DescentBB

And no...there is no bias against Barak Obama

\"We are his followers\"

I'm officially turned off.

Ron Paul has a lot of good things to say, but I think his ideas of foreign policy are too simplistic, maybe even bordering on naive. As a rule, yes, I think we should stay out of \"policing the world,\" and I'm all for the idea of pulling unnecessary foreign expenditures back in to use in the interests of our country. But the whole thing is based on a denial that anyone over there is a threat, and that, I believe, shows a degree of refusal to face all of the facts. Also, the more I'm exposed to his message, the more I get the impression that there are subtle points that have their roots more in his former party than directly in the constitution. To that degree, I feel it's deceptive. Possibly a result of his accepting the views of the founding fathers for the greater part only inasmuch as they parallel his libertarian convictions.

I still really like him in a lot of ways, but I have some reservations. If it weren't for his foreign policy, and his desire to have abortion dealt with on a state level, I would say he's miles above any other candidate. I think he's definitely got the right idea about how much our government needs to change, and he's certainly been consistent in sticking with his convictions.

--------

I really like Mike Huckabee. I could wish that he showed more of a vision for governmental reform, but the more I see of him, the more I'm impressed by his character and clarity of reasoning. By his ability to cut through issues that would hang a lot of people up. And certainly by the fact that he's risking political suicide by resisting the temptation to compromising his convictions, as is so terribly prevalent in \"Christianity\" today. It's a breath of fresh air in a world going stale by reason of compromise and paralyzing political correctness. I think he may very well be the man for the job.

His simple solutions remind me of a time when engineers were struggling with how to fit the landing gear on the Arrow without having to redesign the entire fusalage.

A janitor suggested they 'tilt the wings downward', and at that moment, the light went on and it became a reality.

It was one of those \"Why didn't I think of that\" moments.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Mike Huckabee.....
...a breath of fresh air in a world going stale by reason of compromise and paralyzing political correctness.

No
You guys have trialled the idiot thing for 7 years - it doesn't work - go home and lick your wounds.
Try something else now pls, we humans are tired of this ★■◆●.


BUSH was your "yay i hate political correctness" savior, what a trip he was. NO MORE IDIOTS PLS


is mike an idiot, i honeslty don'pt know. But anyone who calls for MORE BUSHISMS an an enemy of the state, a communist, and terrorist, a uh..... i have run outof pointless "enemy combatant" synonyms.

just... NO! bad voter


(oh and i have of course not clicked on Thunderbunny's links. Who the ★■◆● would. The topic starts when he leaves)

Sergeant Thorne, rather annoyed, climbs out of yet another group that Roid tried to stick him in.

Roid wrote:i honeslty don'pt know

Well why don't you wait until you dpo know before you grace me with a reply like that.

Political correctness is socially sanctioned dishonesty. It never disagrees strongly with anything. It's a lie. No one is really that vague. Everyone has opinions, and those opinions effect everything they are involved in. If, for instance, someone hates black people or thinks they are any less human than white people, I would rather hear it in what they say instead of being forced to play connect the dots with the direction of their projects because they've adopted a carefully crafted, socially acceptable vernacular.

but as i said - that's what people said about Bush. So we are currently LIVING in your politically incorrect wonderland. IT'S SHITTY

Is this guy gonna be even WORSE? Is that possible?

Bush's inability to politic is NOT something to strive after man, don't champion it as if the shortbus has some noble quality to it.

As i said, i dunno Mike Huckabee. But you're gonna make him no friends drawing parallels with BUSH. ffs

Huckabee wants to hold a Constitutional Convention and alter to the Constitution to conform to a god.

That is the most absolute scariest #$%^ing thing I've ever heard. The man is insane, delusional, and a threat.

roid wrote:but as i said - that's what people said about Bush. So we are currently LIVING in your politically incorrect wonderland. IT'S *****

Is this guy gonna be even WORSE? Is that possible?

Bush's inability to politic is NOT something to strive after man, don't champion it as if the shortbus has some noble quality to it.

As i said, i dunno Mike Huckabee. But you're gonna make him no friends drawing parallels with BUSH. ffs

I never drew parallels between him and Bush, you did. I wasn't talking about Bush... at all. If there are parallels that can be drawn, then by all means let them be drawn, and I don't give a f*** if it makes anyone any "friends." (there's a good case of political correctness: talking about acceptability instead of substance) But I reserve the right to not be talking about Bush (or the Bible) every once in a while, is that O.K. with everyone?

You seem to have a very imprecise arsenal when it comes to me, Roid. You've got two ball-bats: one for God, and one for Bush, and you use whichever is more vaguely applicable.

For your edification, Mike Huckabee is very different from George W. Bush. But if you're so invested in U.S. politics, you really ought to know that by now.

I'm getting more than a little annoyed with having to wrench my positions away from your spin machine, Roid. I challenge you to deal with what I'm actually typing instead of what you think I'm saying. If I want to talk about Bush, then I'll talk about him. If you want to talk about Bush, then fine, bring him into the discussion. But bring him in rather than extracting him out of it.

I wish you would analyze what you're doing, because I could almost not talk to you anymore--that's how bad it is. Honestly, when someone starts twisting my position/words in real life, that's when I'm done talking with them. Disagreement, even strong disagreement is all very well, but to have my views twisted into something they're not and then argued against means that I get two battles for the price of one. It's natural for me, when someone does that in a discussion, to assume that they're despicable and dishonest, but after having given it some thought, and having realized that I've misconstrued things that you have said at times, I really think it's a result of relative carelessness, and a failure to fully appreciate the restrictive nature of the medium.

So let's try a little harder.

Testiculese wrote:Huckabee wants to hold a Constitutional Convention and alter to the Constitution to conform to a god.

That is the most absolute scariest #$%^ing thing I've ever heard. The man is insane, delusional, and a threat.

Testi, I believe that Atheists, and anyone who has an axe to grind against Christianity, are blowing that way the hell out of proportion. I've still got to track down the full video clip where he says that, but I listened to just the segment, and I think he's addressing the desire that some special interest groups have to redefine the institution of marriage. There's nothing #$%^ing scary about that unless you (editorially speaking) want to marry someone of the same sex, and then you're out of your mind anyway.

[quote=Sergeant Thorne]I've still got to track down the full video clip where he says that, but I listened to just the segment, and I think he's addressing the desire that some special interest groups have to redefine the institution of marriage.[/quote]

Please find that clip, it would be interesting to watch, so I can get what was actually said.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:... But I reserve the right to not be talking about Bush (or the Bible) every once in a while, is that O.K. with everyone?

Yes it is..

d3jake wrote:Please find that clip, it would be interesting to watch, so I can get what was actually said.

His declaration...


His clarification....


Bee

I have no desire for same sex marriage, but I resent anyone who would impose their god's view of it on me. And if that's his reason for that issue, what other god based amendments would he want to impose on the American people?

Thios is in large part of what's wrong with America: apathy. People who say, so what, it won't affect me, so why should I care? When it's an issue you do care about, will you get the support of the millions of people you just dissed?

WillyP wrote:I have no desire for same sex marriage, but I resent anyone who would impose their god's view of it on me. And if that's his reason for that issue, what other god based amendments would he want to impose on the American people?

Thios is in large part of what's wrong with America: apathy. People who say, so what, it won't affect me, so why should I care? When it's an issue you do care about, will you get the support of the millions of people you just dissed?

Exactly Which is why I wouldn't vote for a person like him. He's scary.

Bee

Huckabee creeps me out. the way he talks, and the way he acts give me the impression that he's a complete idiot and just pandering to the masses

He won't support medical marijuana.

he doesn't care about people.

and if you're a teacher.. good luck.


This is what i've gleaned from watching him speak on youtube alone.



yea.. I watched a little bit of that video. True to TB's form, it's loaded, biased and was only made to elecit a kneejerk reaction from people, exhibited by Sgt. Thorne there in his first reply.

Congrats TB. you'd make a fine replacement for Karl Rove.

Ferno wrote:yea.. I watched a little bit of that video. True to TB's form, it's loaded, biased and was only made to elecit a kneejerk reaction from people, exhibited by Sgt. Thorne there in his first reply.

I only watched the first few seconds before replying. Everything else was just the further development of my opinions on the candidates. Nothing knee-jerk about it. I've been giving it a lot of thought.

Upon watching the rest of the video, I realized that it was actually a criticism of Ron Paul and his supporters, which I think is justified to some degree.

WillyP wrote:This is in large part of what's wrong with America: apathy.

A large part of what's wrong with America is more lack of responsibility than apathy. I'd just as soon that some of them be apathetic than stand up long enough to pick a political flavor.

WillyP wrote:I have no desire for same sex marriage, but I resent anyone who would impose their god's view of it on me. And if that's his reason for that issue, what other god based amendments would he want to impose on the American people?

I just wanted to comment on this. It's not a matter of the imposition of religious views, but of insisting on moral standards. And you can say "those moral standards are based on your religious views." You're right. I guess that's why I'm a conservative, and so many of you are not. These are not my "religious views" and nothing more. I don't leave my convictions at some church after sunday morning like so many liberals seem to expect of people like me. This is why there are and must be divisions in America.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Upon watching the rest of the video, I realized that it was actually a criticism of Ron Paul and his supporters, which I think is justified to some degree.

doesn't make it right.

Thorne you seemed to bring me into target me when we scraped over some touchy religious subject a few months back - i don't recall what it was.
i really don't mind, you're not hurting my feelings or anything. And i don't see you as a threat - well nothing new anyway.
I'm quite relaxed man .

How you are describing Huckabee is how i remember people describing Bush (I'm not sure why you can't see that). Bush sucked, do people want another Bush? I don't think so - maybe you do? i think you'd be wrong.
It's just a short tip in howto conduct your campaign better.

Ferno wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Upon watching the rest of the video, I realized that it was actually a criticism of Ron Paul and his supporters, which I think is justified to some degree.

doesn't make it right.

No, it's not right. The degree I was talking about is the fringe element supporting Ron Paul--people who seem to be along for the ride just because he's going against the establishment. To define his campaign by it is blatantly dishonest, though. I think there are a lot of good people supporting Ron Paul. And Mickey1 supports him too. (kidding )

For anybody afraid of letting “God” into the Constitution…try to remember an entire set of your rights contained therein are endowed by the “Creator” and so if you don’t believe in God maybe you should forfeit those rights, and just be granted those given by law.

Maybe the guy believes that parts of the constitution are invalid without the confirmation of a god, and someone that doesn’t believe has no compulsion to grant such rights.

Maybe non believers would be happier if all their rights were granted by the government instead of God, or as I believe “Are inherent to humans because of other reasons”.

Either way the “human” rights supported in the constitution have to be validated in some way, so we can all agree to uphold them.

Remember when the thing was written, the notion of someone not believing in “The Creator” was a strange notion.

I dunno just a thought.

Ferno wrote:Congrats TB. you'd make a fine replacement for Karl Rove.

That was a really low blow...

... everyone knows TB can't rap.

Kyouryuu wrote:
That was a really low blow...

... everyone knows TB can't rap.

Spidey wrote:For anybody afraid of letting “God” into the Constitution…try to remember an entire set of your rights contained therein are endowed by the “Creator” and so if you don’t believe in God maybe you should forfeit those rights, and just be granted those given by law.

Maybe the guy believes that parts of the constitution are invalid without the confirmation of a god, and someone that doesn’t believe has no compulsion to grant such rights.

Maybe non believers would be happier if all their rights were granted by the government instead of God, or as I believe “Are inherent to humans because of other reasons”.

Either way the “human” rights supported in the constitution have to be validated in some way, so we can all agree to uphold them.

Remember when the thing was written, the notion of someone not believing in “The Creator” was a strange notion.

I dunno just a thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_constitution
"The American Constitution was adopted by America on September 17, 1787."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_darwin
"(12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882)
The fact that evolution occurs became accepted by the scientific community and the general public in his lifetime, while his theory of natural selection came to be widely seen as the primary explanation of the process of evolution in the 1930s"

As you can see, Evolution wasn't even a theory in scientific literature when the American Constitution was created. So it would be impossible for the Constitution to contain references to it. What alternate theories of the origin of the species were there at the time? I'll bet only one: "GOD'S MAGIC"

Roid….Huh?

Ok…following my line of reason, are you saying your “Human Rights” come from the theory of evolution? I don’t understand your comment.

First Amendment: wrote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What do you think this means?

The fact that he wants to hold a Constitutional Convention in the first place is the threat. Defining marriage is none of the Constitution's business.

Testiculese wrote:The fact that he wants to hold a Constitutional Convention in the first place is the threat. Defining marriage is none of the Constitution's business.

I beg to differ. Marriage is something that is basic to life and society. I could wish that we didn't have to explicitly define something so obvious. But the need has arisen, not because conservatives are trying to force values on others, but because the core value that is marriage is under attack by those who would force the acceptance of their warped values on everyone else. Conservatives aren't the ones trying to change this country, it's the other way around.

Roid, to suggest that the only reason our founding fathers believed in God as the creator was because they didn't know any better is intellectually conceited speculation.

Creation is, by far, more scientifically plausible than Evolution, but than doesn't stop the people who have actually gone far enough (in study/research) to know that from stopping their intellectual ears and persisting in any alternative view that gives them a world without God. Creationism--Biblical Creationism--is a far cry from "God's Magic."

Sergeant Thorne wrote: I beg to differ. Marriage is something that is basic to life and society.

oh, bull.
you may be able to convince yourself with that argument you just posted, but you won't be able to convince anyone else with it.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:...Creation is, by far, more scientifically plausible than Evolution

I know I pulled this out of context but that is SO untrue and is really the kind of dangerous assumption that some try to make law and inject into the classroom.. but that's another thread. I really feel better knowing that Huckabee won't get a chance to implant his ideas anywhere near the constitution.

Secondly, I agree with you about marriage 100% and I personally don't believe homosexuals should have the right to marry "in the true sense of the word" but they should have the right to a union protected by law.

Just my pov

Bee

Not untrue, and it's not an assumption, Bee. I have access to a bunch of really good material about it. The late Dr. James Kennedy released one or two DVDs dealing with the subject, for starters.

Ferno wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I beg to differ. Marriage is something that is basic to life and society.

oh, bull.
you may be able to convince yourself with that argument you just posted, but you won't be able to convince anyone else with it.

So I'm stupid, or gullible, or both. But can you tell me at what point marriage was conceived in human history? If I won't be able to convince anyone else, there must be a reason, right?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Not untrue, and it's not an assumption, Bee. I have access to a bunch of really good material about it. The late Dr. James Kennedy released one or two DVDs dealing with the subject, for starters.

Sergeant, I know who he was and briefly read something of his from an article in a magazine but nothing that I can remember. However, I do know his portrait hangs in the Creationist Museum and as a science minded girl, I would be interested (in another thread) of what evidence you are talking about.

Bee

Ferno wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote: I beg to differ. Marriage is something that is basic to life and society.

oh, bull.
you may be able to convince yourself with that argument you just posted, but you won't be able to convince anyone else with it.

I'm convinced.

Of course, I already thought that way, too. However, I would have said "Family" in place of "Marriage".

A "Family" is a basic unit to life and society. This is demonstrated not just among humans, but in the societies of many, many species of creatures on this planet. A family is a basic part of nature, and is a primary ingredient for propagating many of the species.

Remove the concept of "family" from society and society completely crumbles. You will not be able to find a successful human society without families.

I believe (my POV) that Marriage is a solemnizing act (binding act) among humans through which new family units are created. Homosexuals can have relationships, can have great affection, can live together, and can have a union ... but can never propagate and therefore can never be a true "family unit".

That's why I agree with Bet regarding marriage. I also like most of what Thorne said (with the exception of some wording).

Spidey wrote:Roid….Huh?

Ok…following my line of reason, are you saying your “Human Rights” come from the theory of evolution? I don’t understand your comment.

i was expanding on what you said about not believing in "The Creator" being a strange notion - and thus why references to God were assumed into the constitutional language.

The expression "God Given human rights" was used - because no other expression existed at the time. The limits to our understanding at the time was that God gave us everything. Thus language reflected that, simply because that was the common language of the time and there were no known alternatives.
It was Darwin's observations that eventually led to our modern theories of evolutionary psychology, which trump over previous assumptions of "God given"... well anything.

Evolutionary Psychology was not known of back when the American Constitution was written. Thus "God" was the official explanation written into the document instead.

TechPro wrote:I believe (my POV) that Marriage is a solemnizing act (binding act) among humans through which new family units are created. Homosexuals can have relationships, can have great affection, can live together, and can have a union ... but can never propagate and therefore can never be a true "family unit".

If that's stopping Homosexuals from getting married - then it should also stop Infertile people from getting married.

Everyone can adopt, or use surrogates.
I'm personally keen on the surrogate becoming part of the extended family unit - and think it's cruel for both the surrogate and the child to exclude them.
But i hardly think this forum is upto discussing anything near this, it's not even over the homosexuality hurdle yet.

roid wrote:

TechPro wrote:I believe (my POV) that Marriage is a solemnizing act (binding act) among humans through which new family units are created. Homosexuals can have relationships, can have great affection, can live together, and can have a union ... but can never propagate and therefore can never be a true "family unit".

If that's stopping Homosexuals from getting married - then it should also stop Infertile people from getting married.

It is my opinion that the difference here is: Choice. An infertile person could propagate if they were not infertile whereas a homosexual (assuming the homosexual is not infertile) could propagate but chooses not to.

In most cases of infertility it was NOT the person's choice. In nearly all cases where infertility was their choice, it was only AFTER propagating at least once.

roid wrote:Everyone can adopt, or use surrogates.
I'm personally keen on the surrogate becoming part of the extended family unit - and think it's cruel for both the surrogate and the child to exclude them.
But i hardly think this forum is upto discussing anything near this, it's not even over the homosexuality hurdle yet.

Oddly enough, I'm undecided regarding the surrogate being a part of the family unit. A lot of dynamics come into play with that.

Yeah, the forum probably isn't up to it ... besides, this is getting off topic. We were discussing the Ron Paul promoting (or non-promoting?) video.

i must've been editing my post while you wrote that.
pls see current post.
i'll give you some time and come back and reply.

I've editing mine accordingly.

Ron Paul has always made me nervous. Still does. Glad he's not able to get elected currently.

First you said that you need to be able to propogate to be a true family unit.
I didn't understand this, and i could think of some examples that don't fit.

Now you say you need to be able to choose to propogate heterosexually in a one-man one-woman family (i assume?) to be a proper family unit.
I don't understand this either. But i'm not sure i can think of any examples.

But it still doesn't change the fact that i don't understand, it seems based on nothing - and it also seems you are moving the goalposts as you go, to exclude homosexuals.

Your post previous to this said only that propegation was the defining factor of a true \"family unit\" - there was no ambiguitiy about it. Now you change your unambiguous story, let me repeat this: there was nothing ambiguous, you did not make it clearer - you CHANGED it - at the drop of a hat. I think you're just shifting the goalposts and don't really have a true position beyond \"exclude homosexuals\".

Afterall - what POSSIBLE difference is there between someone who can't have children due to sexuality reasons - and someone who can't have children due to medical reasons. How does the difference effect a family unit?! It's just trite.


I like Ron Paul, but i'm not discussing him and have no idea what Thunderbunny wants to say about him, i have not clicked on his links. Since when is anything Thunderbunny posts worth listening to?

yea.. civilization as a whole is completely dependant on a man being married to a woman...

and the institution of marriage is under attack by completely warped people...




That just reeks of bigotry and ignorance.

roid wrote:Afterall - what POSSIBLE difference is there between someone who can't have children due to sexuality reasons - and someone who can't have children due to medical reasons. How does the difference effect a family unit?! It's just trite.

As I said before. It's a matter of choice. Trite? No more than your repeated attempts to validate homosexual behavior. You're promoting the choice of homosexual behavior as being acceptable. I'm promoting the notion that the choice of homosexual behavior is contrary to forming a "family" (as in a group of persons sharing common ancestry).

I don't think homosexual behavior is normal. For that reason I don't think a homosexual union can possibly form a healthy "family unit". That's my opinion.

You can be homosexual all you want. I won't stop you. You can try to form all the homosexual unions you want and try to reason that they are "family units". I won't stop you. If I met your homosexual "family unit" on the street, I won't treat you any different than I would anyone else.

I will still think that homosexual behavior is not normal behavior and not healthy. I will teach my children to avoid homosexual behavior.