That would be the fact that irrational fucktards like you dominate any conversation or debate with the kind of crap you just wrote.
Dude, seriously, you told a blatant lie that had you done any research whatsoever or bothered to do anything at all to inform yourself about the issue you would have known that you were lying (assuming that you didn't already know).
The fact is, that according to the people running this country they invaded Iraq for *exactly* the reason you're busy denying. They laid out their plan long ago and it is publically available.
If you are that out of touch with reality, and you take that little interest in this country and who is running it then why do you even bother spouting such nonsense? Is it possible for you to add anything useful to the conversation? Of course not, because you don't have any knowledge of what the situation even is. So calling me irrational when I point out that you are full of shit and even go so far as to demonstrate that you are full of shit makes the same amount of sense as the rest of the crap you're posting.
Seriously, you were wrong. Had you made any attempt whatsoever to actually figure out the truth of the matter before posting it you would have known that. Clearly, you don't give a flying fuck about what the actual truth of the matter is otherwise you would have found it out.
Now, obviously, I was mean to you so there's no point in expecting you to act with integrity towards me in this matter, but you do owe the OP an apology for responding to his informed point with idiotic lies. Curiously enough, I expect you to ignore the link I sent and maintain a death grip on your ignorance so that you can keep living in your delusional dream world.
Anyhow, when you do not know anything about what is being discussed you look like an idiot when you spout off about it anyway. When it is that trivial to inform yourself and you refuse and attack as "irrational" those who do have the integrity to take their responsibilities as a citizen seriously you demonstrate yourself to be pretty much morally bankrupt.
Sorry if you don't like it, but facts aren't always what you want them to be.
Rather than get all pissy when somebody points out your failings, perhaps you could actually address them and then they would no longer be there? No, much easier to describe anybody who knows more than you as "irrational"
I read "The Rise of the Roman Empire" by Publius and "The Decline and fall..." back to back, and it was one of the most enlightening experiences of my life.
Rome as described in "The Rise..." was so similar to how America used to be. He contrasts it with Sparta and with Carthage. In Sparta, no man could own more than another man. If he somehow came to have more it was taken away. That ideal (among other reasons) prevented Sparta from ever becoming a world power.
Carthage was the other extreme. In their culture nothing was immoral if it could turn a profit. Public officials were all for sale and their prices were more or less public knowledge.
Rome in its rise was far better than either. Public officials wouldn't take bribes in part because their culture looked down on it and in part because the penalty was death. Some things just weren't done becasue they were wrong regardless of the profitability.
Then in "The Decline..." Rome had gone the way of Carthage in these respects. Much like America has now. It is so similar it is sickening to me. Especially how so-called moral Christians are the ones most supporting the corrupt.
Come on, get a little bit real please. It wasn't a good idea in the least and I'd be crazy to deny that but it was hardly a move to create a "Greater America" that would last a thousand years.
You who has demonstrated such complete ignorance of the issue that you can't even be bothered to read the manifesto of this current administration?
Or should we believe the people who started this war when they stated exactly why they planned on invading Iraq long before 9/11?
Sorry, but since you are clearly an ingorant tool I'm going with the second one.
Please pull your head out of your ass and try to learn a little about the world around you before you spout idiotic nonsense that directly contradicts the stated reasoning of the people who started this war in the first place.
It's cowardly scumbag morons like yourself who are afraid to even attempt to deal with reality that are fucking up this country. Please kill yourself now. It's the only way you could possibly do any good in the world if you are truly as ignorant as you are trying to demonstrate. The alternative is that you already knew that you were lying and are shilling anyhow. Either way, you're scum. Go die now.
"Take the Nazi out of Amerika" bit. That just tells me you're bright but you don't have the first clue about real Nazis. If you really understood them then you wouldn't even think about drawing that comparison.
You are so wrong on so many levels. You clearly do not understand the Nazis at all if you do not know for a fact that we are the intellectual heirs of the Nazis. You are probably just focusing on the holocaust, which while horrible, isn't what is under discussion here.
So, I will make an attempt to enlighten you to the actual facts of the matter. I'm not too hopeful that you will be able to actually look at the facts with an open mind given your knee jerk response to the OP who has every single relevant historical fact backing him up while you have no facts at all, but I feel compelled to try anyhow.
Prior to our entry into world war 2, the vast majority of American industrialists were tremendous supporters of Hitler. They loved him and wanted very much to remake America in his image. These are people like Henry Ford, Charles Lindberg, William Randolph Hearst, and Prescott Bush (the current president's grandfather). Prescott Bush went so far as to commit treason by dealing with the Nazis while we were at war with them he was such a die hard supporter of Naziism.
It was only the extreme leftists (which America once had) who were against Hitler. These were Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists for the most part. Now, once the attack on Pearl Harbor was engineered, we were at war with the Nazis, so most people couldn't be so vocal in their support although many like our president's grandfather were willing to betray their country to support the Nazis.
Once the war was over, we brought many of the Nazis back to America. Many of them were scientists and the like, but many of them were in intelligence and served as the basis of the fledgling CIA. Which surprise surprise George Bush senior was the head of for a while.
Now look at the people that our current president has surrounded himself with. The fact is that the core of his administration studied with Leo Strauss who is one of the number one proponents of Nazi philosophy. These are the people that this president has chosen to surround himself with.
So, the simple fact is that there are Nazis in America and they are at the highest levels of our government.
None of this means we are going to start firing up the gas chambers to kill a bunch of Jews. That is irrelevant to the discussion and was only tangential to Nazi philosophy. Now their philsophy does require pushing blind, ignorant, hatred which the right in America has been doing with a passion for the last 30 years, but that is merely due to the fact that their success depends upon getting people to vote directly against their own best interests.
Here is an article discussing what fascism and Nazi philosophy actually is.
Here is one demonstrating the parallels in America.
I encourage you to read these, so that you can actually understand what it is that is being discussed and hopefully add something to the discussion rather than discounting basic facts in a knee jerk manner because you don't even understand what people are saying.
Sigh, more hand waving. Let me know when you want to get back to a real discussion, otherwise I'm done with this comment.
So let me see if I have this straight.
You spew a bunch of insane nonsense and refuse to provide evidence, then you whine like a little bitch about how someone stating a simple, blatantly obvious fact which if you had paid any attention at all for the last 30 years would be known to you as well isn't providing evidence?!?! WTF?
So just to avoid your idiotic spewing, here are the facts.
"Faith based initiatives" This is taking my tax dollars and using them to fund hate-based religious groups. This is about as anti-American as it is possible to get. It is a blatant piss right in the face of the separation of church and state and it is entirely treasonous in both intent and action.
Pushing for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. This is an entirely hate-based idea. It would also be the first time in the history of this country that the constitution was amended for the sole purpose of discriminating against a specific group solely due to who they were born.
The whole Terry Schaivo case. This also demonstrates the hypocricy which is the fundamental tenet of Republicanism. They want to ban gay marriage to "protect the sanctity of marriage" which is moronic at every level yet at the same time they want to use the full power of the federal government to take away the power of one husband to act in accordance with that sanctity.
Now, your point was clearly insane nonsense since the lunatic fringe is in power in this country right now. Why do you think they have launched a full out attack against the judicial branch? Because they are the ones who were tasked by the constitution with preventing these psychos from gaining any power in this country. Don't forget, religious freedom and separation of church and state were put in the constitution for the specific purpose of protecting America *from* Christian extremists.
I genuinely want to offer some help; both you and the poster I originally replied to seem to have really very little experience with Christians, Republicans, Christian Republicans.
I think I need to offer you a little help as well.
As far as Christian Republicans, the fact is that there is no such animal. It is a contradiction and can never happen. Christianity and Republicanism are two diametrically opposed views.
This is really quite obvious. The only plank in the Republican platform at this point is hyper capitalism. This is an inherently amoral philosophy. How would it be possible for an inherently moral (whether or not you agree with their morals) philosophy to be in agreement with an inherently amoral philosophy? The simple unavoidable fact is that it can't. Further, you have many so-called Christians who are up in arms about the "moral decay" of our society by which they mean the fact that people are allowed to live their lives how they want to rather than how the so-called Christian wants to force them to. The simple unavoidable fact is that the Liberalization of our culture is an inevitable result of hyper capitalism. So the more they keep voting for Republicans, the worse it gets.
So, were there any integrity in that community, they would be forced to take an honest look at what they are doing and how they are doing more than any other group in existence to promote the very decay that they are bitching about. The fact that people even still use the oxymoronic term "Christian Republican" just shows how far from Christian beliefs these people are.
You really show a complete lack of understanding of Republican philosophy (not what they say, what they do) and a complete lack of understanding of Christian philosophy if you think it's possible for these to be aligned.
Promoting blind greed, hatred, and ignorance is not a Christian attitude if by that you mean in line with Jesus's teachings. It is a Christian attitude if by that you mean the attitude taken by the Christian churches for the vast majority of their existence.
It's really sad, but it is an absolute fact that is borne out by every piece of evidence and all of the history of that religion (and almost all otehrs as well).
So please stop spreading that ignorant nonsense. If you want to be a Republican, be that but do it with some scrap of integrity. Admit that you care only about yourself and have no moral issues with putting yourself ahead by murder, thievery, deceit or whatever else it takes for that is absolutely what it is to be a Republican.
If you want to be a Christian, then do that. But don't make yourself look like a fool by pretending to be something that can not exist in this universe.
Imagine what would happen if people were allowed to sue an individual employee because of a faulty product.
Special case, but a friend of mine used to work for Abbott Labs (big drug company) and his lab tested every single drug Abbott released for its affects on the human heart. Basically if he signed off on a drug and it kills people he was personally liable.
The bad thing is obviously if he screws up, then he could be out far more than he could ever hope to make.
The good thing is that when a senior VP came into his lab and started screaming at him to sign off on the fucking thing that he's spent a couple hundred million dollars on my friend told him to go fuck himself and he didn't get fired.
That drug was Abbott's Viox style drug. It had the same problems as all the other similar drugs, but their's was never released since my friend wouldn't sign off on it since he was personally liable ( or more accurately because he has no interest in killing people;-).
So it's definitely a complicated question but there are pros and cons.
Almost all of the higher cost of healthcare in the US is because the Government gives the AMA (American Medical Association) the power to limit the number of doctors.
That's a great big load of crap. Big pharma is the largest lobby in Washington. They have bribed our legislators to socialize our health care already. Remember that bill Bush signed making it illegal for medicare to negotiate drug prices. Note the recent legislation in the works to prevent us from buying drugs from Canada?
These are 2 recent examples where big pharma has demonstrated their utter hatred and contempt for the free market.
So it's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the rest of us. Otherwise known as fascism.
So nice try, but while the AMA is a problem they aren't even in the same league as big pharma.
Democrats have historically been more servile than Republicans to the entertainment industry moguls, despite their pious declarations of support for the interests of the little guy, and their campaign donations reflect this.
Certainly, but it isn't even in the same ballpark as the Republicans who are the slaves of the oil and weapons industries who see their best way to increase profits as murdering a bunch of people despite their idiotic lies of being "moral" people. Complete oxymoron that. A Republican with morals. What next.
Nice try throwing irrelevant partisan hackery in though. Better luck next time.
you have still violated copyright and that is wrong.
Nope. It is illegal. That in no way implies that it is wrong. If you disagree, then you obviously haven't thought about it at all. There are far too many extreme examples for your point to be anything besides laughable. In fact, given that we are discussing a convicted criminal cartel, your defense of them is far more "wrong" than any actions anybody has ever taken against them.
"Wrong" is a moral judgement though, so it really depends on what your morals are. Yours involve defending a criminal cartel against the will of the citizens of this country. Mine involve the idea that an organized crime group using the resources that I have paid for to defend their criminal profits while simultaneously buying anti-American laws to give a near useless distribution cartel control over what technology I am allowed to have is inherently anti-freedom, fascist, and absofuckinglylutely wrong.
Women don't really reach sexual maturity until their mid to late 20's.
Yeah, that's why there is no such thing as teen pregnancy...because it's impossible. And I'm quite sure I've never had to smack myself for staring at some chick's ass when she turned around and ended up being much younger than I thought.
I think you mean that women tend not to be as comfortable with their sexuality as men until they are in their 20s to 30s. That is mostly a societal/cultural/religious thing though.
Pretty much every high school freshman is sexually mature.
Read the first part of the sentence... If you aren't part of a well regulated militia, you have/no/ right to bear arms.
The first part of the sentence is the reasoning for the amendment, not a requirement to be covered by it.
The really sad thing is that those who most defend the second amendment are the ones whose party is doing the most to destroy freedom in America, hence the least likely to actually use their weapons against the government.
His support for the hate-based constitutional amendment. "God hates fags" is the only possible argument for that. Did you really not know that he supports that?
When GP stated that Democrats will use racial/sexual issues to gain power, this is exactly what he meant.
No, this is solely a Republican issue. Think it through. You are honestly saying that Democrats said "Let's not have an amendment banning gays from marrying" before some sicko even tried to have one? That doesn't make any sense.
Do their views intersect somewhat on this matter? Sure. But acting as though they are in lockstep with each other is 1. A lie ans 2. intellectually dishonest.
No it isn't. Pretending otherwise as you are is both a lie and intellectually dishonest. Just because Bush has speech writers to put it in different terms does not change the meaning at all.
Provide some other possible explanation that somebody could possibly support such an utterly disgusting amendment that is designed to piss in the face of everything this country claims to stand for. Nobody on that side of the argument has been able to the whole time it has been going on.
Every single argument ever given by every single supporter boils down to "God hates fags". Every argument will always boil down to that because that is the only possible reason to support such a thing. It's basic logic, dude.
You're using inflammatory rhetoric to overstate the truth of the situation, because the truth of the situation isn't what you want people to believe.
No, not at all. That is the truth of the situation as you well know. If it actually weren't, then you would be able to provide some other alternate interpretation. You can't, because there isn't one.
THAT is the current platform of the Democratic party.
No, it's the only tactic that the Republican party has. Granted all sides use it from time to time, but the Republicans have based every single one of their points solely upon that. That's why they used their hate squads (Coulter, Hannity, Rush, Fox News etc.) to poison public discourse in this country. If there were any actual honest debate on any of these issues, then this administration would have been impeached and convicted of treason years ago.
And I voted third party, so save that "Bush lover" crap you guys keep in deck when someone disagrees with you. It doesn't describe me, and it's ALSO intellectually dishonest.
By "You guys" I assume you mean independent voters who believe in personal liberty and personal responsibility. Sadly you try to claim to be one while denigrating them. You don't have to be a Democrat to despise Republicans in this day and age. All it requires is honesty and some ethics. Sadly, that's another absolute fact. I defy you to refute it or anything else I've said.
Spouting more misinformed nonsense isn't a refutation.
Or are you trying to pull on us what we pulled on our foreign exchange student?
No, I was trying to be funny by pretending I'm even dumber than I am. The joke was that the foreign exchange student pulled on me what you pulled on yours.
It would translate (assuming I got it right) as "I am a waterbuffalo head".
In the interest of allowing us to properly insult any Hindi speakers without having to explain it to them, vould you please provide a pronounciation guide to the above?
We taught our foreign exchange student that "woodchuck" was a swear word. He would use it occasionally, when he was upset.
Now that is downright hilarious. We never thought of doing that to our foreign exchange students. We just taught them the real swear words, and they taught us the real ones too.
For example, if you want to really piss off a German, say "Ich bin einen Wasserbuffelkopf".
It means "You are a scumbag nazi jackass whose mother sleeps with horses"... loosely translated of course.
but very few normal right-wingers are hate-mongers either,
Well, they wouldn't have the integrity to admit to it, but by voting Republican, and especially for Bush thay are stating unequivocably and in no uncertain terms that they stand against freedom, honesty, integrity and the like.
I'm sorry, but it is not possible to support Bush and not support blind hatred.
I mean, there is nothing else left to the Republican platform at this point.
Small government? Personal responsibility? Fiscal responsibility? Liberty? Freedom? Integrity?
These are the things that the Republican party is actively and viciously attacking at every step and with damn near every single action they have taken since at least the Reagan administration.
I mean, seriously, George Bush and Fred Phelps are birds of a feather. They both rant long and hard about how god hates fags.
"Dance with the Devil and the Devil don't change; the Devil changes you."
They are opposed to hate based legislation like the proposed anti-gay marriage amendment.
Granted, there isn't much difference, but if you're going to pick one as morally better, there is no question whatsoever.
Philosophically (i.e. not current American reality) there is a much bigger divide, but it's based on the same thing. It's a simple case of applying the definitions.. no deduction necessary.
The Center believes all people are created equal, but that's about it.
The right believes in using the force of the state to prevent equality (see above hate-based legislation).
The left believes in using the force of the state to promote equality.
There is no question which is the moral philosophy between left and right.
No, what's REALLY frightening is the right wing is more moral than the left.
Other than demonstrating that you have no concept of morality and a tenuous grip on reality was there any point in your insane, blatantly and easily demonstrably false statement?
Slashdot Mirror
That would be the fact that irrational fucktards like you dominate any conversation or debate with the kind of crap you just wrote.
Dude, seriously, you told a blatant lie that had you done any research whatsoever or bothered to do anything at all to inform yourself about the issue you would have known that you were lying (assuming that you didn't already know).
The fact is, that according to the people running this country they invaded Iraq for *exactly* the reason you're busy denying. They laid out their plan long ago and it is publically available.
If you are that out of touch with reality, and you take that little interest in this country and who is running it then why do you even bother spouting such nonsense?
Is it possible for you to add anything useful to the conversation? Of course not, because you don't have any knowledge of what the situation even is.
So calling me irrational when I point out that you are full of shit and even go so far as to demonstrate that you are full of shit makes the same amount of sense as the rest of the crap you're posting.
Seriously, you were wrong.
Had you made any attempt whatsoever to actually figure out the truth of the matter before posting it you would have known that.
Clearly, you don't give a flying fuck about what the actual truth of the matter is otherwise you would have found it out.
Now, obviously, I was mean to you so there's no point in expecting you to act with integrity towards me in this matter, but you do owe the OP an apology for responding to his informed point with idiotic lies.
Curiously enough, I expect you to ignore the link I sent and maintain a death grip on your ignorance so that you can keep living in your delusional dream world.
Anyhow, when you do not know anything about what is being discussed you look like an idiot when you spout off about it anyway.
When it is that trivial to inform yourself and you refuse and attack as "irrational" those who do have the integrity to take their responsibilities as a citizen seriously you demonstrate yourself to be pretty much morally bankrupt.
Sorry if you don't like it, but facts aren't always what you want them to be.
Rather than get all pissy when somebody points out your failings, perhaps you could actually address them and then they would no longer be there?
No, much easier to describe anybody who knows more than you as "irrational"
I read "The Rise of the Roman Empire" by Publius and "The Decline and fall..." back to back, and it was one of the most enlightening experiences of my life.
Rome as described in "The Rise..." was so similar to how America used to be. He contrasts it with Sparta and with Carthage.
In Sparta, no man could own more than another man. If he somehow came to have more it was taken away. That ideal (among other reasons) prevented Sparta from ever becoming a world power.
Carthage was the other extreme. In their culture nothing was immoral if it could turn a profit. Public officials were all for sale and their prices were more or less public knowledge.
Rome in its rise was far better than either. Public officials wouldn't take bribes in part because their culture looked down on it and in part because the penalty was death.
Some things just weren't done becasue they were wrong regardless of the profitability.
Then in "The Decline..." Rome had gone the way of Carthage in these respects. Much like America has now. It is so similar it is sickening to me.
Especially how so-called moral Christians are the ones most supporting the corrupt.
Come on, get a little bit real please. It wasn't a good idea in the least and I'd be crazy to deny that but it was hardly a move to create a "Greater America" that would last a thousand years.
In fact, that is exactly what it was.
Who should we believe?
You who has demonstrated such complete ignorance of the issue that you can't even be bothered to read the manifesto of this current administration?
Or should we believe the people who started this war when they stated exactly why they planned on invading Iraq long before 9/11?
Sorry, but since you are clearly an ingorant tool I'm going with the second one.
Please pull your head out of your ass and try to learn a little about the world around you before you spout idiotic nonsense that directly contradicts the stated reasoning of the people who started this war in the first place.
It's cowardly scumbag morons like yourself who are afraid to even attempt to deal with reality that are fucking up this country. Please kill yourself now. It's the only way you could possibly do any good in the world if you are truly as ignorant as you are trying to demonstrate.
The alternative is that you already knew that you were lying and are shilling anyhow.
Either way, you're scum. Go die now.
"Take the Nazi out of Amerika" bit. That just tells me you're bright but you don't have the first clue about real Nazis. If you really understood them then you wouldn't even think about drawing that comparison.
You are so wrong on so many levels.
You clearly do not understand the Nazis at all if you do not know for a fact that we are the intellectual heirs of the Nazis.
You are probably just focusing on the holocaust, which while horrible, isn't what is under discussion here.
So, I will make an attempt to enlighten you to the actual facts of the matter. I'm not too hopeful that you will be able to actually look at the facts with an open mind given your knee jerk response to the OP who has every single relevant historical fact backing him up while you have no facts at all, but I feel compelled to try anyhow.
Prior to our entry into world war 2, the vast majority of American industrialists were tremendous supporters of Hitler. They loved him and wanted very much to remake America in his image. These are people like Henry Ford, Charles Lindberg, William Randolph Hearst, and Prescott Bush (the current president's grandfather). Prescott Bush went so far as to commit treason by dealing with the Nazis while we were at war with them he was such a die hard supporter of Naziism.
It was only the extreme leftists (which America once had) who were against Hitler. These were Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists for the most part.
Now, once the attack on Pearl Harbor was engineered, we were at war with the Nazis, so most people couldn't be so vocal in their support although many like our president's grandfather were willing to betray their country to support the Nazis.
Once the war was over, we brought many of the Nazis back to America. Many of them were scientists and the like, but many of them were in intelligence and served as the basis of the fledgling CIA. Which surprise surprise George Bush senior was the head of for a while.
Now look at the people that our current president has surrounded himself with.
The fact is that the core of his administration studied with Leo Strauss who is one of the number one proponents of Nazi philosophy. These are the people that this president has chosen to surround himself with.
So, the simple fact is that there are Nazis in America and they are at the highest levels of our government.
None of this means we are going to start firing up the gas chambers to kill a bunch of Jews. That is irrelevant to the discussion and was only tangential to Nazi philosophy. Now their philsophy does require pushing blind, ignorant, hatred which the right in America has been doing with a passion for the last 30 years, but that is merely due to the fact that their success depends upon getting people to vote directly against their own best interests.
Here is an article discussing what fascism and Nazi philosophy actually is.
Here is one demonstrating the parallels in America.
I encourage you to read these, so that you can actually understand what it is that is being discussed and hopefully add something to the discussion rather than discounting basic facts in a knee jerk manner because you don't even understand what people are saying.
Sigh, more hand waving. Let me know when you want to get back to a real discussion, otherwise I'm done with this comment.
So let me see if I have this straight.
You spew a bunch of insane nonsense and refuse to provide evidence, then you whine like a little bitch about how someone stating a simple, blatantly obvious fact which if you had paid any attention at all for the last 30 years would be known to you as well isn't providing evidence?!?! WTF?
So just to avoid your idiotic spewing, here are the facts.
"Faith based initiatives" This is taking my tax dollars and using them to fund hate-based religious groups. This is about as anti-American as it is possible to get. It is a blatant piss right in the face of the separation of church and state and it is entirely treasonous in both intent and action.
Pushing for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.
This is an entirely hate-based idea. It would also be the first time in the history of this country that the constitution was amended for the sole purpose of discriminating against a specific group solely due to who they were born.
The whole Terry Schaivo case. This also demonstrates the hypocricy which is the fundamental tenet of Republicanism. They want to ban gay marriage to "protect the sanctity of marriage" which is moronic at every level yet at the same time they want to use the full power of the federal government to take away the power of one husband to act in accordance with that sanctity.
Now, your point was clearly insane nonsense since the lunatic fringe is in power in this country right now. Why do you think they have launched a full out attack against the judicial branch? Because they are the ones who were tasked by the constitution with preventing these psychos from gaining any power in this country.
Don't forget, religious freedom and separation of church and state were put in the constitution for the specific purpose of protecting America *from* Christian extremists.
I genuinely want to offer some help; both you and the poster I originally replied to seem to have really very little experience with Christians, Republicans, Christian Republicans.
I think I need to offer you a little help as well.
As far as Christian Republicans, the fact is that there is no such animal. It is a contradiction and can never happen. Christianity and Republicanism are two diametrically opposed views.
This is really quite obvious. The only plank in the Republican platform at this point is hyper capitalism. This is an inherently amoral philosophy. How would it be possible for an inherently moral (whether or not you agree with their morals) philosophy to be in agreement with an inherently amoral philosophy? The simple unavoidable fact is that it can't. Further, you have many so-called Christians who are up in arms about the "moral decay" of our society by which they mean the fact that people are allowed to live their lives how they want to rather than how the so-called Christian wants to force them to. The simple unavoidable fact is that the Liberalization of our culture is an inevitable result of hyper capitalism. So the more they keep voting for Republicans, the worse it gets.
So, were there any integrity in that community, they would be forced to take an honest look at what they are doing and how they are doing more than any other group in existence to promote the very decay that they are bitching about.
The fact that people even still use the oxymoronic term "Christian Republican" just shows how far from Christian beliefs these people are.
You really show a complete lack of understanding of Republican philosophy (not what they say, what they do) and a complete lack of understanding of Christian philosophy if you think it's possible for these to be aligned.
Promoting blind greed, hatred, and ignorance is not a Christian attitude if by that you mean in line with Jesus's teachings. It is a Christian attitude if by that you mean the attitude taken by the Christian churches for the vast majority of their existence.
It's really sad, but it is an absolute fact that is borne out by every piece of evidence and all of the history of that religion (and almost all otehrs as well).
So please stop spreading that ignorant nonsense. If you want to be a Republican, be that but do it with some scrap of integrity. Admit that you care only about yourself and have no moral issues with putting yourself ahead by murder, thievery, deceit or whatever else it takes for that is absolutely what it is to be a Republican.
If you want to be a Christian, then do that. But don't make yourself look like a fool by pretending to be something that can not exist in this universe.
Imagine what would happen if people were allowed to sue an individual employee because of a faulty product.
;-).
Special case, but a friend of mine used to work for Abbott Labs (big drug company) and his lab tested every single drug Abbott released for its affects on the human heart. Basically if he signed off on a drug and it kills people he was personally liable.
The bad thing is obviously if he screws up, then he could be out far more than he could ever hope to make.
The good thing is that when a senior VP came into his lab and started screaming at him to sign off on the fucking thing that he's spent a couple hundred million dollars on my friend told him to go fuck himself and he didn't get fired.
That drug was Abbott's Viox style drug. It had the same problems as all the other similar drugs, but their's was never released since my friend wouldn't sign off on it since he was personally liable ( or more accurately because he has no interest in killing people
So it's definitely a complicated question but there are pros and cons.
Almost all of the higher cost of healthcare in the US is because the Government gives the AMA (American Medical Association) the power to limit the number of doctors.
That's a great big load of crap.
Big pharma is the largest lobby in Washington.
They have bribed our legislators to socialize our health care already.
Remember that bill Bush signed making it illegal for medicare to negotiate drug prices. Note the recent legislation in the works to prevent us from buying drugs from Canada?
These are 2 recent examples where big pharma has demonstrated their utter hatred and contempt for the free market.
So it's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the rest of us. Otherwise known as fascism.
So nice try, but while the AMA is a problem they aren't even in the same league as big pharma.
Democrats have historically been more servile than Republicans to the entertainment industry moguls, despite their pious declarations of support for the interests of the little guy, and their campaign donations reflect this.
Certainly, but it isn't even in the same ballpark as the Republicans who are the slaves of the oil and weapons industries who see their best way to increase profits as murdering a bunch of people despite their idiotic lies of being "moral" people. Complete oxymoron that. A Republican with morals. What next.
Nice try throwing irrelevant partisan hackery in though. Better luck next time.
you have still violated copyright and that is wrong.
Nope. It is illegal. That in no way implies that it is wrong. If you disagree, then you obviously haven't thought about it at all. There are far too many extreme examples for your point to be anything besides laughable. In fact, given that we are discussing a convicted criminal cartel, your defense of them is far more "wrong" than any actions anybody has ever taken against them.
"Wrong" is a moral judgement though, so it really depends on what your morals are.
Yours involve defending a criminal cartel against the will of the citizens of this country.
Mine involve the idea that an organized crime group using the resources that I have paid for to defend their criminal profits while simultaneously buying anti-American laws to give a near useless distribution cartel control over what technology I am allowed to have is inherently anti-freedom, fascist, and absofuckinglylutely wrong.
tissue paper (if its a sad/erotic movie)
;-)
Brilliant. Nice way to fully utilize the resources
Women don't really reach sexual maturity until their mid to late 20's.
Yeah, that's why there is no such thing as teen pregnancy...because it's impossible.
And I'm quite sure I've never had to smack myself for staring at some chick's ass when she turned around and ended up being much younger than I thought.
I think you mean that women tend not to be as comfortable with their sexuality as men until they are in their 20s to 30s. That is mostly a societal/cultural/religious thing though.
Pretty much every high school freshman is sexually mature.
This is not the faiing of law - it shows a failure of society.
uhhh.....yeah.
That's what he said.
limiting fiances that can be donated to a politician or political cause is a far cry from nutzo egalitarianism.
;-)
I know it's just a typo, but that is too funny.
I wouldn't call it nutzo egalitarianism, I'd call it the thirteenth amendment
Read the first part of the sentence... If you aren't part of a well regulated militia, you have /no/ right to bear arms.
The first part of the sentence is the reasoning for the amendment, not a requirement to be covered by it.
The really sad thing is that those who most defend the second amendment are the ones whose party is doing the most to destroy freedom in America, hence the least likely to actually use their weapons against the government.
Zap2IT subscription comes free with Sage
;-)
I think they market speaked you
Zap2IT is free regardless. You just need to do a survey every several months.
Find one reference to Bush doing this.
His support for the hate-based constitutional amendment.
"God hates fags" is the only possible argument for that.
Did you really not know that he supports that?
When GP stated that Democrats will use racial/sexual issues to gain power, this is exactly what he meant.
No, this is solely a Republican issue. Think it through. You are honestly saying that Democrats said "Let's not have an amendment banning gays from marrying" before some sicko even tried to have one?
That doesn't make any sense.
Do their views intersect somewhat on this matter? Sure. But acting as though they are in lockstep with each other is 1. A lie ans 2. intellectually dishonest.
No it isn't. Pretending otherwise as you are is both a lie and intellectually dishonest.
Just because Bush has speech writers to put it in different terms does not change the meaning at all.
Provide some other possible explanation that somebody could possibly support such an utterly disgusting amendment that is designed to piss in the face of everything this country claims to stand for.
Nobody on that side of the argument has been able to the whole time it has been going on.
Every single argument ever given by every single supporter boils down to "God hates fags". Every argument will always boil down to that because that is the only possible reason to support such a thing.
It's basic logic, dude.
You're using inflammatory rhetoric to overstate the truth of the situation, because the truth of the situation isn't what you want people to believe.
No, not at all. That is the truth of the situation as you well know.
If it actually weren't, then you would be able to provide some other alternate interpretation.
You can't, because there isn't one.
THAT is the current platform of the Democratic party.
No, it's the only tactic that the Republican party has.
Granted all sides use it from time to time, but the Republicans have based every single one of their points solely upon that.
That's why they used their hate squads (Coulter, Hannity, Rush, Fox News etc.) to poison public discourse in this country. If there were any actual honest debate on any of these issues, then this administration would have been impeached and convicted of treason years ago.
And I voted third party, so save that "Bush lover" crap you guys keep in deck when someone disagrees with you. It doesn't describe me, and it's ALSO intellectually dishonest.
By "You guys" I assume you mean independent voters who believe in personal liberty and personal responsibility. Sadly you try to claim to be one while denigrating them. You don't have to be a Democrat to despise Republicans in this day and age.
All it requires is honesty and some ethics. Sadly, that's another absolute fact.
I defy you to refute it or anything else I've said.
Spouting more misinformed nonsense isn't a refutation.
Or are you trying to pull on us what we pulled on our foreign exchange student?
No, I was trying to be funny by pretending I'm even dumber than I am.
The joke was that the foreign exchange student pulled on me what you pulled on yours.
It would translate (assuming I got it right) as "I am a waterbuffalo head".
I'll see that and raise you:
I'm gonna dunk my plumper in the dumper of that little cum dumpster.
She appeared far more concerned by her son's use of "fuck", rather than his obliterated scrotum.
Please tell me you ran up and kicked her square in the nuts.
In the interest of allowing us to properly insult any Hindi speakers without having to explain it to them, vould you please provide a pronounciation guide to the above?
k thx
We taught our foreign exchange student that "woodchuck" was a swear word.
He would use it occasionally, when he was upset.
Now that is downright hilarious. We never thought of doing that to our foreign exchange students. We just taught them the real swear words, and they taught us the real ones too.
For example, if you want to really piss off a German, say "Ich bin einen Wasserbuffelkopf".
It means "You are a scumbag nazi jackass whose mother sleeps with horses"... loosely translated of course.
but very few normal right-wingers are hate-mongers either,
Well, they wouldn't have the integrity to admit to it, but by voting Republican, and especially for Bush thay are stating unequivocably and in no uncertain terms that they stand against freedom, honesty, integrity and the like.
I'm sorry, but it is not possible to support Bush and not support blind hatred.
I mean, there is nothing else left to the Republican platform at this point.
Small government? Personal responsibility? Fiscal responsibility? Liberty? Freedom? Integrity?
These are the things that the Republican party is actively and viciously attacking at every step and with damn near every single action they have taken since at least the Reagan administration.
I mean, seriously, George Bush and Fred Phelps are birds of a feather. They both rant long and hard about how god hates fags.
"Dance with the Devil and the Devil don't change; the Devil changes you."
Quite simple.
They are opposed to hate based legislation like the proposed anti-gay marriage amendment.
Granted, there isn't much difference, but if you're going to pick one as morally better, there is no question whatsoever.
Philosophically (i.e. not current American reality) there is a much bigger divide, but it's based on the same thing.
It's a simple case of applying the definitions.. no deduction necessary.
The Center believes all people are created equal, but that's about it.
The right believes in using the force of the state to prevent equality (see above hate-based legislation).
The left believes in using the force of the state to promote equality.
There is no question which is the moral philosophy between left and right.
Extremists on either side are all scum.
No, what's REALLY frightening is the right wing is more moral than the left.
Other than demonstrating that you have no concept of morality and a tenuous grip on reality was there any point in your insane, blatantly and easily demonstrably false statement?
No, I thought not.