515 Crew

well good for you man if this is what gets you goin. i mean being white is awesome and so is having guns and money, but i just can't relate to any of these fuckin unaware squares.....

my prez.

inx515xhell wrote:well good for you man if this is what gets you goin. i mean being white is awesome and so is having guns and money, but i just can't relate to any of these fuckin unaware squares.....

my prez.

i didnt know you were pro pedophile

El Rhino wrote:

And just like I said- when asked about job creation Paul supporters are silent.
Nothing to respond with because Paul hasn't even addressed it himself yet.

Are you looking for the president to expand government or something to create jobs? Perhaps another war?

As far as job creation goes, he's given the standard lowering (and not-so-standard eliminating) taxes solution and concentrating on expanding exports as well as unfucking our monetary system. Pretty straight forward concepts if you believe in the principle that when people have more money in their hands, shit starts to happen.

It's really pretty terrifying when people put such faith in one person and follow them so blindly. Really takes you back to Germany in 1933..

Oh Varg, we can only wish.



Also, I like how you mention that he hasn't said anything about creating jobs and somehow that translates into a question that I was supposed to answer but since I missed out on the inquisitive nature of your statement I'm being accused of being evasive and blindly following one man.

He hasn't said shit about creating jobs. That topic is third in line behind the other crap that he thinks for some reason will be key points this election cycle. Most Ron Paul supporters completely and CONVENIENTLY neglect these key facts: 1) Paul is a 'lifer' politician (aka the last thing we need) The guy has been in office since the '70s and even then was bitching about Vietnam costing too much. Wow, nothing's changed for him in 40 years. And he use to be a gynecologist? Takes a certain kind of person for that line of work...
2) Ralph Nader. /thread.

He hasn't said shit about creating jobs.

Call Ron Paul crazy, but he believes that when people have more money in hand, shit happens and jobs are created. That used to be a tenant of conservative thought, you know.

That topic is third in line behind the other crap that he thinks for some reason will be key points this election cycle.

So you don't think that people are fed up with the wars and our economic policy?

Most Ron Paul supporters completely and CONVENIENTLY neglect these key facts...

See below.

1) Paul is a 'lifer' politician

Yes, but one who actually has done a few other things in his life.

(aka the last thing we need)

Yeah, we need someone in there with some new, fresh ideas... like Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann or Herman Cain.

The guy has been in office since the '70s and even then was bitching about Vietnam costing too much.

re: neglecting key facts - we (Ron Paul supporters) know our guy isn't flighty on his core principles - we can look all the way back to the 70's and see it. We don't deny/neglect this at all.

Wow, nothing's changed for him in 40 years.

Perhaps.

And he use to be a gynecologist? Takes a certain kind of person for that line of work...

Perhaps.

2) Ralph Nader. /thread.

What about him?

Varg wrote: And he use to be a gynecologist? Takes a certain kind of person for that line of work...

yeah, a doctor.

I'm glad to see El Rhino is more than holding his own in this thread...

Varg: Why are you looking for the Federal Government for "job creation"? I think that's the point Ryan's trying to make here. The best thing D.C. can do is to cut spending and reduce unnecessary regulations to help promote a better climate for businesses. Ron Paul frequently brings up this topic and has made his intentions clear on making Government smaller, even calling for the abolishment of entire Departments! Most conservative politicians won't even begin naming things they'd cut because they don't want to upset certain interest groups. Paul's call for cutting spending is based on a general philosophy that Government should be small...he's not concerned about irritating certain groups because he's going to irritate them all!

I think Dr. Paul has also made it very clear on where he stands on the abortion issue: He's personally pro-life, but the Constitution leaves the issue of whether or not to protect the unborn up to the states. His personal pro-life stance is based on his ob/gyn work, delivering around 4,000 babies and not once ever witnessing a situation when an abortion was medically necessary. Half the people in our country may not share his view on this matter, but most can probably understand how he came to his position.

And, regarding this supposed gaffe in the recent debate over the topic of Iran developing nuclear capabilities: Didn't we hear the same type of talk when the Bush administration was trying to drum up support for invading Iraq? "They're an imminent threat to our country!" "They have nukes!" Anyone who wasn't on board with the bipartisan campaign for "preemptive war" knew Iraq posed no threat to us, even if they HAD been exploring nuclear capabilities (they weren't). Iran is no different, but it's amazing that some of our leaders continue to tell us that expanding our military operations in the Middle East is necessary because the opposite would make us more vulnerable.

I side with Ron Paul on this issue: "They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free, they come to attack us because we're over there. What would we think if other foreign countries were doing that to us?" Would we object here in the U.S. if China tried to bully Japan and said, "We think the United States is dangerous and we don't want you to sell the latest technological products to them. You should only sell to us"? Would we likewise have a hostile reaction to others meddling in our affairs?

jnice wrote:I'm glad to see El Rhino is more than holding his own in this thread...

Varg: Why are you looking for the Federal Government for "job creation"? I think that's the point Ryan's trying to make here.

No, he's not and who the fuck said I was looking to the government for job creation? In fact, where in ANY of my posts EVER can you find one iota of sentiment that could ever be construed as being in favor of more government for jobs? Are you fucking retarded?

The best thing D.C. can do is to cut spending and reduce unnecessary regulations to help promote a better climate for businesses. Ron Paul frequently brings up this topic and has made his intentions clear on making Government smaller, even calling for the abolishment of entire Departments! Most conservative politicians won't even begin naming things they'd cut because they don't want to upset certain interest groups. Paul's call for cutting spending is based on a general philosophy that Government should be small...he's not concerned about irritating certain groups because he's going to irritate them all!

Oh wow really? So Herman Cain saying he's in favor of the Fair Tax- i.e. repealing the 16th amendment and abolishing the IRS is 'not even naming things they'd cut'? Bachmann is on board with the Fair Tax too and was champion of the whole "don't raise the debt ceiling" movement trying to FORCE cuts. If you'd actually LISTEN to what the other candidates have to say instead of immediately tuning them out and yelling over them with your regurgitated ron paul talking points you would know this. Paul doesn't ever talk about job creation because he is super weak on it. That is fact. Simply saying "abolish the fed" is not a sound plan for job creation. You need to get a fucking grip on reality.

I think Dr. Paul has also made it very clear on where he stands on the abortion issue: He's personally pro-life, but the Constitution leaves the issue of whether or not to protect the unborn up to the states. His personal pro-life stance is based on his ob/gyn work, delivering around 4,000 babies and not once ever witnessing a situation when an abortion was medically necessary. Half the people in our country may not share his view on this matter, but most can probably understand how he came to his position.

Nobody was even talking about abortion? The fuck dude? This just proves my point that you guys don't ever fucking listen to anything.

And, regarding this supposed gaffe in the recent debate over the topic of Iran developing nuclear capabilities: Didn't we hear the same type of talk when the Bush administration was trying to drum up support for invading Iraq? "They're an imminent threat to our country!" "They have nukes!" Anyone who wasn't on board with the bipartisan campaign for "preemptive war" knew Iraq posed no threat to us, even if they HAD been exploring nuclear capabilities (they weren't). Iran is no different, but it's amazing that some of our leaders continue to tell us that expanding our military operations in the Middle East is necessary because the opposite would make us more vulnerable.

Iran is NO different huh? Except for the fact that they actually have the capability to and already have enriched Uranium. Plus they are very open about wanting to 'wipe Israel off the face of the map'. But you're OK with a country run by a mad-man getting nukes saying he will 'push the jews into the ocean'. Everyone just needs to mind their own business right.... What's your position going to be when and if a nuke is set off by Iran? Continue 'minding our own business'? That's right, bury your head in the sand after burying the head of the person next to you.

I side with Ron Paul on this issue: "They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free, they come to attack us because we're over there. What would we think if other foreign countries were doing that to us?" Would we object here in the U.S. if China tried to bully Japan and said, "We think the United States is dangerous and we don't want you to sell the latest technological products to them. You should only sell to us"? Would we likewise have a hostile reaction to others meddling in our affairs?

You side with ron paul on THIS issue? No, you side with him on EVERYTHING because you're a fucking buffoon. I don't know of any politician that I 'side' with on 100% of topics. What middle-eastern country were we in in Sept 2001 when we were attacked? How about in 2000? How about in '93? Do we need to go back to the 4th century? How much history are you unfamiliar with to not know that these people don't need a reason or to be "pushed/egged on" to bring a war here. In their minds it's been on-going for decades or millennia. Jesus Christ dude, crack a fucking history book and read about the crusades. The revolutions going on now in Northern Africa and elsewhere are making shit worse. Obama fucked up big time and now Libya is going to be 10 times worse than it was before and so will Egypt, with Syria on deck. We shouldn't have gone into Libya and we shouldn't be in Afghanistan. It's not a battle we can ever win. Does anybody know why we're in Afghanistan? Seriously. These countries need to modernize or be eradicated. That's all there is to it.
Staying out of "THEIR" affairs is a defeatist attitude and completely irresponsible. On a global level these countries are comparable to small children- and you don't let small children play with nuclear technology because THEY WILL FUCKING ANNIHILATE PEOPLE- ARE YOU RETARDED?


And on this whole notion of 'minding our own business' why don't Paul supporters ever practice what they preach? You are the most god damn annoying people I know. Worse than any group I can think of. You never even mind YOUR OWN fucking business so why are you in favor of someone who says we should all mind our own business? Answer me that, asshole. Why can't you ever keep to yourself and silently support ron paul? Why do you feel it's necessary to DEFACE and VANDALIZE property to show your support? That's funny because I've never seen a Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Pawlenty, Romney, Clinton, Bush, etc. etc. etc. decal used to spray paint shit on the back of a stop sign, but apparently it's widely accepted among paul supporters. You are a bunch of immature children who think if you whine the loudest you will eventually get what you want. You'll find out that just like in the real world, it doesn't work that way. (Guess it shouldn't come as a surprise that a lot of them can't even vote because they're already convicted felons so we shouldn't put this kind of behavior beyond them.) It's a tall glass of water, isn't it?

No, he's not and who the fuck said I was looking to the government for job creation? In fact, where in ANY of my posts EVER can you find one iota of sentiment that could ever be construed as being in favor of more government for jobs?

Well, all the talk about the candidates' job creation plans could lead someone to believe that you're looking to them for a solution. I'm really not sure what you're looking for here.

Nobody was even talking about abortion? The fuck dude? This just proves my point that you guys don't ever fucking listen to anything.

Huh? Where did you get that out of "half of the people don't agree..."?

Iran is NO different huh? Except for the fact that they actually have the capability to and already have enriched Uranium

Kind of.

Plus they are very open about wanting to 'wipe Israel off the face of the map'.

That was a poor translation. Ahmadinejad actually said something more akin to Israel will end up "in the dustbin of history", like what was said about the Soviet Union.

But you're OK with a country run by a mad-man getting nukes saying he will 'push the jews into the ocean'.

Iran has never attacked Israel, but Israel has attacked Iran (they bombed a nuclear plant in the 80's). Start naming me instances of Iran attacking anyone in the 20th or 21st Century. Besides, Israel has about 300 nukes of their own and they're armed to the teeth, courtesy of the American taxpayers. Israel can defend herself. Ahmadinejad knows that if he were to attack Israel or anyone for that matter with nukes, that would mean nuclear retaliation. That's why people don't use them.

Also in the case of Iran, we helped overthrow a democratically elected government to install the Shah - someone who would rather lean towards us than the Soviets and keep the oil supplies coming. The revolution of 1979 was blowback from this. We also armed Iraq and gave them a little nudging to attack Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. We sank several ships of the Iranian Navy during that conflict and 'accidentally' shot down an Iranian civilian airliner over Persian waters. No wonder they don't like us.


Re: Israel. They're no more my friends or people than Iran. I know the American conservative movement likes to compete amongst each other to see how far they can shove Israel's cock down their throats, but I have absolutely no special consideration for them. Contrary to a lot of Republican's beliefs, Israel is not the 51st state and I'd rather have a defense policy that suits our needs, not theirs.

Everyone just needs to mind their own business right

The world would be a great place if that happened, right?

.... What's your position going to be when and if a nuke is set off by Iran?

Slippery slope fallacy. Iran's military is defensive in nature and they're not interested in attacking anyone.

Continue 'minding our own business'? That's right, bury your head in the sand after burying the head of the person next to you.

Sounds better than having to bury friends again over a pointless war....

What middle-eastern country were we in in Sept 2001 when we were attacked?

Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, Turkey, all kinds of ships in the Persian Gulf. The big one is all the financial and political support of Israel and the embargo against Iraq, which was (as almost all embargoes are) ineffective against removing the regime but caused a lot of innocent people to die/suffer. That didn't sit too well on the Arab street.

How about in 2000?

Same

How about in '93?

Same

Do we need to go back to the 4th century? How much history are you unfamiliar with to not know that these people don't need a reason or to be "pushed/egged on" to bring a war here.

Well, when/if they do it becomes a different story. I have a hard time comparing the current situation to manning the line at Vienna's gates, making the final charge with Constantine XI against the Ottomans or slaying Moors in Tours when it actually was a case of defense.

In their minds it's been on-going for decades or millennia.

Kind of. Anti-Westernism is a tough sell to the Muslims unless there's something concrete to put behind it like support of Israel, destroying Iraq, etc. Anti-Zionism is probably a lot more prevalent. We didn't have these kinds of problems in 1939 before we started intruding into the Middle East.

The revolutions going on now in Northern Africa and elsewhere are making shit worse.

For who? I thought the second reason for the campaigns after we found out Saddam didn't have WMD's was to bring them freedom and democracy. Why should we complain when they do it themselves and in their own image? They have shitty rulers over there that probably needed a good over-throwin'.

Obama fucked up big time

It definitely doesn't help his hope and change from the Bush administration posturing.

and now Libya is going to be 10 times worse than it was before and so will Egypt

Egypt is going to lose out on a lot of US aid money but I have a feeling it will be business as usual in both countries shortly.

We shouldn't have gone into Libya and we shouldn't be in Afghanistan

Agreed.

It's not a battle we can ever win.

This is true too. You often hear "it's because the politicians in Washington have our hands tied!" or some shit like that. What the fuck do they expect, they can just meet all the terrorists out on some battlefield somewhere and kill them all? Or indiscriminately kill civilians? My squad in Iraq took more "persons of interest" in custody than any other squad in my battalion - and my battalion took in more detainees than anyone else in theater. I encountered a lot of genuinely shitty and evil people, but most of them were only our enemies because we were there. I only took in one foreigner that came in to fight Americans, despite all the reports of an influx of foreign terrorists.

Even if we can win this, what do we gain for it? Oil is cool and all, but there are easier ways of getting it.

These countries need to modernize or be eradicated.

Or they can stay in their part of the world and we'll stay in ours. That's why I'm against Muslim immigration into the West.

Staying out of "THEIR" affairs is a defeatist attitude and completely irresponsible.

I'd say creating the situation we've created over there is pretty irresponsible too.

I generally find threads like these on 515 crew to be really, really funny. I do greatly appreciate posts and perspectives from people like El Rhino though, as I prepare to take FSOT.

What position are you going to apply for?

It would be in the consular cone.

El Rhino wrote: way too much shit ever.

Seriously, what is so hard about condensing your responses? You take three paragraphs and turn it into 50 separate things when you could EASILY put them all together in three separate paragraph responses and still cover everything you've said here. I'm sure you went to high school and know how to do this. So watch what I'm going to do here, I'm going to take your highlights and respond to them and put them together in a nice, coherent, easy to read format so as not to give everyone reading it an aneurysm.

Paul is weak on jobs. Until you actually present a plan that he has laid forth or pseudo-proposed then I don't need to hear anything more about 'lowering taxes' and 'ending the fed'. Seriously, that's worse than listening to Hannity or Rush talk about the same shit for three hours straight, five days a week.

Regarding Iran, you danced around the question, you didn't answer it- what is your position going to be when and if Iran sets off a nuke? Try answering it this time. And I don't see what you have against Israel. Big fucking deal if they attacked Iran- I'm GLAD they did. Your 'look the other way' Clinton-esque "give money to North Korea so they won't pursue nuclear weapons' attitude has always been proven to be the wrong way of dealing with these countries.
If not for them Syria would have nuclear weapons right now because we didn't want to 'deal' with that whole mess. Do you not remember this? It was in 2007. Rather than going through the UN with "sanctions" Israel bombed the fuck out of Syria's nuclear facilities (that they wouldn't have even had if not for North Korea) and got much better results than "sanctions" or "minding their own business" would have ever produced. Everyone knew at that point that Israel meant serious fucking business. To my knowledge, Syria hasn't gone forward with more nuclear dreams.

Furthermore, saying that because we were in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia is the reason they came after us, is such a cop-out that I can't even believe you of all people would try to use it. We're also in Germany, Japan, North/South Korea, and fifty other countries- but I don't remember the last time any of them attacked us after we set up shop.


And after responding to nearly every sentence I typed, you didn't have a thing to say about the entire last paragraph. Well here it is for you again:

"And on this whole notion of 'minding our own business' why don't Paul supporters ever practice what they preach? You are the most god damn annoying people I know. Worse than any group I can think of. You never even mind YOUR OWN fucking business so why are you in favor of someone who says we should all mind our own business? Answer me that, asshole. Why can't you ever keep to yourself and silently support ron paul? Why do you feel it's necessary to DEFACE and VANDALIZE property to show your support? That's funny because I've never seen a Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Pawlenty, Romney, Clinton, Bush, etc. etc. etc. decal used to spray paint shit on the back of a stop sign, but apparently it's widely accepted among paul supporters. You are a bunch of immature children who think if you whine the loudest you will eventually get what you want. You'll find out that just like in the real world, it doesn't work that way. (Guess it shouldn't come as a surprise that a lot of them can't even vote because they're already convicted felons so we shouldn't put this kind of behavior beyond them.) It's a tall glass of water, isn't it?"

Varg, since you're a Bachmann supporter, I wanted to hear your opinion on the huge emphasis she places on religion. Do you think such extreme religion has a place in politics? How do you feel about the concept of dominionism (Christians need to seize control of public office so the world is good when Jesus comes back) and does her embrace of such extreme ideas make her ultimately unelectable?

elliot wrote:Varg, since you're a Bachmann supporter, I wanted to hear your opinion on the huge emphasis she places on religion. Do you think such extreme religion has a place in politics? How do you feel about the concept of dominionism (Christians need to seize control of public office so the world is good when Jesus comes back) and does her embrace of such extreme ideas make her ultimately unelectable?

Of course religion has a place in politics. Most religious people get their morals from their religion. Having strong morals is a good thing, which is why I think we see so many 'religious' people in office- Demican or Republicrat. Voters want people in office who are built of the same moral cloth as them, if not a stronger one. The problem then becomes how many of these politicians are just using religion as a facade to garner trust/votes. I think A LOT of them are doing this which is also why we happen to have so many corrupt politicians. They're liars and thieves. Just because they say they're a Christian and campaign on it doesn't make it so. Just like going to church doesn't make you a Christian anymore than sitting in a garage makes you a car. This is why when I hear someone bring up something like this about Bachmann I can't believe it. It's almost always blown out of proportion or taken out of context and even if she did say something along those lines- how believable is it, really? I don't know anything about "dominionism" but I don't have to to know that she's not really in favor of some religious coup' taking over the government by force when and if Jesus returns. And let's face it, if Jesus returns there will be way bigger shit to worry about then some small sect of Christians that probably comes in under 1,000 members- and they'll probably be a little distracted too. So let's just cross that bridge when we get there.

I don't like these politicians because of their religion- in fact it's one thing that turns me off about them and I start to get really disinterested when they go on and on about it. I don't need to hear about it. I know what a Christian is and I know what it means to me. I've never had a problem in my life with a Christian that I've met. They're always incredibly nice people WITH really good morals. And if they happen to believe in an almighty being that they think gives a fuck about what they do in order for them to be that way, I really don't give a fuck. I'm pretty TOLERANT of that and understand the good outweighs the naivety. I tend to view them the same way as I view gay people- as long as you're not in my face and a fucking fag about it and don't talk about it, then I don't care. But I've seen plenty of people who let their GAYNESS define them (faggy fags) who piss me off, as well as others. I don't think taking a dick in the poopshoot has ever made anyone a better person, but what do I know, I've never been to prison. So yeah, I have a bigger problem with fags than people who volunteer at soup kitchens. This is why I don't understand how so many of you can be so 'tolerant' towards gays and so blindly hateful towards anyone that identifies as a Christian. I always feel like I'm defending them, while not identifying with them. I guess that's comparable to you guys and blacks. But a large percentage of the black community IS Christian- so what do you do then? What a conundrum that'll be when you find one of those guys...

You're absolutely right that most politicians in America are using religion as a way to get elected, and that's just sad for one because it's dishonest, and for two because they shouldn't have to do that. People should be smart enough to see a human being for who they are without needing the stamp of approval from God to know that they're not a murdering psychopath. David Cameron was quoted as saying his faith runs "hotter and colder" at times, and he does not feel that he "has a direct line to God." That's a prime minister saying that, a man who governs over a large, developed nation of mature, intelligent people. But can you imagine what would happen to him if he said that in America? People's heads would explode and they would publicly execute him just to make sure the demons in his spirit didn't possess their children.

All of the authors and thinkers Bachmann cites as being her inspirations are people of extreme and dangerous religious persuasion, specifically promoting the idea of dominionism. And yes, if Jesus comes back we'll have many worse things to worry about, but check this out, he's not coming back.

I support equal right for all members of the LGBT community because they are real people that I can see with my real eyes, who it has been proven over and over again that they are the way they are not by choice, but by who they naturally are. Of course there are annoying gay people, but there are also annoying people in all walks of life all over the world, so that's nothing special. By and large, the LGBT community wants to be treated with respect and humility just like everyone else.

But along comes religion, especially those who practice an extreme version of it, and they're here to tell us that these people are evil and they deserve no rights because...well...because Jesus said so. Keep in mind, these are grown adults with mountains of real evidence staring them in the face, yet they cling to a belief based on conjecture, fantasy and maybe three quotes from a 2,000 year old book that also tells me I can't go into a house of worship because I have a defect in my eyesight. And I'm supposed to take them seriously and not be offended when someone tells me there is no possible way I could be a good person if I don't believe in God? I'm supposed to accept the idea that these people want a serious place in American politics so they can make sure no one can have a save abortion and gay people can't get married because Jesus says they can't?

I'll never be able to accept any of that. And when I see someone like Michelle Bachmann come along, spewing the usual hatred we have seen from countless others who court the simple-minded voting public with religion, I have a natural, guttural reaction against her holding a higher office because I know what she wants to do with it.

And I tell myself I shouldn't get too worried because I know she is an unelectable presidential candidate, but I've heard talk of her getting on the ticket as a VP, and shockingly, that does sound plausible to me. Horrifying, but plausible.

elliot wrote:You're absolutely right that most politicians in America are using religion as a way to get elected, and that's just sad for one because it's dishonest, and for two because they shouldn't have to do that. People should be smart enough to see a human being for who they are without needing the stamp of approval from God to know that they're not a murdering psychopath. David Cameron was quoted as saying his faith runs "hotter and colder" at times, and he does not feel that he "has a direct line to God." That's a prime minister saying that, a man who governs over a large, developed nation of mature, intelligent people. But can you imagine what would happen to him if he said that in America? People's heads would explode and they would publicly execute him just to make sure the demons in his spirit didn't possess their children.

All of the authors and thinkers Bachmann cites as being her inspirations are people of extreme and dangerous religious persuasion, specifically promoting the idea of dominionism. And yes, if Jesus comes back we'll have many worse things to worry about, but check this out, he's not coming back.

Before you get too tied up in this methodology of labeling bachmann and all conservatives as religious wack-jobs, let's not forget that the overwhelming majority of democrats claim to be Christians as well- even your patron saint berry obama. There is a huge democrat base of voters that are Christians- mostly seniors, mexicans, and blacks. We also know that those groups have large percentages of self-identifying Christians- which I find ironic that they vote left since liberals are the ones bent on abolishing God and religion everywhere (except islam of course). I don't for a second believe obama or half the other one dems in office are Christians, but that they only attend services merely to keep up appearances for political reasons. They know how to play the game.

I support equal right for all members of the LGBT community because they are real people that I can see with my real eyes, who it has been proven over and over again that they are the way they are not by choice, but by who they naturally are. Of course there are annoying gay people, but there are also annoying people in all walks of life all over the world, so that's nothing special. By and large, the LGBT community wants to be treated with respect and humility just like everyone else.

But along comes religion, especially those who practice an extreme version of it, and they're here to tell us that these people are evil and they deserve no rights because...well...because Jesus said so. Keep in mind, these are grown adults with mountains of real evidence staring them in the face, yet they cling to a belief based on conjecture, fantasy and maybe three quotes from a 2,000 year old book that also tells me I can't go into a house of worship because I have a defect in my eyesight. And I'm supposed to take them seriously and not be offended when someone tells me there is no possible way I could be a good person if I don't believe in God? I'm supposed to accept the idea that these people want a serious place in American politics so they can make sure no one can have a save abortion and gay people can't get married because Jesus says they can't?

I remember talking with a friend of mine about this a couple years ago. I knew her before she was bi/gay (or knew she was/whatever) and I knew she was very intelligent and non-biased and would be the one person willing to discuss the issue with me on a legitimate level. I think she was a philosophy or psychology/journalism major at UC Santa Cruz- if that means anything or paints a better picture for anyone. She believed that not all gay people were born gay but that they fell into one of two categories- either they were born gay or they later became gay because they were sexually molested as a child. She fell into the latter category. I told her the CIA classifies homosexuality as a mental disorder and asked her if she thought this could be a valid possibility (that's where the philo/psych major has merit). I was a little surprised to hear her say "no." I don't remember her explanation for it, but my argument was that given everything we know about mental disorders like schizophrenia, multiple-personality disorders, OCD, etc. couldn't it be possible that it IS a mental disorder? Homosexuality is not something that occurs in nature so is this so far-fetched? I assumed there would almost have to be some support for this theory because liberals are so against the idea of God, and so in favor of Darwin and evolution. Homosexuality completely goes against evolution and survival of the fittest. I have yet to hear a comprehensible explanation for this.

I'll never be able to accept any of that. And when I see someone like Michelle Bachmann come along, spewing the usual hatred we have seen from countless others who court the simple-minded voting public with religion, I have a natural, guttural reaction against her holding a higher office because I know what she wants to do with it.

And I tell myself I shouldn't get too worried because I know she is an unelectable presidential candidate, but I've heard talk of her getting on the ticket as a VP, and shockingly, that does sound plausible to me. Horrifying, but plausible.

I would much rather have an 'insane religious kook who believes they talk to God' in office than someone who identifies as a communist, marxist, socialist, or some variation thereof. You guys need to understand that when someone says they 'speak to God' they don't mean they are actually speaking out loud to a voice in their head- they're not schizophrenic. It's a spiritual, inner-dialogue that I would say is comparable to Bhudism and meditation. I can't help but roll my eyes everytime some atheist gets bent out of shape over someone saying they talk to God- just completely missing the context of what's really being said. Even if I saw someone actually speaking out loud to God it wouldn't bother me half as much as people who talk out loud to their pets like they're children and expect some kind of response.

Again, what's the worst that would happen with Bachmann as president and her 'cooky religious crusade'? 5% unemployment? GDP growth? Less people on welfare and dependent on government? Less jobs going overseas? More tax cuts? Not forcing people to buy health care? Not giving trillions of dollars away to failing banks and businesses? Oh, but tax payers wouldn't be obligated to pay for abortions- well I guess if that's one thing we have to give up, then I guess I'm willing to make that sacrifice.

Face it, obama is a horrible president, in fact the worst in history. I can't believe anybody would support someone who constantly and consistently lies to their face. Whatever happened to 8% unemployment after the bailouts like he PROMISED? Whatever happened to ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan like he PROMISED? Whatever happened to closing Gitmo like he PROMISED? Whatever happened to the 'no behind closed doors' politics that he PROMISED? I'm not saying he could have prevented this economic collapse, but he has had multiple opportunities to rectify it or even slow it down and he has done the opposite- even with the first two years of a Dem congress. You really have to wonder what his intentions are. I just can't believe anybody continuing to believe the words out of his teleprompter.

Varg wrote:Homosexuality is not something that occurs in nature so is this so far-fetched? I assumed there would almost have to be some support for this theory because liberals are so against the idea of God, and so in favor of Darwin and evolution. Homosexuality completely goes against evolution and survival of the fittest. I have yet to hear a comprehensible explanation for this.

Jesus...you really are a blind follower of anything the right-wingers tell you, huh? There are literally hundreds of species of animals that exhibit homosexual behavior in nature. Pick up a book or read some factual scientific research on it before you open your mouth and try and prove some point by throwing that statement out there. It makes you look even more dumb than you already are.

Nobody has ever told me that; That is my own observation from my years of school and my extensive t.v. watching of the Discovery channel and Animal Planet (hardly right-wing). Hundreds of examples, but you failed to list even one. And no, male penguins sitting on eggs doesn't constitute homosexuality, sorry.

im not reading most of this thread but i am interested in var gs drug policy

Varg wrote:Nobody has ever told me that; That is my own observation from my years of school and my extensive t.v. watching of the Discovery channel and Animal Planet (hardly right-wing). Hundreds of examples, but you failed to list even one. And no, male penguins sitting on eggs doesn't constitute homosexuality, sorry.

i'm not going to list them all. but homosexuality has been recorded in the following groups of animals, listed alphabetically:

baboon, barn owl, bear (black, grizzly, koala, polar), bighorn sheep, bonobo, brown rat, caribou, cat, cheetah, chicken, chimpanzee, cockroach, deer, desert tortoise, dog, dolphin, dragonfly, duck, elephant, emu, flamingo, gazelle, giraffe, goat, gorilla, gray squirrel, guinea pig, hamster, herring gull, horse housefly, hummingbird, indian rhinoceros, lion, lizard, mallard duck, monarch butterfly, moose, mountain zebra, octopus, orangutan, ostrich, penguin, pig, porcupine, rabbit, raccoon, rattlesnake, raven, salmon, sand shark, sea otter, seagull, sheep, swan, tasmanian devil, turkey, vampire bat, walrus, warthog, water buffalo, whale (many types), wolf.

hey, i actually did list them all. and for your information, i typed this all, but got the information FROM A BOOK. somehow, i trumped your years of school learnin' and tv-ing.

i don't feel like arguing about anything else in this thread. ryan already won this argument.