Post Election Collective Thread - DPChallenge Forums

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/08/2004 03:32:46 PM · #226

Being drunk is not illegal. Dunken driving is illegal because if its impact (sic) on innocent bystanders and the attendent cost to the taxpayers.

If you are offended by homosexual behavior, stay out of their bedrooms.

11/08/2004 03:33:20 PM · #227

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by jlhudson:
Here is some of God's thoughts on homosexuality straight from the new testment:

Do you have something from the Old Testament?

I believe there's some debate over whether the latter-day prophets were channeling God or just spin-doctoring and appropriating for their own purposes the most successful (to date) monotheistic faith for their own purposes.

I mean the Catholics have even ended up with their own country ... which isn't being bombed daily either.

Since it's quite common to find scriptural passages which directly contradict each other, I'm afraid that we'll each have to pick and choose those which support our view and agree to disagree on what it means; unless God decides to put in a personal appearance and clarify matters it's all opinion ...

Levitical Law is pretty clear:

Leviticus 18
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

11/08/2004 03:34:47 PM · #228

In another thread, General, you were asked why you believed this:

I believe there's some debate over whether the latter-day prophets were channeling God or just spin-doctoring and appropriating for their own purposes the most successful (to date) monotheistic faith for their own purposes.

What purposes would they have fulfilled? I find it ridiculous that one would hold up the early church as an example of self-servanthood and purport the authors of the New Testament as looking out for their own interests. History tells a completely different story.

What on earth are you suggesting they had to gain?

Message edited by author 2004-11-08 15:35:35.

11/08/2004 03:36:47 PM · #229

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Actually being drunk any place where a police officer can arrest you is illegal.

Personally I don't think sodomy should be illegal because as you say we have no right to monitor peoples practices in bed.

That said the issue of Gay marriage is totally different that is the state condoning and accepting what many view as a detestable practice.

You arn't just married in the bedroom

edit: typo

Message edited by author 2004-11-08 15:38:12.

davidbedard

Canon EOS-70D

Canon EF 24-70 2.8L II

11/08/2004 03:40:15 PM · #230

Originally posted by jlhudson:

They dont CONDONE the actions IE try to make drunk driving legal................

No one is innocent of sin that dosen't mean we should condone it.

They also don't tell drunkards, or greedy people, etc. that they are not allowed to form legal pair bonds, and enjoy the legal benefits of such bonds.

davidbedard

Canon EOS-70D

Canon EF 24-70 2.8L II

11/08/2004 03:44:11 PM · #231

Originally posted by jlhudson:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by jlhudson:
Here is some of God's thoughts on homosexuality straight from the new testment:

Do you have something from the Old Testament?

I believe there's some debate over whether the latter-day prophets were channeling God or just spin-doctoring and appropriating for their own purposes the most successful (to date) monotheistic faith for their own purposes.

I mean the Catholics have even ended up with their own country ... which isn't being bombed daily either.

Since it's quite common to find scriptural passages which directly contradict each other, I'm afraid that we'll each have to pick and choose those which support our view and agree to disagree on what it means; unless God decides to put in a personal appearance and clarify matters it's all opinion ...

Levitical Law is pretty clear:

Leviticus 18
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Deuteronomy is also pretty clear that we should stone to death any woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night. I don't see any billboards about that.

11/08/2004 03:44:46 PM · #232

If it is a man and a woman you're correct.

We arn't talking about punishing people for sins.

Its about condoning an immoral practice.

By allowing two drunkards to marry you arn't condoning a immoral practice unless the relationship is homosexual in nature.

The fact that they are drunkards is beside the point.

I agree totally with states public intoxication laws.

11/08/2004 03:46:57 PM · #233

Originally posted by davidbedard:

Originally posted by jlhudson:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by jlhudson:
Here is some of God's thoughts on homosexuality straight from the new testment:

Do you have something from the Old Testament?

I believe there's some debate over whether the latter-day prophets were channeling God or just spin-doctoring and appropriating for their own purposes the most successful (to date) monotheistic faith for their own purposes.

I mean the Catholics have even ended up with their own country ... which isn't being bombed daily either.

Since it's quite common to find scriptural passages which directly contradict each other, I'm afraid that we'll each have to pick and choose those which support our view and agree to disagree on what it means; unless God decides to put in a personal appearance and clarify matters it's all opinion ...

Levitical Law is pretty clear:

Leviticus 18
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Deuteronomy is also pretty clear that we should stone to death any woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night. I don't see any billboards about that.

The general asked for it I'm just delievering.

Thats why I prefer to use New Testament scripture because its more in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Jesus also said let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.

Like I said before this issue isn't about condemming anyone, its about condoning sinful acts.

edit: fat fingers

Message edited by author 2004-11-08 15:47:47.

11/08/2004 04:04:37 PM · #234

To get back to the original subject..

Evidence Mounts That The Vote May Have Been Hacked

View graphs and data here to go along with the article here and here.

11/08/2004 04:11:49 PM · #235

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

To get back to the original subject..

Evidence Mounts That The Vote May Have Been Hacked

View graphs and data here to go along with the article here and here.

11/08/2004 04:13:47 PM · #236

Nope. Even John Kerry supports the income tax plan, he just like to tax the upper incomes more.

Neither party will go after the truly rich folks :) it's a fact... democrats will say they're taxing hte rich or people making over X amount per year in income tax -- but those rich widows thta own real-estate properties will not get taxed at nearly the rate when theys ell the properties.

I am not for taxing the investments either... i don't think that's a good idea in general.

Originally posted by davidbedard:

Originally posted by paganini:
The fact is -- the rich often do not pay these taxes because their income isn't based on "income", they're based on investments. What the taxes are doing is really hurting the upper-middle class if it's taxed on income levels alone.

Which is the neocon plan in the US. Tax only people's labor. This will concentrate more wealth and power upward and help calcify the current class structure.

11/08/2004 04:18:01 PM · #237

By the way, i fully support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages -- or a constitutional amendment to ALLOW gay marriages. Either way, let the people in the country vote on it and settle it once and for all. It requires 3/4 of the states to vote for the amendment in order for it to be proved. I suspect you'd get neither of them passed though. More chances for it to be banned than passing gay marriage.

This is the right process -- it shoudn't be up to advocate judges to decide or some municipal worker's own idea of the law is.

11/08/2004 04:23:27 PM · #238

Originally posted by paganini:

Typical left wing response. first it was that we'd suppress the black votes, now it's a right wing conspiracy to win the presidency.

It's called, software bugs. Let's not forget that most computer science majors in college are all pro-Kerry... they're more liberal than say, electrical engineers.

You know a party is dead in the water when it has to resort to scare tactics like this instead of discussion of ideas.

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
To get back to the original subject..

Evidence Mounts That The Vote May Have Been Hacked

View graphs and data here to go along with the article here and here.

I dont have a party. Why dont you look at the data and read the article?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/08/2004 04:30:25 PM · #239

The Levitical citation would have a little more impact if taken in context.

Perhaps a listing of the other 15-20 "abominations" listed in Leviticus would help give some perspective on the scope and extent of sexual deviancy apparently in common practice at the time.

To single out gays as especially abnormal seems quite illogical; after all, they're barely tacked onto the end of the list just before bestiality, almost as an afterthought to the preceeding litany of incestual lust and licentiousness. (And now I know where producers for FOX look for series ideas ...)

Since homosexual practices were apparently common enough to make the "dean's list" 5000 years ago, I guess we also can't attribute them to exposure to toxic waste, as a Freudian construct, or a liberal plot against the peace.

Here's the introduction and the rest of the list. Note especially verses seven and eight; if I read them right they assume that your mother is not your father's wife, but you shouldn't commit hanky-panky with either of them anyway, for that would embarrass your dad.
================================
Leviticus
Chapter 18
1
The LORD said to Moses,
2
"Speak to the Israelites and tell them: I, the LORD, am your God.
3
You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you once lived, nor shall you do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you; do not conform to their customs.
4
My decrees you shall carry out, and my statutes you shall take care to follow. I, the LORD, am your God.
5
Keep, then, my statutes and decrees, for the man who carries them out will find life through them. I am the LORD.
6
1 "None of you shall approach a close relative to have sexual intercourse with her. I am the LORD.
7
You shall not disgrace your father by having intercourse with your mother. Besides, since she is your own mother, you shall not have intercourse with her.
8
You shall not have intercourse with your father's wife, for that would be a disgrace to your father.
9
You shall not have intercourse with your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in your own household or born elsewhere.
10
You shall not have intercourse with your son's daughter or with your daughter's daughter, for that would be a disgrace to your own family.
11
You shall not have intercourse with the daughter whom your father's wife bore to him, since she, too, is your sister.
12
You shall not have intercourse with your father's sister, since she is your father's relative.
13
You shall not have intercourse with your mother's sister, since she is your mother's relative.
14
You shall not disgrace your father's brother by being intimate with his wife, since she, too, is your aunt.
15
You shall not have intercourse with your daughter-in-law; she is your son's wife, and therefore you shall not disgrace her.
16
2 You shall not have intercourse with your brother's wife, for that would be a disgrace to your brother.
17
You shall not have intercourse with a woman and also with her daughter, nor shall you marry and have intercourse with her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; this would be shameful, because they are related to her.
18
While your wife is still living you shall not marry her sister as her rival; for thus you would disgrace your first wife.
19
"You shall not approach a woman to have intercourse with her while she is unclean from menstruation.
20
You shall not have carnal relations with your neighbor's wife, defiling yourself with her.
21
3 You shall not offer any of your offspring to be immolated to Molech, thus profaning the name of your God. I am the LORD.
22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.
23
You shall not have carnal relations with an animal, defiling yourself with it; nor shall a woman set herself in front of an animal to mate with it; such things are abhorrent.
24
"Do not defile yourselves by any of these things by which the nations whom I am driving out of your way have defiled themselves.

11/08/2004 04:31:45 PM · #240

I'm new to the 'giving a crap about US Politics scene', so don't assign me a side (left/right/up/down) or anything, I just had a few questions...

Why wouldn't the mainstream media jump on the story below?

Why wasn't this a really really big deal before the election? I would think that, if true, this would be blown wide open for everyone to see and something would be done about it...

11/08/2004 04:36:32 PM · #241

GeneralE, there's such a bitterness in your posts when it comes to any discussion on the topic of anything Judeo-Christian.

Any thoughts on my question to you below?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/08/2004 04:37:08 PM · #242

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

That media owned by the same rich guys who own the voting machines and the politicians?

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

Why wasn't this a really really big deal before the election? I would think that, if true, this would be blown wide open for everyone to see and something would be done about it...

It was blown off as "no problem" by the people in charge.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/08/2004 04:38:30 PM · #243

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

GeneralE, there's such a bitterness in your posts when it comes to any discussion on the topic of anything Judeo-Christian.

Any thoughts on my question to you below?

I hope it's more exasperation with the prevailing bigotry and injustice than bitterness.

mrorange002

Canon EOS-5D

11/08/2004 04:47:33 PM · #244

paganini,

maybe you can't add also, but those links I provided clearly show that the tax is adding both provisional and federal.
the link I provided for the USA does NOT include local sales taxes.

and, yes I can read, you clearly did not say "if" anywhere in your mean, unfounded statement about gay people.

11/08/2004 04:52:09 PM · #245

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
GeneralE, there's such a bitterness in your posts when it comes to any discussion on the topic of anything Judeo-Christian.

Any thoughts on my question to you below?

I hope it's more exasperation with the prevailing bigotry and injustice than bitterness.

Some of your posts seem uninformed, though...it's as if the same accusations lodged against Christians of being one-way communicators who simply want to shove religion down your throat (fair enough accusations, oftentimes) can be applied to you as well in that the spirit of your posts don't resemble partaking in a discussion as much as they resemble hands clasped over ears without any room for anothers' opinion.

It's almost like you are pissed off at Christians for a different reason and are using a few awkward verses spoken to a culture thousands of years ago as your proof that it's all a sham.

The same things that bother you, bother me (most likely). We're not worlds apart.

I think a lot of this has something to do with US politics seperating the left from the right and creating two distinct groups of people.

I don't know if I'm nuts but the conversation seems a little more sane in other parts of the world...I'm likely nuts.

A lot of this rambling, but please don't take it in a mean spirit. I just wanted to say that we're not worlds apart and the discussion shouldn't be approached that way.

I could very well be wrong in many of my observations. Correct me, and I'll try to humbly see your point. Maybe we can get more done that way.

11/08/2004 04:52:51 PM · #246

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I'm new to the 'giving a crap about US Politics scene', so don't assign me a side (left/right/up/down) or anything, I just had a few questions...

Why wouldn't the mainstream media jump on the story below?

That media owned by the same rich guys who own the voting machines and the politicians?

Indeed.

11/08/2004 04:54:35 PM · #247

Eric,

DIdn't you read my reply? 53% for tax rates for people in my tax bracket in Canada/Quebec (both state + federal). That doesn't include VAT either, the national sales tax in Canada. THat's much higher than most people pay in the US.

Which statements i have made is not true? If gays are genetic, they're not the norm. They dont' follow any laws of nature and thus, they're basically 'mistakes' in the genetic process. if thye're not genetic, then it's a choice, a lifestyle choice. You can also compare genetic traits of gays to say parkinson disease (genetic disease). so at best it's a disease, an anomaly. That alone should not change the definition of marriage for the last 5000 years.

And if that discussion is mean, then you're just too damn soft to have a rational argument. Then again, most liberals can't take it when facts are presented in front of their face. There is no definitive scientific proof that gays are genetically based anyway. This is FACT. They have not isolated the "gay gene", have they? So there is equal possibilty that they're simply choosing to be gay.

Tony

Originally posted by ericlimon:

11/08/2004 04:54:44 PM · #248

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I'm new to the 'giving a crap about US Politics scene', so don't assign me a side (left/right/up/down) or anything, I just had a few questions...

Why wouldn't the mainstream media jump on the story below?

That media owned by the same rich guys who own the voting machines and the politicians?

Indeed.

That's a scary thought...again, I truly don't immerse myself in this stuff but I really feel for you guys in the US. Right and left alike...

11/08/2004 04:55:53 PM · #249

It's a LIBERAL publication. Enough said, it's more of an opinion piece than actual news.

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by paganini:
Typical left wing response. first it was that we'd suppress the black votes, now it's a right wing conspiracy to win the presidency.

It's called, software bugs. Let's not forget that most computer science majors in college are all pro-Kerry... they're more liberal than say, electrical engineers.

You know a party is dead in the water when it has to resort to scare tactics like this instead of discussion of ideas.

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
To get back to the original subject..

Evidence Mounts That The Vote May Have Been Hacked

View graphs and data here to go along with the article here and here.

I dont have a party. Why dont you look at the data and read the article?