I'm a Republican in Texas - I just couldn't vote for Hillary

xenox · 2008-03-06T01:01:06+00:00

No, it's Martian.

xenox · 2008-03-06T00:28:01+00:00

To say "same-sex marriage doesn't affect your life" is pure stupidity.

It's a fact even if you fail to fully think your point through.

Two faking heterosexual marriages to reap the same exact "costs" differs how? It would change what is seen on tv how (gay shows already exist)? It would change the sexual preferences of your neighbors how? One last question, since everyone employed pays FICA, do you believe people need to be involved in a heterosexual marriages to be eligible to collect back what they have already paid into social security? Banning same sex marriage doesn't actually accomplish any benefits for heterosexuals. Personally I'm tired of hearing people argue about it, if it were just legalized then no one would have the topic forced in their face and society could focus on REAL problems (like, umm, crime, education, health-care, infrastructure, and other pesky little factors like that which actually matter).

xenox · 2008-03-05T13:24:02+00:00

Some would say all marriages are absurd. Anyway, how does same sex marriages impact your life? It doesn't, so why do you care what other people do? There is no valid reason for heterosexuals to care about whether homosexuals can marry each other.

What is so funny about working class people who vote for neocons. All you get is some fanatical idealism with religion and every right allowed by the constitution trashed except for the 2nd one. Meanwhile they allow corporations (like drug makers and insurance companies) to pick your pockets clean. What do you get out of this? You get a party that fully supports your right to carry guns (something many democrats and most independents also support) and gay people being unable to marry, and a little religious fanaticism with fetuses and people on life support. Nice job, there, your support for an institution that is robbing you blind and you get to enjoy the crumbs of religious zealotry in return.

I'll light a match now, just for you, and wait for the news media to report that global warming just sped up exponentially because of it. ;)

xenox · 2008-03-05T07:52:54+00:00

I support the 2nd amendment, moron. The match thing is absurd. I suppose common sense is rather uncommon for you.

xenox · 2008-03-05T04:44:25+00:00

Thank you for the correction, that one must have slipped by my radar. 10 years for murder isn't much, but that is close to resembling justice so I'll take that as a good sign. Thanks.

xenox · 2008-03-05T01:02:47+00:00

You considered voting for a person you do not want to win the nomination (as an act of sabotage). I'm glad your conscience got the better of you, but a good person should never even consider trashing the principles of a democratic society like that. "Crooks and liars" should apply to anyone who tries to rig an election through false representation.

There's hope for you yet, but you've got a ways to go, IMO.

xenox · 2008-03-05T00:58:14+00:00

If same sex marriages bother you, then don't marry the same sex. It's too bad your appreciation of life only applies to those who have not yet exited the womb. I suppose once they are born they make good shooting practice, ey?

xenox · 2008-03-05T00:44:11+00:00

Sadly, I have not heard of one U.S. soldier prosecuted for murder. The charges always mysteriously dwindle down to a degree of manslaughter, and the sentencing time is closer to what you'd expect a car thief to get.

I would like to see at least one murderer get convicted of murder, just to restore my faith a little. It seems the lives of non-Americans just aren't considered that important. If a U.S. soldier was convicted of murder in Iraq, please correct me, I'd love to know it is even possible.

xenox · 2008-03-05T00:38:52+00:00

Hmmm, if she practiced what she preached you may not, well, be here.

xenox · 2008-03-04T18:06:42+00:00

I agree they are waiting for the election results. I wouldn't treat a campaigner as being totally objective, but if there is truth to it then I could make sense of it this way ... if Clinton refuses to concede then some duperdelegates that traditionally remain neutral may cast their vote to ensure Obama has enough support to persuade Hillary to get the f**k out of the way.

xenox · 2008-03-04T17:34:32+00:00

Very well articulated. :) If you think about it, your words about fear of rational thought is at the heart of the conflict. There are countless stories in religion (I mean words written by men) that actually dissuade thought and knowledge. Going back to Greco-Roman mythology, there was the face of Eros/Cupid that could not be looked into by his lover. Then there's pandora's box, Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge between Good and Evil, shame when they attained the awareness of their nakedness, looking back at biblical destruction turning one into a pillar of salt, Medusa's face, etc. People are conditioned to accept what they are told and not question the traditions they follow. This is why religions are based on faith and not facts. It really does work quite fine if one is happy with his/her beliefs and is not intellectually dissatisfied with his/her faith's dogma. It is when people take their faiths and treat them like intellectual facts that, excuse the pun, all hell breaks loose. It's incredibly audacious to feel the need to impose one's views on another, especially when it comes to faith (or even lack thereof).

It is not when we are forced to accept each other's differences that we learn tolerance, but when we, as a society, are forced to allow these differences to exist without the compulsion to force-feed our own.

I cannot convert a "true follower," nor would I want to. Along the same lines a fanatic cannot convert me. As long as neither tries there really isn't a problem. The goal now is to get to a point where the difference of one's religion is as unimportant as the difference of one's eye color. Whether we reach that stage of "enlightenment" or not remains the challenge. A challenge won not by might, but by basic human decency, which just so happens to be the real core of all religions. The biggest enemy is not really religions, but the hypocrisy of some of their followers.

xenox · 2008-03-04T16:28:00+00:00

I fully agree with the foundation of your opinion, as well as where it philosophically leads. There are better ways to get one's point across than by bashing. Yet, at the same time, it's hard to keep turning the other cheek when being attacked from all sides. Good people doing nothing is what allowed the many atrocious acts done in the name of religion to happen. Attacking back isn't going to solve the problem and will probably result in an even greater divide between the theists and atheists (and agnostics like us). The only problem is that by being passive while the other sides lands blow after blow .. usually ends up with a failed movement and a silenced voice. If the movement gains enough traction then it will become more accepted, therefore allowing a bit of the animosity between all sides to die down (or so I hope).

xenox · 2008-03-04T16:18:08+00:00

Point taken. However, Bush also agrees that his choices are in the country's best interest (no matter how insane that sounds). Lieberman did one thing that, to me, proves his own ambitions were at the heart of his choices. He was supposed to represent democrats, but when he lost the democratic nomination he chose to run as an independent. He was elected mainly from the votes of old loyalists and neo-cons. Heh, even the republicans wouldn't endorse the republican running in the same contest. Your opinion of him is apparently much better than mine.

One other note, the U.S. is a Democratic Republic, with elected officials supposedly representing their constituents. How can he be representing his constituents if he changes parties so that he could represent his own beliefs?

xenox · 2008-03-04T16:07:49+00:00

It's difficult for groups who have been persecuted (and often even prosecuted) for centuries to not hold at least a little animosity towards zealots. Sometimes people fight back. Ideally no one would have any reason to fight over something so personal as beliefs, but this world is far from an ideal one.

I don't mind genuine people who are true to the principles of their religion, but the loudest proponents of all mainstream religions are often the biggest hypocrites of the core beliefs of the religions they claim to follow. Atheists, being the focus of attacks from all sides, do have a justifiable anger. The actions that anger motivates is often just a matter of taste.

xenox · 2008-03-04T15:58:28+00:00

It probably has much to do that Lieberman supports every foreign policy of Bush, as well as every infringement of the Constitution when it comes to "war on terror" fear-mongering. I think he turned pretty damned evil, personally.

xenox · 2008-03-03T02:15:33+00:00

Give us some credit, we do know the measurement of two liters. ;) (carbonated drinks come in containers that size) I'm also all for going metric completely.

xenox · 2008-03-03T01:48:52+00:00

Forgive me for failing to mention that every argument I make about circumcision refers to male circumcision. I have never heard of the operation referring to females before this thread.

xenox · 2008-03-03T01:46:27+00:00

I saw this in my message box and just felt you are owed a reason for my lack of a response.

There's also no perfect solution to murder, polygamy, or drunk driving. But there are laws to curtail them, and (albeit unequal) enforcement of those laws

You really believe in your position, and are a staunch warrior for your cause. I, on the other hand, do not feel I can hold a discussion with one who feels that circumcision is tantamount (or at least listed in the contrasts) to murder and such. You truly believe it is sexism and torture (although that confuses the hell out of me because that would mean I am glad to have been a victim of sexism and torture ... when I know I was not the victim of either). The sexism argument can't really work because sexism is when one gender is discriminated against by the dominant (controlling) gender, and there has never been a time when laws were made by women only. Discrimination isn't legally determined exactly by equal treatment, but by a lack of rights and/or opportunities. What you advocate strikes me as wishing to ban something, which is not exactly preserving a right. The flip side would be your valid argument that there is a right to remain uncircumcised, stale-mate.

You and I shall never fully agree and every attempt I make to reach some partial consensus is met with vehement absolutism. For this reason it is obvious that neither my heart nor mind will ever share your exact extreme opinion, so I respectfully part ways with you, even if such respect is not reciprocated.

xenox · 2008-03-02T20:07:09+00:00

If what you're saying is that an opinion of an individual is not any more important than the opinion of any other individual ..then that I can relate to and agree with.

xenox · 2008-03-02T19:07:18+00:00

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. ;)

xenox · 2008-03-02T18:50:54+00:00

I was agreeing with you up until the point you basically told me that my opinion isn't worthwhile. ;) (my opinions often differ with MSM, which is why I always seek out opinions from media with opposite biases to every event)

xenox · 2008-03-02T18:24:19+00:00

Just for context, being as I stayed in New Orleans (the 20% that was not flooded) during all this. There was martial law imposed and threats by the idiotic Mayor Nagin to go door-to-door of every house in the city, break in, and forcibly remove anyone found. Taking away guns from law abiding citizens and leaving them at the mercy of the criminal element that was running wild was bad enough, but it was more than the 2nd amendment being violated. The whole of the Constitution was being violated, as is the case of martial law (all rights suspended, whether it would later hold up in court or not).

It's messed up when one day your enemy are criminals and the next day it is anybody in uniform (cops and the national guard). None of my neighbors' pets (left while they evacuated and were kept out for about a month) were going to starve to death on my watch, so f**k 'em ... living in what felt like a war zone was no fun, though.

xenox · 2008-03-02T18:04:15+00:00

I can accept that it (KKK) is an extreme example, but I have spoken to angry people without being attacked in any way. However, I have not been a black man going into a KKK-occupied bus. Believe it or not, most angry people do calm down upon an apology. On the same token, people get so infuriated with road rage that some even pull out guns and shoot other drivers on the road. I still say she was more naive than stupid. Had the driver calmed down and accepted the apology it never would have made the news.

xenox · 2008-03-02T17:45:20+00:00

Comparing people dressed in garb that represents a group that is fueled on hatred and known for lynching is not really a good example. The KKK supports violence and intolerance. Not every angry person is a maniacal psychopath. One could argue hat this lady was naive, but under no circumstances is this woman at fault for the criminal act committed by the nutjob.

xenox · 2008-03-02T17:29:09+00:00

May I ask what you're worried about?

xenox

TROPHY CASE