OK, just so we are straight here... You think it's OK for an Internet site to teach my daughter about anal sex, when she is obviously looking for something else? If Rick Santorum was putting his platform on sites called analsex.com, then you might have a twisted point, but even that's not the case. What's really fucked up is that you think that YOU, I assume an adult, are equating someone talking, that you really don't have to listen to, with a preteen children learning about anal sex.
Here is what is wrong with the country:...
Way to start your post. People with views like yours, that think 12 year olds should be fully educated on gay sex acts, against their parent's wishes is a fine example what is wrong with this country and is EXACTLY what Rick Santorum's whole point is. No one I know, including the members of my church, cares who you fall in love with or who/what you do in your bedroom. What we DON'T want is someone forcing that lifestyle onto our children. This is EXACTLY what you are saying should happen. You are exactly what we don't want and you have successfully proven the Rick Santorum's point!
There's a profound difference between tolerating someone's personal beliefs and tolerating someone's trying to impose their personal beliefs on others.
OK then. Stop trying to force your views that homosexuality is OK. Stop trying to force your view that homosexual marriage is OK. Stop trying to force me to accept people that want to view porn in a public library in front of children. Tell the president to stop forcing his views that contraception is a right to churches that teach against contraception.
It works both ways. No matter which side of the aisle you stand on these issues, the other side is trying to force their views on you. However, only one side is trying to change laws to match those views.
I assume you're not playing dumb to the point that you think the bible doesn't call for homosexuals to be put to death. I agree that it doesn't specify any particularly gruesome method, but I'm curious what method of execution you think existed 2000 years ago that wasn't fairly gruesome.
Since we are talking about Christianity here, it should be noted that Christianity is based on the New Testament. That's where Christ, the root word of Christianity, taught that such behavior was wrong. I even hinted at that when I pointed out the "...cast the first stone" quote. You are confusing Islam and Judaism with Christianity.
And yes, Santorum doesn't advocate killing homosexuals. He just advocates locking them away.
Citation needed. In other words, show me where Santorum has said that homosexuals should be thrown in jail for nothing more than being homosexuals. My research has found the exact opposite: "I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations." Rick Santorum
It depends... did he advocate laws penalizing homosexuality?
Again, no one is stating that someone should be penalized for homosexuality. This idea seems to be basis for your entire point. That idea is wrong.
But, again, the point is that original poster said that Santorum was against civil rights based on his views that homosexuality is wrong. I've shows a quote where MLK said that homosexuality was a "problem" and it needed to be fixed. So, if Santorum is against civil rights, then so is MLK. Do you still stand by that point?
It's pretty apt in this case, actually. Sure, not all Christians are like the Taliban, but in Santorum's case, when he's actively promoting the idea that federal law needs to be subservient to Christian religious code, and when he is advocating instituting harsh legal penalties for people who have done nothing wrong except offend his religiously-based sensibilities, I don't see much of a difference.
You really don't see a difference between laws being based on religion based morality and the acts of the Taliban? While I'm sure you might find some things in common, if you don't see the differences you are allowing your bias to blind you. Let me help you out here:
On March 22, 1998, 18-year-old Abdul Sami and another young man, a 22-year-old named Bismillah, were buried alive—put beside a mud wall that was bulldozed upon them—inside a stadium in the Afghan city of Herat.
The gruesome public execution was the young men’s sentence, under Taliban law, of having been found guilty of engaging in sodomy. They were hardly the first to receive that kind of punishment for same-sex sexual transgressions: Just a month earlier three men found guilty of the same infraction had a stone wall collapsed on them in public just outside the city of Kandahar (purported to have had a large homosexual community before the Taliban seized power in 1996).
If you can find me where in Christian doctrine where it says that gays should be stoned or executed in some other horrific fashion, or that a prominent politician, like Santorum, is suggesting this, we can talk. Until then, you are either lying or extremely ignorant. Let me start your education by asking what Jesus considered to be qualifications for casting that first stone.
This is obtuse to the extreme. Prior to the "civil rights movement", plenty of people were in favor of freedom of speech, the right to vote, own property, etc. for white males, but simultaneously wanted to treat black people and women like property. By your logic, those people were "pro civil rights".
Like I stated, Martin Luther King Jr was a Christian Reverend. Are you stating that MLK was against Civil Rights? HERE is what MLK had to say about homosexuality:
“The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired,” King wrote. “You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.”
It is obvious that MLK viewed homosexuality as a choice, not a genetic trait. It is also obvious that he viewed it as "problem". So again, I ask you, was Martin Luther King Jr against Civil Rights?
Freedom to express your love for another human and raise a family and share in the legal protections extended to straight couples/families is a civil rights issue.
Let's break that down: 1) express your love for another human There is nothing preventing gay couples from expressing their love for one another. The government doesn't deal in "love".
2) raise a family There is nothing preventing gay couples from raising a family. Rosie O'Donnel is gay. She has adopted children. Many gay couples have had their own children through a surrogate mother or sperm donor.
3) share in the legal protections extended to straight couples/families This is why many states have adopted the idea of "Civil Unions", which would give gay couples all the rights, benefits, and responsibilities of marriage. The idea was turned down because it was not called "marriage", even though there is absolutely no law preventing gay couples from having a wedding ceremony or calling themselves married.
Personally, I feel the government should get out of the marriage business altogether and simply convert all marriages to civil unions. The government should deal in contracts, not marriages. I got married by my church. I entered a contract with my wife at a courthouse. These two things are separate.
But if you really want to get literal, gays have the same rights as everyone else. There is no law that states that gays can't get married. The law only refers to which gender they are allowed to marry. As a straight man, I have the same rights to marry as anyone else.
But my point was not to argue for or against gay marriage. My point was that being against gay marriage is not the same thing as being against civil rights. Saying so would be the same as saying that Obama is against The Bill of Rights because he wants restrictions on gun sales or saying that Pelosi is against capitalism because she wants restrictions on oil company profits. Being against what some would perceive as a "right" does not makes someone against all rights. It was an exaggeration gross enough to make the comment false.
And comparing Christianity to the Taliban is just stupid.
Calling out scumbags like Santorum who attack CIVIL RIGHTS is hardly "bullying".
Santorum is pure "Christian Taliban", that is all.
You mean Santorum wants to make black people ride the back of the bus and wants to take away women's right to vote?
No?
Then you need to rephrase your quote. If you mean he's against gay marriage or teaching elementary students that blowjobs are an acceptable substitute for sex, then say that. Don't say that Santorum is against "CIVIL RIGHTS". The civil rights movement was lead my Rev. Martin Luther King and others. MLK, by the way, was a Christian reverend. It really shows ignorance on your part to equate Christianity with being anti-civil rights.
Also, when Christians start hanging gays and stoning adulterer women for the crime of getting raped, then you can compare them to the Taliban. Until then, your hyperbole causes you to lose all credibility.
The main contradiction here is that you are hating Christians because you accuse them of being hateful. You really don't see the hypocrisy in that?
Still saw nothing in the Google search link you posted where the Salvation Army refused to give help to homosexuals. Everything in the search dealt with the Salvation Army refusing to hire homosexuals or offer benefits to same sex couples.
I have never seen or heard of any story about a poor gay couple that had their house destroyed by some sort of disaster who was turned away when seeking help from the Salvation Army. When you can provide a direct link, I'll gladly take a look.
Right, because being openly discriminatory in hiring and assistance practices is a shining example of laying aside dogman and helping everyone. You've really enjoyed that Kool-Aid, haven't you?
Do you have an example of the Salvation Army refusing to help someone because they are gay or for other discriminatory reasons? Hiring is one thing. Being and old fat guy, I can never be a Hooter's waitress. Does that mean that Hooter's is discriminating against me? Do you think the NAACP should be forced to hire Klan members? Does it bother you that there are no white members of the Black Caucus?
Oh, it has. The Salvation Army shows me that Christians think it's okay to spread hate about a specific group of God-created individuals (ie., gays [wikipedia.org] and women who would dare to make their own perfectly legal decisions regarding reproductive health [wikipedia.org]) if you help a group of homeless people who think similarly to you (or are at least willing to go through the motions for a hot meal).
The Salvation Army has nothing against helping gays. They just won't hire them. I know you would love nothing more than to force Christian organizations to hire people who they don't want to, but the fact is, they LEGALLY (since you brought it up) don't have to. I'm sure it would warm your heart to walk into a church office and see it filled with gays and transvestites who sit around all day and smirk at the doctrine being taught, and asking people who come in, "Do you really believe this crap?", but that's not going to happen.
As for life, from your own source:
"The Salvation Army believes in the sanctity of all human life and considers each person to be of infinite value and each life a gift from God to be cherished, nurtured and redeemed. Human life is sacred because it is made in the image of God and has an eternal destiny. (Genesis 1:27) Sacredness is not conferred, nor can it be taken away by human agreement."
Really? You're mad because the Salvation Army values human life? Seriously? That's your complaint? Do you think that human life has no value? I think that this speaks more ill of you than the Salvation Army.
Maybe you were going for abortion or something. Let me inform you that Christians consider unborn people to be people. People are human. So let's do the math here; People are human. Human life is sacred. Fetuses are human. The lives of fetuses are sacred. Why is that so hard to understand? I understand that you may not view an unborn human being as a human being, but Christians don't feel you are qualified to make that call. We are sorry you feel that way, but the second that people starting deeming other people as non-human or sub-human, bad things happen. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Oh, by the way, The Salvation Army is NOT against contraception. From their own site:
However, it is recognised that many married couples will find it necessary to limit the number of their children for reasons of health, economics and other factors; any such decision, including the contraceptive means to be used, should be taken responsibly and where necessary under medical advice.
... but something tells me you won't be hating them any less, even though you are wrong about some of your reasons for hating them.
Sorry, I'm pretty sure Jesus said "Love thy neighbor," not "Love thy neighbor unless he's a fag or uses contraceptives." I'll start taking it seriously when you do.
Christians don't hate "fags" (your word, not mine), at least they are not supposed to. I know there are some groups out there that would lead you to believe that. They are wrong. But assuming that a single church from Kansas can make you think that all Christians hate homosexuals, then wouldn't it be fair to assume that all white people hate homosexuals? I did see several white people in sheets speaking out against homosexuality. I've seen groups of black people speaking out against homosexuality as well. The nation of Islam is a fine example. It's made up of black, non-Christians. So, can I assume that all blacks are against homosexuality as well? Don't even get me started on Muslims. They tend to hang homosexuals, but you go ahead and hate on Christians.
But, yes, it's true that Christians are against homosexuality. No, it's NOT true that Christians are against homosexuals. Christianity is one of the most "gay-friendly" religions out there, but don't let that stop you from bashing them for being against the act.
Their only concern is how to be the best human being possible to ensure a pleasureable eternity after death.
I've met a lot of "Christians" over they years whose only concern was being seen to be conforming to their social group's (church friends) idea of "good" (i.e. dogmatic, small-minded, selfish and ignorant) in order to be accepted by that social group, many of whom were labouring under the misapprehension that what they were doing was Christian.
You won't catch me spending eternity in the company of these people.
These people aren't doing it right. Do doctors hang out with other doctors or do they seek out the sick?
Don't assume that all Christians are like the few you've met. Don't assume that all Christians are only out to help their own little community. Rather than picking examples of those that fit what you already believed, open your eyes a bit and find a Christian based organization that does not fit your preconceived mold. You would think that something the size of the Salvation Army would help form your opinion of a group more so than Mark in accounting.
So for some reason I want to be raped, killed with the skull of an animal wielded like a club, and then turned into a pillar of salt?
That's the Old Testement. Chrisitianity is based of the New Testament. It's where Christ tought the church leaders to not be stupid when it comes to religion. For example, they brought a man with a crippled hand before Christ on a Saturday. See, it was illegal to work on a Saturday, and healing this guy would be against the law. Here is what followed:
"Is it right to heal anyone on the Sabbath day?" they asked him - hoping to bring a charge against him.
"If any of you had a sheep which fell into a ditch on the Sabbath day, would he not take hold of it and pull it out?" replied Jesus. "How much more valuable is a man than a sheep? You see, it is right to do good on the Sabbath day."
Then Jesus said to the man, "Stretch out your hand!" He did stretch it out, and it was restored as sound as the other.
--Matthew 12:9-14
The point is for you know the difference between the Old and New Testaments and which ones various groups follow. For example, your point may have made sense if this were an article about religion. But since it was an article about Christianity specifically, you just showed your ignorance. You don't have to believe the story I just quoted above, but you should understand that Christianity is not about what you seem to think it is. It's called the NEW Testament for a reason.
Well, yes. but I do not think that is actually a good thing, all things considered. For example, the crusades required a lot of drive but are among the most evil human undertakings ever.
You mean the same Crusades where a group of people tried to regain access to the Holy Land after it was cut off? What do you think the Muslims would do if Israel cut off access to the "Dome of the Rock"? Would you blame them? When they attack Israel, would you call it "among the most evil human undertakings ever"?
From the wiki page on Crusades:
The Crusades were a series of religious expeditionary wars blessed by the Pope and the Catholic Church, with the main goal of restoring Christian access to the holy places in and near Jerusalem. The Crusades were originally launched in response to a call from the leaders of the Byzantine Empire for help to fight the expansion into Anatolia of Muslim Seljuk Turks who had cut off access to Jerusalem.
You would thing that people would be able do away with these historic and completely ridiculous ideas by now. Instead they are still stuck in the dark ages, but now with shiny new technology. Really sad.
What's sad is that Christians have something you will never have. Christians have something to look forward to. They do not fear death and instead, welcome it. They know what life is all about and never spend a moment wondering what is next or what the point is. Their only concern is how to be the best human being possible to ensure a pleasureable eternity after death. They look forward to meeting friends and family and feel their presense throughout life. Their only fear is that they may not be good enough to enter paradise so they spend their lives trying to do good things for their fellow man and being honorable, honest people throughout their life. Material possessions mean nothing more than what they can be used for to better the lives of others, although the Bible is full of stories about people who did great things with nothing.
On the other hand no matter how much money you make how successful you are in life, you will die and that will be the end of it for you. You will go through life wondering what the point of it all is and why it's all worth it. When you lose loved ones, they are gone forever and you know that you will never be able to spend time with them again. No matter how hard you work, how many possessions you acquire, or accomplishments you achieve, you will end up being a bloated, rotting carcus, just like everyone else, and nothing more. The final chapter of your life involves is about compost.
Even if Christians are wrong, so what? Sure, they'll end up as worm food just like you, but in the mean time, they achieve an inner peace that you will never know and spend their lives trying to better humanity. What's the harm in that? Even after reading an article about Christians pushing tech that will benefit everyone, all you can do is insult them.
The sad part is not only that you will never know these things, but also that you are bitter against those that do.
(Of course, I'm talking about true Christians here, not the negative stereotype you've formed in your head from that one TV preacher you saw on Sunday morning saw after an all night bender, or the horrible stories you heard the news. I'm talking about people like Tim Tebow's parents who give their lives to serve others.)
I considered that, but like martinX said, "In no point in recorded history, or in the estimation of past CO2 levels, has..."
Also, we do have records going that far back. Ice core samples, for example, are records. Tree ring data are records. Layers of sediment are records. Just because we didn't take the records doesn't mean it's not recorded.
Whoever modded this insightful is retarded. In no point in recorded history, or in the estimation of past CO2 levels, has the level of CO2 ever been 10 times the current amount.
Be careful who you call retarded. You're gonna feel really stupid when someone comes along and proves you wrong.
Present atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are not unprecedented in geological history. Throughout the Phanerozoic spanning the past 600 million years, carbon dioxide concentrations have been sporadically falling from well above 6000ppm (Berner, 2001). Carbon dioxide has risen before, only to be sequestered in its unstoppable decline to an all time low of 200ppm - in the midst of human history.
To put that in perspective, the current levels are around 339ppm. If you are not good at math, 6000 is more than 10 x 339.
How many ships does the US have along the east coast of Africa right now to prevent piracy? And who benefits the most from the secured shipping lanes? Who foots the bill?
Well, the top 5% pay 50% of the bill. The bottom 50% pays absolutely nothing. So it would appear that the top 50% of the population's income earners pay 100% of the bill. The bottom 50% enjoys the benefit of being able to purchase the goods that are being shipped over.
However, you may had done better to point out that we have fought wars over, some would say, oil interests. I was in the service, and I wasn't there for oil, but let's grant the point anyway. Oil companies make a butt load off the contracts for drilling at these overseas locations like Iraq and Kuwait. I don't make one red cent from those contracts, yet I helped pay for the war effort. Same could be said for the US Navy helping to protect the shipping lanes that bring the oil over here.
Still, the purpose of this military force is not so that Exxon may get a contract. The purpose is to keep the oil flowing to the refineries, where they may refine into the various fuels and products I use every day. People work in those refineries and get paid. They also pay taxes. They literally help pay to protect their lively hood. I pay so that I might get to work and protect MY lively hood. Do I get a billion dollars from an oil contract? No, but I can drive my car to work every day. The food I eat can make it the store I buy it from. My recliner that I sit in was transported to the store and to my house using this oil, so I do benefit, as does everyone else, even those that don't pay for the benefits. Also note that a very small percentage of the super wealthy makes money directly from imported oil, unless you start to consider various investments. But these are publicly traded companies. There is no reason I can't shift my 401k to energy stocks and make money off of it as well, so even that's a wash.
So yeah, you could make the point that the mega rich get more from military expenditures than those that make below average income, but only in raw dollars. When you consider how much benefit each person receives per dollar spent, however, the ratio of who benefits the most skews heavily to the poor as they don't pay anything at all in federal income taxes. You also have to consider that taxes do not only go into the military. There is medicaid, the interstate highway system, federal unemployment benefits and trillions more spent on services that the wealthy benefit from very little, if at all.
It favors the poor even more when start to consider local and state taxes. While the poor actually pay local sales taxes, they still benefit proportionally well when you consider the money spent on local services, such as education, local/state parks, local streets, public hospitals, and even fire and police departments. Consider how much more the wealthy pay in property taxes that fund education, only to send their kids to private schools and then private or out of state universities. You don't see a lot of the extremely wealthy's kids going to public school and community college, yet, just like the federal services, they are footing the majority of the bill.
Others have already responded to your idiocy, I'll just add this: cops are in the poor neighborhoods so they can deal with the problems there instead of waiting for them to go to the rich neighborhoods.
So? Are you suggesting that the cops are there to only serve the rich? Are you suggesting that without the rich neighborhoods there would be no police? Strange then that communities like East Lansing Michigan have a police department, yet no million dollar homes. The same could be said of Lansing Michigan, Grand Rapids Michigan, Gary Indiana, San Marcos Texas, Houma Louisiana, and many many other communities around the country.
Yachts aren't "brought" to the US, and don't pay duties. Apparently, you're too stupid to notice that these boats don't fly American flags.
Cruising licenses exempt pleasure boats of certain countries from having to undergo formal entry and clearance procedures and can be obtained from the CBP Port Direct at the first port of arrival in the United States. U.S. pleasure craft and foreign-flag vessels without a cruising license, which are 30 feet or longer in length, must pay an annual fee of $27.50 for the user fee decal. User Fee Decals may be purchased online through the CBP Web site.
You're the one batting a perfect zero here.
You brought up two points. Both of which were proved to be wrong. You also completely ignored my points on education, public spaces, public services such as Medicaid, the fact that military spending is enjoyed equally by all, private security and the fact that the top 5% pay over 50% of the taxes and the bottom 50% of the population pays NOTHING in taxes. That means that the bottom 50% gets ALL of these services without paying one cent and the wealthy that pay for them don't use them.
Sorry, but math disagrees with you. Numbers don't lie. So, please don't try that line of bullshit that the wealthy receive more government services, dollar for dollar than the poor. That a hard pill to swallow when you consider that the poor don't pay anything at all for them. The really sad part is that you will continue to believe, even when it's been proved wrong several times over.
Others have already responded to your idiocy, I'll just add this: cops are in the poor neighborhoods so they can deal with the problems there instead of waiting for them to go to the rich neighborhoods.
Yachts aren't "brought" to the US, and don't pay duties. Apparently, you're too stupid to notice that these boats don't fly American flags.
You're the one batting a perfect zero here.
Are you illiterate or do you just not follow links?
We know you are a fucking idiot if you think that the very rich are going to buy EVERYTHING overseas and smuggle it into this country just so they don't have to pay a 10% sales tax. "Hey Bill Gates! Where did you buy that billion dollar home?"
And again, you are the idiot if you think that +50% of the police and +50% of the hospitals and +50% of everything else is in the wealthy neighborhoods. I noticed you completely ignored everything else and actually think that we would believe that the ALL the police hang out in the rich neighborhoods until they get a call. If that were true, there would be more police in these neighborhoods than civilians. But HEY! You keep believing that if it makes your world a little darker.
Except that rich people don't spend much money inside the country. Where do you think they get those megayachts from?
You mean those mega yachts that the owner has to pay a duty on like everything else people buy overseas and bring to the US? Um... I guess they would pay a duty on them. They will also get taxed wherever they are docked.
And what do you think keeps the poor people from simply killing these rich people and taking all their stuff? It's called military and police. The rich benefit more than everyone else.
Actually, it's called Blackwater Security Firm. Everyone benefits from the military equally. It's not like the Reds are coming over here and robbing the poor and middle class while the military is protecting the rich neighborhoods. Seriously man, think about what you are saying here. I'm not rich and I get 100%, absolute protection from foreign armies in my home. The EXACT same protection Michael Dell gets.
As for the police, like I said, the top 5% pays over half the taxes. Are over half the police in the rich neighborhoods? Here's a hint; NO! For that matter, most of the uber-rich are protected by private security companies. And yet, they still pay for police. Go ahead ask a cop or even listen to a police scanner. How many calls come from the good part of town? Is it over 50? Are over half the fire departments in the rich neighborhoods? Nope. Let's look at the school system? Well, rich neighborhoods do tend to have better schools, but much of that comes from the locals sending their kids to private schools, but still having to pay the taxes for the local public schools. This means there are fewer kids in the school for each person paying taxes. So, yeah. Just like everything else, the rich pay for the public services, and then pay for the services they use privately.
Any other examples you need me to explain? So far you are batting a perfect zero.
I'm all for increasing the taxes on the rich and making them pay for more of the costs of maintaining civilization since they benefit the most from it,
This reminds me of, "World to end tomorrow! Women and minorities hit the hardest!" Rich people don't benefit more from society than anyone else. Probably less if you think about it. The "ultra-rich" as you like to call them, don't drive their cars 6 days a week to work over government paid roads. The don't send their kids to public schools and you won't find them at an airport. They don't visit the library or spend time at public parks and would not be caught dead at a public golf course.
Oh, and while they make up five percent of the population, they pay for half of EVERYTHING the government spends. Sorry, but the top 5% do not take up 50% of the road ways or somehow suck up 50% of the protections the military provides us. They end up paying for the services the other 95% enjoy.
but these schemes always end up hurting the middle class the most, and the rich just find another loophole to exploit because the code is always written in such a way to give them these loopholes instead of making it simple and fair.
This may be true. The easy answer would be a sales tax. Get the IRS off the public's back and have them deal exclusively with businesses, making sure they are charging sales taxes. All money is spent at some point. Sure, it might be invested now or put in a savings account, but eventually, someone is going to spend that money. And like in the cases brought out by TFA, it doesn't matter how they made it, it will get taxed when spent.
these Marxists want everyone to be poor, except for a small class of ultra-rich people at the top.
Forgive me for not shedding too many tears of the barista who just inherited a property worth half a million dollars. Maybe he could sell the house, buy three Starbucks franchises and then buy it back in three years. Or maybe he could rent the place...
Slashdot Mirror
Also, is it that horrible to learn what anal sex is? Some people like putting their penis in other people's anus, oh no! Get over it.
Also, I should point out that this is NAMBLA's justification for existing.
OK, just so we are straight here... You think it's OK for an Internet site to teach my daughter about anal sex, when she is obviously looking for something else? If Rick Santorum was putting his platform on sites called analsex.com, then you might have a twisted point, but even that's not the case. What's really fucked up is that you think that YOU, I assume an adult, are equating someone talking, that you really don't have to listen to, with a preteen children learning about anal sex.
Here is what is wrong with the country:...
Way to start your post. People with views like yours, that think 12 year olds should be fully educated on gay sex acts, against their parent's wishes is a fine example what is wrong with this country and is EXACTLY what Rick Santorum's whole point is. No one I know, including the members of my church, cares who you fall in love with or who/what you do in your bedroom. What we DON'T want is someone forcing that lifestyle onto our children. This is EXACTLY what you are saying should happen. You are exactly what we don't want and you have successfully proven the Rick Santorum's point!
Seriously, man, you are fucked up.
There's a profound difference between tolerating someone's personal beliefs and tolerating someone's trying to impose their personal beliefs on others.
OK then. Stop trying to force your views that homosexuality is OK. Stop trying to force your view that homosexual marriage is OK. Stop trying to force me to accept people that want to view porn in a public library in front of children. Tell the president to stop forcing his views that contraception is a right to churches that teach against contraception.
It works both ways. No matter which side of the aisle you stand on these issues, the other side is trying to force their views on you. However, only one side is trying to change laws to match those views.
I don't want my 12-year-old daughter to see that definition
Please don't perpetuate your prudery into the next generation.
Please do not dictate how I should raise my children.
Santorum is pure "Christian Taliban", that is all.
So "Gays should stoned to death" is the same as "Gays should not be allowed to marry each other"?
I assume you're not playing dumb to the point that you think the bible doesn't call for homosexuals to be put to death. I agree that it doesn't specify any particularly gruesome method, but I'm curious what method of execution you think existed 2000 years ago that wasn't fairly gruesome.
Since we are talking about Christianity here, it should be noted that Christianity is based on the New Testament. That's where Christ, the root word of Christianity, taught that such behavior was wrong. I even hinted at that when I pointed out the "...cast the first stone" quote. You are confusing Islam and Judaism with Christianity.
And yes, Santorum doesn't advocate killing homosexuals. He just advocates locking them away.
Citation needed. In other words, show me where Santorum has said that homosexuals should be thrown in jail for nothing more than being homosexuals. My research has found the exact opposite:
"I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations."
Rick Santorum
(http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/rick_santorum.html#ixzz1mHoZ8Gxj)
It depends... did he advocate laws penalizing homosexuality?
Again, no one is stating that someone should be penalized for homosexuality. This idea seems to be basis for your entire point. That idea is wrong.
But, again, the point is that original poster said that Santorum was against civil rights based on his views that homosexuality is wrong. I've shows a quote where MLK said that homosexuality was a "problem" and it needed to be fixed. So, if Santorum is against civil rights, then so is MLK. Do you still stand by that point?
It's pretty apt in this case, actually. Sure, not all Christians are like the Taliban, but in Santorum's case, when he's actively promoting the idea that federal law needs to be subservient to Christian religious code, and when he is advocating instituting harsh legal penalties for people who have done nothing wrong except offend his religiously-based sensibilities, I don't see much of a difference.
You really don't see a difference between laws being based on religion based morality and the acts of the Taliban? While I'm sure you might find some things in common, if you don't see the differences you are allowing your bias to blind you. Let me help you out here:
On March 22, 1998, 18-year-old Abdul Sami and another young man, a 22-year-old named Bismillah, were buried alive—put beside a mud wall that was bulldozed upon them—inside a stadium in the Afghan city of Herat.
The gruesome public execution was the young men’s sentence, under Taliban law, of having been found guilty of engaging in sodomy. They were hardly the first to receive that kind of punishment for same-sex sexual transgressions: Just a month earlier three men found guilty of the same infraction had a stone wall collapsed on them in public just outside the city of Kandahar (purported to have had a large homosexual community before the Taliban seized power in 1996).
If you can find me where in Christian doctrine where it says that gays should be stoned or executed in some other horrific fashion, or that a prominent politician, like Santorum, is suggesting this, we can talk. Until then, you are either lying or extremely ignorant. Let me start your education by asking what Jesus considered to be qualifications for casting that first stone.
This is obtuse to the extreme. Prior to the "civil rights movement", plenty of people were in favor of freedom of speech, the right to vote, own property, etc. for white males, but simultaneously wanted to treat black people and women like property. By your logic, those people were "pro civil rights".
Like I stated, Martin Luther King Jr was a Christian Reverend. Are you stating that MLK was against Civil Rights? HERE is what MLK had to say about homosexuality:
“The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired,” King wrote. “You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.”
It is obvious that MLK viewed homosexuality as a choice, not a genetic trait. It is also obvious that he viewed it as "problem". So again, I ask you, was Martin Luther King Jr against Civil Rights?
Freedom to express your love for another human and raise a family and share in the legal protections extended to straight couples/families is a civil rights issue.
Let's break that down:
1) express your love for another human
There is nothing preventing gay couples from expressing their love for one another. The government doesn't deal in "love".
2) raise a family
There is nothing preventing gay couples from raising a family. Rosie O'Donnel is gay. She has adopted children. Many gay couples have had their own children through a surrogate mother or sperm donor.
3) share in the legal protections extended to straight couples/families
This is why many states have adopted the idea of "Civil Unions", which would give gay couples all the rights, benefits, and responsibilities of marriage. The idea was turned down because it was not called "marriage", even though there is absolutely no law preventing gay couples from having a wedding ceremony or calling themselves married.
Personally, I feel the government should get out of the marriage business altogether and simply convert all marriages to civil unions. The government should deal in contracts, not marriages. I got married by my church. I entered a contract with my wife at a courthouse. These two things are separate.
But if you really want to get literal, gays have the same rights as everyone else. There is no law that states that gays can't get married. The law only refers to which gender they are allowed to marry. As a straight man, I have the same rights to marry as anyone else.
But my point was not to argue for or against gay marriage. My point was that being against gay marriage is not the same thing as being against civil rights. Saying so would be the same as saying that Obama is against The Bill of Rights because he wants restrictions on gun sales or saying that Pelosi is against capitalism because she wants restrictions on oil company profits. Being against what some would perceive as a "right" does not makes someone against all rights. It was an exaggeration gross enough to make the comment false.
And comparing Christianity to the Taliban is just stupid.
Calling out scumbags like Santorum who attack CIVIL RIGHTS is hardly "bullying".
Santorum is pure "Christian Taliban", that is all.
You mean Santorum wants to make black people ride the back of the bus and wants to take away women's right to vote?
No?
Then you need to rephrase your quote. If you mean he's against gay marriage or teaching elementary students that blowjobs are an acceptable substitute for sex, then say that. Don't say that Santorum is against "CIVIL RIGHTS". The civil rights movement was lead my Rev. Martin Luther King and others. MLK, by the way, was a Christian reverend. It really shows ignorance on your part to equate Christianity with being anti-civil rights.
Also, when Christians start hanging gays and stoning adulterer women for the crime of getting raped, then you can compare them to the Taliban. Until then, your hyperbole causes you to lose all credibility.
The main contradiction here is that you are hating Christians because you accuse them of being hateful. You really don't see the hypocrisy in that?
Still saw nothing in the Google search link you posted where the Salvation Army refused to give help to homosexuals. Everything in the search dealt with the Salvation Army refusing to hire homosexuals or offer benefits to same sex couples.
I have never seen or heard of any story about a poor gay couple that had their house destroyed by some sort of disaster who was turned away when seeking help from the Salvation Army. When you can provide a direct link, I'll gladly take a look.
Right, because being openly discriminatory in hiring and assistance practices is a shining example of laying aside dogman and helping everyone. You've really enjoyed that Kool-Aid, haven't you?
Do you have an example of the Salvation Army refusing to help someone because they are gay or for other discriminatory reasons? Hiring is one thing. Being and old fat guy, I can never be a Hooter's waitress. Does that mean that Hooter's is discriminating against me? Do you think the NAACP should be forced to hire Klan members? Does it bother you that there are no white members of the Black Caucus?
Oh, it has. The Salvation Army shows me that Christians think it's okay to spread hate about a specific group of God-created individuals (ie., gays [wikipedia.org] and women who would dare to make their own perfectly legal decisions regarding reproductive health [wikipedia.org]) if you help a group of homeless people who think similarly to you (or are at least willing to go through the motions for a hot meal).
The Salvation Army has nothing against helping gays. They just won't hire them. I know you would love nothing more than to force Christian organizations to hire people who they don't want to, but the fact is, they LEGALLY (since you brought it up) don't have to. I'm sure it would warm your heart to walk into a church office and see it filled with gays and transvestites who sit around all day and smirk at the doctrine being taught, and asking people who come in, "Do you really believe this crap?", but that's not going to happen.
As for life, from your own source:
"The Salvation Army believes in the sanctity of all human life and considers each person to be of infinite value and each life a gift from God to be cherished, nurtured and redeemed. Human life is sacred because it is made in the image of God and has an eternal destiny. (Genesis 1:27) Sacredness is not conferred, nor can it be taken away by human agreement."
Really? You're mad because the Salvation Army values human life? Seriously? That's your complaint? Do you think that human life has no value? I think that this speaks more ill of you than the Salvation Army.
Maybe you were going for abortion or something. Let me inform you that Christians consider unborn people to be people. People are human. So let's do the math here; People are human. Human life is sacred. Fetuses are human. The lives of fetuses are sacred. Why is that so hard to understand? I understand that you may not view an unborn human being as a human being, but Christians don't feel you are qualified to make that call. We are sorry you feel that way, but the second that people starting deeming other people as non-human or sub-human, bad things happen. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Oh, by the way, The Salvation Army is NOT against contraception. From their own site:
However, it is recognised that many married couples will find it necessary to limit the number of their children for reasons of health, economics and other factors; any such decision, including the contraceptive means to be used, should be taken responsibly and where necessary under medical advice.
... but something tells me you won't be hating them any less, even though you are wrong about some of your reasons for hating them.
Sorry, I'm pretty sure Jesus said "Love thy neighbor," not "Love thy neighbor unless he's a fag or uses contraceptives." I'll start taking it seriously when you do.
Christians don't hate "fags" (your word, not mine), at least they are not supposed to. I know there are some groups out there that would lead you to believe that. They are wrong. But assuming that a single church from Kansas can make you think that all Christians hate homosexuals, then wouldn't it be fair to assume that all white people hate homosexuals? I did see several white people in sheets speaking out against homosexuality. I've seen groups of black people speaking out against homosexuality as well. The nation of Islam is a fine example. It's made up of black, non-Christians. So, can I assume that all blacks are against homosexuality as well? Don't even get me started on Muslims. They tend to hang homosexuals, but you go ahead and hate on Christians.
But, yes, it's true that Christians are against homosexuality. No, it's NOT true that Christians are against homosexuals. Christianity is one of the most "gay-friendly" religions out there, but don't let that stop you from bashing them for being against the act.
Their only concern is how to be the best human being possible to ensure a pleasureable eternity after death.
I've met a lot of "Christians" over they years whose only concern was being seen to be conforming to their social group's (church friends) idea of "good" (i.e. dogmatic, small-minded, selfish and ignorant) in order to be accepted by that social group, many of whom were labouring under the misapprehension that what they were doing was Christian.
You won't catch me spending eternity in the company of these people.
These people aren't doing it right. Do doctors hang out with other doctors or do they seek out the sick?
Don't assume that all Christians are like the few you've met. Don't assume that all Christians are only out to help their own little community. Rather than picking examples of those that fit what you already believed, open your eyes a bit and find a Christian based organization that does not fit your preconceived mold. You would think that something the size of the Salvation Army would help form your opinion of a group more so than Mark in accounting.
So for some reason I want to be raped, killed with the skull of an animal wielded like a club, and then turned into a pillar of salt?
That's the Old Testement. Chrisitianity is based of the New Testament. It's where Christ tought the church leaders to not be stupid when it comes to religion. For example, they brought a man with a crippled hand before Christ on a Saturday. See, it was illegal to work on a Saturday, and healing this guy would be against the law. Here is what followed:
"Is it right to heal anyone on the Sabbath day?" they asked him - hoping to bring a charge against him.
"If any of you had a sheep which fell into a ditch on the Sabbath day, would he not take hold of it and pull it out?" replied Jesus. "How much more valuable is a man than a sheep? You see, it is right to do good on the Sabbath day."
Then Jesus said to the man, "Stretch out your hand!" He did stretch it out, and it was restored as sound as the other.
--Matthew 12:9-14
The point is for you know the difference between the Old and New Testaments and which ones various groups follow. For example, your point may have made sense if this were an article about religion. But since it was an article about Christianity specifically, you just showed your ignorance. You don't have to believe the story I just quoted above, but you should understand that Christianity is not about what you seem to think it is. It's called the NEW Testament for a reason.
At least Porn is a reality......
I used to be a pizza delivery driver, and let me tell you porn is NOT reality!
Well, yes. but I do not think that is actually a good thing, all things considered. For example, the crusades required a lot of drive but are among the most evil human undertakings ever.
You mean the same Crusades where a group of people tried to regain access to the Holy Land after it was cut off? What do you think the Muslims would do if Israel cut off access to the "Dome of the Rock"? Would you blame them? When they attack Israel, would you call it "among the most evil human undertakings ever"?
From the wiki page on Crusades:
The Crusades were a series of religious expeditionary wars blessed by the Pope and the Catholic Church, with the main goal of restoring Christian access to the holy places in and near Jerusalem. The Crusades were originally launched in response to a call from the leaders of the Byzantine Empire for help to fight the expansion into Anatolia of Muslim Seljuk Turks who had cut off access to Jerusalem.
You would thing that people would be able do away with these historic and completely ridiculous ideas by now. Instead they are still stuck in the dark ages, but now with shiny new technology. Really sad.
What's sad is that Christians have something you will never have. Christians have something to look forward to. They do not fear death and instead, welcome it. They know what life is all about and never spend a moment wondering what is next or what the point is. Their only concern is how to be the best human being possible to ensure a pleasureable eternity after death. They look forward to meeting friends and family and feel their presense throughout life. Their only fear is that they may not be good enough to enter paradise so they spend their lives trying to do good things for their fellow man and being honorable, honest people throughout their life. Material possessions mean nothing more than what they can be used for to better the lives of others, although the Bible is full of stories about people who did great things with nothing.
On the other hand no matter how much money you make how successful you are in life, you will die and that will be the end of it for you. You will go through life wondering what the point of it all is and why it's all worth it. When you lose loved ones, they are gone forever and you know that you will never be able to spend time with them again. No matter how hard you work, how many possessions you acquire, or accomplishments you achieve, you will end up being a bloated, rotting carcus, just like everyone else, and nothing more. The final chapter of your life involves is about compost.
Even if Christians are wrong, so what? Sure, they'll end up as worm food just like you, but in the mean time, they achieve an inner peace that you will never know and spend their lives trying to better humanity. What's the harm in that? Even after reading an article about Christians pushing tech that will benefit everyone, all you can do is insult them.
The sad part is not only that you will never know these things, but also that you are bitter against those that do.
(Of course, I'm talking about true Christians here, not the negative stereotype you've formed in your head from that one TV preacher you saw on Sunday morning saw after an all night bender, or the horrible stories you heard the news. I'm talking about people like Tim Tebow's parents who give their lives to serve others.)
He wrote
recorded history
You wrote
Phanerozoic spanning the past 600 million years
Not exactly the same time frame...
I considered that, but like martinX said, "In no point in recorded history, or in the estimation of past CO2 levels, has ..."
Also, we do have records going that far back. Ice core samples, for example, are records. Tree ring data are records. Layers of sediment are records. Just because we didn't take the records doesn't mean it's not recorded.
Whoever modded this insightful is retarded. In no point in recorded history, or in the estimation of past CO2 levels, has the level of CO2 ever been 10 times the current amount.
Be careful who you call retarded. You're gonna feel really stupid when someone comes along and proves you wrong.
OOH! OOH! Let me!
HERE ya go!
Did that not work? Try this one:
Present atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are not unprecedented in geological history. Throughout the Phanerozoic spanning the past 600 million years, carbon dioxide concentrations have been sporadically falling from well above 6000ppm (Berner, 2001). Carbon dioxide has risen before, only to be sequestered in its unstoppable decline to an all time low of 200ppm - in the midst of human history.
To put that in perspective, the current levels are around 339ppm. If you are not good at math, 6000 is more than 10 x 339.
Need more? Click HERE
Glad I could help.
How many ships does the US have along the east coast of Africa right now to prevent piracy? And who benefits the most from the secured shipping lanes? Who foots the bill?
Well, the top 5% pay 50% of the bill. The bottom 50% pays absolutely nothing. So it would appear that the top 50% of the population's income earners pay 100% of the bill. The bottom 50% enjoys the benefit of being able to purchase the goods that are being shipped over.
However, you may had done better to point out that we have fought wars over, some would say, oil interests. I was in the service, and I wasn't there for oil, but let's grant the point anyway. Oil companies make a butt load off the contracts for drilling at these overseas locations like Iraq and Kuwait. I don't make one red cent from those contracts, yet I helped pay for the war effort. Same could be said for the US Navy helping to protect the shipping lanes that bring the oil over here.
Still, the purpose of this military force is not so that Exxon may get a contract. The purpose is to keep the oil flowing to the refineries, where they may refine into the various fuels and products I use every day. People work in those refineries and get paid. They also pay taxes. They literally help pay to protect their lively hood. I pay so that I might get to work and protect MY lively hood. Do I get a billion dollars from an oil contract? No, but I can drive my car to work every day. The food I eat can make it the store I buy it from. My recliner that I sit in was transported to the store and to my house using this oil, so I do benefit, as does everyone else, even those that don't pay for the benefits. Also note that a very small percentage of the super wealthy makes money directly from imported oil, unless you start to consider various investments. But these are publicly traded companies. There is no reason I can't shift my 401k to energy stocks and make money off of it as well, so even that's a wash.
So yeah, you could make the point that the mega rich get more from military expenditures than those that make below average income, but only in raw dollars. When you consider how much benefit each person receives per dollar spent, however, the ratio of who benefits the most skews heavily to the poor as they don't pay anything at all in federal income taxes. You also have to consider that taxes do not only go into the military. There is medicaid, the interstate highway system, federal unemployment benefits and trillions more spent on services that the wealthy benefit from very little, if at all.
It favors the poor even more when start to consider local and state taxes. While the poor actually pay local sales taxes, they still benefit proportionally well when you consider the money spent on local services, such as education, local/state parks, local streets, public hospitals, and even fire and police departments. Consider how much more the wealthy pay in property taxes that fund education, only to send their kids to private schools and then private or out of state universities. You don't see a lot of the extremely wealthy's kids going to public school and community college, yet, just like the federal services, they are footing the majority of the bill.
Others have already responded to your idiocy, I'll just add this: cops are in the poor neighborhoods so they can deal with the problems there instead of waiting for them to go to the rich neighborhoods.
So? Are you suggesting that the cops are there to only serve the rich? Are you suggesting that without the rich neighborhoods there would be no police? Strange then that communities like East Lansing Michigan have a police department, yet no million dollar homes. The same could be said of Lansing Michigan, Grand Rapids Michigan, Gary Indiana, San Marcos Texas, Houma Louisiana, and many many other communities around the country.
Yachts aren't "brought" to the US, and don't pay duties. Apparently, you're too stupid to notice that these boats don't fly American flags.
They don't? U.S. Customs and Border Protection would disagree:
Cruising licenses exempt pleasure boats of certain countries from having to undergo formal entry and clearance procedures and can be obtained from the CBP Port Direct at the first port of arrival in the United States. U.S. pleasure craft and foreign-flag vessels without a cruising license, which are 30 feet or longer in length, must pay an annual fee of $27.50 for the user fee decal. User Fee Decals may be purchased online through the CBP Web site.
You're the one batting a perfect zero here.
You brought up two points. Both of which were proved to be wrong. You also completely ignored my points on education, public spaces, public services such as Medicaid, the fact that military spending is enjoyed equally by all, private security and the fact that the top 5% pay over 50% of the taxes and the bottom 50% of the population pays NOTHING in taxes. That means that the bottom 50% gets ALL of these services without paying one cent and the wealthy that pay for them don't use them.
Sorry, but math disagrees with you. Numbers don't lie. So, please don't try that line of bullshit that the wealthy receive more government services, dollar for dollar than the poor. That a hard pill to swallow when you consider that the poor don't pay anything at all for them. The really sad part is that you will continue to believe, even when it's been proved wrong several times over.
Others have already responded to your idiocy, I'll just add this: cops are in the poor neighborhoods so they can deal with the problems there instead of waiting for them to go to the rich neighborhoods.
Yachts aren't "brought" to the US, and don't pay duties. Apparently, you're too stupid to notice that these boats don't fly American flags.
You're the one batting a perfect zero here.
Are you illiterate or do you just not follow links?
We know you are a fucking idiot if you think that the very rich are going to buy EVERYTHING overseas and smuggle it into this country just so they don't have to pay a 10% sales tax. "Hey Bill Gates! Where did you buy that billion dollar home?"
And again, you are the idiot if you think that +50% of the police and +50% of the hospitals and +50% of everything else is in the wealthy neighborhoods. I noticed you completely ignored everything else and actually think that we would believe that the ALL the police hang out in the rich neighborhoods until they get a call. If that were true, there would be more police in these neighborhoods than civilians. But HEY! You keep believing that if it makes your world a little darker.
Except that rich people don't spend much money inside the country. Where do you think they get those megayachts from?
You mean those mega yachts that the owner has to pay a duty on like everything else people buy overseas and bring to the US? Um... I guess they would pay a duty on them. They will also get taxed wherever they are docked.
And what do you think keeps the poor people from simply killing these rich people and taking all their stuff? It's called military and police. The rich benefit more than everyone else.
Actually, it's called Blackwater Security Firm.
Everyone benefits from the military equally. It's not like the Reds are coming over here and robbing the poor and middle class while the military is protecting the rich neighborhoods. Seriously man, think about what you are saying here. I'm not rich and I get 100%, absolute protection from foreign armies in my home. The EXACT same protection Michael Dell gets.
As for the police, like I said, the top 5% pays over half the taxes. Are over half the police in the rich neighborhoods? Here's a hint; NO! For that matter, most of the uber-rich are protected by private security companies. And yet, they still pay for police. Go ahead ask a cop or even listen to a police scanner. How many calls come from the good part of town? Is it over 50? Are over half the fire departments in the rich neighborhoods? Nope. Let's look at the school system? Well, rich neighborhoods do tend to have better schools, but much of that comes from the locals sending their kids to private schools, but still having to pay the taxes for the local public schools. This means there are fewer kids in the school for each person paying taxes. So, yeah. Just like everything else, the rich pay for the public services, and then pay for the services they use privately.
Any other examples you need me to explain? So far you are batting a perfect zero.
I'm all for increasing the taxes on the rich and making them pay for more of the costs of maintaining civilization since they benefit the most from it,
This reminds me of, "World to end tomorrow! Women and minorities hit the hardest!" Rich people don't benefit more from society than anyone else. Probably less if you think about it. The "ultra-rich" as you like to call them, don't drive their cars 6 days a week to work over government paid roads. The don't send their kids to public schools and you won't find them at an airport. They don't visit the library or spend time at public parks and would not be caught dead at a public golf course.
Oh, and while they make up five percent of the population, they pay for half of EVERYTHING the government spends. Sorry, but the top 5% do not take up 50% of the road ways or somehow suck up 50% of the protections the military provides us. They end up paying for the services the other 95% enjoy.
but these schemes always end up hurting the middle class the most, and the rich just find another loophole to exploit because the code is always written in such a way to give them these loopholes instead of making it simple and fair.
This may be true. The easy answer would be a sales tax. Get the IRS off the public's back and have them deal exclusively with businesses, making sure they are charging sales taxes. All money is spent at some point. Sure, it might be invested now or put in a savings account, but eventually, someone is going to spend that money. And like in the cases brought out by TFA, it doesn't matter how they made it, it will get taxed when spent.
these Marxists want everyone to be poor, except for a small class of ultra-rich people at the top.
And on this part, you are spot on!
Forgive me for not shedding too many tears of the barista who just inherited a property worth half a million dollars. Maybe he could sell the house, buy three Starbucks franchises and then buy it back in three years. Or maybe he could rent the place...