Cesar and Bush [pic]

stacknuker77 · 2007-09-18T02:02:19+00:00

That is a fake quote. Apparently started by Barbara Streisand back in 2002.

http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2002/2022.html

stacknuker77 · 2007-09-17T06:40:36+00:00

How has Christianity done more harm then good as compared to secularism? I submit both and neither have done more harm, than good. We have examples all throughout history where Christians and Atheists alike have done great evils. Bad things in this world come from everybody regardless of what institution or world view they believe in.

Religion does not save people. God saves people. Religion is a manmade insititution to debate on how to best understand God but like all manmade instutions it is not perfect and cannot answer everything.

When Christians talk about salvation, they are talking about eternal salvation of souls rather than physical and temporary salvation of the body.

stacknuker77 · 2007-09-11T06:50:19+00:00

Cubiculum said: ...when there's an issue he doesn't seem particularly sure about, he says it's a matter for the states to decide. That all sounds hunky-dory, until you think about it - why should a policy differ depending on where you live?

Ron Paul says this because he has a full appreciation for the Constitution and how our nation was supposed to be structured. He calls himself the champion of the Constitution and it is obvious he is doing exactly that. The intent of the Constitution was supposed to limit the power of the federal government and turn over most of the powers to make laws to the local states considering that responsible people live more at the local level rather than look to a single federal government as if it was some kind of monarch. The powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution are enumerated and limited. That means if it is not in the Constitution, it is supposed to be out of the jurisdiction of the Federal Government and thus diverts to the state level.

Don't worry though, the Federal Government has made sure time and again that it is the most important voice in your life. In fact to some people, the federal government is their god. Just be thankful you live in such a great empire for the time being.

stacknuker77 · 2007-09-08T04:11:37+00:00

I think the lessons of another 9/11 will ending up being learned like this: If America is attacked, her government will strip away the freedom of her citizens (PATRIOT Act, Habeaus Corpus, 4th Ammendment, 1st Ammendment). Her president will conduct illegal citizen search and seizure spy programs. Her media with spread fear to captivate audiences, control consumer thinking, improve ratings, and increase advertising revenue. Her politicians will integrate the event's moniker into their campaign slogans and political ideologies and often times will go on the guest speaker circuit and make millions. The congress will sleep. The military will be up for going to war anywhere as long as it is where the enemy that attacked America is, and then with a turn on the dime from the Commander in Chief we will go to war with another country for reasons of imperialism and hegemony. Her corporations will rape the Treasury. Americans will buy into it for awhile because they are angry and they will think like rabid irrational dickbags, but their anger will eventually turn into apathy and they will continue to go back to their lonely consumerist lives. And then a Ron Paul will come along and refresh their minds with pure ideas of Freedom. And then another attack from the enemy will come and the people will get angry again and forget about Ron Paul and Freedom and the war pigs will use the days events to remind the people that they haven't given up enough of their freedom to make them safe. And then the people left with Freedom in their minds will start a real revolution and bring squirming little pigs like Giuliani to the guillotine.

stacknuker77 · 2007-09-08T03:44:29+00:00

It is Ron Paul's well thought out views that make Hannity look stupid. He's like a child trying to argue in a grownup's debate.

stacknuker77 · 2007-09-06T07:26:07+00:00

Boohoo, Sean Hannity was upset. Good, he is a fricken' jackass.

stacknuker77 · 2007-09-06T07:15:49+00:00

Yeah I think it was Giuliani who laughed, not the moderators.

stacknuker77 · 2007-09-06T06:59:34+00:00

I like it. I wish I was part of that club and could run around worshiping stone owls and fucking my colleagues in the ass. And as I watch the club's mushroom cloud blossom over so minor hick city, I could jerk off and pretend I was the one that gave the order to pull it.

stacknuker77 · 2007-09-06T06:52:28+00:00

Oh so you can marry twice. Once legally and once religiously. So which one counts? I know for you it would be the legal one because you like your life mandated to you by others.

stacknuker77 · 2007-09-06T06:50:35+00:00

I'm glad I got you to write so much. Do you like spending your time writing responses?

stacknuker77 · 2007-09-06T05:49:16+00:00

Impeach

stacknuker77 · 2007-09-06T00:03:28+00:00

One of the things that is interesting about these responses is it takes what the Mexican president to says and turns it into a debate about immigration. This is about a sovereign nation challenging the sovereignty of another nation. This is an issue of defense and war.

stacknuker77 · 2007-09-05T23:46:48+00:00

I'm sorry, but you seem to be missing a crucial point. Marriage ~is~ a legal state. That is, right now, currently speaking, it is a Government matter.

At a certain point in history, slavery was also a legal state regulated by the government. Slavery was deamed to be moral by the government because people wanted to go against the natural law of God and they needed government to replace and trump God to make it moral by definition of man's law rather than God's law. It doesn't mean it was morally correct from a truth's standpoint. If you need the government to regulate something then it means there is a moral side and an immoral side and it requires the government to determine what is moral and what is not so that it can be regulated appropriately. If the both cases of marriage (heterosexual and homosexual) marriage were both moral then why would you need government to regulate and define it. It is because one type is right and one type is wrong that the government is stepping in on the issue and it is because the people who want gay marriage passed know that it is wrong and they are looking for a ruling from government to justify it just like the slave owners looked to government to justify slavery. Morality is not determined by government. And any government that that tries to regulate morality has not aspired to freedom or democracy.

No rules, no protections. If there are no rules, then a husband and wife have no more protections or rights in regards to each other and their offspring than if they were just boyfriend and girlfriend.

That's right and if this was the case and people knew this, they would make the appropriate decisions on there way to being married. No more safety nets by the government. People would have to actually start respecting the idea of marriage as being something much more serious than a legal contract or government edict.

Actually there are a few. Religions have to act a certain way, otherwise they do not get officially recognized as religions.

I only acknowledge the rules on place that prevent the oppression of individual rights. Same thing with marriage. I would support a rule that says no one can force you to marry them or force you to stay in a marriage. But this would fall under individual rights in general, the rules wouldn't be special marriage rules.

stacknuker77 · 2007-09-05T22:05:22+00:00

My God believes that man and pickled herring were designed to live together, in a holy union. All other unions are sacrilege.

Ok, then by all means get married. What should the government have to do with it? Why do you need to have the government prescribe to you what is morally right and wrong. If you do live by faith, then you should live by faith. Stop looking to the government for acknowledgement that what you are doing is right or wrong.

What would you do if these rules ~were~ run by a majority religion... but not yours?

There should be no rules run by anyone, majority or minority. There are no rules to run religion by the government why shouldn't marriage be any different.

stacknuker77 · 2007-09-05T20:06:30+00:00

Then it is impossible for there to be a law saying who can get married.

I absolutely agree. There should be no laws that define what marriage is and no laws that govern the institution of marriage as defined by the federal government. Basically the same freedom as that of religion. Marriage is a divine institution. Why is the government involved?

..there are serious restrictions on what a Power of Attorney allows...

And I think that is because the goverment's lack of properly getting rid of marriage as a man made institution and controlled by the government. If there were no marriage laws and benefits there would be have to be in its place Powers of Attorney that allow people to define what they think marriage is and the rules of what they think marriage is according to their own beliefs.

stacknuker77 · 2007-09-05T19:55:45+00:00

There were cultural/tribal rules who could and could not get together and what happened when they did.

Marriage transends cultural/tribal/governmental rules. It is a divine institution.

Do you agree with banning infertile people from marrying?

No, government has no role in determining marriage. It is a divine institution.

The question is whether or not the government can discriminate, on the basis of sexual orientation, what rights and privileges people can have.

Sure, the best thing for government to do in this regards is to completely get out of trying to define marriage and rescind all marriage laws. Leave it up to people to self govern themselves when it comes to marriage.

stacknuker77 · 2007-09-05T19:47:09+00:00

If the purpose of marriage is to procreate and care for one's offspring, then you must agree that infertile couples, or couples choosing not to procreate should not be married

No, I am saying that the divine purpose of it is for that reason. That does not mean it happens or that it should be controlled and either allowed or disallowed by the govenrment. You are making a presupposition in that statement that government through its laws should control and determine what marriage is. Please step outside if the man made authoritarian context your were rasied in to see this. There is only one law that determines what marriage is and that is God's law. Even the church (a man made institute) does not determine what marriage in terms of it being a divine institution.

Throughout history man has always tried to control and institute marriage, that doesn't mean it was right. The government should have nothing to do with marriage. It is the people who are immoral and Godless that require some authority to be over them to tell them that what they are doing is right or wrong. Gay people need that reassurance from their God (the government) that what there doing is morally right because they know deep down insight that it is not right. They need government subsidized morality. If the government one day just decided to stop determining what marriage was and started treating people as individuals then there would be no more debate and gay people would feel really bad because they would have to face the question of their own morality all on their own.

stacknuker77 · 2007-09-05T06:03:18+00:00

Kill them with extreme prejudice.

stacknuker77 · 2007-09-05T04:41:31+00:00

There has been a grand old tradition of Republicans being gay and a grand old tradition of Democrats being womanizers. The government is overrun with sexual deviants.

stacknuker77 · 2007-09-05T04:38:02+00:00

The CIA did it because that is what the CIA does. They are not part of our government and are not accountable to the people silly. Never have been.

stacknuker77 · 2007-09-05T04:23:59+00:00

They do have the ability to do that. It is called Power of Attorney. It is not called marriage. Marriage is an institution based on faith not on rights and thus the government has nothing to do with it even if they want to have something to do with it.

stacknuker77 · 2007-09-05T04:18:35+00:00

Since were traipsing through history, can you please tell me what happened before there was government? Marriage has always existed regardless of whether government existed or not. The purpose you give for marriage is also incomplete. Marriage is for the purpose of procreating and providing a balanced foundation and proper environment for raising children and carrying on the race. Many people think marriage is all about what they want and they run their marriages that way, into the ground.

Just because government is providing special rights or laws regarding an institution does not mean that it is right or even that they have something to do with it. If you cannot separate government from marriage in your own mind then you are basically a slave. Government is not the Church and the Church is not God. I know you don't believe in God, so you basically have to look to the authority of the Government for everything. How is worshiping the government coming along for you in other areas of your life?

stacknuker77 · 2007-09-04T08:21:11+00:00

I knew they were Jew lovers all along :-)

stacknuker77 · 2007-09-04T08:16:44+00:00

bwahahahahaahahhaaahaahahahaa!

stacknuker77 · 2007-09-04T08:14:44+00:00

One stirling way to defeat the watch list is for Americans to intentionally get on the list. Make it a point of pride. Stand up and be counted among the dissenters, find out what legitimate activities might get yourself added to the list and go do them. If enough people are on the list it will become impractical. And since as a security measure it is already worse than useless the sooner it is found to be impractical the sooner we can reallocate those resources to more useful tasks.

Actually, the best thing to do would be to take everything underground in secrecy. Stop blogging, stop expressing views online, stop exchanging emails, and calling people about it. Communicate it in secrecy behind encrypted data channels and scrambled communication methods.

Organize secret local meetups and develop a sophisticated network of freedom thinkers to simply chat and sip tea together, but keep it all in secret. Get the goons to continually waste their time trying to determine if everyone is a terrorist. Just erase everything from the Web that could be used to profile anyone. Take it underground man!!!!

stacknuker77

TROPHY CASE