuracacy and red tape. They too have a large but insufficient backing to pursue their policies within government.

They joined together to further their own goals, and the two now are often intertwined in the eyes of the public. Guns, Gods, Gays, and Investors, Tax Reformers, Business owners. They formed a political alliance to further their goals.

But its not always a convenient alliance, both sides have extremists who go too far, business owners who are corrupt or polluters who are only seeking to get away with their crimes, People who wish not to defend their religious rights but attack others'. Many of the policies seem contradictory and foolish because of these conflicts of interest.

But Liberals share this problem.

On some basic levels, Liberals within the Democratic party have the same problems! You have a hard time defending the worker's rights as loggers but saving the forests that they work in. You have a hard time finding balance between the need for employee saftey and the amount of beuracracy that prevents employers from hiring in the first place.

All Politics is compromise, and sometimes the negotiations leave everyone slightly dissapointed, no one truly happy, and all concerned just slightly tired of the whole affair.

What you are talking about now is the seeming rise of one group within the republican party over the other; namely the Fiscal Conservatives are unable to influence the desicions of the current administration. Thus the crisis emerges that the Social conservative groups are running their agenda through with little problem, while the fiscal conservatives bemoan their loss of influence and the steady erosion of their policies as the government uses poor economic policies to prop up their strong social conservative message.

What we are pointing out to you is the fact that you refuse to have any Christian friends on the grounds that "they are christain, they believe X which is nasty" is a form of bigotry. In this case, bigotry against belief. You are dismissing people completely on the grounds of belief.


Why? Why are you bothering to point out to me what I already know?

I told you I'd have to ask you this again .... "When did I ever once claim that I am not a bigot?"

My vows said, "For as long as we both shall live, and, god willing, not even death will separate us."

Not sure where you're getting the "'till death do you part" thing ... but you weren't at my wedding ... unless that was you in the clown suit with the water balloons.
Got ya, you said "as long as we both shall live." That transates as "till death do you part."

And then you are hoping your marriage lasts past that but with no certainty.

So, according to your supposedly enlightened religion the same is true of me and about 60% or so of my friends, which group is composed of most of a wiccan coven, several buddhists, and quite a few athiests and agnostics, the latter category being the one I belong to. Big fucking deal.


Where does my religion say that?

Generally, we as conservatives are against entitlements, and against taking money away from the working public to give, with no strings attached, to the non-working (and capable) public.

Furthermore, we're sick of having immoral actions portrayed to us as perfectly acceptable (abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia), and we're forced to be tolerant of things we find unacceptable.

I just don't understand the "against one's own economic interest" argument, as Conservatives tend to cut taxes for everyone, and everyone benefits. It's liberals (and Democrats) that tend to tax the hell out of us and give the money to people who don't deserve it.

Just speaking as someone who's tired of seeing his tax money go to support others, when I can't make ends meet.

Well, I can't make ends meet, either...and I can't get a job in my own field. Workers are constantly getting screwed...like the recent overtime takeawy engineered by Bushco.

And no one is saying YOU should get an abortion or a gay marriage, or euthanasia...what we are saying is that you need to butt out of OUR private lives and OUR choices. If we want those things, we should be allowed to have them, whether or not you approve.

I don't recall ASKING for your, or anyone else's approval.

No, they don't. Well, except for Fox 'News,' maybe.
I think his view of what american media thinks about liberals is the fact that all stations were pretty much saying that if Kerry was seen as too liberal he wouldn't get elected.

You have to be careful with Keru. This is the same religion that justified shooting a woman in the head in a soccer stadium for listening to a tape of Western music.

I suppose there's a passage in Qur'an that you can point out which says, "Shoot anyone in the head if they listen to Western music" ....

The religion doesn't justify it ... the shooter justified it (or tried, anyway, and failed).

No.


So what does happen at the end according to Islam?


I have faith that my religion works .... FOR ME ... there is no "universal right", which Christians claim they have a lock on. "I am the way and the light and none come to the father but through me" comes to mind


Funny you should complain about that belief in Christians, when one of the most important beliefs in Islam is "There is no God execpt Allah" or something along those lines. Face it. Islam is just as "exclusive" (for want of a better word) as Christianity.


Do you have any friends who are members of NAMBLA or the KKK or any other such group you're opposed to?


I dont know who NAMBLA is but the KKK is racist in its policy directly. Not only that, but it advocates public lyncing. Also I find it hard to understand how a group such as this could interprit the Bible as being a book which supports white supirority seeing as nearly all the people described in it were Middle Eastern.


When did I ever once claim that I am not a bigot? (I will have to ask you this question again.

I dont know. But you cant complain about bigotry in others unless your willing to remove it from yourself.

And then you are hoping your marriage lasts past that but with no certainty.

Well that's not up to me, now, is it?

So what does happen at the end according to Islam?



I dont know who NAMBLA is but the KKK is racist in its policy directly. Not only that, but it advocates public lyncing. Also I find it hard to understand how a group such as this could interprit the Bible as being a book which supports white supirority seeing as nearly all the people described in it were Middle Eastern.



NAMBLA is the National Association of Martin Brando Look Alikes.

I suppose there's a passage in Qur'an that you can point out which says, "Shoot anyone in the head if they listen to Western music" ....

The religion doesn't justify it ... the shooter justified it (or tried, anyway, and failed).

I guess you'll have to take it up with every Wahhabi scholar who has more than once justified it.

Why? Why are you bothering to point out to me what I already know?

I told you I'd have to ask you this again .... "When did I ever once claim that I am not a bigot?"

You cant complain about bigotry in others if you yourself are a bigot. Basic hypocracy there.

Well that's not up to me, now, is it?
So you agree it is largely till death do you part.
You see in Temple Marriage the people sealing us together have the authority and ability to do as Heavenly Father wishes. Thus they seal this on Earth and it will be sealed in Heaven.

Hmm. I am pro-gay (actually, pro-bisexual).
I'm for both having the same rights as everyone else does, but what exactly does pro-gay/bisexual mean?
That everyone should be either gay or bisexual (Jung would argue we already are bisexual to more or less of a degree, whether we like it or not)?

First of all, the christianity epoused by this administration is not true christianity. When did Christ ever use war as a means to a solution? Christ showed compassion to enemies and friends alike. He would never trade the lives of the poor to bolster the rich. No, I am not an evangelist or even very religious. This administration has learned to use the language of christianity (and of the bible in general) to explain away it's practices as the gospel truth. The many uninformed in this society will never know the difference and will always take Bush's word as if it were coming from the mouth of God. Conservatives don't like gays because they can't fit them into their overall message. They like guns because they can. Same goes for the wealthy. Who do you think pays for the president to be elected? Somehow, I think my $2000 donation doesn't last too long. Basically, it all comes down to money. You can't piss off the shareholders. It's all a marketing tactic. The republicans are selling themselves to middle (ie old fashioned) America and doing a great job at it. Sales are up... intelligence and truth are way down. God bless America!

NAMBLA is the National Association of Martin Brando Look Alikes.

Who's Martin Brando?

to all you liberals that are posting on this thread and bashing conservatives and republicans for voting for what they believe in and then complaining that they are the ones trying to force their views down your throats, it is dipshits like you that are the root of these problems. you are no better than the people you complain about. I am a conservative christian republican that tries to balance all three of these things when voting, but I'm not about to bend over and vote for something I don't believe in just because some liberal says I should. I consider the issues and act according to what I believe in. Yes, I want guns, I hate the idea of abortion, I'm not keen on gays, and I do believe that there is a god, so I will stand up for people that share those ideals. you have no right to condemn me for that. I have no problems with liberals voting based on what they believe in. I definitely don't agree with many things that they advocate for, but that gives me on right to hate them or be condescending of their actions. I hope you all understand this. I think that the key to coming together as a people and a world is tolerance, I'm sure many if not most people would agree with me, but preaching it is not enough, we must practice tolerance for positive things to happen.

I would suggest that if Keru wants proof that Islam can sanction the execution of a woman for listening to Western music, or the slitting of a man's throat for running a movie projector, or justify the killing of innocent non-Muslim tourists while bathing in their blood and shouting prayers to Allah, then he consult the teachings of Ibn Taymiyah and the legal school of Ahmad ibn Hanbal.

There are millions of people who believe what they taught is Islam. The true and pure Islam.

Where does my religion say that?
Dammit, your gonna make me actually pull up posts?
Alright, screw searching for the specific posts. In either the "Why always the Jews" thread or the "Freedom of Religion. A concept that muslim nations..." thread it was noted that the Quran basically says to kill the unbelievers. You responded that it meant those who had turned away from Islam who had previously been muslim, and that christians and jews were not included. Well, you cannot in any way, shape, or form include either me or 60% of my friends in the exempt categories, so that leaves the unbeliever category.

I love how Keru is so anti-Christian, and any other religion that may encroach on similar grounds. I don't suppose that he realizes that his bigotry leads him to hate over 85% of American citizens. If we presume that he only likes Atheists, Agnostics, Hindus, Buddhists, and religions classified as "New Religious Movements" (which includes things such as Wicca, New Age, Feminist Spirituality, etc.) he is okay with less than an eighth of Americans. So by his ignorant ideals, no one else should even be allowed to be here, or have a voice, because they believe what the VAST majority of Americans believe.

Not really, the uber-wealthy actually would favor the democrats position because most no longer really pay taxes at all. Case in point, THK and George Soros. The not so uber wealthy or self-made wealthy, on the other hand, most certainly lean in the general direction of the GOP when it comes to taxing procedure

As a small business owner, I hate having to reiterate this point again and again.
Huge multinationals do not make up the majority of business owners, just a very small percent.
Most Democrats are in favor of harming the little guy you claim to champion with their heavy-handed taxation and regulalatory positions.
The Republicans are not the richest party, believe it or not.
Why are the Democrats always beating up on the little guy economically? I'd hope they'd rovide good welfare and unemployment, because if they got their way, a lot of us would need it who had great jobs before. But then who would be paying for these expensive programs at all?
I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to this question. It's so easy to demonize all businesses, but it's ignorance that rivals the CR wackos.

The reason why Conservatives seem to be so self ritious and Liberals seem to be so accepting is that they are following two diffrent types of democracy

Liberals believe in the mouthpiece model wich is

1) A polician (Miss Library) is voted into a seat of government
2) Miss Lib believes that people voted for her because she will listen to their worries, concerns and opinions and bring attention to them in government
3) This she then goes about doing. Attempting to bring every single issue which is given to her into the govenrments adgend

Conservitves however have a diffrent idea. This is called the delegate model

1) A politicain (Mrs Cone) is voted into a seat of government
2) Mrs Cone believes that people voted for her because they agreed with the beliefs/opinions/ideas/morals that she said she had before going into the election.
3) Because of this she has a mandate to do her best to bring to light in government issues that align with what she said she believed in/supported etc at the time of the election.

i pick those 2

Is it because they enjoy pushing their "moral" values down everyone else's throat?

Is it because they are afraid of anyone who is different?

I'm stymied. I've seen "liberals" be as self-righteous as the "conservatives".

Can't tell the difference. With the exception of the libertarians, the "liberals" and "conservatives" want to find ways to run my personal life their way.

One wants to take away my right to defend myself. The other wants me to tell me the correct way to have sex.

Sorry. No Can Do.

Why do so many people vote against their own, and most everyone else's ECONOMIC interests, in favor of the "GAGG issues" (guns, abortion, gays, god?) Why do these issues hold more weight than their own economic best interests?



Actually, I vote conservative on the basis of economic principle. I don't believe it is right for anyone to forceably redistribute wealth (taxes). I see that as a civilized means of stealing. Yes there are others employed by big business and they are equally reprehensible, but I'm not going to vote to add evil to evil when I have a choice.

The other thing I see is that they more strongly adhere to the founding father's original intent, which isn't defacto in my best interest, but for the most part I think the founding fathers got it right the first time with a few major exceptions.

to all you liberals that are posting on this thread and bashing conservatives and republicans for voting for what they believe in and then complaining that they are the ones trying to force their views down your throats, it is dipshits like you that are the root of these problems. you are no better than the people you complain about. I am a conservative christian republican that tries to balance all three of these things when voting, but I'm not about to bend over and vote for something I don't believe in just because some liberal says I should. I consider the issues and act according to what I believe in. Yes, I want guns, I hate the idea of abortion, I'm not keen on gays, and I do believe that there is a god, so I will stand up for people that share those ideals. you have no right to condemn me for that. I have no problems with liberals voting based on what they believe in. I definitely don't agree with many things that they advocate for, but that gives me on right to hate them or be condescending of their actions. I hope you all understand this. I think that the key to coming together as a people and a world is tolerance, I'm sure many if not most people would agree with me, but preaching it is not enough, we must practice tolerance for positive things to happen.

Yeah...and the way to practice tolerance is to call those we disagree with "dipshits," right?

All we want is for you holier-than-thou types to live your own life as you see fit...and quit trying to live OUR LIVES as YOU see fit!

In a nutshell, we want to live OUR lives, as WE see fit...without outside interference. Is that so much to want?

Yeah...and the way to practice tolerance is to call those we disagree with "dipshits," right?

All we want is for you holier-than-thou types to live your own life as you see fit...and quit trying to live OUR LIVES as YOU see fit!

In a nutshell, we want to live OUR lives, as WE see fit...without outside interference. Is that so much to want?

Well you haven't been too tolerant of me of late.

Go ahead. Bash a bisexual male who owns guns. See if I care.

In a nutshell, we want to live OUR lives, as WE see fit...without outside interference. Is that so much to want?

As far as I'm concerned that is fine with me as long as you don't violate my or anyone else's right to life (abortion=violation), liberty(freedom to spend my money the way I see fit rather than paying taxes for things I don't believe in like the current wellfare system, AA, SS, HIPPA,) and the persuit of happiness. Otherwise live as you see fit.

Yeah...and the way to practice tolerance is to call those we disagree with "dipshits," right?

All we want is for you holier-than-thou types to live your own life as you see fit...and quit trying to live OUR LIVES as YOU see fit!

In a nutshell, we want to live OUR lives, as WE see fit...without outside interference. Is that so much to want?

And you still think you're better than me just because I logged ONE negative word about the liberals posting here. I probably could have used a better word but I didn't, I'm not going to apologize for that. Also, I'm not one of those holier than thou types. Yes maybe I think I can out perform some people athletically or academically, but I don't think I'm better than others. Of course everyone wants to live their lives as they see fit. You aren't saying anything that anyone doesn't already know. I'm just saying that we need to realize that we all believe different things and we all want different things, so the idea of everybody believing in and wanting the same things is a very far fetched idea. If we all allow everyone to have their opinions and try to understand why people hold the opiniong that they do, then I think we just solved half of the worlds problems.

Go ahead. Bash a bisexual male who owns guns. See if I care.

I'm personally very libertine on the issue, but this is nagging me:
Has anyone here actually bashed you for being bisexual? You've brought it up so many times, I'm assuming someone has.
If so, that sucks and they should be ashamed of themselves.
If not, why bring it up so much?

Your marriage is recognized on earth. Never said it would not be.
Jesus said it too as does the law Civic marriages say," Till Death do you part."

A Temple marriage is only marriage that lasts for all eternaty.

Sorry, can't argue with the facts.


Er fact? eternity? as in forever or without end? we are in the year 2004 and still counting. so NO not a fact

I'm personally very libertine on the issue, but this is nagging me:
Has anyone here actually bashed you for being bisexual? You've brought it up so many times, I'm assuming someone has.
If so, that sucks and they should be ashamed of themselves.
If not, why bring it up so much?

I bring it up because a lot of "liberals" who are so "tolerant" are quite willing to bash me and call be a gun-toting redneck (sorry, not white either) or a Bush-loving warmonger (well, warmonger maybe), and seem to think that all conservatives are Bible-thumping heterosexual males.

And I've had many lovers, male and female. And I am a believer in personal freedom, not its suppression.

"Liberals" contrary to what they say, are NOT for my rights. I'll get farther with the Republicans in extending my personal freedom than I will with Democrats, who are far too willing to call me more names than any Republican has.

I haven't had any Republicans on this board call be a "fag" or a "freak". But plenty of "liberals" have called me other names that I consider just as offensive.

I bring it up because a lot of "liberals" who are so "tolerant" are quite willing to bash me and call be a gun-toting redneck (sorry, not white either) or a Bush-loving warmonger (well, warmonger maybe), and seem to think that all conservatives are Bible-thumping heterosexual males.

And I've had many lovers, male and female. And I am a believer in personal freedom, not its suppression.

"Liberals" contrary to what they say, are NOT for my rights. I'll get farther with the Republicans in extending my personal freedom than I will with Democrats, who are far too willing to call me more names than any Republican has.

I haven't had any Republicans on this board call be a "fag" or a "freak". But plenty of "liberals" have called me other names that I consider just as offensive.

I have read quite a few of your posts, and I think that the things your posting about may be the reason that liberals are commenting on you more than Republicans.

I have read quite a few of your posts, and I think that the things your posting about may be the reason that liberals are commenting on you more than Republicans.

And I suppose that gives them the right to call people names, where they would castigate Republicans for doing the same thing.

I have read quite a few of your posts, and I think that the things your posting about may be the reason that liberals are commenting on you more than Republicans.
Isn't controversy fun :p

Seems like both groups in U.S. politics like to think of themselves as victims.
But to me, it's apparent that the "tolerance" practiced by the social liberal is different from that practiced by the social conservative. I think the reason why so many people get hung up on this is that liberals are -- and I'm intentionally phrasing this poorly -- able to justify being intolerant only of the intolerant. Libertarians and anarcho-syndicalists, incidentally, agree with a lot of what the Democrats have to say about the government having no part in enforcing morals on society.
The difference between a social conservative's mission to deny tax benefits to people who will undoubtedly keep fingering and fucking each other with or without government permission is that they do not want to at all condone the actions of homosexuals. I find this curious. Apparently, as much as conservative heterosexuals are disgusted by homosexual monogamy, heterosexual permiscuity disgusts them less. I think there is a clear difference between the liberal who is rude to a Christian for shunning a lesbian couple, and the Christian who shuns the lesbian couple from his church or from tax benefits.
The same thing goes with abortion. Clearly, most Republicans do not see this practice as murder. If they thought it was truly murder, they would all be lined up in front of abortion clinics with their Winchesters to take out murderers. I mean, if the baby's life is worth as much as mine, why would not they defend it. I think it's obvious that they do not really give a damn about the babies. If they cared, they'd make sure that every 12 year old knew how to put a Trojan on a banana, which the party are also vehemently opposed to. This is actually about the subjugation of women.
I am so glad that Bush appears to have been merely winking to the religious right, instead of actually agreeing with them. I hear he's for "Civil Unions" for homosexuals. We'll just have to see what he does with the Supreme Court. Rehnquist is probably going to be pushing up the daisies soon.

So what does happen at the end according to Islam?

It's pretty unclear. There's been some scholarly study, but the only thing Qur'an really says about it is, "Allah will tend to things".


Funny you should complain about that belief in Christians, when one of the most important beliefs in Islam is "There is no God execpt Allah" or something along those lines. Face it. Islam is just as "exclusive" (for want of a better word) as Christianity.

The shahadah is something followed by Muslims and we don't require anyone else to believe it. Christianity says that there is "NO WAY" to salvation without Jesus. Muslims know there is. Get down off the cross ... someone needs the wood.


I dont know who NAMBLA is but the KKK is racist in its policy directly. Not only that, but it advocates public lyncing. Also I find it hard to understand how a group such as this could interprit the Bible as being a book which supports white supirority seeing as nearly all the people described in it were Middle Eastern.

So you're saying you don't have a single friend who is in the Klan?! :eek: BIGOT!!! You're bigotted against their beliefs!!

I dont know. But you cant complain about bigotry in others unless your willing to remove it from yourself.

Do I complain about bigotry? No ... I complain about intolerance. I tolerate everybody ... I simply choose not to associate with everybody.

And I suppose that gives them the right to call people names, where they would castigate Republicans for doing the same thing.


Hey, I never said it was right to slag off someone with different views. i just suggested that yo might have worded some of you own work a little more gently.
Some ego's bruise easier than others. (not that I'm suggesting your one of them)

So you agree it is largely till death do you part.
You see in Temple Marriage the people sealing us together have the authority and ability to do as Heavenly Father wishes. Thus they seal this on Earth and it will be sealed in Heaven.

So, again, it's saying that somehow a marriage in your religion is better than my marriage, which did not follow your religious practices.

Dammit, your gonna make me actually pull up posts?
Alright, screw searching for the specific posts. In either the "Why always the Jews" thread or the "Freedom of Religion. A concept that muslim nations..." thread it was noted that the Quran basically says to kill the unbelievers. You responded that it meant those who had turned away from Islam who had previously been muslim, and that christians and jews were not included. Well, you cannot in any way, shape, or form include either me or 60% of my friends in the exempt categories, so that leaves the unbeliever category.

Are you a Muslim who converted to Babylonian Paganism? Cuz that's the only type of people Qur'an sanctions killing. That's it.

I love how Keru is so anti-Christian, and any other religion that may encroach on similar grounds. I don't suppose that he realizes that his bigotry leads him to hate over 85% of American citizens.

Me and the rest of the world. Shrug. Get over it. Americans pretty much suck ass.

If we presume that he only likes Atheists, Agnostics, Hindus, Buddhists, and religions classified as "New Religious Movements" (which includes things such as Wicca, New Age, Feminist Spirituality, etc.) he is okay with less than an eighth of Americans.

Not necessarily. It really depends on the person. Being a Christian is an automatic predisposition to judgemental assholery, so just by saying, "I'm Christian", I already know where you must stand, as commanded by your religion.

I also have a problem with Wiccans, but that's for an entirely different reason.

OK, Christians, Jews and Muslims out there, you are absolutely out of your minds if you take too seriously and literally what your books say. They say some extremely outrageous things that are at best misguided and at worst evil. Really. Do not even argue with each other about that.
Because the Bible can't seem to get straight whether murder or war is immoral, it is not a good place to calibrate your moral compass on. Seriously, it's insane.
http://www.retrovsmetro.com/lighterside/games.php
Click on the bible quiz, and find out the fun.

Taking it literally is silly and facile.

When they stop being interchangible... people will stop connecting them.

Tell the Christians to not vote as Conservatives and people will stop saying they are the same.

One of these days, someone will have to sit you down and explain to you that not all Christians vote as conservatives anyway.

Are you a Muslim who converted to Babylonian Paganism? Cuz that's the only type of people Qur'an sanctions killing. That's it.

Tell that to the Taliban.

I knew a man once who was Christian. Nice man. Did a lot for his community and his church and all of that. I once asked him what he thought of Jerry Falwell and he said, "Falwell is a racist scumbag who should have been strangled at birth. He is not a Christian and he gives us all a bad name. Do not, under any circumstances, let someone like Falwell give you an impression of Christians."

Two months later, as the Towers fell, the same man said, "Fuckin' Osama bin Laden! All Muslims should be shot in the face!"

Hidden within even the kindest exterior of a Christian is a hypocrite just screaming to be let out.

OK, Christians, Jews and Muslims out there, you are absolutely out of your minds if you take too seriously and literally what your books say. They say some extremely outrageous things that are at best misguided and at worst evil. Really. Do not even argue with each other about that.
Because the Bible can't seem to get straight whether murder or war is immoral, it is not a good place to calibrate your moral compass on. Seriously, it's insane.
http://www.retrovsmetro.com/lighterside/games.php
Click on the bible quiz, and find out the fun.

Taking it literally is silly and facile.

Oh, good! I'm always up for a game of "How Far Can We Stretch This Verse To Turn It Into A Contradiction?"

Tell that to the Taliban.

It's already been done.

I knew a man once who was Christian. Nice man. Did a lot for his community and his church and all of that. I once asked him what he thought of Jerry Falwell and he said, "Falwell is a racist scumbag who should have been strangled at birth. He is not a Christian and he gives us all a bad name. Do not, under any circumstances, let someone like Falwell give you an impression of Christians."

Two months later, as the Towers fell, the same man said, "Fuckin' Osama bin Laden! All Muslims should be shot in the face!"

Hidden within even the kindest exterior of a Christian is a hypocrite just screaming to be let out.

And I'm sure you and every other Muslim in the world would never react to any offense against them or their people, no matter how large or egregious.

I knew a man once who was Christian. Nice man. Did a lot for his community and his church and all of that. I once asked him what he thought of Jerry Falwell and he said, "Falwell is a racist scumbag who should have been strangled at birth. He is not a Christian and he gives us all a bad name. Do not, under any circumstances, let someone like Falwell give you an impression of Christians."

Two months later, as the Towers fell, the same man said, "Fuckin' Osama bin Laden! All Muslims should be shot in the face!"

Hidden within even the kindest exterior of a Christian is a hypocrite just screaming to be let out.

You can't prove a generalization with allegorical evidence. As a Christian, and as someone who probably associates with more Christians than you do, I dare say you're wrong.

Why can't we all get along, stop trying to force our views on each other, live and let live, and just leave each other the hell alone if we don't like one another?
Probably because you both live in the same country... moohahaha

Unless...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/New_map_WEB.jpg

:D

And I'm sure you and every other Muslim in the world would never react to any offense against them or their people, no matter how large or egregious.

Not with such a gross generality, no. Especially not after lecturing someone on how the actions of a few people should not curtail or diminish the opinion of the group as a whole.

I have a very happy life in which I have made it a point to not have one single Christian or Republican friend. Not one. I'm not missing anything.
That's sad, really it is. You are missing something, because there's more to a person than their political and religious beliefs.

If you are friends with only non-Christian liberals, then you never have your ideology questioned. I have come to the belief myself that we must constantly question our own beliefs, and having people of different beliefs around helps us to do that. We have seen how destructive blind dogmatism has been in the past.

If you are friends with only non-Christian liberals, then you never have your ideology questioned.

I question my own without help from anyone else. You're talking to a person who just two years ago was an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi and whom two weeks ago was a devoted Agnostic and whom is now a Liberal Muslim. I have evolved without outside help.

For everything else, I have NS general.

Not with such a gross generality, no. Especially not after lecturing someone on how the actions of a few people should not curtail or diminish the opinion of the group as a whole.

Then I suppose that's why you don't have any trouble getting several hundred thousand Muslims to march in the street of virtually any Arab nation and burn American flags.

What a load of crap.

Not really, the uber-wealthy actually would favor the democrats position because most no longer really pay taxes at all. Case in point, THK and George Soros. The not so uber wealthy or self-made wealthy, on the other hand, most certainly lean in the general direction of the GOP when it comes to taxing procedure.
Surveys show that Republican tendencies increase proportionally with earning power. Yes, there are a few Democrat billionaires, but the very rich are a solid Republican constituency in general.

I knew a man once who was Christian. Nice man. Did a lot for his community and his church and all of that. I once asked him what he thought of Jerry Falwell and he said, "Falwell is a racist scumbag who should have been strangled at birth. He is not a Christian and he gives us all a bad name. Do not, under any circumstances, let someone like Falwell give you an impression of Christians."

Two months later, as the Towers fell, the same man said, "Fuckin' Osama bin Laden! All Muslims should be shot in the face!"

Hidden within even the kindest exterior of a Christian is a hypocrite just screaming to be let out.

An extreme genralisation, based on a single experiance. How would you feel if I said that within every Muslim is a terrorist just waiting to get out?

Then I suppose that's why you don't have any trouble getting several hundred thousand Muslims to march in the street of virtually any Arab nation and burn American flags.


I wouldn't know ... that's not something I've ever personally tried to arrange.

I'm also not aware that all Arabs are Muslim.

An extreme genralisation, based on a single experiance. How would you feel if I said that within every Muslim is a terrorist just waiting to get out?


It's not based on a single experience ... trust me.

I am curious, though, as to why it's such a big deal that I have the freedom to pick and choose who I hang out with ...

So you're saying you don't have a single friend who is in the Klan?! :eek: BIGOT!!! You're bigotted against their beliefs!!


I didnt complain about the fact you had no Christian friends. I complained at you saying that you refused to have Christian friends because of their beliefs. Also there is a very good logical reason why I have no friends in the KKK. I'm British. The KKK is an American organisation. I have never been to America.

I didnt complain about the fact you had no Christian friends. I complained at you saying that you refused to have Christian friends because of their beliefs. Also there is a very good logical reason why I have no friends in the KKK. I'm British. The KKK is an American organisation. I have never been to America.

That doesn't mean they're not there. After all, the Klan sees your country as the great white mother land and a great many of them can prove conclusively that the true Israelites are white.

So you've got them there ... why not make friends with them? Give me one good solid reason why you would never hang out with someone who liked to hang black people from trees.

It's not based on a single experience ... trust me.


Thats irrelevent. You are making a genralisation. The only way to make a legitamate genralisation is to actually go and meet every single person of the group you are genralising about. I very much doubt you have met every single Christian in the world, so you cannot make a legitamte genralisation. Ergo please retract your statement that all Christians are hypocrytes.

Hidden within even the kindest exterior of a Christian is a hypocrite just screaming to be let out.
It's called human nature. Do try to figure out this little thing called reality we live in will you.

Thats irrelevent. You are making a genralisation. The only way to make a legitamate genralisation is to actually go and meet every single person of the group you are genralising about. I very much doubt you have met every single Christian in the world, so you cannot make a legitamte genralisation. Ergo please retract your statement that all Christians are hypocrytes.

Will you submit that all Christians believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour and also submit that if they did not believe as such, then they would not be Christians?

Neo, you forget:

In Keru's view, any Muslim is a far better and more tolerant person than a person of any other religion (or lack thereof). To him, a Muslim is less likely to do anything wrong.

You, on the other hand, in Keru's view, are automatically suspect. You are a heathen, racist, infidel scumbag who is incapable of any good thing or good thought until you see the light and convert to Islam.

Muslims never burned their own libraries of knowledge, condemning their own people to centuries of ignorance. They never conqured people and forced them to become Muslim. Not once. No Muslim ever did any bad thing in history. The rowers of the Turkish galleys (commanded by an Islamic emperor) were not rowed by Christian slaves. No Muslim ever sold a black African into slavery. Muslims are not committing genocide in the Sudan.

Yet another person who believes that just holding a belief will be enough to save a whole people from doing evil.

Because the american people are far too small minded and ignorant to self govern.

Because the american people are far too small minded and ignorant to self govern.

I guess that's why we saved Europe's ass twice in one century. Obviously, they couldn't handle governing themselves, either.

It's also why we had to stop some of them from shoveling people into gas fired ovens.

It's called human nature. Do try to figure out this little thing called reality we live in will you.


Well, if living in your reality means I have to hang out with rapists and Klansmen and assholes all in the name of "tolerance", I'll pass.

Well, if living in your reality means I have to hang out with rapists and Klansmen and assholes all in the name of "tolerance", I'll pass.

Notice the semantic usage here.

Here, the tolerant Muslim equates Christianity with rape.

So you've got them there ... why not make friends with them? Give me one good solid reason why you would never hang out with someone who liked to hang black people from trees.

Because murder is a criminal activity. Christianity however is not (except in Saudia Arabia)

In Keru's view, any Muslim is a far better and more tolerant person than a person of any other religion (or lack thereof). To him, a Muslim is less likely to do anything wrong.


No ... I've always detested Christians ... ever since I was a young lad. I've only been a Muslim for 2 weeks. So ... might want to re-examine your thinking there.

Because murder is a criminal activity. Christianity however is not (except in Saudia Arabia)


I said "liked to hang black people" ... not actually did the deed. Now give me one good solid reason why you would not hang out with such a person.

I guess that's why we saved Europe's ass twice in one century. Obviously, they couldn't handle governing themselves, either.

It's also why we had to stop some of them from shoveling people into gas fired ovens.

1) Dont forget the Russians, the freed the other half of Europe

2) The only reason you "saved us" is that you were late. Had you been involved in the conflict as long as the British, you would have been as drained as we were.

I said "liked to hang black people" ... not actually did the deed. Now give me one good solid reason why you would not hang out with such a person.

Ok because they "Want" to commit a criminal act, for no other reason than the coulor of their skin. Christians have no such comparability.

You know, Keru, I don't usually hang with religious zealots of any kind, but I do have some as friends. Religious wars of any kind have brought a lot of misery in history, and the Muslims rank up there with the Christians in terms of killing.

That's why I give great credit to the Mongols, for breaking the reign of the Caliphate and destroying Islam's oppression in 1258. It's a date that even OBL remembers with pain.

Don't start for a minute and tell me that your religion is better while accusing another religion of the same thing.

Ok because they "Want" to commit a criminal act, for no other reason than the coulor of their skin. Christians have no such comparability.

Really? What about all those good Christians who want to kill gay people (or who have killed gay people) because Jesus commands them to do so? Is killing a gay person not a criminal activity?

Need sources and references? Try http://www.godhatesfags.com/

Would you hang out with that guy or his group? Will you next tell me that these people aren't really Christians and that they shouldn't count? Isn't that your own bigotted ideas against them?

Do you not understand that we all have the right to pick and choose who we hang out with and I have chosen not to hang out with Christians or Republicans by my own free will and there is nothing you can do or say that will make me change my mind any more than anything I do or say will make you think Muslims don't all teach their sons how to blow up school children?

And you still think you're better than me just because I logged ONE negative word about the liberals posting here. I probably could have used a better word but I didn't, I'm not going to apologize for that. .
No...You wouldn't...would you. Because you MEANT it. You let your true colors show. Oops...hey, look, everyone...the Emperor has no clothes!!

Don't start for a minute and tell me that your religion is better while accusing another religion of the same thing.

I never said mine was better, I only said it was right for me. FOR ME. That is the Muslim (and Jewish) attitude.

Christians say theirs is the only way for all people - regardless - as proven by John 14:6. Nothing in the Universe can take away my right to not hang out with people who actually believe such drivel.

Notice the semantic usage here.

Here, the tolerant Muslim equates Christianity with rape.
Wasn't mohammed a pedophile?

Wasn't mohammed a pedophile?

No.

1) Dont forget the Russians, the freed the other half of Europe

2) The only reason you "saved us" is that you were late. Had you been involved in the conflict as long as the British, you would have been as drained as we were.
Actually the Russians enslaved the other half of the continent, and had we come in at the start with our greater productive capacity that was, in effect, untouchable the war would've been over much quicker.

No.
Sooo, Aisha wasn't nine years old, hmmm.

Really? What about all those good Christians who want to kill gay people (or who have killed gay people) because Jesus commands them to do so? Is killing a gay person not a criminal activity?

Need sources and references? Try http://www.godhatesfags.com/

Would you hang out with that guy or his group? Will you next tell me that these people aren't really Christians and that they shouldn't count? Isn't that your own bigotted ideas against them?

Do you not understand that we all have the right to pick and choose who we hang out with and I have chosen not to hang out with Christians or Republicans by my own free will and there is nothing you can do or say that will make me change my mind any more than anything I do or say will make you think Muslims don't all teach their sons how to blow up school children?


I'm a bisexual, and I go to a church full of these people. I'm not a dyed in the wool Christian (my daughter is), but it's nice to hang out with people who are willing to turn the other cheek.

Yes, they know I'm that way. And they pray for me. They don't drive me away. They don't judge me, because they're told not to.

And I sing in their choir, because I like singing. And I'm welcome there.

We're talking Pentacostal Christians here...

Sooo, Aisha wasn't nine years old, hmmm.

I guess it depends on your definition of "nine".

It's not based on a single experience ... trust me.

I am curious, though, as to why it's such a big deal that I have the freedom to pick and choose who I hang out with ...

I could care less who you hang out with. Saying that every Christian is a hypocrite, however, is an attack on me personally, and a patently untrue one at that.

Seems like both groups in U.S. politics like to think of themselves as victims.
But to me, it's apparent that the "tolerance" practiced by the social liberal is different from that practiced by the social conservative. I think the reason why so many people get hung up on this is that liberals are -- and I'm intentionally phrasing this poorly -- able to justify being intolerant only of the intolerant. Libertarians and anarcho-syndicalists, incidentally, agree with a lot of what the Democrats have to say about the government having no part in enforcing morals on society. .

Which is WHY I am able to have a rational, civil discussion with a Libertarian. We may not see eye-to-eye on economic issues, but at least we do on social issues. Incidentally, I'm a rather regular listener to Neal Boortz, who is a Libertarian. I don't agree with most of his economic stances, but I sure love it when he whales on the Bible-thumpers!

Which is WHY I am able to have a rational, civil discussion with a Libertarian. We may not see eye-to-eye on economic issues, but at least we do on social issues. Incidentally, I'm a rather regular listener to Neal Boortz, who is a Libertarian. I don't agree with most of his economic stances, but I sure love it when he whales on the Bible-thumpers!

Hmm. So it's not possible to be a Libertarian *and* a Bible-thumper? Fascinating! I haven't seen anything so false in my life.

Sooo, Aisha wasn't nine years old, hmmm.

Nope.

1. The famous classical historian of Islam, Ibn Jarir Tabari, wrote in his ‘History’:

“In the time before Islam, Abu Bakr married two women. The first was Fatila daughter of Abdul Uzza, from whom Abdullah and Asma were born. Then he married Umm Ruman, from whom Abdur Rahman and Aisha were born. These four were born before Islam.” (Tarikh Tabari, vol. 4, p. 50.)

Being born before Islam means being born before the Call.

2. The compiler of the famous Hadith collection Mishkat al-Masabih, Imam Wali-ud-Din Muhammad ibn Abdullah Al-Khatib, who died 700 years ago, has also written brief biographical notes on the narrators of Hadith reports. He writes under Asma, the older daughter of Abu Bakr:

“She was the sister of Aisha Siddiqa, wife of the Holy Prophet, and was ten years older than her. … In 73 A.H. … Asma died at the age of one hundred years.” (Mishkat al-Masabih, Edition with Urdu translation published in Lahore, 1986, vol. 3, p. 300–301.)

This would make Asma 28 years of age in 1 A.H., the year of the Hijra, thus making Aisha 18 years old in 1 A.H. So Aisha would be 19 years old at the time of the consummation of her marriage, and 14 or 15 years old at the time of her nikah (incidentally, Joseph married Mary, mother of Jesus, when she was 14). It would place her year of birth at four or five years before the Call.

3. The same statement is made by the famous classical commentator of the Holy Quran, Ibn Kathir, in his book Al-bidayya wal-nihaya:

“Asma died in 73 A.H. at the age of one hundred years. She was ten years older than her sister Aisha.” (Vol. 8, p. 346.)

Apart from these three evidences, which are presented in the Urdu pamphlet referred to above, we also note that the birth of Aisha being a little before the Call is consistent with the opening words of a statement by her which is recorded four times in Bukhari. Those words are as follows:

“Ever since I can remember (or understand things) my parents were following the religion of Islam.”

This is tantamount to saying that she was born sometime before her parents accepted Islam but she can only remember them practising Islam. No doubt she and her parents knew well whether she was born before or after they accepted Islam, as their acceptance of Islam was such a landmark event in their life which took place just after the Holy Prophet received his mission from God. If she had been born after they accepted Islam it would make no sense for her to say that she always remembered them as following Islam. Only if she was born before they accepted Islam, would it make sense for her to say that she can only remember them being Muslims, as she was too young to remember things before their conversion. This is consistent with her being born before the Call, and being perhaps four or five years old at the time of the Call, which was also almost the time when her parents accepted Islam.

Which is WHY I am able to have a rational, civil discussion with a Libertarian. We may not see eye-to-eye on economic issues, but at least we do on social issues. Incidentally, I'm a rather regular listener to Neal Boortz, who is a Libertarian. I don't agree with most of his economic stances, but I sure love it when he whales on the Bible-thumpers!

Umm... Libertarian social issue: gun control - they don't buy it. So not all social issues.

Do you not understand that we all have the right to pick and choose who we hang out with and I have chosen not to hang out with Christians or Republicans by my own free will and there is nothing you can do or say that will make me change my mind any more than anything I do or say will make you think Muslims don't all teach their sons how to blow up school children?

You miss my point. I dont believe that all Muslims teach their kids to blow people up, I was being hypotheical. However you yourself have stated that you dont hang out with Christians because you believe they are all homophobic/racist etc hypocrytes. For a site on the perspective of Christianity on Homosexuality, see here

http://robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf

I guess that's why we saved Europe's ass twice in one century. Obviously, they couldn't handle governing themselves, either.

It's also why we had to stop some of them from shoveling people into gas fired ovens.

And there are those in THIS country, that would advocate shoving "certain" people into gas-fired ovens themselves!

In Pat Robertson's 1988 book, he actually advocated the summary rounding up and execution of all gays (and, I assume, by extension...he also meant lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders) Meaning he advocates that I get shoved into one of those ovens.

Yes, they know I'm that way. And they pray for me. They don't drive me away. They don't judge me, because they're told not to.


They pray for you .... why? So that you may see the light and change your hedonistic condemned ways? So that Jesus may cure you of your affliction? So that they can have the strength not to call you "fag" in public?

Why do they pray for you? Is there something wrong with your bisexuality that requires divine intervention?

They pray for you .... why? So that you may see the light and change your hedonistic condemned ways? So that Jesus may cure you of your affliction? So that they can have the strength not to call you "fag" in public?

Why do they pray for you? Is there something wrong with your bisexuality that requires divine intervention?

Maybe they think so. But at least they care to ask God about it rather than cut my head off on video tape after calling me a blasphemer.

I never said mine was better, I only said it was right for me. FOR ME. That is the Muslim (and Jewish) attitude.

Christians say theirs is the only way for all people - regardless - as proven by John 14:6. Nothing in the Universe can take away my right to not hang out with people who actually believe such drivel.

Islam is an exclusive religion just as much as Christianity. It too believes in one God alone. We do accept that other people may chose to go other ways and we dont force people to go our way but we believe our way is right, as much as Jews and Muslims believe their way is right.

They pray for you .... why? So that you may see the light and change your hedonistic condemned ways? So that Jesus may cure you of your affliction? So that they can have the strength not to call you "fag" in public?

Why do they pray for you? Is there something wrong with your bisexuality that requires divine intervention?

Hate to break it to you, but Islam also believes homosexual sex is a sin, see your Qu'ran.

What! Of all creatures, do you approach males and leave the spouses whom your Lord has created for you? Indeed, you are people transgressing [all limits]" (Quran 26: 165-6) and "Do you commit adultery as no people in creation [ever] committed before you? For you practise your lusts on men in preference to women: You are indeed a people transgressing beyond limits." (Quran 7:84).

Hate to break it to you, but Islam also believes homosexual sex is a sin, see your Qu'ran.

What! Of all creatures, do you approach males and leave the spouses whom your Lord has created for you? Indeed, you are people transgressing [all limits]" (Quran 26: 165-6) and "Do you commit adultery as no people in creation [ever] committed before you? For you practise your lusts on men in preference to women: You are indeed a people transgressing beyond limits." (Quran 7:84).

Neo, Keru is going to say that's a bad translation. Any translation that contradicts Keru's vision of Islam is a bad translation.

MUIE :headbang:

Neo, Keru is going to say that's a bad translation. Any translation that contradicts Keru's vision of Islam is a bad translation.

Doesnt matter, all the Muslims I know agree that Homosexual sex is a sin to Islam as much as it is to Christianity. And I know loads of Muslims.

MUIE :headbang:

????

Please… WHAT?

Anyway. To business. In answer to the forum's question: 'Cos many Americans (note the "many" not "all") are blind to his economic policies, were duped about many things, seem to think that everyone having guns makes the country safer, and don't know much about the economy. I'm sorry, but I can't think of any other reason.

In a nutshell, we want to live OUR lives, as WE see fit...without outside interference. Is that so much to want?

That's what I want. That's why I vote here:
www.lp.org (http://www.lp.org) :D

As a Libertarian, I'm pro-everything.

Gays? Be gay, enjoy all that gayness has to offer!

Guns? Sure, get lots of 'em!

God? Absolutely! Whichever one you want!

That's what I want. That's why I vote here:
www.lp.org (http://www.lp.org) :D

As a Libertarian, I'm pro-everything.

Gays? Be gay, enjoy all that gayness has to offer!

Guns? Sure, get lots of 'em!

God? Absolutely! Whichever one you want!

• The policy of intervening was what won the two World Wars.
• The current free market policy is bad for workers.

Just thought I'd say that.

Guns? Only flamethrowers and fusion-powered linear magnetic accelerated hydrogen-fueled PLASMA Guns!

Is it because they are hard-hearted, cruel, and mean?

Often.

Is it because they sincerely enjoy telling others what to do?

Even more often.

Is it because they enjoy pushing their "moral" values down everyone else's throat?

I think you hit the nail on the head.

Is it because they are afraid of anyone who is different?

They generally won't admit it, but that's what it boils down to.

Is it because they are afraid more people will find "different" to be appealing, and more comfortable than the narrow, confining, suffocating, spirit and life-draining social "norms?"

Their faith is generally so weak that they think they, their children, and all of their friends will run out to try the latest "immorality."

Is everyone going to ignore this rather obvious piece of political science

Liberals believe in the mouthpiece model wich is

1) A polician (Miss Library) is voted into a seat of government
2) Miss Lib believes that people voted for her because she will listen to their worries, concerns and opinions and bring attention to them in government
3) This she then goes about doing. Attempting to bring every single issue which is given to her into the govenrments adgend

Conservitves however have a diffrent idea. This is called the delegate model

1) A politicain (Mrs Cone) is voted into a seat of government
2) Mrs Cone believes that people voted for her because they agreed with the beliefs/opinions/ideas/morals that she said she had before going into the election.
3) Because of this she has a mandate to do her best to bring to light in government issues that align with what she said she believed in/supported etc at the time of the election.

Is everyone going to ignore this rather obvious piece of political science

Liberals believe in the mouthpiece model wich is

1) A polician (Miss Library) is voted into a seat of government
2) Miss Lib believes that people voted for her because she will listen to their worries, concerns and opinions and bring attention to them in government
3) This she then goes about doing. Attempting to bring every single issue which is given to her into the govenrments adgend

Which is true representation and means that even the (possibly 49%) people who didn't vote for you are represented.

Conservitves however have a diffrent idea. This is called the delegate model

1) A politicain (Mrs Cone) is voted into a seat of government
2) Mrs Cone believes that people voted for her because they agreed with the beliefs/opinions/ideas/morals that she said she had before going into the election.
3) Because of this she has a mandate to do her best to bring to light in government issues that align with what she said she believed in/supported etc at the time of the election.

This is idiotic, especially in the current US system where almost no one wins by a landslide. Very few people have any sort of mandate, and the politicians run on such broad platforms that no one tends to agree with all of it.

Of course, neither of these applies to Bush, as he says what people want to hear when trying to get elected, and then does whatever he wants and calls it a mandate once he's there (as per his first election). He also completely ignores the fact that he represents *all* of the constituents, not just the ones that voted for him.

• The current free market policy is bad for workers.

I'm not sure I'd agree with the 'free market' statement there. I'm not convinced we have a true free market. We have a market that is managed to be favorable to corporate interests, whereas a truly free market wouldn't tolerate the cronyism that is allowed to exist right now under the current administration.

Guns? Only flamethrowers and fusion-powered linear magnetic accelerated hydrogen-fueled PLASMA Guns!

Sure, but you know somebody is going to want to put a five day waiting period on that last one.

You can call it idiotic all you want, but they are two of the models of electroal represntation. The fact is that some politicans believe that they have the duty to reperesent as many people as they can because they were elected by loads of people, where as some believe that because they were elected on the basis of what their policies/ideals were then they must represent these ideals and representing other people would be betraying what he/she said at the election. Liberals follow the former, Conservatives the latter.

I'm not keen on gays......I think that the key to coming together as a people and a world is tolerance.
Hypocrisy, anyone?

I've always wondered THIS.
Why do so many people vote against their own, and most everyone else's ECONOMIC interests, in favor of the "GAGG issues" (guns, abortion, gays, god?) Why do these issues hold more weight than their own economic best interests?


I'm coming in late, so I'll apologize ahead of time if this was already asked.

What sort of example do you have of conservatives voting against the majority economic interests? People can certainly hold views on a bunch of topics without conflict. Economics and morality might be loosely tied together, but I'd like to hear how.

I guess that's why we saved Europe's ass twice in one century. Obviously, they couldn't handle governing themselves, either.

I appreciate America saving our asses, but remember, entry into WW1 and WW2 were unpopular decisions at the time.

Hypocrisy, anyone?

I don't think so. There's a difference between tolerance and acceptance. Tolerance means you're just putting up with something.

I appreciate America saving our asses, but remember, entry into WW1 and WW2 were unpopular decisions at the time.
Well, if we had the press then that we have now, all of Europe would be doing the goosestep.

After all, I'm sure that Chamberlain's efforts would have been regarded by Dan Rather as the end-all-be-all of diplomacy. And any effort by us to not accept that agreement would be considered right-wing warmongering.

Well, Keruvalia, I'm still waiting. Are you going to provide any justification for calling me a hateful hypocrite?

Well, Keruvalia, I'm still waiting. Are you going to provide any justification for calling me a hateful hypocrite?
You'll be waiting quite a while. He doesn't apologize for being a bigot.

Of course, neither of these applies to Bush, as he says what people want to hear when trying to get elected, and then does whatever he wants and calls it a mandate once he's there (as per his first election).

Sounds like he learned something from watching Slick Willy aka Hilbillery Clinton.

You can call it idiotic all you want, but they are two of the models of electroal represntation. The fact is that some politicans believe that they have the duty to reperesent as many people as they can because they were elected by loads of people, where as some believe that because they were elected on the basis of what their policies/ideals were then they must represent these ideals and representing other people would be betraying what he/she said at the election. Liberals follow the former, Conservatives the latter.

And as I pointed out, in the current US system, the latter is pretty much completely wrong.

Sounds like he learned something from watching Slick Willy aka Hilbillery Clinton.

Could be. It's pretty much the politician's creed. Bush just makes it exceedingly obvious, while Clinton at least attempted to listen to both sides. Clinton appealed to everyone, and acted as if he represented everyone (although there were obviously many who disagreed with him as well.

Bush, on the other hand, states a mandate when there clearly is not one, and makes it very clear that he represents *only* those who agree with him. When asked, he expresses complete surprise that anyone could *possibly* disagree with him and the answer is usually "I don't think the American people think that" or "I don't think the American people would do that." Never mind that nearly 50% of them do.

I knew a man once who was Christian. Nice man. Did a lot for his community and his church and all of that. I once asked him what he thought of Jerry Falwell and he said, "Falwell is a racist scumbag who should have been strangled at birth. He is not a Christian and he gives us all a bad name. Do not, under any circumstances, let someone like Falwell give you an impression of Christians."

Two months later, as the Towers fell, the same man said, "Fuckin' Osama bin Laden! All Muslims should be shot in the face!"

Hidden within even the kindest exterior of a Christian is a hypocrite just screaming to be let out.

I'm sorry you've never met a Christian with better sense than that. There are some of us out here, though I'll understand if you have your doubts.

You'll be waiting quite a while. He doesn't apologize for being a bigot.

I don't want him to apologize. I want him to back it up. It shouldn't be too hard... after all, I am a Christian.

Hidden within even the kindest exterior of a Christian is a hypocrite just screaming to be let out.

Yeah, thanks Keru. You've just turned *me* off to anything you say - and I'm usually trying to support you.

Could be. It's pretty much the politician's creed. Bush just makes it exceedingly obvious, while Clinton at least attempted to listen to both sides. Clinton appealed to everyone, and acted as if he represented everyone (although there were obviously many who disagreed with him as well.

Bush, on the other hand, states a mandate when there clearly is not one, and makes it very clear that he represents *only* those who agree with him. When asked, he expresses complete surprise that anyone could *possibly* disagree with him and the answer is usually "I don't think the American people think that" or "I don't think the American people would do that." Never mind that nearly 50% of them do.

I'll agree that Bush has lost his mind in claiming to have a mandate when pretty much half the country disagrees with him. But, Clinton never listened to both sides. If he had he and Hill would never have tried to ramrod socialized medicine down our throats. Of course he learned to pander a little better after losing that battle. It isn't wrong that he believed in socialized medicine and tried to get it past, I'm just glad congress used what little sense it had to block the attempt.

Really? What about all those good Christians who want to kill gay people (or who have killed gay people) because Jesus commands them to do so? Is killing a gay person not a criminal activity?

Need sources and references? Try http://www.godhatesfags.com/

Would you hang out with that guy or his group? Will you next tell me that these people aren't really Christians and that they shouldn't count? Isn't that your own bigotted ideas against them?


Hmm. Sounds to me like dicto simpliciter.
So these people dislike homosexuals. Great, I'm not planning on inviting them to any parties. What does this have to do with all Christians? Sure, some Christians are idiots. But in what way can you logically derive from this that they all are? Do you truly believe that is rational?

I'm sure you have correctly gathered, by any reading of these questions...that I am an extremely Liberal person. I'm PROUD to be a Liberal.

If you define "Liberal" as one who stands up for the little guy, the oppressed, the disenfranchised, the minorities of society, the ones who are left out of the system...the ones who put the most into the system, and get the least out...then I am a Liberal, and PROUD to be one.
very well said son. couldnt have said it better myself.
but i disagree with this...
I do not get it. Why is their fear so over-riding that it would cause them to vote against their own economic self-interest. The GOP basically cares only for the uber-wealthy. And, by definition, most people...and most conservatives...are not that. So why do they do it?

in this country (UK btw), at least, poorer people tend to be the liberals - or at least the left-wing of society. The 'poor workin class attitude', stereotypically.
just thought id throw that in ;)

And there are those in THIS country, that would advocate shoving "certain" people into gas-fired ovens themselves!

In Pat Robertson's 1988 book, he actually advocated the summary rounding up and execution of all gays (and, I assume, by extension...he also meant lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders) Meaning he advocates that I get shoved into one of those ovens.
True, but the biggest difference between him and those shoved into gas-fired ovens is that he owns a gun and will use it, and others will also come to his defense. In which case the ones doing the shoving will be mightily screwed.

Islam is an exclusive religion just as much as Christianity. It too believes in one God alone. We do accept that other people may chose to go other ways and we dont force people to go our way but we believe our way is right, as much as Jews and Muslims believe their way is right.


Do you fail to see the difference between believing something to be universally right and being individually right?

Muslims believe that Islam is right for Muslims. That's it.

Christians believe the whole world should be Christian.

Hate to break it to you, but Islam also believes homosexual sex is a sin, see your Qu'ran.


I never said it wasn't. However, a Muslim does not feel the need to "cure" a homosexual. It's not up to us. It's between the individual and Allah and none of our business. You'll find that the vast majority of Muslims really don't care one way or the other about homosexuality simply because it isn't any of our business.

Neo, Keru is going to say that's a bad translation. Any translation that contradicts Keru's vision of Islam is a bad translation.


Once again you open your mouth without knowledge.

Well, Keruvalia, I'm still waiting. Are you going to provide any justification for calling me a hateful hypocrite?

Meh ... you're a Christian and, thus, are such by default. Live with it.

1. Gun control doesn't work as well as I'd have hoped; this coming from an ex-advocate of gun control

2. Conservatives don't favor God; true conservatives are not the neo-cons that everybody makes them out to be.

3. "In Favor . . . Gays??" that statement is incoherent; it almost implies Conservs favor gays . . . when conservs and liberts. in reality don't favor or disfavor em

4. Conservatives don't vote against economic interests; conservatives (or at least legitimate ones) subscribe to what is known as "fiscal responsibility" and "lesser spending"; you are just mistaking them for the greedy pigs who are abusing their economic power

Meh ... you're a Christian and, thus, are such by default. Live with it.
Isn't this a case of the pot calling the kettle copper?

Yeah, thanks Keru. You've just turned *me* off to anything you say - and I'm usually trying to support you.

While support is often appreciated, it is never required. I simply cannot abide a religion that is built, at its core, upon the denegration of others. If they do it to other peoples for 1800 years, then its simply called "evolving religion". If it gets turned around on them, it's called "bigotry".

Such is the way of the Christian mind.

Isn't this a case of the pot calling the kettle copper?

If I were Christian, perhaps.

If I were Christian, perhaps.
Why am I not surprised at the response.

Why am I not surprised at the response.

Because it wasn't designed to create a sense of surprise?

Because it wasn't designed to create a sense of surprise?
If I wanted an answer there would have been a ?. There was no ?.

wait wait wait wait; lemme get this straight, you think liberal vote AGAINST peoples ECONOMIC interesrst in the 'GAGG' issues? how i ask you is that even possible, I understand about guns and economics, but abortion, gays and god? last time I looked at a dictionary, Economis had to do with money, and abortion, gays and god did not, maybe my grasp of the english language is insufficient to grasp your point (Unlikely, I made straight A's in that class and i've been speaking the language for, leme see, oh yea, my WHOLE FING LIFE), I mean honestly, what possible ECONOMIC bearing could these three issues have on ANYTHING to the depth where changing the tolerance levels of them would be for or against anyones interrests?

If I wanted an answer there would have been a ?. There was no ?.

"Why" is an interrogative adjective and implies a question when placed at the beginning of a sentence regardless of the punctuation at the end. The word you may be searching for is "rhetorical" and since it was a rhetorical question, I gave a rhetorical answer.

I've always wondered THIS.

I post this thread in response to the thread about Liberals supposedly wanting to completely ban guns.

Why do so many people vote against their own, and most everyone else's ECONOMIC interests, in favor of the "GAGG issues" (guns, abortion, gays, god?) Why do these issues hold more weight than their own economic best interests?

Guns:
Why would voting to uphold the 2nd Amendment be against my economic interests? ( If I were a gun dealer voting for banning or even restricting gun sales would be against my economic interests whould it not? )

Abortion:
Personally I am against abortion becuase I believe that any child of mine deserves a chance at living their lives, and if that causes me economic hardship so be it. I think the life of one of my children is worth any price I need to pay

On the other hand I have to admit that the Roe Effect is having a positive effect on society. Roe Effect in a nutshell.
Conservitives tend to hold the life of an unborn child more precious than practically any other consideration, thus when pregnant they tend to have that child and raise them. Most of these children raised in a conservitive family ( as long as it isnt oppresive or abusive and I dont believe that most conservitive households are either of these things as a whole ) tend to addopt conservitive values.

Liberals on the other hand are more likely to have abortions for a variety of reasons thus there are few children raised in liberal households and if they were never born they never get to vote.

Thus the ratio of conservitive voters to liberal voters slowly changes over the years. Note it has been almost 30 years since Roe versus Wade, in that time Democrats have lost control of the House and the Senate and the number of Republican to Democrat Presidents in the last twenty years 3 to 1 ( Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush ) or ( Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton Bush, and Bush again if we are looking torward the future ) Democrates have also lost a hold on the majority of governerships in this timeframe, and are losing hold in State Senates as well.

In other words I dont care about abortion as a voting issue.

Gays:
Hummmm...never thought of someones gayness being an economic issue to me at all. Care to expound on this and tell me how this relates to my families budget?....The only thought that comes to mind is that Married Gays would have the ability to file joint tax returns.....but I an not certain that would have anything but an insignificant effect on the Federal budget and thus none on my own.

God:
Now here is a quandry, Voting on moral issues? Such as? Because I cant for the life of me ever recall thinking that any particular issue as being Moral or Immoral...just good ideas or bad ideas....the bullet train for Florida being an example, just costed far too much (25 Billion) to be possibly worth the money. Now if they had on the ballot a measure legalizing Pedophillia...then yes I would vote on that as a moral issue...Gambling? What other people do with thier money is their concern...remeber never get between a fool and their folly....its just not healthy


Is it because they are hard-hearted, cruel, and mean?

Are the mahority of people you know this way?....My own experience has shown me examples of all of these traits but thankfully they have been rarity. Most people I have known in my life, ( say a thousand overall ) have genrally been Good natured, kind courteous and gentle people. If your experience is different I am sorry that it has been so....


Is it because they sincerely enjoy telling others what to do?

I have seen this trait too....but on both sides....Pollitical correctness is just another form of telling people what they can not say or do....Just about the same as a society that frowns on Gay Marriage is trying to tell those involved what they can not do....sad really on both sides of the coin.

I have also noted that people with a desire to tell others what to do are usually doing it out of a couple of reasons
a.) To dominate others around them so they feel superior
b.) Are just plain sick and tired of dealing with people that wont think for themselves and thus they take charge to get things done

But that just my opinion


Is it because they enjoy pushing their "moral" values down everyone else's throat?

I figure the Ten Commandments pretty much says it all....For me anyway...others it would be the Qa`ran or the Torah or whatever.
Someone comes along and tells me I must support animal rights or some such drivel I listen to them politely, and then tell them that their opinion on this issue is irrelevent to me and I am sorry but no, I will not sign their petition nor give their cause money.
Now if they come to me and speak of Supporting the Hungry or the Sick or the Widows and orphans, yeah I open up the wallet and give what I can...because I feel that while I have little to spare they have less and so I feel morally obliged to help them....now that is against my economic self interest...but I sleep good at night....


Is it because they are afraid of anyone who is different?

Maybe some are motivated by this...Xenophobia has been a curse of mankind since we came along....but to think that this is a main issue when voting? How did the Bullet train or the issue of having to propose a ballot initiative at least 9 months prior to the next election have anything to do with this?


Is it because they are afraid more people will find "different" to be appealing, and more comfortable than the narrow, confining, suffocating, spirit and life-draining social "norms?"

Obviously they find thier social "norms" to be fullfilling to their own lives...perhaps they vote to maintain what they perceive as a good thing....could it be they just dont perceive things they way you do?



What exactly is it?

I do not get it. Why is their fear so over-riding that it would cause them to vote against their own economic self-interest.

I still have not found a linkage between these issues and economics...examples please...



The GOP basically cares only for the uber-wealthy. And, by definition, most people...and most conservatives...are not that. So why do they do it?

Perhaps because they perceive the GOP as being less restrictive on bussineses and thus their own bussines has a better chance of growth under a less regulative government? Perhaps they are voting for conservitive issues having nothing to do with economics?

And who are these Uber-Wealthy anyway?? The top 1%? 5%, 10%? 25%? Explain who yur talking about....Oh and heres a question for you...How much money do you have to make to be in the top 10%


Why do these issues cause the knee-jerk reaction? I totally do not understand!

Perhaps because some people have emotional ties to these issues? Or have thought long and hard on these issues and feel they have the answer ( or at least the answer for themselves anyway...like me on abortion for my unborn children...and yes...if the child was going to be born with spina bifida or some other birth defect I would still want them to have thier chance however short at life and have a chance to show them that they are loved and cherished )

Do these people not REALIZE they are voting against their own economic intersts?

Again your ties on these issues seem to be extreemly tenuous at best to me..Clarify...

Are they too stupid to see it? Or are they too mean to care? do they so badly want to hurt others that they are willing to be hurt themselves, in order to hurt others?

Please explain.

By the way you choose to ask the question I doubt that you will understand my points that I have made....you have thought long and hard on this and you already have the answer.....or at least the answer that seems right to you....



I'm sure you have correctly gathered, by any reading of these questions...that I am an extremely Liberal person. I'm PROUD to be a Liberal.

Good for you! As a democracy we NEED more than one veiwpoint, we need open dialog and rational discussion, we need to be open to new ideas and we need to have these discusions, debates, and ideas brough up in public forums.....without the needless name calling or casting assperations at the intellegence, kindness or decency of our opponents.


If you define "Liberal" as one who stands up for the little guy, the oppressed, the disenfranchised, the minorities of society, the ones who are left out of the system...the ones who put the most into the system, and get the least out...then I am a Liberal, and PROUD to be one.

I suppose thats one definition. But I am curious...you state "Put the most into the system?...How so? Taxes? Stable Family groupings? Law abiding? What do you mean by this statement??

if its taxes then see
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls
and scroll down to row 161 to see who pays what percentage of the personal taxes levied by the government
and if your curious...I am in the top 25% according to row 46....does that make me Uber-Wealthy? :D

Respectfully

AAhhzz

I've always wondered THIS.

I post this thread in response to the thread about Liberals supposedly wanting to completely ban guns.

Why do so many people vote against their own, and most everyone else's ECONOMIC interests, in favor of the "GAGG issues" (guns, abortion, gays, god?) Why do these issues hold more weight than their own economic best interests?

Is it because they are hard-hearted, cruel, and mean?

Is it because they sincerely enjoy telling others what to do?

Is it because they enjoy pushing their "moral" values down everyone else's throat?

Is it because they are afraid of anyone who is different?

Is it because they are afraid more people will find "different" to be appealing, and more comfortable than the narrow, confining, suffocating, spirit and life-draining social "norms?"

What exactly is it?

I do not get it. Why is their fear so over-riding that it would cause them to vote against their own economic self-interest. The GOP basically cares only for the uber-wealthy. And, by definition, most people...and most conservatives...are not that. So why do they do it?

Why do these issues cause the knee-jerk reaction? I totally do not understand! Do these people not REALIZE they are voting against their own economic intersts? Are they too stupid to see it? Or are they too mean to care? do they so badly want to hurt others that they are willing to be hurt themselves, in order to hurt others?

Please explain.

I'm sure you have correctly gathered, by any reading of these questions...that I am an extremely Liberal person. I'm PROUD to be a Liberal.

If you define "Liberal" as one who stands up for the little guy, the oppressed, the disenfranchised, the minorities of society, the ones who are left out of the system...the ones who put the most into the system, and get the least out...then I am a Liberal, and PROUD to be one.

Economics is a complex issue and does not fit into the sound-byte dominated media. Even then, those who take time to read deeper and listen are confronted by economic 'experts' on both sides explaining why the Dem-policy or the Rep-policy (which really, really, don't seem extremely different at all when one looks at the legislations pushed - it becomes clear that it is a matter of degree rather than an actual difference) is better.

So, what people are left with are the GAGG issues, the wedge issues, which are pushed in a do-unto-others-before-they-do-unto-you type manner. So the answer to all of the above would be yes - when it comes to politics at least, but no if you mean is that the general nature of their personality. You see, politics in the United States has been turned into a spectator-sport, with the two rival teams competing. The goal is to crush the other side. As in sports, the fans of the team in the lead is always going to be yelling loudest for the final crushing blow.

The politicians and the media have set up the us-vs-them mentality. It has stopped many, many people on both sides from seeing the opposition as human, from being even able to consider the other sides viewpoint. It is sad.

Writen by a liberal. Not a Democrat.

So, what people are left with are the GAGG issues, the wedge issues, which are pushed in a do-unto-others-before-they-do-unto-you type manner. So the answer to all of the above would be yes - when it comes to politics at least, but no if you mean is that the general nature of their personality. You see, politics in the United States has been turned into a spectator-sport, with the two rival teams competing. The goal is to crush the other side. As in sports, the fans of the team in the lead is always going to be yelling loudest for the final crushing blow.

The politicians and the media have set up the us-vs-them mentality. It has stopped many, many people on both sides from seeing the opposition as human, from being even able to consider the other sides viewpoint. It is sad.

Writen by a liberal. Not a Democrat.

Ohhhh..Well Said Indeed.......Thank you

Generally, we as conservatives are against entitlements, and against taking money away from the working public to give, with no strings attached, to the non-working (and capable) public.

Furthermore, we're sick of having immoral actions portrayed to us as perfectly acceptable (abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia), and we're forced to be tolerant of things we find unacceptable.

I just don't understand the "against one's own economic interest" argument, as Conservatives tend to cut taxes for everyone, and everyone benefits. It's liberals (and Democrats) that tend to tax the hell out of us and give the money to people who don't deserve it.

Just speaking as someone who's tired of seeing his tax money go to support others, when I can't make ends meet.

So you would rather force your intolerance onto other people?

Tolerance means letting people decide for themselves. You would never be required to do anything you consider immoral. However, when you force a limited definition of morality onto others (justifying by saying you are tired of being forced to be tolerant), then you are FORCING THEM TO GO AGAINST THEIR OWN MORAL VALUES.

Which -if it were an issue that would work against your own morals - would you feel was worse: forced tolerance without forced compliance, or forced compliance?

Just remember, in dictating laws which will allow you to not have to tolerate things, you are dictating that others be forced into moral actions against their will. Tolerance is merely doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Because murder is a criminal activity. Christianity however is not (except in Saudia Arabia)

chritianity a crime in sauidi arabia? and bush does BUSINESS there?

if you-eth a bush supporter, thou hast tiedeth his own noose.

(lil old post, but...)

You can call it idiotic all you want, but they are two of the models of electroal represntation. The fact is that some politicans believe that they have the duty to reperesent as many people as they can because they were elected by loads of people, where as some believe that because they were elected on the basis of what their policies/ideals were then they must represent these ideals and representing other people would be betraying what he/she said at the election. Liberals follow the former, Conservatives the latter.
So, basically, you are owning up to the fact that conservatives, when they win, say "Fuck You" to 49% of the people in their district...when they are SUPPOSED to represent everyone in the district for which they are elected.

These conservatives...I hate them as much as I do BECAUSE of this very fact. Not only do they push an agenda I do not agree with...but they push one which is inimical to MY self-interest...and when I ask them to represent ME...as is their job...they tell me, "Fuck You! Not only am I not going to represent you and your concerns...but I'm going to do everything in my power to fuck you over even worse...and it's because you didn't vote for me!"

Well, I got two words for them, too. Those two words are "you" and "fuck." Not necessarily in that order, either.

I will continue to do EVERYTHING in my legal power to stop these fascist bastards from destroying a country I once was proud to call my home. Now I can barely stand it. I have friends on the Net from around the world, and I am EMBARRASSED to admit I am an American. And scared, to...as well, for fear that they will hate ME...because I am American, and thus represent everything THEY hate. I have to reassure them that I am NOT the majority of Americans, and that I hate our current policies as badly as they do...and that these asswipes sure as HELL do not speak for, or represent ME...or my views!

God Bless John and Teresa
God Bless John and Elizabeth
God Bless Bill and Hillary
God Bless Jimmy and Roslyn
God Bless Lyndon and Lady Bird
God Bless John and Jackie
GOD BLESS DEMOCRATS!!

I don't think so. There's a difference between tolerance and acceptance. Tolerance means you're just putting up with something.
I agree. In fact, I'd say that "tolerance" carries an implied feeling of superiority on the part of the Tolerator...over the Tolerated.

The one who "tolerates" implies, by the very term...that he is better than the one he is tolerating.

Acceptance is what should be being aimed for. Not tolerance.

Imagine that...Roach and I agree on something!! Anyone check the temperature in Hell just lately??

Sounds like he learned something from watching Slick Willy aka Hilbillery Clinton.

OK, ok...as long as you're going down that route, why don't you just come out and say what you mean...together, the Clintons were "Hill" and "Billy" right? Ha-ha very funny. That joke wasn't funny in 1993, and it still isn't funny. But thanks for playing.

I'll agree that Bush has lost his mind in claiming to have a mandate when pretty much half the country disagrees with him. But, Clinton never listened to both sides. If he had he and Hill would never have tried to ramrod socialized medicine down our throats. Of course he learned to pander a little better after losing that battle. It isn't wrong that he believed in socialized medicine and tried to get it past, I'm just glad congress used what little sense it had to block the attempt.

Why are you so glad about that? do you enjoy knowing that 45 MILLION Americans do not have health insurance, and thus, do not get the care they need?

I know a young lady right now who has a kidney stone that is ripping up her kidney, and she will probably lose the kidney, because she has no health insurance, and cannot, therefore, get the kidney stone removed. She is constantly bleeding internally, and generally in a lot of pain a lot of the time...but, because she does not have health insurance, there is nothing she can do but suffer, until the kidney is completely shredded and laid waste...THEN if it becomes a life-threatening thing, they will operate only then...and she will be minus one kidney the rest of her life, when it COULD have been saved...and she COULD have not had to live with such pain for so long. God Bless America!!

True, but the biggest difference between him and those shoved into gas-fired ovens is that he owns a gun and will use it, and others will also come to his defense. In which case the ones doing the shoving will be mightily screwed.

Ah, but there's the rub. I don't believe that. Not for a second. Why would those who own guns come to the rescue of "freaks" that they think are "icky?"

No, those with guns are more likely to take up arms on the side of those doing the shoving. They are more likely, in my opinion, to side with the shovers, rather than the shovees.

It sure as hell seems as though they are, especially here in America!
I am christian. I am from a (even more than normal) predominantly conservative religion. I am very liberal.

1. Gun control doesn't work as well as I'd have hoped; this coming from an ex-advocate of gun control

2. Conservatives don't favor God; true conservatives are not the neo-cons that everybody makes them out to be.

3. "In Favor . . . Gays??" that statement is incoherent; it almost implies Conservs favor gays . . . when conservs and liberts. in reality don't favor or disfavor em

4. Conservatives don't vote against economic interests; conservatives (or at least legitimate ones) subscribe to what is known as "fiscal responsibility" and "lesser spending"; you are just mistaking them for the greedy pigs who are abusing their economic power

I ran out of room in the title. My point was, that if you say the words "Guns" "Abortion" "God" "Gays" (GAGG) the conservatives all foam at the mouth and run to vote for those who speak the popular opinion about these issues...even when it is inimical to their own economic self-interest.

The conservative party (Republicans) has been taken over by the greedy pigs you mention in statement number 4, and the aforementioned GAGG voters.

What I'm asking is why the rest of the TRUE conservatives of whom you speak (I mean the blue-bloods here) continue to support these whackos.

And no one has YET answered the REAL question I was asking. And that is what it is...why do the so-called REAL conservatives, the blue-bloods...why do they continue to support scum like Falwell, Robertson, Wildmon, Phelps, Bush?

I've always wondered THIS.

Why do so many people vote against their own, and most everyone else's ECONOMIC interests, in favor of the "GAGG issues" (guns, abortion, gays, god?) Why do these issues hold more weight than their own economic best interests?



Because to them they are more important.

That said. It doesn't mean that those are more important to everyone. Don't ram your values down our throats. The consevative stance on GAGG very much matches my personal views, but it is not my place to force it on anyone else, nor is it yours. Deal with it. I would attend a gay rights rally because I believe they are peoplet to, and deserve their rights, even if I totally disagree. I am liberal because I have morals (like allowing the freedom of my fellowman) not the other way around.

wait wait wait wait; lemme get this straight, you think liberal vote AGAINST peoples ECONOMIC interesrst in the 'GAGG' issues? how i ask you is that even possible, I understand about guns and economics, but abortion, gays and god? last time I looked at a dictionary, Economis had to do with money, and abortion, gays and god did not, maybe my grasp of the english language is insufficient to grasp your point (Unlikely, I made straight A's in that class and i've been speaking the language for, leme see, oh yea, my WHOLE FING LIFE), I mean honestly, what possible ECONOMIC bearing could these three issues have on ANYTHING to the depth where changing the tolerance levels of them would be for or against anyones interrests?

No, I think CONSERVATIVES vote against people's Economic interest in their knee-jerk reaction to the GAGG issues. I think many coneservatives even vote against THEIR OWN economic interest in the knee-jerk to support thos who say "God=good" "Guns=good" "Abortion=bad" "Gays=bad"

No, the issues are NOT intertwined, and I never implied they were.

My point was...people who call themselves conservative often seem to ignore their own economic self-interest and vote Republican, because they will do something to stop those icky gays and evil people getting and giving abortions...because they will make sure no one ever takes your gun away (like the liberals COULD, even if they really wanted to) No, we Libs do not want to take your guns away...we want to keep them out of the hands of people who should not have them. And there are some guns that no private citizen has any need for.
And it doesn't follow that if all guns were banned and rounded up, that crime would go way up...because, if the DEMAND were not there for guns and ammunition, it would not get made...and thus, even the black market would not be able to GET them to sell. And most of the street hoodlums wouldn't be able to AFFORD what guns and ammunition COULD get into a black market. The supply would be lower, hence, the price. higher.

The people I want to see disarmed are the street hoods, the gangsta thugs, the scum that shoot innocent people in drive-by's over disputed drug turf. And the scum who go out and use their guns to shoot people just because they (the ones getting shot) are different.

Ah, but there's the rub. I don't believe that. Not for a second. Why would those who own guns come to the rescue of "freaks" that they think are "icky?" Because many would understand that to allow tyranny to go unchecked would be ultimately fatal. Try not to assume that all are against you.


No, those with guns are more likely to take up arms on the side of those doing the shoving. They are more likely, in my opinion, to side with the shovers, rather than the shovees.
I think, on the whole, you underestimate the nature that most american character is built out of. Many of those whose grandparents fought in WW2 would come down on your side, and so would many athiests and agnostics.

Guns:
Why would voting to uphold the 2nd Amendment be against my economic interests? ( If I were a gun dealer voting for banning or even restricting gun sales would be against my economic interests whould it not? )

Abortion:
Personally I am against abortion becuase I believe that any child of mine deserves a chance at living their lives, and if that causes me economic hardship so be it. I think the life of one of my children is worth any price I need to pay

On the other hand I have to admit that the Roe Effect is having a positive effect on society. Roe Effect in a nutshell.
Conservitives tend to hold the life of an unborn child more precious than practically any other consideration, thus when pregnant they tend to have that child and raise them. Most of these children raised in a conservitive family ( as long as it isnt oppresive or abusive and I dont believe that most conservitive households are either of these things as a whole ) tend to addopt conservitive values.

Liberals on the other hand are more likely to have abortions for a variety of reasons thus there are few children raised in liberal households and if they were never born they never get to vote.

Thus the ratio of conservitive voters to liberal voters slowly changes over the years. Note it has been almost 30 years since Roe versus Wade, in that time Democrats have lost control of the House and the Senate and the number of Republican to Democrat Presidents in the last twenty years 3 to 1 ( Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush ) or ( Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton Bush, and Bush again if we are looking torward the future ) Democrates have also lost a hold on the majority of governerships in this timeframe, and are losing hold in State Senates as well.

In other words I dont care about abortion as a voting issue.

Gays:
Hummmm...never thought of someones gayness being an economic issue to me at all. Care to expound on this and tell me how this relates to my families budget?....The only thought that comes to mind is that Married Gays would have the ability to file joint tax returns.....but I an not certain that would have anything but an insignificant effect on the Federal budget and thus none on my own.

God:
Now here is a quandry, Voting on moral issues? Such as? Because I cant for the life of me ever recall thinking that any particular issue as being Moral or Immoral...just good ideas or bad ideas....the bullet train for Florida being an example, just costed far too much (25 Billion) to be possibly worth the money. Now if they had on the ballot a measure legalizing Pedophillia...then yes I would vote on that as a moral issue...Gambling? What other people do with thier money is their concern...remeber never get between a fool and their folly....its just not healthy



Are the mahority of people you know this way?....My own experience has shown me examples of all of these traits but thankfully they have been rarity. Most people I have known in my life, ( say a thousand overall ) have genrally been Good natured, kind courteous and gentle people. If your experience is different I am sorry that it has been so....



I have seen this trait too....but on both sides....Pollitical correctness is just another form of telling people what they can not say or do....Just about the same as a society that frowns on Gay Marriage is trying to tell those involved what they can not do....sad really on both sides of the coin.

I have also noted that people with a desire to tell others what to do are usually doing it out of a couple of reasons
a.) To dominate others around them so they feel superior
b.) Are just plain sick and tired of dealing with people that wont think for themselves and thus they take charge to get things done

But that just my opinion



I figure the Ten Commandments pretty much says it all....For me anyway...others it would be the Qa`ran or the Torah or whatever.
Someone comes along and tells me I must support animal rights or some such drivel I listen to them politely, and then tell them that their opinion on this issue is irrelevent to me and I am sorry but no, I will not sign their petition nor give their cause money.
Now if they come to me and speak of Supporting the Hungry or the Sick or the Widows and orphans, yeah I open up the wallet and give what I can...because I feel that while I have little to spare they have less and so I feel morally obliged to help them....now that is against my economic self interest...but I sleep good at night....



Maybe some are motivated by this...Xenophobia has been a curse of mankind since we came along....but to think that this is a main issue when voting? How did the Bullet train or the issue of having to propose a ballot initiative at least 9 months prior to the next election have anything to do with this?



Obviously they find thier social "norms" to be fullfilling to their own lives...perhaps they vote to maintain what they perceive as a good thing....could it be they just dont perceive things they way you do?




I still have not found a linkage between these issues and economics...examples please...




Perhaps because they perceive the GOP as being less restrictive on bussineses and thus their own bussines has a better chance of growth under a less regulative government? Perhaps they are voting for conservitive issues having nothing to do with economics?

And who are these Uber-Wealthy anyway?? The top 1%? 5%, 10%? 25%? Explain who yur talking about....Oh and heres a question for you...How much money do you have to make to be in the top 10%




Perhaps because some people have emotional ties to these issues? Or have thought long and hard on these issues and feel they have the answer ( or at least the answer for themselves anyway...like me on abortion for my unborn children...and yes...if the child was going to be born with spina bifida or some other birth defect I would still want them to have thier chance however short at life and have a chance to show them that they are loved and cherished )



Again your ties on these issues seem to be extreemly tenuous at best to me..Clarify...



By the way you choose to ask the question I doubt that you will understand my points that I have made....you have thought long and hard on this and you already have the answer.....or at least the answer that seems right to you....




Good for you! As a democracy we NEED more than one veiwpoint, we need open dialog and rational discussion, we need to be open to new ideas and we need to have these discusions, debates, and ideas brough up in public forums.....without the needless name calling or casting assperations at the intellegence, kindness or decency of our opponents.



I suppose thats one definition. But I am curious...you state "Put the most into the system?...How so? Taxes? Stable Family groupings? Law abiding? What do you mean by this statement??

if its taxes then see
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls
and scroll down to row 161 to see who pays what percentage of the personal taxes levied by the government
and if your curious...I am in the top 25% according to row 46....does that make me Uber-Wealthy? :D

Respectfully

AAhhzz

I'll answer three of your questions right now, because I can do so quickly, and I'm on my way to bed.

1. So don't have an abortion. don't stop someone ELSE from having one if they so choose.

2. Uber-wealthy = top 1%. Look at who got, by far, the best deal from the tax-breaks? Was it middle-class families to whom it would have made a REAL DIFFERENCE?? Or was it the uber-wealthy who are already rolling in it, filthy rich, and probably never even noticed it? i'm for tax-breaks for the people to whom it would make a REAL DIFFERENCE (household income $50,000 and lower.)

3. By "putting in the most...and getting the least out" I mean this...who actually does the REAL WORK in this country?? The poor. The ones who put the most into the system also seem to draw the least benefit from that very same system...because greedy corporation and white collar assholes suck up all the fruits of their labors, so that they can continue to have Filet Mignon seven nights a week, and drive their Beemers home after a hard afternoon's "work" on the fucking golf course...while the poor guy who is working his fingers to the bone on the fucking assembly line drives his rusty, smoke-belching, barely functional ten year old piece of shit car home every day to have Ramen fucking Soup...and PRAYS that nothing goes wrong with the car, because he knows that will be a tragedy he is unable to deal with financially. And will cause him to have to make choices between food and heat...in order to get the car fixed...so that he can continue to work his fingers to the bone for a fucking pittance, while the shithead CEO, who never even fucking HEARD of work...wipes his ass with hundred dollar bills!

My point was...people who call themselves conservative often seem to ignore their own economic self-interest
How much do you actually know about economics again?


The people I want to see disarmed are the street hoods, the gangsta thugs, the scum that shoot innocent people in drive-by's over disputed drug turf. And the scum who go out and use their guns to shoot people just because they (the ones getting shot) are different.
In LA, NYC, CHI, and DC guns are more or less banned. The supply of guns is already there and it's actually extremely easy to smuggle them in.

Ah, but there's the rub. I don't believe that. Not for a second. Why would those who own guns come to the rescue of "freaks" that they think are "icky?"

No, those with guns are more likely to take up arms on the side of those doing the shoving. They are more likely, in my opinion, to side with the shovers, rather than the shovees.

Actually if Falwell, ( or anyone else for that matter ) was starting to "shovel" people into ovens/gas chambers and no one was doing anything about it I would recall the oath I took so many years ago "to uphold the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic" I would consider that his actions makes him an enemy of the State by violating Amendment 5 of the Constitution.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I would thus go out and purchase a gun, (Waiting the 5 days that the law mandates ) and then go and personnally inform Falwell, ( or whomever ) that they were under arrest for murder and that I am hoping they will do something, anything to give me an excuse to make a trail for their crimes unecessary.

So yes....there is a Republican here that considers Murder for sexual orientation, race, ethnic background, religion or affiliation with any group ( even Al Qida...those I would simply arrest and turn over to the authorities ) to be outside the bounds of the law and would take up arms to enforce that law if no one else was doing so...

In fact one who took up arms for 22 years while enlisted in the military to do just what my oath stated which was to protect the Constitution....and that means Free Speach, Right of assembly, Religious Freedom, Freedom of the Press...the whole thing.....and even retired I still consider that Oath binding and will act accordingly.

Respectfully

AAhhzz

I'll answer three of your questions right now, because I can do so quickly, and I'm on my way to bed.

I hope you get a good nights rest.



1. So don't have an abortion. don't stop someone ELSE from having one if they so choose.

I did state that abortion was not a voting issue for me, so your answer isnt really making sense...particularly not in relation to how voting conservative is voting against my own economic interests....

But to follow the evolving thread.....if the issue of abortion was on the ballot I would decline to vote either way on it due to the fact that while I am personnally against it for MY unborn children. I don't feel I have the right to choose for anyone else on this matter.
The whole pursuit of happiness thing against the right to life of a fetus that isnt viable outside their Mothers body.
I might even vote for their right to choose just to ensure that no one else "shoves their morality" down someones throat....or in this case would it be up their...errr...nevermind



2. Uber-wealthy = top 1%. Look at who got, by far, the best deal from the tax-breaks? Was it middle-class families to whom it would have made a REAL DIFFERENCE?? Or was it the uber-wealthy who are already rolling in it, filthy rich, and probably never even noticed it? i'm for tax-breaks for the people to whom it would make a REAL DIFFERENCE (household income $50,000 and lower.)

So your for giving the bottom 75% of the tax paying population tax breaks that will make a real difference....so lets see

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/02in02ts.xls

...lets pick someone in the bottom 50% of the tax paying population, Average annual salary of the entire bottom 50% is $ 15,333
( total income of the bottom 50% $869,750,000,000 divided by the total numer of returns of 64,161,993 )
paid a total in taxes of $27,899,000,000 or approximately $434 each ( taxes paid divided by number of returns so after deductions ) for an effective tax rate of about 2.8 percent. Give them the whole amount and what can they buy?

Top 1% Average salary $768,196
( total income of the Top 1% $ 985,781,000,000 divided by the total numer of returns of 1,283,240 so after deductions )
the top 1% paid a total of $268,608,000,000 or approximately $ 209,320 each for an effective tax rate of 27.2%

Total taxes taken in in 2002 $796,862,000,000
So the bottom 50% paid 28.5 % of the total tax.
While the top 1% paid 33.7 % of the total tax,

Can you see a differential here?

So you would give the tax break to those who only 2.8% of thier income in taxes and what? Raise the taxes on the top one percent to compensate?

lets see how that would work

Top 1% paying their current share of $268,608,000,000 of the total tax and add the taxes paid by the bottom 50% $27,899,000,000 leaves the top 1% paying $ 296,507,000,000 divided by by the number of returns 1,283,240 equals and average tax of $ 231,061 or an effective tax rate of 30%

How much is too much taxes? At what point would You decide that the your working for the government too much and just retire on what you have in the bank? Fire your workers, sell off the assests you have and move to a tropical island somewhere to enjoy the rest of your life on the money you have in the bank??

After all once in the bank you would only have to pay tax on the interest which compared to the amount you have in the bank is probably a paltry sum. And if you pick the right Island Nation you dont even pay that in taxes to the US anymore.

Once that happens the tax burden must shift downward to those that are still taxpayers. Of course there are fewer of them since a whole bunch were fired when the rich decided to abandon ship....wonder where the moneys going to coming from now...

Bush promised to cut taxes across the board when campaigning and he did just that, the fact that a 1% tax cut to the rich would mean more than $ 2000 while a 1% tax cut to the poor would mean $4, is just based on the relitive amounts that they groups pay.....and if I recall right he lowered the 15% tax rate to 10% and 10% to what? 5%.....and thats before the deductons,,,,thus you vould have someone in the bottom 50% making 25,000 ( remember 15,333 was the average ) and having 2 children paying nothing in taxes and even with Earned Income Credit receiving money from the government. They still pay taxes on their pay but receive them all back and perhaps maybe more than they put in come tax time. I know because for over 15 years thats how it worked for me. The initial tax cuts in 2001 lowered the top rate from 37.42% to 33.89%.

( Would you work if the government took over 1/3 of your money from yu in taxes? )

Alan Greenspan has credited the Bush tax cuts from preventing the 1 trillion dollar financial loss incured on 9/11 from sending the economy into a depression....these tax cuts put more money into the economy and boosted sales all across the board from appliances to software to games to manufactured goods.

And since when the rich get richer they usually hire more people so they can make more products and make more money,,,,so they hire the poor guy and maybe his new job pays more...maybe it pays less,,,but at least the poor guy has a job and a paycheck?

Hopefully there is a chance for promotion or a raise at some point where he can improve his lot in life and he can afford to ditch that rust heap of a truck and get something relyable to drive and maybe....just maybe... he can move up to eating beannie weenies


3. By "putting in the most...and getting the least out" I mean this...who actually does the REAL WORK in this country?? The poor.

Granted the people who are doing the manual labor are generally not paid as well as the people who are in charge of seeing that a company runs efficiently and makes profits.

After all the worker on the floor is responsible for the amount of product he produces, and may be one of hundreds

The CEO is responsible for the shipping, receiving, marketing, calculating sales, developing new products, interacting with federal agencies...and the list goes on and on.....which do you think has a greater impact on the health and profits of the company?

The CEO's salary is usualy tied to the companies profit margin in some manner be it bonuses or stock options or whatever. It is in their interest to keep the company working and to hire more people when practical to increase productivity...or to fire people to decrease inefficiencies. If they can do thse things well the company can make vast amounts of money ( which is also taxed ) and thus earn the mind boggling sums of money that they do....( which is also taxed )



The ones who put the most into the system also seem to draw the least benefit from that very same system...because greedy corporation and white collar assholes suck up all the fruits of their labors,

And pay them a salary correct?


so that they can continue to have Filet Mignon seven nights a week,

And die young from heart disease....revenge is sweet for the poor guy

and drive their Beemers home after a hard afternoon's "work" on the fucking golf course...while the poor guy who is working his fingers to the bone on the fucking assembly line drives his rusty, smoke-belching, barely functional ten year old piece of shit car home every day to have Ramen fucking Soup...and PRAYS that nothing goes wrong with the car, because he knows that will be a tragedy he is unable to deal with financially. And will cause him to have to make choices between food and heat...in order to get the car fixed...so that he can continue to work his fingers to the bone for a fucking pittance, while the shithead CEO, who never even fucking HEARD of work...wipes his ass with hundred dollar bills!

I wil grant you being poor sucks rocks....I could have collected food stamps the first 5 years in the military.....so I know that side of the coin very well...

But where is that poor person without the job he does have?
And how come he isnt trying to improve his lot through education or looking for a better job?
Or unionize to have collective bargining power, after all the CEO is being paid to keep the company rolling right along making money. The threat of a strike which closes the factory down is an effective way to get his attention.....and perfectly legal...in fact a legally protected right

BTW my own car is an 84 Chevrolete....and on its last legs....so I can sympathize with the guy,...being in the top 25% doesnt mean you dont have bills that leave you living paycheck to paycheck....damn lawyers....

Respectfully

AAhhzz

Waiting the 5 days that the law mandates

Ahem. Where in the US is there a five day waiting period? It's certainly not a Federal law...

Ahem. Where in the US is there a five day waiting period? It's certainly not a Federal law...
I believe states still have soveriegnty on the issue, right?

I believe states still have soveriegnty on the issue, right?

The five-day waiting period was a provision of the original Brady bill. As part of the bill, as soon as the instant check system was in place, the waiting period was dissolved.

There may still be local ordinances, but they are in the vast minority at this time.

Actually if Falwell, ( or anyone else for that matter ) was starting to "shovel" people into ovens/gas chambers and no one was doing anything about it I would recall the oath I took so many years ago "to uphold the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic" I would consider that his actions makes him an enemy of the State by violating Amendment 5 of the Constitution.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I would thus go out and purchase a gun, (Waiting the 5 days that the law mandates ) and then go and personnally inform Falwell, ( or whomever ) that they were under arrest for murder and that I am hoping they will do something, anything to give me an excuse to make a trail for their crimes unecessary.

So yes....there is a Republican here that considers Murder for sexual orientation, race, ethnic background, religion or affiliation with any group ( even Al Qida...those I would simply arrest and turn over to the authorities ) to be outside the bounds of the law and would take up arms to enforce that law if no one else was doing so...

In fact one who took up arms for 22 years while enlisted in the military to do just what my oath stated which was to protect the Constitution....and that means Free Speach, Right of assembly, Religious Freedom, Freedom of the Press...the whole thing.....and even retired I still consider that Oath binding and will act accordingly.

Respectfully

AAhhzz

But again, there's the rub. How do you define "public danger?" That is such a nebulous phrase. Remember the AIDS thing? I still remember when it was called GRID...and people were freaking out about it, and blaming gays for it. what if another disease like that happened? Would that not then constitute "public danger," (real or imagined, of course) and then, at least in some people's minds...and in the Constitution...justify shoveling queers into those very ovens? I know there are plenty who wanted to do just that at the height of the AIDS scare, and many of them still feel that way today.

I hope you get a good nights rest.




I did state that abortion was not a voting issue for me, so your answer isnt really making sense...particularly not in relation to how voting conservative is voting against my own economic interests....

But to follow the evolving thread.....if the issue of abortion was on the ballot I would decline to vote either way on it due to the fact that while I am personnally against it for MY unborn children. I don't feel I have the right to choose for anyone else on this matter.
The whole pursuit of happiness thing against the right to life of a fetus that isnt viable outside their Mothers body.
I might even vote for their right to choose just to ensure that no one else "shoves their morality" down someones throat....or in this case would it be up their...errr...nevermind




So your for giving the bottom 75% of the tax paying population tax breaks that will make a real difference....so lets see

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/02in02ts.xls

...lets pick someone in the bottom 50% of the tax paying population, Average annual salary of the entire bottom 50% is $ 15,333
( total income of the bottom 50% $869,750,000,000 divided by the total numer of returns of 64,161,993 )
paid a total in taxes of $27,899,000,000 or approximately $434 each ( taxes paid divided by number of returns so after deductions ) for an effective tax rate of about 2.8 percent. Give them the whole amount and what can they buy?

Top 1% Average salary $768,196
( total income of the Top 1% $ 985,781,000,000 divided by the total numer of returns of 1,283,240 so after deductions )
the top 1% paid a total of $268,608,000,000 or approximately $ 209,320 each for an effective tax rate of 27.2%

Total taxes taken in in 2002 $796,862,000,000
So the bottom 50% paid 28.5 % of the total tax.
While the top 1% paid 33.7 % of the total tax,

Can you see a differential here?

So you would give the tax break to those who only 2.8% of thier income in taxes and what? Raise the taxes on the top one percent to compensate?

lets see how that would work

Top 1% paying their current share of $268,608,000,000 of the total tax and add the taxes paid by the bottom 50% $27,899,000,000 leaves the top 1% paying $ 296,507,000,000 divided by by the number of returns 1,283,240 equals and average tax of $ 231,061 or an effective tax rate of 30%

How much is too much taxes? At what point would You decide that the your working for the government too much and just retire on what you have in the bank? Fire your workers, sell off the assests you have and move to a tropical island somewhere to enjoy the rest of your life on the money you have in the bank??

After all once in the bank you would only have to pay tax on the interest which compared to the amount you have in the bank is probably a paltry sum. And if you pick the right Island Nation you dont even pay that in taxes to the US anymore.

Once that happens the tax burden must shift downward to those that are still taxpayers. Of course there are fewer of them since a whole bunch were fired when the rich decided to abandon ship....wonder where the moneys going to coming from now...

Bush promised to cut taxes across the board when campaigning and he did just that, the fact that a 1% tax cut to the rich would mean more than $ 2000 while a 1% tax cut to the poor would mean $4, is just based on the relitive amounts that they groups pay.....and if I recall right he lowered the 15% tax rate to 10% and 10% to what? 5%.....and thats before the deductons,,,,thus you vould have someone in the bottom 50% making 25,000 ( remember 15,333 was the average ) and having 2 children paying nothing in taxes and even with Earned Income Credit receiving money from the government. They still pay taxes on their pay but receive them all back and perhaps maybe more than they put in come tax time. I know because for over 15 years thats how it worked for me. The initial tax cuts in 2001 lowered the top rate from 37.42% to 33.89%.

( Would you work if the government took over 1/3 of your money from yu in taxes? )

Alan Greenspan has credited the Bush tax cuts from preventing the 1 trillion dollar financial loss incured on 9/11 from sending the economy into a depression....these tax cuts put more money into the economy and boosted sales all across the board from appliances to software to games to manufactured goods.

And since when the rich get richer they usually hire more people so they can make more products and make more money,,,,so they hire the poor guy and maybe his new job pays more...maybe it pays less,,,but at least the poor guy has a job and a paycheck?

Hopefully there is a chance for promotion or a raise at some point where he can improve his lot in life and he can afford to ditch that rust heap of a truck and get something relyable to drive and maybe....just maybe... he can move up to eating beannie weenies



Granted the people who are doing the manual labor are generally not paid as well as the people who are in charge of seeing that a company runs efficiently and makes profits.

After all the worker on the floor is responsible for the amount of product he produces, and may be one of hundreds

The CEO is responsible for the shipping, receiving, marketing, calculating sales, developing new products, interacting with federal agencies...and the list goes on and on.....which do you think has a greater impact on the health and profits of the company?

The CEO's salary is usualy tied to the companies profit margin in some manner be it bonuses or stock options or whatever. It is in their interest to keep the company working and to hire more people when practical to increase productivity...or to fire people to decrease inefficiencies. If they can do thse things well the company can make vast amounts of money ( which is also taxed ) and thus earn the mind boggling sums of money that they do....( which is also taxed )




And pay them a salary correct?




And die young from heart disease....revenge is sweet for the poor guy



I wil grant you being poor sucks rocks....I could have collected food stamps the first 5 years in the military.....so I know that side of the coin very well...

But where is that poor person without the job he does have?
And how come he isnt trying to improve his lot through education or looking for a better job?
Or unionize to have collective bargining power, after all the CEO is being paid to keep the company rolling right along making money. The threat of a strike which closes the factory down is an effective way to get his attention.....and perfectly legal...in fact a legally protected right

BTW my own car is an 84 Chevrolete....and on its last legs....so I can sympathize with the guy,...being in the top 25% doesnt mean you dont have bills that leave you living paycheck to paycheck....damn lawyers....

Respectfully

AAhhzz

Legally protected right to unionize, my ass! You ever work in a so-called "right to work" state? More like "right to get fired!" Biggest misnomer ever. Fucking corporations do their level best to break unions, have been generally successful at it (with the help of pliant gpvernment officials) over the past two decades) and now, those who want to form or join unions are often targeted by management as "troublemakers" or "boat-rockers" and they usually end up fired for bullshit reasons.

There is no justice in the workplace anymore. We are all basically fucking slaves, and it sucks major ass. WE do the REAL fucking work, and get just enough to give us subsistence, so that we can continue to slave and waste our entire lives away, making some asshole who never even HEARD of work rich. So he gets to ENJOY life, while we end up hating it.

Life sucks. It isn't fucking fair.

Life sucks. It isn't fucking fair.

Where does it say it's supposed to be fair?

Where does it say it's supposed to be fair?
Yah, I want my refund if it does. I didn't see it on the packaging though.

I agree. In fact, I'd say that "tolerance" carries an implied feeling of superiority on the part of the Tolerator...over the Tolerated.

The one who "tolerates" implies, by the very term...that he is better than the one he is tolerating.

Acceptance is what should be being aimed for. Not tolerance.

Imagine that...Roach and I agree on something!! Anyone check the temperature in Hell just lately??

You might be suprised at what we agree on, we just have a gun control difference.

One of the most common statements you'll get out of me is: I don't care.

Do you know how much effort it takes to be a Republican? To spend all your time denouncing and preaching and taxing and sending kids off to bullshit wars? Whew! I'm much too lazy for that.

I stopped caring a long time ago. So if you came and told me that you were a transvestite Hare Krishna midget with a sheep fetish, I say good for you! I don't care!

I agree with the Dalai Lama on so many things. One of the things I think is that the purpose of our lives is to be happy. Be happy. Be happy in what you do, because 95% of what you do is none of my fuckin' business.

And I want people to mind their own business and I'll do the same.

45 MILLION Americans do not have health insurance, and thus, do not get the care they need?


Stop right there... That is a connection that does not exist. There is a big difference between not having health coverage and not getting cared for.

It's been shown time and time again that many of these people without health insurance are people who can afford it, but make the choice not to buy it. I have a lot of friends who are young, single and highly paid (well into 6 figures) as contract software engineers. They do not have health insurance by choice, and they damn well do not need the government to supply it out of my tax dollars.

GAGG issues are not the only issues, don't forget about the balanced budget they claim to support even though the only Prez to have a surplus during his administration in the last 25 years was Bill Clinton. Also I noticed when Then Evangelical, Gun toting, Red-neck conservatives are in Power the word Sodomy comes up alot as well. The fact that they believe allowing Gay marriage would be an assault on heterosexual marriage is propostoruos, as well as immoral. How is allowing couples to be monogamous and legally binded immoral? Somebody explain this to me!

GAGG issues are not the only issues, don't forget about the balanced budget they claim to support even though the only Prez to have a surplus during his administration in the last 25 years was Bill Clinton. Also I noticed when Then Evangelical, Gun toting, Red-neck conservatives are in Power the word Sodomy comes up alot as well. The fact that they believe allowing Gay marriage would be an assault on heterosexual marriage is propostoruos, as well as immoral. How is allowing couples to be monogamous and legally binded immoral? Somebody explain this to me!

Because of the Bible. DUH!

Don't you realize that the whole evangelical movement is based upon a mistranslation of a partial of a collection of books selected to be least offensive to the Ceaser of Rome?

Is it because they are hard-hearted, cruel, and mean? Yes.

Is it because they sincerely enjoy telling others what to do? Yes.

Is it because they enjoy pushing their "moral" values down everyone else's throat? Yes.

Is it because they are afraid of anyone who is different? Yes.

Is it because they are afraid more people will find "different" to be appealing, and more comfortable than the narrow, confining, suffocating, spirit and life-draining social "norms?" Yes.


you know this seems a bit ridiculus. I'm not a conservative nor a liberal I am smiply a lowly slightly over minimumwage worker who is a libertarian. My family well the decent ones are conservatives. This is a biased opinion and I know that not all liberals would beat up their 60 year old father ( my grandfather) because he would not give them a loan.
but it seems to me that liberals are afraid of those who are diffrent as well. They believe that they do everything and no higher power is envolved. or if they believe in a higher power it has to be their power. aliens, prior evolution of humans who knows who cares. Liberals believe in rights of a squirl over a mother driving her son to practice in an SUV. The "soccer mom" is misguided and needs to be taught a lesson. TAX HER. STRIP HER OF HER SUV DONT LET HER BE DIFFRENT FROM US.
Conservatives enjoy telling others what to do? Seems that liberals do too. as stated above. If you dont believe in the same things you should be TAXED. STRIPPED OF ALL WEALTH.
liberals empose their own morals into the fray as well. Just they justify their morals with "society norms". we need the UN having a body like that is good for the world. therefore it is their moral standing that the UN must be kept and be the high law of the land. DESPITE IT HAS NO TEETH CANT DO ANYTHING. AND IS MORE CORUPT THEN THE LIBERALS BELIEVE THAT MICROSOFT IS.

No I'm not saying that conservatives are not the same way. thought they differ on the un. Conservatives get their morals from their religion no matter what it is. Muslim, protestant,catholic, or what ever it is. personally I think the diffrence between the two is so finite it is ridiculus. conservatives do it because they get their views from point a. and liberals get their view from point b.
as for the guy who said that conservatives and christians should not be used enterchangiably. sadly no more tirades off to finish my english exam (I'm in the middle of)

While support is often appreciated, it is never required. I simply cannot abide a religion that is built, at its core, upon the denegration of others. If they do it to other peoples for 1800 years, then its simply called "evolving religion". If it gets turned around on them, it's called "bigotry".

Such is the way of the Christian mind.

You have demonstrated yourself to be just as bigotted as any of the "Christians' on here that label Muslims. Congratulations on being just as wrong as them.

Meh ... you're a Christian and, thus, are such by default. Live with it.

Nice cop-out. I guess I should have expected as much.

you know this seems a bit ridiculus. I'm not a conservative nor a liberal I am smiply a lowly slightly over minimumwage worker who is a libertarian. My family well the decent ones are conservatives. This is a biased opinion and I know that not all liberals would beat up their 60 year old father ( my grandfather) because he would not give them a loan.
but it seems to me that liberals are afraid of those who are diffrent as well. They believe that they do everything and no higher power is envolved. or if they believe in a higher power it has to be their power. aliens, prior evolution of humans who knows who cares. Liberals believe in rights of a squirl over a mother driving her son to practice in an SUV. The "soccer mom" is misguided and needs to be taught a lesson. TAX HER. STRIP HER OF HER SUV DONT LET HER BE DIFFRENT FROM US.
Conservatives enjoy telling others what to do? Seems that liberals do too. as stated above. If you dont believe in the same things you should be TAXED. STRIPPED OF ALL WEALTH.
liberals empose their own morals into the fray as well. Just they justify their morals with "society norms". we need the UN having a body like that is good for the world. therefore it is their moral standing that the UN must be kept and be the high law of the land. DESPITE IT HAS NO TEETH CANT DO ANYTHING. AND IS MORE CORUPT THEN THE LIBERALS BELIEVE THAT MICROSOFT IS.

No I'm not saying that conservatives are not the same way. thought they differ on the un. Conservatives get their morals from their religion no matter what it is. Muslim, protestant,catholic, or what ever it is. personally I think the diffrence between the two is so finite it is ridiculus. conservatives do it because they get their views from point a. and liberals get their view from point b.
as for the guy who said that conservatives and christians should not be used enterchangiably. sadly no more tirades off to finish my english exam (I'm in the middle of)


Many Liberals believe in God so you sound so ignorant.

Also about Aliens by definition God is included. Look he created the world thus he is not from it. He is a Extraterrestrial being thus ET therefore an alien.

So while you may have thought yourself smug... you have acted bvery ignorant (having no knowledge in subject of that you speak.)

Christan doesn't always equal conservative or visa versa. I go to a Christian Church but politically, they are more like socialists or liberals than conservatives.

And as I pointed out, in the current US system, the latter is pretty much completely wrong.

Its not a case of "right or wrong". It is a perception. Since no one knows precisely what every voter is thinking there is no way to tell if it is right or wrong or not.

Its not a case of "right or wrong". It is a perception. Since no one knows precisely what every voter is thinking there is no way to tell if it is right or wrong or not.

Every pre-election poll and every exit poll shows quite clearly that the majority of voters agree with any given candidate on only a few issues. Also, the fact that very few politicians won in this election by more than about 50% demonstrates *very* clearly that they have no mandate from the people.

Every pre-election poll and every exit poll shows quite clearly that the majority of voters agree with any given candidate on only a few issues. Also, the fact that very few politicians won in this election by more than about 50% demonstrates *very* clearly that they have no mandate from the people.

If you look at the percentages by voting district, it isn't anywhere near 50% in most of them. They either went for Kerry or Bush at a wider margin than that.

Do you fail to see the difference between believing something to be universally right and being individually right?

Muslims believe that Islam is right for Muslims. That's it.

Christians believe the whole world should be Christian.

Please. Muslims believe that everyone is born Muslim and that it is his suroundings that choose what religion he then continues with. Christians have no such arrogence to presume everyone is born into their faith.

I don't think so. There's a difference between tolerance and acceptance. Tolerance means you're just putting up with something.
I didn't take what he said literally, but if he was simply saying that he's "not keen" on them, well that's not hypocrisy at all. I'm not especially into gays myself, I just think they should have all the same rights as we heteros.

If he had he and Hill would never have tried to ramrod socialized medicine down our throats.
Ramrod it down your throats? Using language like this, am I right in assuming you to be one of the lucky rich?

Anyway, I think Clinton made up for the whole "universal healthcare" debacle by acting like Reagan (cutting welfare, cutting environment, bombing countries).

Muslims believe that Islam is right for Muslims. That's it.

Christians believe the whole world should be Christian.
Only a minority of Christians are like that, just as only a minority of Muslims dream of a global Islamic theocracy.

If all Muslims are so tolerant and all Christians are so intolerant, then why are most nations with a Muslim majority dictatorships and theocracies, while most nations with a Christian majority are democracies?

I never said it wasn't. However, a Muslim does not feel the need to "cure" a homosexual.
Oh no, of course not. Muslim fundamentalists merely want to throw homosexuals off tall buildings (according to a particular French Imam). Why "cure 'em" when you can kill 'em?

Perhaps you've heard of a British organisation called al-Muhajiroun? Do you think they are famed for their tolerance? They were founded by Omar Bakri.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3475929.stm

Not only do they push an agenda I do not agree with...but they push one which is inimical to MY self-interest...and when I ask them to represent ME...as is their job...they tell me, "Fuck You! Not only am I not going to represent you and your concerns...but I'm going to do everything in my power to fuck you over even worse...and it's because you didn't vote for me!"

God Bless John and Teresa
God Bless John and Elizabeth
God Bless Bill and Hillary
God Bless Jimmy and Roslyn
God Bless Lyndon and Lady Bird
God Bless John and Jackie
GOD BLESS DEMOCRATS!!
Yeah, you're so right. (Except about the blessings, Democrats aren't perfect. [Rembember, Johnson and Clinton were also warmongers.]) Maybe you should bless America too, indeed you live there.

Liberals believe in rights of a squirl over a mother driving her son to practice in an SUV.
Let's see...the squirrel's entire existence as a species is at stake, while the only thing at stake for the woman is the type of car that she drives. In this dilemma I will take the side of the victim, that is, the squirrel.

Human rights come over animal rights, IMO, but driving an SUV is not a fundamental human right. The right to life is a fundamental right for humans and animals.

I didn't take what he said literally, but if he was simply saying that he's "not keen" on them, well that's not hypocrisy at all. I'm not especially into gays myself, I just think they should have all the same rights as we heteros.

Right! The difference between tolerance and acceptance is that if you accepted their gayness, you would welcome everything they're about into society, which you don't really care to, but by tolerance, you're willing to put up with and leave be, you just don't want them to be visible or vocal about their lifestyle on a daily basis.

Tolerance means letting people live as they want, whether or not you like what they're doing or not.

i think some of you ae confused as to what a conservative is. a conservative is not neccesarily a republican.

I suppose that when you have kids, if the first kid's eye color doesn't match yours or your spouse's, you'll blame the postman instead of recessive characteristics.

I hate that Bob Barker!!!!!!!!!

Not all Christians believe as such. Granted most Christians assume us Latter Day Saints aren't Christians, but we follow Christ so we are regardless.
Christians have it all wrong. They always forget there are three Kingdoms of Heaven: Celestrial, Terestrial, and Telestrial. Just think Sea Turtle.
Mentions this a few times in New Testament so its not their fault.
If you do not accept Christ you will not reach Celestrial kingdom with 90% chance. They are correct about that. Sorry very few people are worthy of that Kingdom without meeting Christ.
However, at least half of Christians won't get past Terestrial kingdom. The reason is every kingdom has a requirement. To gain access to the highest you have to be very good, and so forth. Forgiveness still is there so don't worry if you did one or two bad things. Also you must be married in the Temple. Marriage outside Temple lasts till death so it won't help.
And sadly if you are murderer, rapists, and worse you will gain Telestrial kingdom. The lowest Glory. Heavenly Father won'ty be happy if you are this bunch but it is a degree of Glory. Sprit Prison is located here. Basically you are in prison to pay off your debt from your sins if you are stuck in this kingdom. Also you would be preached about Christ till you accepted him willingly.

Whoa, this is NOT what most Christians or Christian Religions teach. Not even close. You should preface this with saying "The LDS think this:"

I am a Christian, and I do NOT share this belief with you at all.

Your marriage is recognized on earth. Never said it would not be.
Jesus said it too as does the law Civic marriages say," Till Death do you part."
A Temple marriage is only marriage that lasts for all eternaty.
Sorry, can't argue with the facts.

Christ said there is no marriage in heaven. Can't argue with Him.

Ahem. Where in the US is there a five day waiting period? It's certainly not a Federal law...

Pretty sure it passed here in Florida...then again since I dont own a gun I haven't actually tried to buy one... so perhaps I have that wrong....
Thanks for the correction

Respectfully

AAhhzz

But again, there's the rub. How do you define "public danger?" That is such a nebulous phrase. Remember the AIDS thing? I still remember when it was called GRID...and people were freaking out about it, and blaming gays for it. what if another disease like that happened? Would that not then constitute "public danger," (real or imagined, of course) and then, at least in some people's minds...and in the Constitution...justify shoveling queers into those very ovens? I know there are plenty who wanted to do just that at the height of the AIDS scare, and many of them still feel that way today.

I would find it extreemly unlikely that the courts would consider a sexually trasmitted diesease a Public Danger....unless of course the people with it were rising up like the Zombies in Dawn of the Dead and humping anyone they could catch....

So look at your own example....Did they shovel Homosexual men into Ovens during the hieght of the AID scare?...No....they didnt did they....your living in far too much fear of things that are happening in your worst imaginings....

And anyway...if 50 million liberals showed up at the Ovens to hold candlelight vigils..( since none of them own guns or if they did would never dream of actualy using them in an aggressive manner ) the traffic congestion alone would put a halt to the shoveling wouldnt it.

I also suspect that several million conservitives like me would show up with guns to demand the practice cease...Since * I * at least would find the practice legally questionable at best and at the very least morally reprehensable...

Between the two groups I am certain that there would be enough disruption to halt the practice.....what do you know....something both you and I would protest together.... In different ways maybe but something that we would both be against.

Respectfully

AAhhzz