Help Me Vote Obama Out

Help Support Steer Planet:

aj

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
6,422
Location
western kansas
What about the age of the earth? Geologists are taught that the earth is billions of years old. Some goofball religous people think the world is 2,000 years old. So do soil scienctists and geologgists all go to hell. The "bible" looses me on this deal. I am amzed at hard how the bible beaters throw them selves into legislating morality and the Republicans think they have to pander to them......then half the bible beaters.....Catholics are socialist's and vote Democrat anyway. Seems like to me Republicans could pull over fiscally conservative Democrats if they dropped the religous right.
 

obie105

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
780
I totally understand why your not supose to discuss politics or religion.  :)
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,643
Location
Hollister, CA
I'm pretty sure the democrats pander as well.

Is pandering only if someone differs than you?

Also Jesus was born 2010 years ago.  

To me the bible is consistent with the universe being around a billion years cuz for a while, there was no days for the earth to go around the sun.  Lots of other loopholes as well.  
 

aj

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
6,422
Location
western kansas
If you delve into the history of the alternative lifestyle deal you will find them as far back as written history. It can be hard to find. Native americans have some mention in oral histories. It isn't something that occured with the advent of rock and roll or pink hairspray or tv or video games. jmo Different cultures treat things differently. Ancient Mayans were having human sacrifices for the fun of it at the same time the whities in Europe were hanging witches and stretching people in two with tortue machines. Anthropology can be FUN. I think studying history is important. People who follow faith blindly end up in goofball cults most of the time. Heck I think people who raise th calves are going to hell. ;D
 

OH Breeder

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
5,954
Location
Ada, Ohio
vc said:
Politics- check, Religion- check, ok, now if we can get someone to say something bad about Canadians and Charolais this topic will really go sideways in a hurry.

I know where my vote will be going, come November, and I know why, It will not be because of their stance on gay marriage, it will be based on where the Country is headed.

Marriage = a man and a woman

Civil union= who ever to who ever (Zach a brother and sister, brother and brother, or sister and sister still can't get married, no matter how much they love each other, are you offended by that?)

Give them all the same rights but make sure they all go through the same hell married people do if they decide to break their union, it is only fair.

Is that a serious statement.....sister to brother etc? Incest? You are comparing homosexuality to incest. I find that extremely offensive and ignorant.
 

RyanChandler

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
3,457
Location
Pottsboro, TX
Here's one for the Methodist, Episcopal, Luthern, etc....

1 Corinthians 14:34-36

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church

OR EVEN BETTER..

1 Timothy 2:11-15

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.  

Let me say that I grew up in the church , the church of Christ, and I am very familiar with the bibles teachings.  That being said, I do not believe that the bible is the unadulterated word of the creator nor do I subscribe to that repugnant rhetoric above.  The world is much older than 2000 yrs, Evolution is real(the bible actually never dispute this- not once!) Jesus Christ was/is ABSOLUTELY a SOCIALIST and Bob Marley's ONE LOVE is more in line with Jesus' teachings than any protestant or Catholic doctrine.  

Emancipate yourself from mental slavery - None but ourselves can free our minds.

 

GONEWEST

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
921
Location
GEORGIA
Restitution to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer

Isn't that the way it is now? The victim of a crime can bring civil charges against the "wrongdoer." Like the family of OJ's wife did against OJ. OJ might have had an asset or two to give, but it didn't bring the people he killed back. If a drunk or a druggie kills someone just exactly what would you propose to restore the life of that victim? What would be restitution to the family? What is restitution enough that it's not sake to walk down the street? Now you might not have streets to walk down out in the sticks, but the majority of people in this country do. What about the time and productivity loss to employers? How are you gonna justify that?  Is the recreational drug user going to pay the taxes I have to pay because he doesn't pay any and can't pay for his hospital trips? But the kicker is that in 99.99% of the cases the recreational drug user that infringes upon my right not to have to worry about him has ZERO to give in restitution. Ever hear of a saying "you can't get blood out of a turnip?", or do they use that verbage in TX?

So your restitution idea sucks.  But you keep trying. I read other things you have written here and you are getting "better" as you go.
 

RyanChandler

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
3,457
Location
Pottsboro, TX
GONEWEST said:
Restitution to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer

Isn't that the way it is now? The victim of a crime can bring civil charges against the "wrongdoer." Like the family of OJ's wife did against OJ. OJ might have had an asset or two to give, but it didn't bring the people he killed back. If a drunk or a druggie kills someone just exactly what would you propose to restore the life of that victim? What would be restitution to the family? What is restitution enough that it's not sake to walk down the street? Now you might not have streets to walk down out in the sticks, but the majority of people in this country do. What about the time and productivity loss to employers? How are you gonna justify that?  Is the recreational drug user going to pay the taxes I have to pay because he doesn't pay any and can't pay for his hospital trips? But the kicker is that in 99.99% of the cases the recreational drug user that infringes upon my right not to have to worry about him has ZERO to give in restitution. Ever hear of a saying "you can't get blood out of a turnip?", or do they use that verbage in TX?

.
So your restitution idea sucks.  But you keep trying. I read other things you have written here and you are getting "better" as you go.

I guess I'm not making the connection between burnin one down whilst listening to some Dave Matthews and cleaning the house and your association with the murder of Nicole Simpson?? Murder is a crime in and of itself and should be delt with accordingly. Show me anything that suggest increased crime rates are positively correlated with the leniency of drug laws. YOU CAN'T DO IT!  Again, I'm not making the connection between drunks and druggies and socially responsible recreational users; whether we're talking alcohol or marijuana. 

I can understand your fear walking down the street though, I've been to a Falcons game in ATL.  One of the dirtier cities/states I've ever been to- so I can understand your bitterness. 

And guess what big dog, I'm 26 and paid more in taxes last yr than 85% of the people in our country so kiss my freedom-minded ass.  <rock>
 

farmboy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
5,652
Location
south webster ohio
-XBAR- said:
. Show me anything that suggest increased crime rates are positively correlated with the leniency of drug laws. YOU CAN'T DO IT! Again, I'm not making the connection between drunks and druggies and socially responsible recreational users; whether we're talking alcohol or marijuana. 

I can understand your fear walking down the street though, I've been to a Falcons game in ATL.  One of the dirtier cities/states I've ever been to- so I can understand your bitterness. 

And guess what big dog, I'm 26 and paid more in taxes last yr than 85% of the people in our country so kiss my freedom-minded ass.  <rock>

Came here to say this. People who do drugs are going to do them regardless of what the law says. At least if that stuff is legalized, we can pull some revenue off of it without money driven crimes.
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,643
Location
Hollister, CA
Drugs create high paying jobs with lifetime benefits.

It also moves money Away from skill.
 

GONEWEST

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
921
Location
GEORGIA
-XBAR- said:
GONEWEST said:
Restitution to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer

Isn't that the way it is now? The victim of a crime can bring civil charges against the "wrongdoer." Like the family of OJ's wife did against OJ. OJ might have had an asset or two to give, but it didn't bring the people he killed back. If a drunk or a druggie kills someone just exactly what would you propose to restore the life of that victim? What would be restitution to the family? What is restitution enough that it's not sake to walk down the street? Now you might not have streets to walk down out in the sticks, but the majority of people in this country do. What about the time and productivity loss to employers? How are you gonna justify that?  Is the recreational drug user going to pay the taxes I have to pay because he doesn't pay any and can't pay for his hospital trips? But the kicker is that in 99.99% of the cases the recreational drug user that infringes upon my right not to have to worry about him has ZERO to give in restitution. Ever hear of a saying "you can't get blood out of a turnip?", or do they use that verbage in TX?

.
So your restitution idea sucks.  But you keep trying. I read other things you have written here and you are getting "better" as you go.

I guess I'm not making the connection between burnin one down whilst listening to some Dave Matthews and cleaning the house and your association with the murder of Nicole Simpson?? Murder is a crime in and of itself and should be delt with accordingly. Show me anything that suggest increased crime rates are positively correlated with the leniency of drug laws. YOU CAN'T DO IT!  Again, I'm not making the connection between drunks and druggies and socially responsible recreational users; whether we're talking alcohol or marijuana. 

I can understand your fear walking down the street though, I've been to a Falcons game in ATL.  One of the dirtier cities/states I've ever been to- so I can understand your bitterness.   

And guess what big dog, I'm 26 and paid more in taxes last yr than 85% of the people in our country so kiss my freedom-minded ass.  <rock>

Well at least you got the big dog part right. Not sure what I said that made you want to be such a  horses butt about it, but you started it and you're old enough to take it.

First you never told me how these people could pay restitution for ANYTHING, much less the loss of a life. You just wanted to spout off about Atlanta being dirty and you paying taxes like that had anything to do with anything.  You cant connect dead people as the result of a crime together? No matter what the crime is they are dead. Restitution of ANY KIND won't bring them back. So what then? OH I KNOW!....  YOU are that recreational user you want to see decriminalized aren't you!! Now I get it, and you've lost a few brain cells and can't make a connection between people being dead as the result of the actions of another no matter the crime or intention. And to you a few bucks should buy their way out of it no matter what they did! Now I understand where you are coming from.

There are a lot more Meth recreational users than pot smokers at a Dave Mathews concert. The point, besides the one on your head, is that drug users are dangerous. And if you couldn't lock them up, convict them of crimes, they would have no consequences for their actions. You understand that a recreational Meth user has nothing to pay restitution with right? So he steals your stuff or knocks you in the head for the $5 in your pocket. Surely you can see that shouldn't be legal. Unless the Doritos are getting to you.  What is your definition of a socially responsible recreational user? The ones at  the Dave Mathews concert? How many of them get arrested??? NONE. How many people like that EVER get arrested. They just get tickets like speeding. So who is it that you want to decriminalize? What is your definition of a socially responsible drug user. That's an oxymoron as compared to you who are just the last part.

Now tell me about your crime stat argument again????? Doesn't it follow that if you decriminalize ANY activity, the crime rate, by definition the measure of the amount of crimes committed,  would go down? It's no longer a crime.

And I see where your perspective of the world comes from if Atlanta is one of the dirtier cities you have ever been in. You don't get out much do you, boy?

Also I can  see where you could be 26, seems more like 16, but I can see 26. And thanks for paying your taxes. You keep good government employees like feed grass from being without a job.
 

vc

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,834
Location
So-Cal
Zack, not everyone has the same rights or privileges as others, I think gay couples who are committed to each other should have the same rights as other couples. I do not believe anyone should get married just to get the benefits.
On the other, I should have used polygamy instead, It is currently illegal, it does happen, Is it OK if they live together but do mot get married? How do we determine what is a right, now if you go by the Bible then polygamy is wrong, if not, what makes it wrong. Or should it all be OK? I think I just confussed myself on that one. I give up, if I offended anyone sorry.

I should have taken my own advice no religion, politics, Canadians, or Charolais.
 

farmboy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
5,652
Location
south webster ohio
vc said:
Zack, not everyone has the same rights or privileges as others, I think gay couples who are committed to each other should have the same rights as other couples. I do not believe anyone should get married just to get the benefits.
On the other, I should have used polygamy instead, It is currently illegal, it does happen, Is it OK if they live together but do mot get married? How do we determine what is a right, now if you go by the Bible then polygamy is wrong, if not, what makes it wrong. Or should it all be OK? I think I just confussed myself on that one. I give up, if I offended anyone sorry.

I should have taken my own advice no religion, politics, Canadians, or Charolais.

Its not up to you or anyone else to determine what is right in peoples personal lives.
 

RyanChandler

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
3,457
Location
Pottsboro, TX
Zach said:
vc said:
Zack, not everyone has the same rights or privileges as others, I think gay couples who are committed to each other should have the same rights as other couples. I do not believe anyone should get married just to get the benefits.
On the other, I should have used polygamy instead, It is currently illegal, it does happen, Is it OK if they live together but do mot get married? How do we determine what is a right, now if you go by the Bible then polygamy is wrong, if not, what makes it wrong. Or should it all be OK? I think I just confussed myself on that one. I give up, if I offended anyone sorry.

I should have taken my own advice no religion, politics, Canadians, or Charolais.

Its not up to you or anyone else to determine what is right in peoples personal lives.

Tell em, Z !  All individuals should be sovereign over their own lives and no one should be forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
 

GONEWEST

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
921
Location
GEORGIA
Tell em, Z !  All individuals should be sovereign over their own lives and no one should be forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

What you really mean is that no one should have to have any values at all, isn't it?
 

RyanChandler

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
3,457
Location
Pottsboro, TX
GONEWEST said:
Tell em, Z !   All individuals should be sovereign over their own lives and no one should be forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

What you really mean is that no one should have to have any values at all, isn't it?

All individuals should have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
 

GONEWEST

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
921
Location
GEORGIA
GONEWEST said:
Tell em, Z !  All individuals should be sovereign over their own lives and no one should be forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

What you really mean is that no one should have to have any values at all, isn't it?

All individuals should have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

That'd be great if we all lived in a vacuum. But the fact is that your poor behavior effects others and/or puts others at risk.
 

RyanChandler

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
3,457
Location
Pottsboro, TX
GONEWEST said:
GONEWEST said:
Tell em, Z !  All individuals should be sovereign over their own lives and no one should be forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

What you really mean is that no one should have to have any values at all, isn't it?

All individuals should have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

That'd be great if we all lived in a vacuum. But the fact is that your poor behavior effects others and/or puts others at risk.


People kill people.  Not guns; not drugs. 

I also find it odd you question my values and morals.  I suscribe to the highest moral principle, that of self-ownership.
 
Top