Anybody Else Used To Be A Republican?

[FaninAma]

After seeing George Bush's handywork on the economy and the impact of GOP rule on civil liberties over the past 3 years I have officially switched to Independent.

Too damned bad the Democrats are too incompetent to take full advantage of the GOP's massive shortcomings.

Oh, and I am very tired of demagogues llike Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly is especially a muckraking tool.

There, now I feel better.

[RacerX]

I tuned it all out a long time ago.

I think I'll register indifferent.

[Howzit]

If you change to Libertarian I think you get to smoke weed or something.

[Mjcpr]

I predict: 8 pages

[soonerjoker]

i used to be a dem.

[Czar Soonerov]

I predict: 8 pages


I'll take the over.

[yermom]

IBTT

[Mjcpr]

I'll take the over.

I should've laid down some guidelines.

40 posts per page

:D

[1stTimeCaller]

I was in Oklahoma. In Missouri you don't choose and now in Texas I will be an Indie.

[FaninAma]

If you change to Libertarian I think you get to smoke weed or something.

At least then you don't care if the politicians are screwing you over.

Seriously, Bill O'Reilly scours the earth to find the lonely wacked-out judge that lets off a heinous criminal or the isolated cases of the Department of Human services letting a case fall between the cracks and he demogoues the occurences unmercifully. This only serves the purpose of giving cover to the other extreme: overly aggressive prosecutors with timid judges and overly aggressive social regulatory agencies.

Lest any of you think you have nothing to worry about regarding over-zelous social agencies and over-zelous local district attorneys go check things out in your local counties if you live in a county in which one party controls the entire local government and talk to families that have been victimized by these government agencies.

[OklahomaTuba]

There is no way a politician is going to be 100% of what you want. It will never happen. Bush is mildly conservative at best, a good mix between Clinton and Reagan me thinks. I think that is fine for this time of in history as he has helped the economy recover and kept us safe.

As for me, I am a Christian conservative (religious zealot fundamentalist in liberalese). I am for whom ever best represents my Christian view, keeps me safe and keeps my taxes low.

Cut the taxes, confirm the judges, kill the terrorists. Thats all I asked for.

[soonerbrat]

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b274/soonerbrat/no-politics.jpg

[FaninAma]

There is no way a politician is going to be 100% of what you want. It will never happen. Bush is mildly conservative at best, a good mix between Clinton and Reagan me thinks.

As for me, I am a Christian conservative (religious zealot fundamentalist in liberalese). I am for whom ever best represents my Christian view, keeps me safe and keeps my taxes low.

Cut the taxes, confirm the judges, kill the terrorists. Thats all I asked for.

Then you are a Libertarian. All the politics in this country have devolved into which party can demogogue their hot-button issues the best. The GOP's penchant for increasing the scope and power of the executive branch scares me more than the Democrat's insistence on laying down a code of political correctness. Neither is good for the country or civil liberties but at least one usually doesn't lose their freedom for violating the code of political correctness.

[Mjcpr]

Then you are a Libertarian.

Okay, I'm upping the ante.

10 pages.

[OUAndy1807]

Seriously, Bill O'Reilly scours the earth to find the lonely wacked-out judge that lets off a heinous criminal or the isolated cases of the Department of Human services letting a case fall between the cracks and he demogoues the occurences unmercifully. This only serves the purpose of giving cover to the other extreme: overly aggressive prosecutors with timid judges and overly aggressive social regulatory agencies.



You're kidding yourself if you think this is a one way street. While vacationing last year the resort where we stayed had a little library and I read Franken's book (the Liars one). He literally had 17 (I'm pretty sure this was the number, it's close anyway) Harvard students donated to him to research. How did he use them? He had them go through republican speeches and pundits statements and find any faulty statements. I'm talking about taking one line that was said during a television interview and spending a chapter dissecting the statement and proving why it was false.

They're all dispicable in my book, both sides. The world would be a lot better place if these pundits were all gone, but that's not going to happen.

[TexasLidig8r]

As stated before, except in instances of terrorist attack directly against the United States, the only difference between the Republicans and Democrats is the special interest groups to which each party kowtow.

The country as a whole, has become of secondary importance behind each party's thirst for power for its special interest groups. Self-preservation and the acquisition of power are the main goals now.

Each party is convinced they are absolutely right and the other party is absolutely wrong.. from taxes to domestic policy to welfare to foreign policy, the measuring stick is no longer what is in America's best interest as a whole. but... what position is going to make "My" party look the best and as such, be able to accumulate more votes, more representation, more power.

There is no more "Loyal Opposition."

It is simply... My Party.. My Power.
humph....

[IronSooner]

Didn't we used to have a no politics day?

[FaninAma]

You're kidding yourself if you think this is a one way street. While vacationing last year the resort where we stayed had a little library and I read Franken's book (the Liars one). He literally had 17 (I'm pretty sure this was the number, it's close anyway) Harvard students donated to him to research. How did he use them? He had them go through republican speeches and pundits statements and find any faulty statements. I'm talking about taking one line that was said during a television interview and spending a chapter dissecting the statement and proving why it was false.

They're all dispicable in my book, both sides. The world would be a lot better place if these pundits were all gone, but that's not going to happen.

At least Franken is going after politicians and pundits. O'Reilly is trying, quite successfully, to intimidate local governments and effect a change in the way they deal with the local citizens. This is simply astounding. Leave the local politics up to the locals. Let them decide what type of judges and prosecutors they want in their county.

[OklahomaTuba]

Then you are a Libertarian. All the politics in this country have devolved into which party can demogogue their hot-button issues the best. The GOP's penchant for increasing the scope and power of the executive branch scares me more than the Democrat's insistence on laying down a code of political correctness. Neither is good for the country or civil liberties but at least one usually doesn't lose their freedom for violating the code of political correctness.I do not consider myself a Libertarian. I am 100% on the side of the government should stay the hell out of my life, except in times of national emergencies and wars. I feel the government is justified in taking actions as it has done successfully since the founding. I think that differs from a Libertarian POV.

[crawfish]

I was independent for years, but registered Republican to vote for a friend in the primary.

However, I still THINK independent. :)

[FaninAma]

As stated before, except in instances of terrorist attack directly against the United States, the only difference between the Republicans and Democrats is the special interest groups to which each party kowtow.

The country as a whole, has become of secondary importance behind each party's thirst for power for its special interest groups. Self-preservation and the acquisition of power are the main goals now.

Each party is convinced they are absolutely right and the other party is absolutely wrong.. from taxes to domestic policy to welfare to foreign policy, the measuring stick is no longer what is in America's best interest as a whole. but... what position is going to make "My" party look the best and as such, be able to accumulate more votes, more representation, more power.

There is no more "Loyal Opposition."

It is simply... My Party.. My Power.
humph....

I couldn't have said it any better. What happened to statesmanship and wanting to serve in government due to a sense of community service? Even local politics is all about the power and supposed prestige.

This is a frightening development and , IMO, kicked into high gear in the late 80's and 90's.

[BeetDigger]

Is the Whig party still active?

[OklahomaTuba]

At least Franken is going after politicians and pundits. O'Reilly is trying, quite successfully, to intimidate local governments and effect a change in the way they deal with the local citizens. This is simply astounding. Leave the local politics up to the locals. Let them decide what type of judges and prosecutors they want in their county.
He is a TV guy.

The more light shown on crap like judges giving child molesters only days in jail is a good thing IMO.

But its all about the ratings.

[OklahomaTuba]

I am thinking of joining the green party, in an effort to transform it from a eco-marxist party to a christian conservative party based on sharia law.

[GDC]

I voted for Reagan and old man Bush, and then I switched to Libertarian.

[BillyBall]

I am all for cutting taxes as long as we stop spending like a drunken sailor.

The size of our government has grown way too much over the last 13 years.

[OklahomaTuba]

Is the Whig party still active?

Yes. Its called the democratic party. :D

[BeetDigger]

I thought about joining the Libertarian party, but then I decided I didn't want to be in a party made up of little old ladies who catalog and check out books.

[Okla-homey]

I respectfully disagree about the economy. IMHO, it's smokin' hot. Under 5% unemployment and folks spending money like crazy. Every economic indicator we have points upwards.

Sooo, WTF's 'sposed to be wrong with the economy?

With regards to diminished civil liberties, please cite an example that affects you or anyone you know personally in any meaningful way?

Look, I'm no kool-aid repub, I tend to favor a laissez-faire gubmint therefore I have libertarian tendencies...but its tough to argue the GOP has screwed-up the economy when its in such objectively fantastic shape and we have not suffered another terrorist attack here at home since 9-11.

That is what is going to keep the GOP in power in the upcoming mid-term elections and the 2008 prez race. That, and the fact the Dems have wacky Howard Dean as the public face of their party.:D

[OklahomaTuba]

I am all for cutting taxes as long as we stop spending like a drunken sailor.
I agree, 100%.

However war and economic meltdown after being attacked has this effect of causing us to spend lots of money.

[OklahomaTuba]

I respectfully disagree about the economy. IMHO, it's smokin' hot. Under 5% unemployment and folks spending money like crazy. Every economic indicator we have points upwards.

Sooo, WTF's 'sposed to be wrong with the economy? Not a damn thing.

I was refering to a few years back, when things were really shakey.

[BillyBall]

I agree. The economy has rebounded well over the last 2 years.

A side note, blaming the current President for woes in the economy is like blaming Ronald McDonald for a bad cheeseburger.

[sitzpinkler]

Then you are a Libertarian. All the politics in this country have devolved into which party can demogogue their hot-button issues the best. The GOP's penchant for increasing the scope and power of the executive branch scares me more than the Democrat's insistence on laying down a code of political correctness. Neither is good for the country or civil liberties but at least one usually doesn't lose their freedom for violating the code of political correctness.


if he's a christian conservative, he's nowhere near a libertarian

[JohnnyMack]

Me.

I'm now an Independent (although I'm sure Tuba will tell you I'm a psychotic baby-killing vampire who feeds on the souls of the undead whilst peeing on the crucifix and torching an Amercian flag with my fire breath).

[OklahomaTuba]

Me.

I'm now an Independent (although I'm sure Tuba will tell you I'm a psychotic baby-killing vampire who feeds on the souls of the undead whilst peeing on the crucifix and torching an Amercian flag with my fire breath).

Well, thats the nice way of putting it.

[TexasLidig8r]

Me.

I'm now an Independent (although I'm sure Tuba will tell you I'm a psychotic baby-killing vampire who feeds on the souls of the undead whilst peeing on the crucifix and torching an Amercian flag with my fire breath).

Now.. THAT is greatness!

oh.. to the cowardly tool who anonymously negspekked my prior post...

bawk.. bawk.. bawk.....

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Faninama, you ought to not give up on Limbaugh. He's brilliant, and a saint, if there ever was one. O'Reilly is another matter. He has a lot of the union mentality in him, and is far from a conservative. Al Franken is...sick. As corrupt as the Republicans are, they are our only hope, as the dims don't show any flicker of light. I think we ought to do what we can to straighted out and improve the Repubs., via the vote(and hope for the best).
This thread will go a minimum of 5 pages.

[Howzit]

Faninama, you ought to not give up on Limbaugh. He's brilliant, and a saint, if there ever was one.

Is this satire?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Is this satire?If you don't listen to Limbaugh, you can admit it.:)OK, he's a saint that had a drug addiction. I THINK he beat it. I stand by my opinion that he is a brilliant and properly intentioned person.

[Howzit]

heh.

[NormanPride]

Limbaugh a saint? O'Reilly far from conservative? I'd like an explanation before my head implodes.

[OklahomaTuba]

Its like saying Anne Rice is a Christian.

Just doesn't feel right.

[sitzpinkler]

Faninama, you ought to not give up on Limbaugh. He's brilliant, and a saint, if there ever was one. O'Reilly is another matter. He has a lot of the union mentality in him, and is far from a conservative. Al Franken is...sick. As corrupt as the Republicans are, they are our only hope, as the dims don't show any flicker of light. I think we ought to do what we can to straighted out and improve the Repubs., via the vote(and hope for the best).
This thread will go a minimum of 5 pages.

yeah, so much of a saint that he bagged on drug abusers for years and years while he was abusing them himself

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Listen to both of those guys. O'Reilly regularly espouses liberal views. He's conservative on some things, but is far from a conservative on many issues. Rush is a true conservative, and a good person. It's why he's so da*ned popular, and so despised by the left.

[BeetDigger]

oh.. to the cowardly tool who anonymously negspekked my prior post...

bawk.. bawk.. bawk.....


Did I forget to sign another one? :mack:

[OklahomaTuba]

yeah, so much of a saint that he bagged on drug abusers for years and years while he was abusing them himselfDude got addicted to pain killers that he had to take. Not exactly the end of the world, It happens a lot.
No one is perfect.

[FaninAma]

I respectfully disagree about the economy. IMHO, it's smokin' hot. Under 5% unemployment and folks spending money like crazy. Every economic indicator we have points upwards.

Sooo, WTF's 'sposed to be wrong with the economy?

With regards to diminished civil liberties, please cite an example that affects you or anyone you know personally in any meaningful way?

Look, I'm no kool-aid repub, I tend to favor a laissez-faire gubmint therefore I have libertarian tendencies...but its tough to argue the GOP has screwed-up the economy when its in such objectively fantastic shape and we have not suffered another terrorist attack here at home since 9-11.

That is what is going to keep the GOP in power in the upcoming mid-term elections and the 2008 prez race. That, and the fact the Dems have wacky Howard Dean as the public face of their party.:D

The economy is smokin' hot because Bush and the Fed are spending money like drunkin' sailors. The interest on the debt is becoming one of the biggest expenses in the federal budget. If I had a credit card with no limits and used it without discretion I bet I'd look pretty prosperous , too. If you don't think we're starting to see inflationary pressure because of the easy mpney policy look at the commodity market....I have because I've made a ton of money in commodities this year as they've skyrocketed.

My experience with civil liberties is primarily via my exposure with Child protective services as I deal with them in my profession(Pediatrician. ) Over the last few years they have become arrogant with case workers basically acting unilaterally with, from what I can see, little or no oversight from supervisors and the local DA's office has been very aggressive about supporting CPS in removing chioldren from the home without conducting appropritate investigations. This is happening state wide nationwide and is due to, IMO, the right wing demogoguery coming from the mouth pieces for the Republicans, ie Bill O'Reilly

There are currently 2, and soon to be 3, lawsuits against the local CPS agency here because of wrongful action and yet they continue to have case workers coming in and taking children out of home inappropriately. As a parent you should be very concerned about this trend. I am. I have worked with CPS for 15 years and I have been a supporter of what they do but in the last couple of years I've seen a sea-change in their attitude and the way they conduct business. I've talked to the Texas Medical Association and they state they've had a dramatic increase in the number of complaints against CPS in the state during this same time frame, but because of the political correcness of this issue, thanks to the GOP and their media mothpieces, politicians and judges are afraid to stand up and reign these guys in.

It is a really frightening development and trend and every parent should see how these families are being ripped apart.

[mdklatt]

I used to think I was Republican because I despised the Democrats and their self-righteous holier-than-thou "we know what's best for you" attitude that we had to endure during their 90's power trip. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and we have to endure the Republican self-righteous holier-than-thou "we know what's best for you" attitude during their 00's power trip. It turns out that I just hate politicians in general.

*********s and *******s.

[mdklatt]

I am 100% on the side of the government should stay the hell out of my life, except in times of national emergencies and wars.

And issues of morality, right?

[TexasLidig8r]

Did I forget to sign another one? :mack:

And after I massaged your thigh all through lunch a few weeks ago .. WELL.. FINE!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

This is happening state wide nationwide and is due to, IMO, the right wing demogoguery coming from the mouth pieces for the Republicans, ie Bill O'Reilly

I've talked to the Texas Medical Association and they state they've had a dramatic increase in the number of complaints against CPS in the state during this same time frame, but because of the political correcness of this issue, thanks to the GOP and their media mothpieces, politicians and judges are afraid to stand up and reign these guys in.

:confused: What are O'Reilly and other Republican mouthpieces saying on this issue-their demagogue.

[BillyBall]

I used to think I was Republican because I despised the Democrats and their self-righteous holier-than-thou "we know what's best for you" attitude that we had to endure during their 90's power trip. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and we have to endure the Republican self-righteous holier-than-thou "we know what's best for you" attitude during their 00's power trip. It turns out that I just hate politicians in general.

*********s and *******s.

Spek

[skycat]

The problem with not being registered as Republican or Democrat, is that in many states, you don't get to vote in primaries. And frankly, a very large percentage of the time, choosing the candidate is every bit as important as the general election itself.

I don't really see myself as a Republican, but I'm registered as one.

[NormanPride]

George Washington is right. Partisan politics is the succ. Same with the whole liberal/conservative label.

[Rogue]

If we had a legitimate multi-party system, I think we would be better off. It would certainly provide more interesting checks and balances than the 2 party system.

FaninAma, one thing that would improve CPS in Texas would be to professionalize the caseworkers and require them to have a Master's Degree in Social Work. This way you don't have someone with training in art or music investigating child abuse, neglect, or exploitation. I saw the other side of the problem with Adult Protective Services in TX, underfunded and understaffed, they rarely got involved in cases until it was too late. This has worked in other states.

[Pricetag]

George Washington is right. Partisan politics is the succ. Same with the whole liberal/conservative label.
The sad thing is that as much as we like to talk about it, in the end, very few of us have the balls to actually take our vote away from (D) or (R) for fear of "wasting" it.

We all acknowledge how jacked up the system is right now, but are still afraid of losing our voice in it by doing it differently than we have in the past. Consequently, we do nothing to encourage those in charge to do anything differently, either.

[Okla-homey]

My experience with civil liberties is primarily via my exposure with Child protective services as I deal with them in my profession(Pediatrician. ) Over the last few years they have become arrogant with case workers basically acting unilaterally with, from what I can see, little or no oversight from supervisors and the local DA's office has been very aggressive about supporting CPS in removing chioldren from the home without conducting appropritate investigations. This is happening state wide nationwide and is due to, IMO, the right wing demogoguery coming from the mouth pieces for the Republicans, ie Bill O'Reilly

There are currently 2, and soon to be 3, lawsuits against the local CPS agency here because of wrongful action and yet they continue to have case workers coming in and taking children out of home inappropriately. As a parent you should be very concerned about this trend. I am. I have worked with CPS for 15 years and I have been a supporter of what they do but in the last couple of years I've seen a sea-change in their attitude and the way they conduct business. I've talked to the Texas Medical Association and they state they've had a dramatic increase in the number of complaints against CPS in the state during this same time frame, but because of the political correcness of this issue, thanks to the GOP and their media mothpieces, politicians and judges are afraid to stand up and reign these guys in.

It is a really frightening development and trend and every parent should see how these families are being ripped apart.

That's all state stuff. If the folks in texass keeps sending folks to Austin who are inclined to legislate that way, than maybe that's the way texass wants things to be down there. That's not a federal matter, nor can it be blamed on Dubya or the national GOP IMHO.

[Octavian]

Dude got addicted to pain killers that he had to take. Not exactly the end of the world, It happens a lot.
No one is perfect.

Some dudes get addicted to heroin or Jack Daniels.

Its all substance abuse. Rush preached for years how those who allowed themselves to fall into chemical dependency deserved jail...then did it himself.

[Flagstaffsooner]

If you change to Libertarian I think you get to smoke weed or something.So that's what they keep sending me. I thought it was something for the cats.

[handcrafted]

Politically, I'm closest to the Constitution Party. But I stay registered Republican because (as skycat said) Oklahoma has a closed primary. Reforming either major party is almost a lost cause. It would take some major upheaval. The Repubs are too busy pandering to this or that interest group so as to not create outcry or embarrassment for them in the media. Instead of governing like they should, they just play not to lose, and come across as weak and wishy-washy in the process. The Repubs are deathly afraid of *any* negative press, and they'll eat their own young to prevent it from happening.

The Dems, on the other hand, have absolutely no hope of winning the Congress *or* the Presidency unless they get rid of their whackjobs. They *must* leave the left-wing lunatic fringe behind, or they're done for the foreseeable future. The people of this country, even the moderately liberal ones, are not drinking the kool-aid anymore. As long as they're gonna keep throwing Hillary and Howie and Kerry out there, they got nothing.

[Ike]

The sad thing is that as much as we like to talk about it, in the end, very few of us have the balls to actually take our vote away from (D) or (R) for fear of "wasting" it.

We all acknowledge how jacked up the system is right now, but are still afraid of losing our voice in it by doing it differently than we have in the past. Consequently, we do nothing to encourage those in charge to do anything differently, either.


damn skippy. IMHO, voting for one tool just because you think he's the only one that can beat the other tool is a wasted vote. Such a vote only gives the tool you voted for the indication that you think everything he stands for is A-OK in your book, when most likely it isnt. Voting for whatever guy you want to see in that office, D, R or whatever else might be on your ballot....even if you think he has no shot at winning is the only way to let politicians know that your vote is not so easily won.

A lot of people get all riled up about Perot and Nader 'stealing votes' in the elections they ran in. They didn't steal anything. Votes don't belong to any politician, and I'm sick of the self-righteousness of both parties in thinking that their votes are a thing that can be stolen by merely the presence of another candidate. screw them in ***.

[Czar Soonerov]

I should've laid down some guidelines.

40 posts per page

:D

bump

[RacerX]

I'm not sure this thread has the legs to go 320.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Seems like it's withering on the vine.

[sitzpinkler]

Dude got addicted to pain killers that he had to take. Not exactly the end of the world, It happens a lot.
No one is perfect.

do you not see the blatant hypocrisy?

you can't tell me that if it was a democrat who did that, that you wouldn't be all over him about it.

[BeetDigger]

*********s and *******s.


Actually, you are kind of mixing up the apparatus and the appropriate orifice. While I suppose it would work, practically speaking I would suggest a different device. :texan:

[OklahomaTuba]

Some dudes get addicted to heroin or Jack Daniels.

Its all substance abuse. Rush preached for years how those who allowed themselves to fall into chemical dependency deserved jail...then did it himself.
Difference is, a doctor actually put him on these meds I believe and he became addicted while taking them. Again, a common occurance with some of the stronger medications for pain I do believe.

I don't know many medical professionals prescribing heroin or jack for people.

There is a reason why these types of painkillers are available by prescription only.

[OklahomaTuba]

do you not see the blatant hypocrisy?

you can't tell me that if it was a democrat who did that, that you wouldn't be all over him about it.

Not at all. To me, this sounds like a issue he had with a medical diagnosis, taking the meds that he got hooked on.

Someone doing crack or heroin has no medical background. That's a big difference.

[TexasLidig8r]

Come on Tuba.. admit it.. you are slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun.!

(This thread was custom made for you and some good old fashioned, smack down.. don't let the opportunity pass.)

[NormanPride]

Come on Tuba.. admit it.. you are slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun.!

(This thread was custom made for you and some good old fashioned, smack down.. don't let the opportunity pass.)

No kidding. I was hoping JM, scuba, and a few others would be on here with Tuba throwing mud and feces at each other. I want my ****ing money back.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Come on Tuba.. admit it.. you are slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun.!

(This thread was custom made for you and some good old fashioned, smack down.. don't let the opportunity pass.)Strong words, and a BIG SURPRISE, coming from a member of the staunch constitutionist legal community.:texan:

[FaninAma]

That's all state stuff. If the folks in texass keeps sending folks to Austin who are inclined to legislate that way, than maybe that's the way texass wants things to be down there. That's not a federal matter, nor can it be blamed on Dubya or the national GOP IMHO.

I disagree that issues with CPS are just a state-wide issue. I've talked to pediatricians in other states who have ran into the same type of problems.

The constant muckraking and demagogery by people like O'Reilly has set the tone that has allowed CPS agencies across the country to be taken over by crusaders with an agenda instead of impartial administrators and investigators.

I used to support conservatives being appointed to the courts but now I see the very distinct possibility that packing the courts with conservatives will expand the role and scope of the executive branch and erode civil liberties. All of the local, circuit and Supreme Court judge in the state of Texas are self-proclaimed conservatives and I don't like the trend I'm seeing in regards to rulings that favor big business and erode civil liberties.

Hell, I thought one of the tenets of Conservatism was parent rights. I haven't seen that principle put in play yet by the conservative judiciary in Texas.

[OklahomaTuba]

Come on Tuba.. admit it.. you are slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun.!

(This thread was custom made for you and some good old fashioned, smack down.. don't let the opportunity pass.)

Not really sure how far right you think I am, given my stances on the environment, alternative energy and even abortion in some cases. I would define myself more as traditional rather than hard right.

Like I said, I am a Christian first, then a conservative. Beyond that, I just call it how I see it.

[sooneron]

republicans are poopy heads


8 pages gets my vote

[PDXsooner]

if you really are a free-thinker and want a government that won't sell out to the highest bidder, there's no way you can be a republican or a democrat.

[GrapevineSooner]

damn skippy. IMHO, voting for one tool just because you think he's the only one that can beat the other tool is a wasted vote.

Usually when I'm confronted with the possibility of voting for the lesser of two evils I ask...

What would Geddy Lee do? And he usually answers, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

So I don't vote for either *********.

If I had lived in Oklahoma in 2004, I don't think I could have voted for either one of the Senatorial candidates that the state Republican and Democratic parties had offered up.

[GrapevineSooner]

And BTW, I think that's the first time we've had four consecutive posts from Red Sox fans on this board in a non-sports thread.

;)

[OklahomaTuba]

How about America's first neo-con party?

Bull-Moosican has a nice ring to it.

[mdklatt]

If I had lived in Oklahoma in 2004, I don't think I could have voted for either one of the Senatorial candidates that the state Republican and Democratic parties had offered up.

Don't forget the crazy lady.

D) None of the above.

[SoonerProphet]

if you really are a free-thinker and want a government that won't sell out to the highest bidder, there's no way you can be a republican or a democrat.

can't get much more dead on.

[soonerscuba]

Hey now, I'm more of a process guy. The only mud I sling is when fools that don't know what time it is say stupid crap about process issues. That and when people just say things that are completely retarded, like that the Dems don't have a shot in 06, your own damn leadership is publicly admitting fear.

As for some of the more, how shall we say, "entrenched", members of the board, well you can't convince the guy that has it all figured out.

BTW, closed primaries are the ****ing succ, we could have John McCain and Kaine or Vilsack. Instead we are going to get Clinton/Kerry/Gore/nutjob v. whatever nutjob panders to Christians the most, I can hardly contain my delight.

[RacerX]

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24153

[sitzpinkler]

Not at all. To me, this sounds like a issue he had with a medical diagnosis, taking the meds that he got hooked on.

Someone doing crack or heroin has no medical background. That's a big difference.

I'm sorry, but he doesn't get to claim the moral high ground just because the drug he's addicted to is prescribed. Especially when he's out there everyday screamin' about how drug addicts need to be locked up. It's hypocrisy no matter how you try to spin it.

[sooneron]

Poor Rush Limbaugh

[soonerscuba]

I, for one, would love to hear the story of how Rush's house keeper went from medicine to scrubbing terlets.

[mdklatt]

I'm sorry, but he doesn't get to claim the moral high ground just because the drug he's addicted to is prescribed. Especially when he's out there everyday screamin' about how drug addicts need to be locked up. It's hypocrisy no matter how you try to spin it.

I'm no big fan of Rush Limbaugh anymore, but how did he get addicted? Was he strictly following the prescription? Did he get addicted because of or in spite of the doctor's orders?

[sooneron]

I'm no big fan of Rush Limbaugh anymore, but how did he get addicted? Was he strictly following the prescription? Did he get addicted because of or in spite of the doctor's orders?
Scenario #1- Boy my back is aching something awful this morning! I should lose weight or something. Eh, I'll just take a couple of vics instead of the prescribed amount. Cut to : twenty minutes later- Wheew! I feeeeeeeelll gooood! I look in the mirror and I don't even see the ********* that I see every morning!

[Octavian]

30 Oxycontin a day according to my close friend Bill Maher...

the fat bastard was stoned imaculate...

[soonerscuba]

30 Oxycontin a day according to my close friend Bill Maher...

might want to take that one with a grain of salt.

[Octavian]

might want to take that one with a grain of salt.

nah... ;)

[BillyBall]

30 Oxycontin a day according to my close friend Bill Maher...

That could kill a horse, good thing the ********* is larger than one....

[BeetDigger]

Hey now, I'm more of a process guy. The only mud I sling is when fools that don't know what time it is say stupid crap about process issues. That and when people just say things that are completely retarded, like that the Dems don't have a shot in 06, your own damn leadership is publicly admitting fear.


Saying they don't have a chance is retarded. Saying that they have a very slight chance of gaining one or two seats is more like it. :mack:

[BeetDigger]

That could kill a horse, good thing the ********* is larger than one....


All the doucebag references in this thread. :eek:

Massingill should be paying for all of this advertising.

[OklahomaTuba]

30 Oxycontin a day according to my close friend Bill Maher...

the fat bastard was stoned imaculate...

I am surprised Bill Maher could count that high. Dude is about as dumb as they come when it comes to basic facts.

[OklahomaTuba]

That and when people just say things that are completely retarded, like that the Dems don't have a shot in 06, your own damn leadership is publicly admitting fear.

Well, its been 6 years now. About time the dimz had one go their way.

[OklahomaTuba]

I'm sorry, but he doesn't get to claim the moral high ground just because the drug he's addicted to is prescribed. Especially when he's out there everyday screamin' about how drug addicts need to be locked up. It's hypocrisy no matter how you try to spin it.Oh, and I never said he got the high moral ground. Just pointing out the obvious differences between someone who gets addicted to highly addictive meds from a medical professional vs. some strung out druggie buying crack off the street as you would have him made out to be.

But then again stereotyping and judging is your thing it seems.

[sooneron]

Pffftt...I do that before lunch
I need that to loosen up the golf swing!:texan:

[mdklatt]

All the doucebag references in this thread. :eek:



There is no such thing as too many ********* references when it comes to politicians. The sooner we all realize that, the sooner we'll all become more responsible citizens. For example, why is your Congressmen spending tens of millions of dollars (much of it his own money) to get a job that pays $162k?

[SicEmBaylor]

This is a difficult question, because I haven't had any other interests but politics since I was in 6th grade (no joke..just politics). At the center of which of course has been my love and support for the Republican Party.

However, since entering college I've become increasingly divided between my strict ideological beliefs in originalism and constructionism (in that order) and the need for employment. I'm absolutely disgusted with the way in which the Republican Party has behaved since the reformist momentum of the '94 Congressional Revolution gave way to the comfort of power and the safety of incumbency. I've said so on numerous occasions, but I'm simply not satisfied with a party that isn't doing everything within its power to reduce the size of the Federal government (and yes it is very very possible to do so); limit its wielding of power strictly to its role under the Constitution; a so-called conservative congress never willing to say Nay to a Republican President who is out of control on spending; all the while abandoning many of the most important ideals the party has been built upon.

On the other hand, though, to get the job I want in electoral politics it is necessary to toe the party line. So, will I switch parties? Probably not. I still have a tremendous amount of faith in the state parties especially the Oklahoma Republican Party which I consider excellent. However, at this field knowing the potential GOP Presidential nominees for '08; I think I'll vote Constitution Party.

[SicEmBaylor]

On another note:

It does absolutely no good to pick out lightning rod individuals on either side and demonize them or trash their character (even when its needed). It's petty, it has nothing to do with real politics, and it's usually way beneath the intellectual abilities of those who engage in it. Both sides have plenty of really lousy individuals you can focus your time on trashing, but what would be the point? You can go 50 rounds of that crap and get no where.

[mdklatt]

On the other hand, though, to get the job I want in electoral politics it is necessary to toe the party line.

The world needs less party flunkies, not more.

[SicEmBaylor]

The world needs less party flunkies, not more.

Oh I know I know, and God knows I agree. But unless you want to see me at the welfare office...

[mdklatt]

Oh I know I know, and God knows I agree. But unless you want to see me at the welfare office...

There are plenty of jobs where you don't have to sell your soul to the devil.

[Scott D]

Its like saying Anne Rice is a Christian.

Just doesn't feel right.

eh she was Catholic which you don't recognize as Christian anyway ;)

[Scott D]

Oh, and Fan...welcome to the New World Order of the Future.

[KaiserSooner]

Without having read the thread, I'll just say the Republican party is not a conservative party. That is, calling it "conservative" is not the best characterization of the GOP, and it hasn't been for some time.

I think it can be more accurately pidgeon-holed as nationalist.

[FaninAma]

Oh, and Fan...welcome to the New World Order of the Future.

If you mean that your children really don't belong to you then you're right.

And Tuba, the GOP has done nothing to change the climate of political correctness in this country and now they've added their own touches to state control over our kids and our lives.

Bush's "No Child Left Behind" is a freaking crock of ****. It has removed control from local school authorities. He has done nothing to strengthen parenteral rights....only given lip service. In fact, ol' George is very, very good at blowing smoke up everbody's ***.

[OklahomaTuba]

eh she was Catholic which you don't recognize as Christian anyway ;)

Ugh, OK. :confused:

[mdklatt]

And Tuba, the GOP has done nothing to change the climate of political correctness in this country.


Word. The left-wing and right-wing zealots both want to outlaw everything they find offensive, and they all go out of their way to be offended.

[NormanPride]

Without having read the thread, I'll just say the Republican party is not a conservative party. That is, calling it "conservative" is not the best characterization of the GOP, and it hasn't been for some time.

I think it can be more accurately pidgeon-holed as nationalist.

I'd agree with this, adding that they seem to be employing a disturbing trend (to me) of adding religious ties in to a lot of what they say/do.

Not that I'm anti-religious at ALL, but that I think it's bad for both government and religion to tie them together...

[TexasLidig8r]

There are plenty of jobs where you don't have to sell your soul to the devil.

Like being an attorney...

Oh .. wait.... ;)

[OklahomaTuba]

And Tuba, the GOP has done nothing to change the climate of political correctness in this country and now they've added their own touches to state control over our kids and our lives.
I didn't know it was the GOP's job to fix political correctness??

And what about charter schools and privatizing social security?

Seems they try some things. Far from perfect though when most focus is on defense these days.

[OklahomaTuba]

I'd agree with this, adding that they seem to be employing a disturbing trend (to me) of adding religious ties in to a lot of what they say/do.
How so?

Seems this has been a practice since the founding.

[mdklatt]

I didn't know it was the GOP's job to fix political correctness??



Just whose job is it, then? That's who I'm voting for.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I am surprised Bill Maher could count that high. Dude is about as dumb as they come when it comes to basic facts.He and Franken are right there with Michael Moore and Howard the Duck-magnets for the emotional rug chewing left.

[OklahomaTuba]

Just whose job is it, then? That's who I'm voting for.
No clue. I am guessing if the GOP had at least one idea on how to fight political correctness, it would be one more idea than the dimz have about how to fight or fix anything.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

On another note:

It does absolutely no good to pick out lightning rod individuals on either side and demonize them or trash their character (even when its needed). It's petty, it has nothing to do with real politics, and it's usually way beneath the intellectual abilities of those who engage in it. Both sides have plenty of really lousy individuals you can focus your time on trashing, but what would be the point? You can go 50 rounds of that crap and get no where.Yeah, but it's an adrenaline rush, and it makes you FEEL like you MIGHT be getting somewhere. At the end of the day, we're all just wasting time here.(probably):P

[mdklatt]

Seems this has been a practice since the founding.

You said earlier that you think the government should stay 100% out of people's personal lives, but you seem to make an exception for religion. Demanding that "under God" remain in the Pledge of Allegience is a religious issue. Gay marriage and Intelligent Design are religious issues, despite claims to the contrary. These are all on the Republican agenda nowadays. What is more personal than religion? Government and religion should not mix.

[Sooner Born Sooner Bred]

You said earlier that you think the government should stay 100% out of people's personal lives, but you seem to make an exception for religion. Demanding that "under God" remain in the Pledge of Allegience is a religious issue. Gay marriage and Intelligent Design are religious issues, despite claims to the contrary. These are all on the Republican agenda nowadays. What is more personal than religion? Government and religion should not mix.He means just the rights he agrees with.

[BillyBall]

I don't know.... The mix of religion and politics works out well for the Saudis.

[OklahomaTuba]

You said earlier that you think the government should stay 100% out of people's personal lives, but you seem to make an exception for religion. Demanding that "under God" remain in the Pledge of Allegience is a religious issue. Gay marriage and Intelligent Design are religious issues, despite claims to the contrary. These are all on the Republican agenda nowadays. What is more personal than religion? Government and religion should not mix.
Yes, I want Gov out of peoples lives, but I don't want relgion BANNED from people's lives, as you would have it done, like public expressions of faith or banning the religious history of this nation thru lawsuits. Hello ACLU?

Adding under God to the pledge doesn't affect anyones life.

We didn't change anything under gay marriage, we just kept it the same to protect what we believe to be marriage. And, it was voted on to boot. Don't like it, then either have another vote or move.

Intelligent Design, why not? I don't see any harm in adding a class. The more education the better. Only a few want evolution banned, and I am not one of those.

[SicEmBaylor]

The seperation of church and state is important to the extent that it ensures the government never officially declares a state religion or preventing people from practicing whatever religion they choose.

However, government acknowledgement of a higher deity is ESSENTIAL to everything this nation was founded upon. Namely that we are just in creating our own government because man is endowed by a higher deity to enjoy certain rights that are inalienable. Those inalienable rights were referenced in the Declaraction and the rights by which we protect those inalienable rights are protected within the Constitution. In other words, our constitutional rights are not inalienable but they are protected because those rights are the best way to ensure our inalienable rights are not infringed upon by government.

So what does that have to do with acknowledging God? If government takes no position on the existence of God then they deny the central point our Founding Fathers made that no government created by man has a right to infringe upon the rights given to us by God. Therefore if government doesn't acknowledge that those rights are inalienable from God then they have to come from somewhere. Where do they come from then? The only other explanation is they are government granted. And what the government giveth the government taketh away.

The problem that exists today is the evangelical wing is demanding that a simple acknowledgement of the existence of God be taken a step further by attempting to evangelize the American government. They've done this through a variety of ways including misportraying the Founding Fathers as a group of yesteryear evangelical christians trying to build a Republic based on religous tenents. Which isn't true at all.

[handcrafted]

MD, once again you misunderstand. We Christians are not opposed to certain things (drugs, pr0n, abortion, homos, etc.) because they offend us (even though they do). We are opposed to them because they offend God.

Don't worry, though. You'll not have to deal with a Christian US government. I have no illusions about where things are headed. Absent an act of the aforementioned Almighty, America is doomed to spiral downward into a cesspool of depravity. 200 years from now we are going to be the answer to a trivia question: What was the shortest-lived empire/superpower in the history of the world?

[BillyBall]

We Christians are not opposed to certain things (drugs, pr0n, abortion, homos, etc.) because they offend us (even though they do). We are opposed to them because they offend God.


Now did God tell you that because I would love his phone number if you have it.

[handcrafted]

Now did God tell you that because I would love his phone number if you have it.

Holy. Bible.

[JohnnyMack]

Absent an act of the aforementioned :dean:, The SO is doomed to spiral downward into a cesspool of depravity.

Fixed.

[Zbird]

Listen to both of those guys. O'Reilly regularly espouses liberal views. He's conservative on some things, but is far from a conservative on many issues. Rush is a true conservative, and a good person. It's why he's so da*ned popular, and so despised by the left.


Yeah buddy! He's so popular he's now only carried by a few Bircher owned stations because listener ratings have tanked.

[mdklatt]

Yes, I want Gov out of peoples lives, but I don't want relgion BANNED from people's lives, as you would have it done, like public expressions of faith or banning the religious history of this nation thru lawsuits. Hello ACLU?


Only government sponsored displays of religion. The government cannot play favorites when it comes to religion. If you allow certain privileges to one religion you have to allow them to all religions, and that's just a can of worms that doesn't need to be opened. It's all or none, so I vote 'none' just to keep it simple.




Adding under God to the pledge doesn't affect anyones life.


Then why does it need to be in there? That phrase automatically excludes everyone who doesn't believe in god. The Pledge of Allegiance is something every American should be able to stand behind. Why not take out "under God" and restore the original Pledge? Why is original intent only important for the Constitution?




We didn't change anything under gay marriage, we just kept it the same to protect what we believe to be marriage.


Marriage = Personal Life

The government has no business endorsing or prohibiting marriage. Civil unions on the other hand....



Intelligent Design, why not? I don't see any harm in adding a class. The

I don't either, as long as it's not in science class. A philosophy or religious studies class would be fine for ID.

[mdklatt]

MD, once again you misunderstand. We Christians are not opposed to certain things (drugs, pr0n, abortion, homos, etc.) because they offend us (even though they do). We are opposed to them because they offend God.



Maybe your god, but I'm pretty sure the Flying Spaghetti Monster is all for it.

[handcrafted]

Maybe your god, but I'm pretty sure the Flying Spaghetti Monster is all for it.

:rolleyes:

[Frozen Sooner]

He is. this here bush told me.

[mdklatt]

:rolleyes:

You do know that your belief in a certain religion doesn't mean everybody else needs to believe the same way, right?

[handcrafted]

You do know that your belief in a certain religion doesn't mean everybody else needs to believe the same way, right?

Um, no that is not true. This is the deal: everybody needs to believe the same way. Everybody should believe the same way. However, not everyone will believe the same way.

In other words, truth is truth, whether you believe it or not. And there's absolutely no point in believing something if you don't think it's true.

[Frozen Sooner]

Interesting. Because that's exactly the way the mullahs think as well. I guess you guys will find out later if either one of you is right.

[mdklatt]

Um, no that is not true. This is the deal: everybody needs to believe the same way. Everybody should believe the same way.


Again, so you say. Well, you and millions of Muslims. How do you know your religion is right? I know, I know--because the Bible tells you so. You believe in the infallibility of the Bible because the Bible tells you to believe in the infallibility of the Bible. And yet your church provides only one of the many, many competing biblical interpretations.

How did you choose your religious denomination?

[mdklatt]

Interesting. Because that's exactly the way the mullahs think as well. I guess you guys will find out later if either one of you is right.

I wish they'd leave everybody else out of it.

[Stitch Face]

Me.

I'm now an Independent (although I'm sure Tuba will tell you I'm a psychotic baby-killing vampire who feeds on the souls of the undead whilst peeing on the crucifix and torching an Amercian flag with my fire breath).

I played that video game.

[Jerk]

I'm pretty much a single issue voter.

Guns. Yes, shocking. I vote for who will not 'infringe' upon my right to have them.

I'd vote for a communist if he'd repeal the Machine Gun Ban of 1986.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Yeah buddy! He's so popular he's now only carried by a few Bircher owned stations because listener ratings have tanked.I think you are wrong. Limbaugh's ratings have continued to grow. Where did you hear/see that his ratings and audiences have dropped. I know he has forever kicked everyone's *ss in the Phoenix market.:eek:

[FaninAma]

MD, once again you misunderstand. We Christians are not opposed to certain things (drugs, pr0n, abortion, homos, etc.) because they offend us (even though they do). We are opposed to them because they offend God.

Don't worry, though. You'll not have to deal with a Christian US government. I have no illusions about where things are headed. Absent an act of the aforementioned Almighty, America is doomed to spiral downward into a cesspool of depravity. 200 years from now we are going to be the answer to a trivia question: What was the shortest-lived empire/superpower in the history of the world?

I do support more Christian involvement in the election process because they, more than any other group, really stand up for parenteral rights.

Christians do have to be careful that they don't become like the black voting block in the Democratic party....monolithically voting for the GOP and never really getting anything other than lip service in return.

And the reason America will spiral into depravity is not because of the "evil" liberals and their far left support groups but because there are far too many people who are Christians in name only and attend church only as a social function. In other words, the church in this country is like the big oak tree in the book Atlas Shrugged.....healthy appearing on the outside but rotten and hollow in the center and unable to weather a strong storm.

[mdklatt]

I do support more Christian involvement in the election process because they, more than any other group, really stand up for parenteral rights.



As George Bush would say. ;)

[Stitch Face]

Um, no that is not true. This is the deal: everybody needs to believe the same way. Everybody should believe the same way. However, not everyone will believe the same way.

Scary.

[Stitch Face]

I'd vote for a communist if he'd repeal the Machine Gun Ban of 1986.

Scary.

[FaninAma]

As George Bush would say. ;)

George Bush is a poor example of how a principled Christian would act.

The only group that is strongly suspicious of the state yielding too much power over their children, whether the power is wielded by liberal Democrats or "Conservative" Republicans are the more principled Chrisitian families.

[mdklatt]

George Bush is a poor example of how a principled Christian would act.


Maybe so, but he might say 'parenteral'. :D




The only group that is strongly suspicious of the state yielding too much power over their children, whether the power is wielded by liberal Democrats or "Conservative" Republicans are the more principled Chrisitian families.

I bet if the government was willing to legislate their beliefs the principled Christian families wouldn't have much of a problem with it. Almost everybody is against government power only as long as they don't have it. Do the principled Christian families take issue over the government deciding who their children can marry, for example?

[soonerscuba]

Some on here have not been touched by his noodly appendage, which I'm confident will one day, come to pass.

[NormanPride]

Some on here have not been touched by His Noodly Appendage, which I'm confident will one day, come to pass.


Heathen. ;)


Honestly, I think SicEm made the only legitimate argument as to why the church needs to be involved, once again making him/her one of the few posters here that actually thinks things through before poasting. ;)

I would, however, point out that deity confirmed rights do not have to be stilted towards Christianity, as much as it makes me more comfortable.

[FaninAma]

Maybe so, but he might say 'parenteral'. :D




I bet if the government was willing to legislate their beliefs the principled Christian families wouldn't have much of a problem with it. Almost everybody is against government power only as long as they don't have it. Do the principled Christian families take issue over the government deciding who their children can marry, for example?

It took me a while. Parenteral instead of parental. :O

I'm not so sure prinicipled Christians want politicians legislating morality from either side. I truly get the feeling that they would prefer a neutral federal government on social issues and allow the states and local governments to make the important decisions. I certainly agree with the premise that the courts have no business deciding important social issues.

[usmc-sooner]

so if Bush could only bring peace to the mideast, have a super economy where everyone gets rich, stops all the violence against children then and only then is he a good President

get real this idea is as stupid as this thread.

The man makes mistakes, I'm more than sick of the daily bitching about him. Imagine his job leading the free world with a little less than half his countrymen trying to stick it to him for any little thing. It's sickening, disgusting and pathetic.

I served under President Clinton and President Bush as far as the miltary goes things were better under Bush. Maybe I'm at that age where I've first started to follow politics but this constant attack on our leader disgusts me. I wasn't a Clinton fan (thought his impeachment was BS) but I never for one minute thought it was cool when Republicans showed him no respect.

Here's a thought how about a prayer for President Bush instead of trying to tear him down at every turn. The only difference I can see between Bush and the Democrats is Bush's tough stance on the Mid East.

Damn Fan I didn't think you were one of these guys.

[Okieflyer]

If you change to Libertarian I think you get to smoke weed or something.
Sounds like he already does. Oh, you meant legally.

[SicEmBaylor]

It took me a while. Parenteral instead of parental. :O

I'm not so sure prinicipled Christians want politicians legislating morality from either side. I truly get the feeling that they would prefer a neutral federal government on social issues and allow the states and local governments to make the important decisions. I certainly agree with the premise that the courts have no business deciding important social issues.


No they don't. Trust me they don't. The evangelical wing of the party wants and EXPECTS a Supreme Court ruling that not only overturns Roe v. Wade but makes abortion totally illegal. Otherwise they expect a Federal legislative ban on abortion, and a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage.

All of which is anathema to me as a very strict states rights' conservative.

[C&CDean]

Steve,

Step away from the crack pipe. I need my very good friend and business partner to remain cool, calm, and lucid.

Please do not try and suggest that the local politics in Amarillo (aka Satan's butthole) are a mirrored reflection of America. Just cause everybody in the county has a "R" in front of their name (including the self-serving ****-lapper of a female DA) doesn't all of a sudden create cause for disowning your party of choice. Just because the **** is hitting the fan out in the Texas panhandle doesn't mean that conservative America is all whacked out.

You're dealing with a ****ball situation right now. Don't let it impact/affect what you hold dear. Bush isn't smart enough to be evil. Neither are his cronies. Rush is right, but he's so full of himself he's intolerable. O'Reilly? He's a dildo. In fact, all the radio guys are.

Me? I'm still an "R." No shame in my game. Could things be better? Sure, but I still have to look at the big picture. I made more money last year than the year before. I'll make more this year than last. My family is prospering. My friends are prospering. Hell, America is prospering irregardless of what the libs say. Our business is prospering. Life is good. I just can't get all yainched up right now.

[soonerscuba]

What has always struck me as unusual, and this is beginning to change, is the demand for originalism on the bench while ignoring the legislative and executive in this push. Lately it has been fairly popular to start the talk of the problems and benefits of the expanded role of the executive, and the courts have been brewing for decades. But what is lost is "one man, one vote" mantra of the founders in regards to the legislature, to look at this now it would take roughly 9,000 Representatives to meet this criteria. This illustrates the main reason I cannot support originalism, it is, in my opinion a cherry picking apparatus that taken to minimal standards cannot coexist with libertarianism, which is often coupled with it.

[Stoop Dawg]

So what does that have to do with acknowledging God? If government takes no position on the existence of God then they deny the central point our Founding Fathers made that no government created by man has a right to infringe upon the rights given to us by God. Therefore if government doesn't acknowledge that those rights are inalienable from God then they have to come from somewhere. Where do they come from then? The only other explanation is they are government granted. And what the government giveth the government taketh away.

One doesn't need God to tell you that all men are created equal.

And taking a position on the existance of God necessarily means endorsing a particular religion - since most religions are incapable of comprehending that some other religion may also be "correct".

And if you need confirmation that a "God fearing country" is as menacing as those heathens, watch Gandhi again.

[Stoop Dawg]

And for those who are so sure that the FSM doesn't exist - prove it.

:rolleyes: - indeed.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

:(
Damn Fan I didn't think you were one of these guys.:( I didn't think so either, til this thread.

[Scott D]

I think you are wrong. Limbaugh's ratings have continued to grow. Where did you hear/see that his ratings and audiences have dropped. I know he has forever kicked everyone's *ss in the Phoenix market.:eek:

That's because well, television and radio in Phoenix suck so much it's like listening to or watching television in Oklahoma. ;)

Why is Fan now one of 'those guys', because he's become disenfranchised with a political party? Hell, we need more people to wake up and realize that a two party system is nothing more than venture into hypocracy and stagnation. The problem is that in this country we've been conditioned for the last 70 years to think in terms of either 'D' or 'R' instead of having more available 'legitimate' options. At one time in this country we would have candidates from 4 to 8 parties that had a legitimate shot at winning office, today....the 'outsiders' are pipe dreaming at most in terms of getting elected, unless it's a localized election and the constituency is actually ****ed enough at the incumbent and the 'major' alternative that they vote for neither by going for the 3rd option.

Anyone who doesn't come to the realization that Democrats and Republicans are just the Heads and Tails of the same damn coin is fooling themselves. Personally I'd like to see the moderates of both parties break away from them and form at least a 3rd party, a 4th as well if they can't agree on enough issues, although they'd be a stronger 3rd party. Both the Dems and Reps are run by the extremists now anyway.

[OklahomaTuba]

Only government sponsored displays of religion. The government cannot play favorites when it comes to religion. If you allow certain privileges to one religion you have to allow them to all religions, and that's just a can of worms that doesn't need to be opened. It's all or none, so I vote 'none' just to keep it simple.

Ahh, so when the ACLU sues the boy scouts to keep them from visiting military bases cause it violates the myth of seperation of church and state, thats what you think the founders had in mind?

Or how about all those graves of fallen soldiers with crosses on them. Are you suggesting then that those should be removed per this myth as well? Would that be what the founders had in mind as well?

:rolleyes:

Sickening to think that the left and Facist-atheists will smile and laugh the day they have the chance to rip every cross from a grave on a US battlefield cemetery, or rip the word GOD off every monument in the land.

[OklahomaTuba]

Marriage = Personal Life

The government has no business endorsing or prohibiting marriage. Civil unions on the other hand....


Well, the government got in the business of endorsing marriage. This is why we fill out that thing at the court house, and take the little blood test.

I believe marriage should be a function of the church, as marriage is sacred as any blessed union.

As I said, I am a Christian first, then a conservative. To me, a gay relationship amounts to nothing more than an affair or pre-martial relationship. It is a sin.

How then, as a Christian, can I endorse sin if asked? Endorsing sinful behavior is not living what I believe. Perhaps I should not have been asked at all, but I did not start this. All I did was answer, and it turns out a super super majority believe as I do.

Most likely because this country is also Christian, officially or non-officially. Just like English is our national language. Its an un-written rule it seems, this history and heritage thing. Those facts will never change. But good luck trying I guess.

[soonerbrat]

negspek from Stoop Dawg: Anybody Else Used To Be ... 2/13/2006 11:10 PM Stoop Dawg No whining about topics you don't like.



nice.
asshat

[TexasLidig8r]

lol.. Hell Brat.. at least he signed it!

[soonerbrat]

lol.. Hell Brat.. at least he signed it!


he didn't sign it

i just saw who it was because i'm a sponsor

[pb4ou]

sick Stanley1 on him, he is expierenced now thanks to Jreed

[mdklatt]

Ahh, so when the ACLU sues the boy scouts to keep them from visiting military bases cause it violates the myth of seperation of church and state, thats what you think the founders had in mind?


When did this happen?

Again with the myth of seperation of church and state...why do you want the government involved in religous affairs? If the answer to that is 'no', then religion should not be involved in government affairs, either.




Or how about all those graves of fallen soldiers with crosses on them. Are you suggesting then that those should be removed per this myth as well?


There aren't just crosses, there are Stars of David or whatever else the family wants.




Would that be what the founders had in mind as well?


Please show me where the founders discuss military cemetaries.



Sickening to think that the left and Facist-atheists will smile and laugh the day they have the chance to rip every cross from a grave on a US battlefield cemetery, or rip the word GOD off every monument in the land.

And off into Tuba Fantasyland we go.... This might be a good time to take your blood pressure medication.

[sanantoniosooner]

negspek from Stoop Dawg: Anybody Else Used To Be ... 2/13/2006 11:10 PM Stoop Dawg No whining about topics you don't like.



nice.
asshat
http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/images/reputation/reputation_highneg.gifno whining about negspek

:D

[soonerbrat]

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/images/reputation/reputation_highneg.gifno whining about negspek

:D


not whining, just reporting. :D

[NormanPride]

Ahh, so when the ACLU sues the boy scouts to keep them from visiting military bases cause it violates the myth of seperation of church and state, thats what you think the founders had in mind?

Or how about all those graves of fallen soldiers with crosses on them. Are you suggesting then that those should be removed per this myth as well? Would that be what the founders had in mind as well?

:rolleyes:

Sickening to think that the left and Facist-atheists will smile and laugh the day they have the chance to rip every cross from a grave on a US battlefield cemetery, or rip the word GOD off every monument in the land.


You're getting way too worked up about this. I hadn't heard the ACLU sued the boyscouts, but they are a bit off... Regardless, if the boyscouts are considered a religious organization and the government is sponsoring their visit (paying for it, in other words) then unless the government hands out the same to other religious organizations that are NOT Christian, it is wrong.

And as far as I understand, the crosses are over soldiers because they want it that way. If someone doesn't want a cross over them or wants other burial rites because they're a member of a different religion, they should get that. If they're forced into that situation, then that is VERY wrong. I don't understand why you think that just because we want the state and church separate that we hate the church and want it to suffer. That's ridiculous.

As for civil unions vs. marriage, I really don't know all the laws that benefit/hinder people in civil unions as opposed to those who cannot attain that. But IF there are benefits, they should be extended to all peoples and creeds regardless of religious prejudice. I believe that would be Constitutional. Marriage under the eyes of God should be a church thing and a church thing only. States/cities/whatever should not interfere either.

[handcrafted]

Again, so you say. Well, you and millions of Muslims. How do you know your religion is right? I know, I know--because the Bible tells you so. You believe in the infallibility of the Bible because the Bible tells you to believe in the infallibility of the Bible. And yet your church provides only one of the many, many competing biblical interpretations.

How did you choose your religious denomination?

Your statement of why I (and other Christians) believe the Bible is true is oversimplistic and inaccurate. But, you're really good at setting up straw men and knocking them over. I've beat this horse over and over in previous discussions, and you're just closing your ears and eyes and sticking to your illogical baseless guns, so I'm not sure I see the point of continuing.

I'm sorry if I'm not pluralistic enough to suit your sensitivities, but as I've said before, I don't drink that kool-aid. There is one truth, and I seek it. If I suddenly discover that I've been barking up the wrong tree, I'm open to correction. That's how I chose my current church. I was in a dead one, now I'm in one that's alive.

Pluralism is a lie. There is one true faith, all the others are false. Christianity is incompatible with Islam, which is incompatible with modern Judaism, which is incompatible with (insert pagan religion or cult). They cannot all be right, for they hold to contradictory beliefs. To say that all are the same is to say that none of them are right, which apart from being an unargued unproven assertion, is in itself a statement of religious belief. Do you not see that?

As to my previous statement about everyone believing the way I do, look at it this way: my faith teaches me that people who don't believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and who don't therefore trust in His ability to give us eternal life through His death and resurrection, are going to hell when they depart this life. My faith also teaches me to love my fellow humans. If I'm acting on that commandment, as I should be, then of course I don't want to see anyone be punished and separated from God for all eternity. So, why wouldn't I then be driven to try to convert people?

[BillyBall]

Anyone who doesn't come to the realization that Democrats and Republicans are just the Heads and Tails of the same damn coin is fooling themselves.

Greatness....

[OklahomaTuba]

When did this happen?

You are kidding me, right?

The ACLU has been harassing the boyscouts for years. YEARS.
Infact, the boyscouts even made their ownwebsite with all the litigation from the ACLU.

http://www.bsalegal.org




Again with the myth of seperation of church and state...why do you want the government involved in religous affairs? If the answer to that is 'no', then religion should not be involved in government affairs, either.
Just my point. Religion isn't involved in government affiars. The myth of seperation of church and state is being used to attack religion or any group that has traditional values. See the above link for more information on this legal abuse.



There aren't just crosses, there are Stars of David or whatever else the family wants.

Very true. I have no doubt that the left in this country would like to see all crosses, stars or whatever removed.

That is unless your not for 100% seperation of church and state?


Please show me where the founders discuss military cemetaries.



And off into Tuba Fantasyland we go.... This might be a good time to take your blood pressure medication.

No high blood pressure here. Just stating the reality of the situation. Just like English isn't our national language, Christianity isn't our national religion, yet most in this country practice both.

Again, show me where the founders might be for yanking crosses off a graves, or banning groups from peacefully assembling on publicly owned property? I doubt that is what Washington fought for, or what Jefferson or Madison had in mind.

I think this vitriol against Christians and Jews by leftists and people who hate Christians and Jews and such will spare no expense in the hypocrisy department to gut the fundamental rights of freedom of speech, freedom of expression or freedom of religion.

It is bigotry, pure and simple.

[BoomerJack]

The perfect situation to suggest to all my fellow registered voters in Texas to visit www.kinkyfriedman.com to find out how to get a true independent candidate for Texas Governor on the ballot this coming November.

Not that I think he has a snowball's chance to win but it will indicate the level of dissatisfaction with the current joined-at-the-hip two party system in Texas.

OklahomaTuba would like the guy. He's the most Christlike politician around:
1. He's Jewish.
2. He's never been married.
3. He has no job.
4. He runs around the country with a bunch of long-haired people saying things that make the establishment uncomfortable.

[Pricetag]

Anyone who doesn't come to the realization that Democrats and Republicans are just the Heads and Tails of the same damn coin is fooling themselves.
True dat. The Republicans are definitely the "tails" though.

[NormanPride]

True dat. The Republicans are definitely the "tails" though.

Yeah. After Clinton, you'd have to give Democrats "heads". :D

[Scott D]

Pluralism is a lie. There is one true faith, all the others are false. Christianity is incompatible with Islam, which is incompatible with modern Judaism, which is incompatible with (insert pagan religion or cult). They cannot all be right, for they hold to contradictory beliefs. To say that all are the same is to say that none of them are right, which apart from being an unargued unproven assertion, is in itself a statement of religious belief. Do you not see that?

You've actually just argued the fundamental problem with religion. You believe Christianity to be the absolute truth, a Muslim believes Islam to be the absolute truth, and Jewish folk just think both of you are crazy and misguided ;)

[OklahomaTuba]

You've actually just argued the fundamental problem with religion. You believe Christianity to be the absolute truth, a Muslim believes Islam to be the absolute truth, and Jewish folk just think both of you are crazy and misguided ;)
Its only a problem for them. :D

[NormanPride]

Not to mention the vast majority of the world is either Hindu or Buddhist, I believe.

[mdklatt]

Your statement of why I (and other Christians) believe the Bible is true is oversimplistic and inaccurate.

Why are you a Christian? Did you start off as something else, and only after evaluating all the available information (cosmology, theology, history, politics, ancient languages, anthroplogy, psychology, philosophy) decide that Christianity was the one true answer? Or, were you born to Christian parents and since then have have searched for evidence to bolster your pre-existing beliefs?




Pluralism is a lie. There is one true faith, all the others are false.


If Chrisitianity was the only right answer, why hasn't it flourished everywhere? Why are all religions regionalized, for that matter? Did God just decide to **** over the Arabs by sending them a false prophet? How could Mohammed, on his own, build a religion comparable in numbers to the religion started by the Son of God himself? When there are multiple versions of the same story (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, throw in all the other religions while you're at it) usually none of them are wholly accurate.




My faith also teaches me to love my fellow humans. If I'm acting on that commandment, as I should be, then of course I don't want to see anyone be punished and separated from God for all eternity. So, why wouldn't I then be driven to try to convert people?

Converting them is apparently more important than making sure they have food and shelter. If all the effort spent on prosletyzing (and building churches with video screens and stadium seating) was directed towards charity there would be a lot less people in need. Of course, it's okay to let people suffer on earth as long as you convert them because they'll get their true reward in Heaven, right?

[OklahomaTuba]

Not to mention the vast majority of the world is either Hindu or Buddhist, I believe.
not really.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.gif

And about 80% of this country identifies themselves as being Christian.

[OklahomaTuba]

Converting them is apparently more important than making sure they have food and shelter. If all the effort spent on prosletyzing (and building churches with video screens and stadium seating) was directed towards charity there would be a lot less people in need. Of course, it's okay to let people suffer on earth as long as you convert them because they'll get their true reward in Heaven, right?

You know, no other religion does more for poor people than Christians, and that is a fact. Catholic Charities does more than 99% of all nations do. Certainly more than the UN does, thats for damn sure.

Before your hate of all things Christian makes you say stupid stuff, perhaps you should check on your facts for once?

[mdklatt]

You are kidding me, right?

The ACLU has been harassing the boyscouts for years. YEARS.
Infact, the boyscouts even made their ownwebsite with all the litigation from the ACLU.

http://www.bsalegal.org


Where does this say Boy Scouts are not allowed to visit military bases?





Just my point. Religion isn't involved in government affiars.


Then what's the objection to gay marriage? Or teaching evolution in science classes without a "disclaimer"?




Again, show me where the founders might be for yanking crosses off a graves, or banning groups from peacefully assembling on publicly owned property?


Who is yanking crosses off of graves? Who is banning groups from peacefully assembling on public property? WTF are you smoking?





I think this vitriol against Christians and Jews by leftists and people who hate Christians and Jews and such will spare no expense in the hypocrisy department to gut the fundamental rights of freedom of speech, freedom of expression or freedom of religion.

It is bigotry, pure and simple.

How difficult it must be to be a Christian in the most Christian country in the history of the world. The Christians being massacred in Africa must be so proud of American Chiristians for their fight against gay cowboy movies and "Happy Holiday" signs at Target. :rolleyes:

[NormanPride]

not really.

And about 80% of this country identifies themselves as being Christian.

I stand corrected! Still, just a third of humanity... Oh well.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Here's the deal...look around and try to find a hospital named after a muslim or hindu or whatever group. You won't find any. But, you will find plenty of hospitals around started/run by/financed by church organizations with names like Baptist, Methodist, Presbytarian, and Catholic attached to them.

You also see world wide aid organization like World Vision based on Christian principals helping the poor all over the globe, even in the most dangerous areas. The truth is, Christians are simply doing what Christ urged them to do - help those less fortunate and spread the gospel. Muslims don't do the same thing. Their thing isn't kindness or helping; it's trying to force people into their point of view at the end of a gunbarrel - or by strapping bombs onto kids and women and sending them into inncoent civilian crowds.

Until the islamofascists start building hospitals around the world and dispersing aid to the needy around the world, they are nothing more than miscreants who do nothing but make trouble for the rest of the world. They worship a false god and are reaping the seeds of doing so. They live in crappy countries, in crappy conditions, and crappy circumstances, and have crappy leaders.

[mdklatt]

You know, no other religion does more for poor people than Christians, and that is a fact. Catholic Charities does more than 99% of all nations do. Certainly more than the UN does, thats for damn sure.

Before your hate of all things Christian makes you say stupid stuff, perhaps you should check on your facts for once?

It's a numbers game, huh? Christians may be doing more than everybody else, but are they doing all they can do? It's awfully convenient for churches that by "saving" more and more people they can generate more and more revenue. Look at the history of the Catholic Church and the reasons for the Reformation. Protestantism is just as greedy nowadays as Catholicism has ever been.

[NormanPride]

Please, lets not turn this thread into a religious thing. Politics is bad enough, but hardly anyone can debate civilly about religion.

[OklahomaTuba]

Where does this say Boy Scouts are not allowed to visit military bases?Its part of the lawsuit brought by the ACLU.

Here is another great example from the website of leftist bigotry and hate by using the law.


The City of San Diego has over 100 leases with nonprofit organizations for little or no cash rent in exchange for the organizations' developing the properties and making them available for public use. The City leases two properties to San Diego-Imperial Council—parkland in Balboa Park, where Scouts built and manage Camp Balboa at their own expense, and a half-acre of parkland on Fiesta Island in Mission Bay Park, where Scouts built and manage the San Diego Youth Aquatic Center, also at their own expense. Both properties are used extensively on a first-come, first-served basis by the public as well as by Scouts. Plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, have never even tried to use Camp Balboa or the Youth Aquatic Center.

The federal district court in San Diego invalidated the leases to San Diego-Imperial Council, concluding that that they violated the Establishment Clause because, despite the open use of the properties by the public, Scout members themselves promise in the Scout Oath to do their "duty to God."




Who is yanking crosses off of graves? Who is banning groups from peacefully assembling on public property? WTF are you smoking?

No one is removing crosses, yet. Give it some time. I am sure the words "endowed by our creator" are in line to be erased by people like you as well.

As for removing crosses from the graves of fallen soldiers, would you be OK with that?

You never answered this. Do you believe this is what should be done?

[mdklatt]

Please, lets not turn this thread into a religious thing. Politics is bad enough, but hardly anyone can debate civilly about religion.

The whole problem is that politics and religion are intertwined.

[Tear Down This Wall]

It's a numbers game, huh? Christians may be doing more than everybody else, but are they doing all they can do?

They're doing a heck of a lot more than muslims. Why don't you start asking why muslims don't help people instead of ignoring the fact that Christian and Catholic organization are doing the lion's share of aid work around the world?

Maybe once your beloved muslims are doing as much as Christians and Catholics you can ask, 'but are they doing all they can?'" Right now, the Christians and Catholics are the only ones doing anything.

[BillyBall]

islamofascists

Michael Savage?

[Scott D]

No one is removing crosses, yet. Give it some time. I am sure the words "endowed by our creator" are in line to be erased by people like you as well.

As for removing crosses from the graves of fallen soldiers, would you be OK with that?

You never answered this. Do you believe this is what should be done?

I'd personally like to see no references to the penises of the guys who signed the Declaration of Independence. ;)

[Tear Down This Wall]

Michael Savage?

Christopher Hitchens - http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011008/hitchens20010924

[OklahomaTuba]

It's a numbers game, huh? Christians may be doing more than everybody else, but are they doing all they can do? It's awfully convenient for churches that by "saving" more and more people they can generate more and more revenue. Look at the history of the Catholic Church and the reasons for the Reformation. Protestantism is just as greedy nowadays as Catholicism has ever been.

Sorry you feel such hatred towards Christians and feel the need to generalize.

Of course, Christianity being bad is just a black and white issue with you it seems. No matter what we do, its bad and should be stopped.

Pretty damn sad people still think this way. :rolleyes:

[Scott D]

oh and I'm against the NEA....I really don't care how much meat a guy named Art is packing.

[soonerscuba]

Tuba, for someone who hates liberals so much, you sure do like to play the victim.

[OklahomaTuba]

Tuba, for someone who hates liberals so much, you sure do like to play the victim.

How so? By pointing out facts?

Oh yeah, you don't know much about such things. ;)

[mdklatt]

As for removing crosses from the graves of fallen soldiers, would you be OK with that?

You never answered this. Do you believe this is what should be done?

I never brought it up in the first place.

All religious preferences should be respected equally by the government. The government is deferring to individual preference in this case, which is easy to do when everybody has an individual grave marker. You cannot do the same thing with the Pledge of Allegiance, for example. There should be only one version of an oath of allegiance, or what's the point? The only way to defer to everybody's religious preference in that case is to not mention religion.

[handcrafted]

md, your hate and ignorance is really starting to show. I think you need to take a good long hard look at your life and outlook and honestly assess where you are.

Why am I a Christian? Simple. God opened my eyes so I could see the truth. Otherwise, I'd be as blind as anyone else. I didn't grow up in a Christian home (although my parents are now believers). I'm a rational intellectual person, so I don't believe something just because someone says it. I have studied, investigated, struggled, and wept over these things for a long time. I am a much harsher critic of my own faith than you will ever be. But I am convinced of one thing: it is true.

Why are there false prophets? Why doesn't everyone believe the same? Because people are evil in their hearts. They are sinners. Did God mean for this to happen? Yes, in a sense He did. But that does not mean that humans are not responsible. It is true, yet from our finite perspective it seems paradoxical.

Multiple versions of the same story? There is no other religion in the world that relates the events about Christ that the New Testament does.

Your criticism about building stadium churches with bigscreen TVs is legitimate. We should indeed be about helping the needy. This is one of the reasons why the Church has lost its relevance in our society. In the effort to become relevant by infusing worldly ideas into the work of the Church, we have instead marginalized ourselves. We have become what we beheld.

[handcrafted]

The whole problem is that politics and religion are intertwined.

Ah! See, that proves it. A broken clock *is* right twice a day. :D

[handcrafted]

It's a numbers game, huh? Christians may be doing more than everybody else, but are they doing all they can do?

Are you doing all you can do?


It's awfully convenient for churches that by "saving" more and more people they can generate more and more revenue. Look at the history of the Catholic Church and the reasons for the Reformation. Protestantism is just as greedy nowadays as Catholicism has ever been.

Overgeneralize much, do you? Yeah, there's a lot of corrupt churches out there. There's a lot of corrupt everything. So? Why can't there be some folks who are trying to do the right thing?

[mdklatt]

Sorry you feel such hatred towards Christians and feel the need to generalize.

Of course, Christianity being bad is just a black and white issue with you it seems. No matter what we do, its bad and should be stopped.

Pretty damn sad people still think this way. :rolleyes:

I don't hate Christianity at all. Christianity has done lots of great things for this world. Christianity has lots of great ideas. I respect most Christians--not just for being Christian, but for being human beings. I respect all human beings--regardless of race, sex, social status, sexual preference, religion or shoe size--until they give me a reason not to. Christianity doesn't respect other religions, so I will take my spiritual needs elsewhere. Just as I don't have the right to interfere with your Christianity, you do not have the right to interfere with my non-Christianity. It's a two way street, not that the fundamentalists in this country will accept that.

[pb4ou]

THIS THREAD HAS BEEN DELETED

Psych

[mdklatt]

Are you doing all you can do?

No, but I don't claim to be a Christian. I don't pretend to love everybody.




Yeah, there's a lot of corrupt churches out there. There's a lot of corrupt everything.

Exactly. So maybe Christianity isn't the ultimate moral authority.




So? Why can't there be some folks who are trying to do the right thing?

The problem is that not everybody agrees on what the "right thing" is in all cases. This is why it should not be the government's job to enforce morality.

[OklahomaTuba]

Christianity doesn't respect other religions, so I will take my spiritual needs elsewhere.Try being a Jew, they love new converts!

Or better yet, try being muslim, they have a profound respect for all the things you repect it seems.

Hindu? Well, if you like arranged marriages I guess.

Alas the irony of the mighty and most blessed nation on the earth that has given the gift of freedom to billions of people, and which was founded by a bunch of mean ol Christians and founded on Judeo-Christian values.

:rolleyes:

[mdklatt]

Try being a Jew, they love new converts!

Or better yet, try being muslim, they have a profound respect for all the things you repect it seems.

Hindu? Well, if you like arranged marriages I guess.



Just as I don't need a political party to tell me who to vote for, I don't a need organized religion to define the most personal thing I have, my spirituality.

[Tear Down This Wall]

This is why it should not be the government's job to enforce morality.

That's not true. It is the government's job to curb rape, robbery, murder, arson, assault, fraud, embezzlement, and a whole host of other crimes that deal directly with a person's morals.

If the government shouldn't be involved in morals, then why are their law with repsect the the age of consent? Alcohol consumption? Driving while impaired by drugs or alcohol?

If the government should not be enforcing morals, why are there drug schedules? Why regulate drugs such as morphine, codeine, and other pain killers? It seems only because the government has chosen to take a moral stand and attempt as best they can to keep people so disposed from harming themselves with them.

Should the government back out of the morals game so far as to allow Penthouse, Hustler, Playboy and the like to be sold outside of plastic covers and right next to Ladies Home Journal, Good Housekeeping, and Time?

Should the government insist on various entertainment industries rating their products such as games, television shows, and movies?

The government is involved in all of those things, and each has to do with the moral bent of the country. If people did not want these things regulated, they would not continue to elect people who regulate them. The thing you need to accept is that the vast majority of people do see the value in having laws that regulate alcohol consumption, drug use, pornography, and the like.

You are more than free to do anything you like within the boundaries of the law. If you do not like it, you are free to attempt change through the political process. That is, after all, how these laws involving morality were instituted.

That is the difference between America and the muslim countries. We have a legal boundry that allows your to be immoral to the point of not harming the ignorant innocents. In muslim countries, you can be executed for carrying illicit drugs, drunkenness, adultery, etc.

So, in discussions of a "moral" country like America versus a "moral" country like Iran, which do you prefer?

[mdklatt]

Why am I a Christian? Simple. God opened my eyes so I could see the truth. Otherwise, I'd be as blind as anyone else. I didn't grow up in a Christian home (although my parents are now believers). I'm a rational intellectual person, so I don't believe something just because someone says it. I have studied, investigated, struggled, and wept over these things for a long time. I am a much harsher critic of my own faith than you will ever be. But I am convinced of one thing: it is true.

I, my, I would, I didn't, I am, I don't, I have, I am, I am.

If God created us to be unique, why does he think we should have a one-size-fits-all religion? Isn't it conceivable that we aren't supposed to find our own way to God? Maybe the false prophet is anybody but you, or me, or him, or her. Maybe it's supposed to be an individual journey, but by subscribing to organized religion you're cheating by following someobody else.




Multiple versions of the same story? There is no other religion in the world that relates the events about Christ that the New Testament does.


In other words, there's no corroborating evidence. There is no other religion in the world that relates the events of the Book of Mormon, either, and there's probably a real good reason for that.

There are common themes across all religions. The truth is in the similarities, not the differences.

[JohnnyMack]

That's not true. It is the government's job to curb rape, robbery, murder, arson, assault, fraud, embezzlement, and a whole host of other crimes that deal directly with a person's morals.


The Government is enforcing a law, not a moral. Morality can't be legislated by the government, only society.

[jk the sooner fan]

a world without morals.....i cant even fathom it

and who's going to enforce it if not the government?

please, you people that think the government has no role in enforcing morals are asking for anarchy

[mdklatt]

That's not true. It is the government's job to curb rape, robbery, murder, arson, assault, fraud, embezzlement, and a whole host of other crimes that deal directly with a person's morals.


The government's primary function is protecting life and property. If there isn't a victim, it shouldn't be illegal. Everything you list has one thing in common--a victim.

[SoonerProphet]

i'm asking for anarcho-capitalism.

[jk the sooner fan]

well yeah, we want to be able to make money....if i'm going to be crazy, i want to be rich and crazy

[JohnnyMack]

a world without morals.....i cant even fathom it

and who's going to enforce it if not the government?

please, you people that think the government has no role in enforcing morals are asking for anarchy

We as humans are responsible for the Social Contract. Try some Socrates, or Rousseau.

Yes, you got me, I'm an anarchist now. :rolleyes:

[Ike]

well yeah, we want to be able to make money....if i'm going to be crazy, i want to be rich and crazy
those people are called eccentric

[jk the sooner fan]

We as humans are responsible for the Social Contract. Try some Socrates, or Rousseau.

Yes, you got me, I'm an anarchist now. :rolleyes:

but your morals are enforced!

[JohnnyMack]

but your morals are enforced!

Laws are enforced by the government.

Morals are enforced by society.

[Stoop Dawg]

negspek from Stoop Dawg: Anybody Else Used To Be ... 2/13/2006 11:10 PM Stoop Dawg No whining about topics you don't like.



nice.
asshat

When did negspekking comments that you don't respect become an ******* move? If you don't want negspek, don't say controversial things. If you have a spine, and say what you believe, don't cry about negspek.

Anyone who doesn't agree with me is welcome to negspek me to death. I don't derive my self-esteem from the green or red dots doled out by anonymous internet message board posters. And I don't believe that the color of the bar underneath my anonymous message board poster handle influences anyone's opinion of the posts I make. If it does, too bad for those simpletons.

So, soonerbrat, when you walk into an OBVIOUSLY political thread and post something as immature and useless as a "NO POLITICS" image, expect some negspek from me.

And for the record, I would have negged the post quoted above as well were it possible. Whining about negspek is as lame as whining about political threads.

[jk the sooner fan]

Laws are enforced by the government.

Morals are enforced by society.

i'm sorry, i guess i missed the part where society and government stopped being a part of each other

i guess i missed that part where we have elected representation......where lawmakers come from SOCIETY to pass laws for the people

thanks for setting me straight

[Stoop Dawg]

a world without morals.....i cant even fathom it

and who's going to enforce it if not the government?

please, you people that think the government has no role in enforcing morals are asking for anarchy

I actually agree with JK!!! Woot!

But the morality enforced by the government should the morality of the society that the government governs, not the morality of a particular religion. If the morality of society happens to align with a particular religion, that's fine. But we've got to make sure it is always society steering the government, and religion steering society. That's my take on it anyway.

[yermom]

seems like more of that should be on the local level though

[jk the sooner fan]

I actually agree with JK!!! Woot!

But the morality enforced by the government should the morality of the society that the government governs, not the morality of a particular religion. If the morality of society happens to align with a particular religion, that's fine. But we've got to make sure it is always society steering the government, and religion steering society. That's my take on it anyway.

exactly

a "synergistic" effect......if you will

or even if you wont

[Sooner Born Sooner Bred]

In answer to the original question: No.

I have dated Republicans though. Many of my friends are Republicans.

I'm quite disenchanted with both parties now though. Used to be a hardcore Democrat apologist and still lean that way a little. If we had good independent candidates in OK I might switch though.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Try as you might, you cannot separate laws from morality. What else is it that makes the lawmakers of a society pass legislation to curb pornography, murder, rape, thievery, and the like? It is because the society believes that some things are right and others are wrong.

If it is not wrong to expose 10-year old kids to pornographic or violent images, why have the laws? If it is not wrong for grown men and women to seduce 13-year old kids, why have the laws? If there is nothing wrong with drinking to the point of blind drunkenness then getting behind the wheel of an automobile, why have the law?

We have the laws becase we as citizens discern that these things are wrong, and we then chose leaders who also believe these things are wrong in order to legislate.

This is where liberals fall terribly short in their political philosophy, attempting to get people to believe that saying the choice to punish drunk drivers is not a moral choice, or punishing a child molester has nothing to do with morality, or that prosecuting white collar executives such as Ken Lay has nothing to do with morality.

Nothing could be further from the truth, of course. At the root of every law is a moral choice asking whether or not it is right for certain behavior to be permitted by society. The beauty of it for those of us who more often than not vote Republican is that those on the political left truly do not understand this very basic notion, as the vast majority of everday Americans do.

[yermom]

restricting something to where children can't access it is quite different from making it illegal across the board

and drunk driving is hardly a moral issue

[Ike]

I'm quite disenchanted with both parties now though. Used to be a hardcore Democrat apologist and still lean that way a little. If we had good independent candidates in OK I might switch though.

there's really no such thing as an independent candidate. to win an election for anything higher than dog catcher, it takes money, which takes donors, who, many times (but not always) listen very closely to the party leadership to determine which candidates will get their dollars. why? because most donors want to support a winning candidate that will advance their pet issue...and they can't get their pet issue addressed if their guy doesn't win....in that manner, all viable candidates are very dependent on their party.

[JohnnyMack]

You can't tell people to be moral. You can enforce a law, but you can't enforce morality.

[mdklatt]

Try as you might, you cannot separate laws from morality. What else is it that makes the lawmakers of a society pass legislation to curb pornography, murder, rape, thievery, and the like? It is because the society believes that some things are right and others are wrong.


If there isn't victim it shouldn't be illegal, it's as simple as that. That takes care of all of our common ground, regardless of religious beliefs.

[jk the sooner fan]

You can't tell people to be moral. You can enforce a law, but you can't enforce morality.

i disagree.....remove alot of morality laws in this country and you'd have alot of new criminals

[handcrafted]

In other words, there's no corroborating evidence. There is no other religion in the world that relates the events of the Book of Mormon, either, and there's probably a real good reason for that.

There are common themes across all religions. The truth is in the similarities, not the differences.

In ending this conversation, as I am now, I would encourage you to do a few things:

1. Research the facts about what you are asserting. You should not make decisions like this when you are so uninformed.

2. Use sound logical reasoning, not bare assertions.

3. Throw out all the ad hominem and be honest and objective with others as well as yourself. Answer these questions: where did the universe come from? Where does logic come from? Where does mathematics come from? Where does morality come from? Why is there right and wrong? Why does love exist and why should we love? What is beauty and why do we like it?

Either a person does not believe that God exists, or they do. If they do, they either believe that He has given us a way to seek him, or He hasn't. If they believe He hasn't, then existence itself is pointless. If they believe He has, then they seek revelation.

Seek revelation.

[jk the sooner fan]

If there isn't victim it shouldn't be illegal, it's as simple as that. That takes care of all of our common ground, regardless of religious beliefs.

give me a few examples of "victimless" crimes

[mdklatt]

i disagree.....remove alot of morality laws in this country and you'd have alot of new criminals

Such as?

[yermom]

if laws were totally based on morals you'd have a lot more criminals too ;)

[Stoop Dawg]

seems like more of that should be on the local level though

Indeed. And that's an area where people tend to get up in arms too. When people in Oklahoma try to dictate certain forms of morality to people in San Fransico, it appears that "religion" is being forced on those people. What should be federal and what should be local? Well, that's a rather large can of worms. I guess I'd steal mdklatt's notion that laws regarding "victimless crimes" are more suited for local determination. Although I'm sure someone could find an exception.

[jk the sooner fan]

Such as?

you know, over a 100 years ago, it used to be legal to beat the crap out of your kid......you could rape your wife, there are alot of other examples

our laws have evolved over time out of necessity

humans havent changed much however

[Tear Down This Wall]

restricting something to where children can't access it is quite different from making it illegal across the board

and drunk driving is hardly a moral issue

How is drunk driving not a moral issue? If drunk driving is neither right nor wrong, why do we have laws to punish those who engage in it?

The same is true for restricting the access of children to things that may harm then psychologically. If these things are not harmful to children, why regulate them at all? For if we say, 'this thing or that is harmful' we are directly imposing a moral view on the situation.

Simply look at the definition of the word moral:

moral
5 entries found for moral.

Main Entry: 1mor·al
Pronunciation: 'mor-&l, 'mär-
Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL <a moral certainty>

3 : having the effects of such on the mind, confidence, or will <a moral victory> <moral support>
- mor&#183;al&#183;ly /-&-lE/ adverb

synonyms MORAL, ETHICAL, VIRTUOUS, RIGHTEOUS, NOBLE mean conforming to a standard of what is right and good. MORAL implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong <the basic moral values of a community>. ETHICAL may suggest the involvement of more difficult or subtle questions of rightness, fairness, or equity <committed to the highest ethical principles>. VIRTUOUS implies the possession or manifestation of moral excellence in character <not a religious person, but virtuous nevertheless>. RIGHTEOUS stresses guiltlessness or blamelessness and often suggests the sanctimonious <wished to be righteous before God and the world>. NOBLE implies moral eminence and freedom from anything petty, mean, or dubious in conduct and character <had the noblest of reasons for seeking office>.

[handcrafted]

restricting something to where children can't access it is quite different from making it illegal across the board

and drunk driving is hardly a moral issue

I don't believe what I'm reading in this thread. :(

Government schools, man.

[Stoop Dawg]

give me a few examples of "victimless" crimes

I see a debate about the term "victim" coming. Perhaps the correct term would be "direct victim"?

To me, examples would be: drug use, gambling, marriage, hunting laws, what side of the road to drive on, etc.

And see, I just found an exception. What side of the road to drive on? To me it makes sense to have that be a federal law simply to make travel more efficient (and safe).

[mdklatt]

give me a few examples of "victimless" crimes

There's no such thing as a victimless crime--that's my point. :confused:

Oh...you mean existing laws that I think are unjust? Gay marriage bans, marijuana (and maybe some other drugs) laws, that's all I can think of off the top of my head. I'm on the fence about seatbelt and helmet laws. There is no direct victim (you can't be your own victim IMO), but the public is victimized through higher health care costs. I'm 60/40 against, I guess.

[OklahomaTuba]

OMG.

There are actually people arguing that Morals aren't a part of laws???????!?!?

WTF are you people smoking! Ever heard of ETHICS? ETHOS?

Who makes the damn laws in the first places?

Holy Moly the absurdity of some is truly amazing!

[mdklatt]

you know, over a 100 years ago, it used to be legal to beat the crap out of your kid......you could rape your wife, there are alot of other examples



There are victims, this should be illegal.

[OklahomaTuba]

I don't believe what I'm reading in this thread. :(

Government schools, man.No kidding! This is crazy!

[JohnnyMack]

i disagree.....remove alot of morality laws in this country and you'd have alot of new criminals

That's not what I'm advocating. I'm saying there is a difference between what is moral and what is legal.

Morality and Legality are not mutually exclusive.

We as a society of human beings take what are a system of morals, mores, customs, taboos, etc. and use them to form a rule of law. Yes most of what is illegal is immoral. But you can't enforce strictly on the basis something is considered immoral, it must be illegal.

[mdklatt]

There are actually people arguing that Morals aren't a part of laws???????!?!?



Not morals exclusive to religion. You can have a just and moral society without dragging religion into it. Ask Japan.

[jk the sooner fan]

There's no such thing as a victimless crime--that's my point. :confused:

Oh...you mean existing laws that I think are unjust? Gay marriage bans, marijuana (and maybe some other drugs) laws, that's all I can think of off the top of my head. I'm on the fence about seatbelt and helmet laws. There is no direct victim (you can't be your own victim IMO), but the public is victimized through higher health care costs. I'm 60/40 against, I guess.

ok so you can almost always find a victim, albeit direct or indirect

i wouldnt include the gay marriage ban in this because its not a criminal law....its a civil issue, nobody's gone to jail over gay marriages

but it IS a morality issue, to be sure

[jk the sooner fan]

Morality and Legality are not mutually exclusive.



would you agree that the two intertwine a GREAT deal?

[Tear Down This Wall]

Welcome aboard, mdklatt! :D You are correct in saying that there are few, if any, victimless crimes.

[Stoop Dawg]

I think some people are confused about the definition of "morality", even though TDTW posted the definition on the previous page.

[jk the sooner fan]

I think some people are confused about the definition of "morality", even though TDTW posted the definition on the previous page.

i've been getting the same feeling reading this thread

i think too many overly confuse it with religion....while it would be hard to argue that the two dont coincide in this country, they are separate (in most cases)

[OklahomaTuba]

Not morals exclusive to religion. You can have a just and moral society without dragging religion into it. Ask Japan.

Well, except for that small little religion that no one follows in Japan called Zen Buddhism. :rolleyes:

[mdklatt]

ok so you can almost always find a victim, albeit direct or indirect



Stick with direct victims--imminent loss of limb or property. Getting drunk is legal, but as soon as you smack your wife or drive drunk you've crossed the line. Simply driving drunk might be victimless, but this is so dangerous that it falls into the imminent category.

[jk the sooner fan]

right, so if my neighbor says "getting stoned in my house is a victimless crime"

ok, while i dont 100% agree with that.....the minute you leave the house in your car for more munchies and endanger those on the road

or, if you've got children in the house......and i've seen what conditions kids live in when they live with "victimless dopers"

[JohnnyMack]

would you agree that the two intertwine a GREAT deal?

Yes.

Maybe not 99.97, but a GREAT deal.