The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Countertrey wrote:You state this as if you have some special insight.

Quite frankly, I feel I do. I say this based on personal experiences acquired over two decades and I will leave it at that.

Negative advertisement and negative campaigns are so far engrained in the US political mass psyche that each side feels an obligation to justify the ineptitude of their candidates through a relative comparison against the worst members and candidates of the opposite side. A technique that unfortunately works well in the polls in the US and it is straddling into other countries.

My point is different but largely misperceived in this discussion:

1. Why each party seems destined to make and elect the worst nominees instead of the best on BOTH sides of the isle?

2. Some of you seem to forget that, once upon a time in America, candidates from one party used to be swayed to vote for a candidate in another party. Remember the Reagan conservative southern democrats?

3. My point is that, politics seem to be so polarised and engaged in so negative campaigning that one cannot watch news with the slightest effort of balance. If you watch Fox, you know what you are going to get and if you watch MSNBC, you do on the other side. When the media does not make an effort to provide balanced scrutiny, it loses or should lose whatever credibility it had before.

4.. All efforts made to save the reputation of a bad or incompetent politician by comparing it with another bad or worse on the other side of the isle, does not make anyone any better.

From my angle, I have actually MET and WORKED with people I strongly disagree with politically and ideologically but they are honest, intelligent and competent. I have also worked with people I agree with but they might not have all those qualifications. Given this difficult choice, I will take the first group. That is what conservative democrats did back in the day.

To be fair: Joe Biden would make a joke of a President but so would Sarah Palin.

The key question is not an argument about who is worse! The argument is why a nation with so many brilliant people can come down to these types of terrible choices?

So, CT, you want to make fun of Joe? Be my GUEST. Nobody could argue that he is "improving" either.

I hope my point is made now.

Redskin in Canada wrote:The key question is not an argument about who is worse! The argument is why a nation with so many brilliant people can come down to these types of terrible choices?

Agreed on this. Our candidates are horrible. The problem is that with only two viable choices, it's easier to tear down your opponent then it is to build yourself up. And that's what they do endlessly. The war between two and only two parties has caused each to become more lock step and sharper in it's rhetoric because anything that helps your opponent harms you when there are only the two options.

But regarding Palin, my issue is that while when we raise it there will be a grudging agreement that people like Biden are as bad as Palin, the attacks on her are relentless and the attacks on them aren't there. Why is that?

Biden was forced down...by a snowstorm...and said it was the Taliban. Hillary was shot at in Afghanistan...according to her...and yet no one else in her party was. She also joked she met Ghandi running a gas station in St. Louis. John Kerry said he was on a boat on river at Christmas between Cambodia and Vietnam when there is no river there and he wasn't in Vietnam at Christmas. He claimed to have thrown the ribbons he still had over the white house fence and forgot that he actually hadn't run the Boston Marathon. Bill Clinton was a black president. Al Gore "created" the internet. He said as a candidate he was outraged HW hadn't removed Saddam in GWI while at the time he strenuously supported him for it.

The list goes on and on, and yet somehow while there's agreement they are as bad, it just isn't brought up. While Palin is endlessly. If the issue is just that we have bad candidates (which we do), why is that exactly that only one side of them are actually attacked like that?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:The key question is not an argument about who is worse! The argument is why a nation with so many brilliant people can come down to these types of terrible choices?

Its pretty simple really. There are good candidates, with good values and who generally want to change the nation for the better. Those candidates however have no money to campaign so you will never hear of them. The candidates you will hear about are those funded by corrupted big businesses. Unfortunately this has been going on for a long time and it's only getting worse.

I understand that most of you know this, I get frustrated with it all too.

Obama preached a lot of change and had an agenda he sold the country on but added troops to Iraq and Afghanistan and then spent money like a Saudi princess. The president has a lot of prestige but just how much can he really do?

We could basically have a ragged out transvestite hooker from P street in office and nothing would change.

ATX_Skins wrote:The candidates you will hear about are those funded by corrupted big businesses

Right, it's just big business. No mention of unions or other so called special interest groups like environmental, NOW, NAACP, MoveOn or others that primarily support left candidates. It's just big business causing the problem...

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:The candidates you will hear about are those funded by corrupted big businesses

Right, it's just big business. No mention of unions or other so called special interest groups like environmental, NOW, NAACP, MoveOn or others that primarily support left candidates. It's just big business causing the problem...

To be fair:

FUNDING is the key aspect in most political campaigns. It has become the key to the ability to get a positive or negative message across. It has been said that the Senate is the most exclusive millionaire club in America. Judging from the cost of a campaign at that level, it is probably true for BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

It is very dangerous to have a democracy heavily influenced by the ability to fund campaigns by right or left political special interest groups. Some even fund candidates on BOTH sides of an election to cover their bases.

There is a profound need for campaign reform.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:The candidates you will hear about are those funded by corrupted big businesses

Right, it's just big business. No mention of unions or other so called special interest groups like environmental, NOW, NAACP, MoveOn or others that primarily support left candidates. It's just big business causing the problem...

To be fair:

FUNDING is the key aspect in most political campaigns. It has become the key to the ability to get a positive or negative message across. It has been said that the Senate is the most exclusive millionaire club in America. Judging from the cost of a campaign at that level, it is probably true for BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

It is very dangerous to have a democracy heavily influenced by the ability to fund campaigns by right or left political special interest groups. Some even fund candidates on BOTH sides of an election to cover their bases.

There is a profound need for campaign reform.

Agreed, as you say it's "special interests" in general. Business is clearly special interest and part of the problem, but just as clearly it's not the only one and it was ridiculous for that to have been stated as if they were.

The way I would do campaign finance in the US would be to have the following three simple rules.

1) Only American citizens and free associations of American citizens can contribute to candidates. No corporations or foreign interests. Only unions with voluntary memberships can contribute. If you're forced to join the union when to accept a job then they can't. Charities/organizations must document their contributors if they provide funding to candidates and show they are following the rules.

2) There would be no income tax deduction. I'd eliminate income taxes all together but that's another story.

3) There would be no cap on contributions. However, for all contributions the true source of the money must me filed and publicly disclosed. So, Bill Gates could give $1 million to a candidate as long as he discloses that. If he hides the contribution by funneling it through other people to hide it was his money he goes to jail. If he just accurately discloses he gave it it's fine. Then if Republicans don't like his giving a Democrat a mil, then it's on them to make the public care that Bill Gates did that and vote against his candidate.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:The candidates you will hear about are those funded by corrupted big businesses

Right, it's just big business. No mention of unions or other so called special interest groups like environmental, NOW, NAACP, MoveOn or others that primarily support left candidates. It's just big business causing the problem...

I didn't say it was just big businesses, but that is pretty much the issue here. If Pepsi employs 100,000 illegal immigrants at their factories do you think they will donate millions to a candidate who wants to lock down borders and find illegals...? The answer is no.

Of course there are other factors but money gets you noticed. Many candidates have had to stop a competitive campaign simply because they could no longer finance it.

Do you really think I am that far off to laugh at??? Do you really think environmental groups have the money major corporations do?

Here is a list of Obama's top financial contributors during his 2008 campaign:

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835

Who's laughing now...

FYI, organizations like the NAACP and environmental groups are more influential tools than financial aids.

ATX_Skins wrote:I didn't say it was just big businesses, but that is pretty much the issue here

Actually you did, and repeated it in the sentence you were denying you said it and included the quote you said it in your post. You are funny. Here it is again.

ATX_Skins wrote:The candidates you will hear about are those funded by corrupted big businesses

ATX_Skins wrote:Here is a list of Obama's top financial contributors during his 2008 campaign:

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835

Who's laughing now...

I said big business is a special interest and part of the problem. Expounding on that they are "a" problem doesn't contradict my statement they are only one of the problems. And providing a list of "top" contributors (which BTW includes a variety of universities) for one candidate doesn't prove it's only corporations either, as you claimed twice now, including in the sentence you denied saying it.

To answer your question, I'm laughing now...

ATX_Skins wrote:FYI, organizations like the NAACP and environmental groups are more influential tools than financial aids.

We were discussing the influences that are affecting our elections. The only one who specifically reduced the measurement of impact on elections to campaign contributions was you. Though they raise a lot more money for candidates then you're recognizing them for as well. That they raise money on behalf of Democrats doesn't count in your chart because your chart would state the donor and not the fundraiser. They provide significant funding to elections as well, but it's spread between candidates. Again a top donor list of one candidate doesn't reflect that.

The NAACP and the major environmental groups do nothing for their causes, they are just arms of the Democratic party. My sister, a hard left liberal quit the Sierra Club where she was in the leadership of her local chapter because she couldn't get them to care about relevant environmental issues, which is why she joined. She's all for electing Democrats, but unlike the Sierra Club she was committing the time for the actual environment. When you read their websites, they are just advertisements for the Democratic party. They criticize Democrats nowhere and compliment Republicans nowhere

At least the NRA actually cares about gun rights

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:FYI, organizations like the NAACP and environmental groups are more influential tools than financial aids.

We were discussing the influences that are affecting our elections. The only one who specifically reduced the measurement of impact on elections to campaign contributions was you. Though they raise a lot more money for candidates then you're recognizing them for as well. That they raise money on behalf of Democrats doesn't count in your chart because your chart would state the donor and not the fundraiser. They provide significant funding to elections as well, but it's spread between candidates. Again a top donor list of one candidate doesn't reflect that.

The NAACP and the major environmental groups do nothing for their causes, they are just arms of the Democratic party. My sister, a hard left liberal quit the Sierra Club where she was in the leadership of her local chapter because she couldn't get them to care about relevant environmental issues, which is why she joined. She's all for electing Democrats, but unlike the Sierra Club she was committing the time for the actual environment. When you read their websites, they are just advertisements for the Democratic party. They criticize Democrats nowhere and compliment Republicans nowhere

At least the NRA actually cares about gun rights

Yes, you guys were discussing the influences affecting our elections, I was not. I was answering a specific question. I still feel as though my answer "money", holds true. Of course I know that fundraisers may not be on a top donor chart. Big corrupt businesses however are. I'm just backing what I said previously.

I also stated that groups you have mentioned are tools for candidates, which you have also said in the above post. Why my original answer is so funny to you puzzles me...

We are on the same page here, I think you are just digging at me for the sake of being on a forum and arguing. I also understand this because you have done this to me before. I don't hate you Kaz, I just think, you think you are smarter than everyone else. +1 btw for the NRA.

Also, please copy and paste the sentence that has "big businesses" and "only problem" at the same time.

You are digging Kaz....

Sorry, Kaz, but it does seem a bit like when you mention unions and liberal PACs, you don't think you're precluding big business. But when someone mentions big business you assume they are saying the problem is "just big business."

Irn-Bru wrote:Sorry, Kaz, but it does seem a bit like when you mention unions and liberal PACs, you don't think you're precluding big business. But when someone mentions big business you assume they are saying the problem is "just big business."

His quote didn't say big business was part of the problem, it said the problem was big business. As for my not including big business:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Agreed, as you say it's "special interests" in general. Business is clearly special interest and part of the problem, but just as clearly it's not the only one and it was ridiculous for that to have been stated as if they were

I also said I would prohibit business from contributing to any campaign. I said I would not prohibit special interests as long as they were voluntary and domestic.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Cappster wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:OK, so Sarah, former VP candidate, says as Alaska governor that her State bordered Russia is international experience. A stretch? Yep. How's it compared our actual elected VP?

Joe Biden: Look, John's last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S

Joe Biden: If you want to know where Al Qaeda lives, you want to know where Bin Laden is, come back to Afghanistan with me. Come back to the area where my helicopter was forced down, with a three-star general and three senators at 10,500 feet in the middle of those mountains. I can tell you where they are.

BTW, his helecopter was forced down by a snowstorm...

Joe Biden is a jackass, but this thread is about Palin and her political ineptitude...at least that is what it turned out to be.

Comparing people to Palin and discussing the double standard between how Palin and other politicians are treated isn't about Palin...in the thread I started about Palin...

...Noted.

She has improved. She was a neophyte, now she's OK. But that's scary. we can't risk someone not polished with the press, they may screw things up. Of course liberals get a pass. But we're in a real mess right now, we can't risk anyone but a polished politician (or a liberal), I see your point.

I'm trying to remember, who created this mess?

I'm drawing a blank.

Don't be a weenie Kaz. If you want to say she isn't "polished with the press" in lieu of her lack of knowledge then go ahead, but I, for one, am not fooled. Palin is an easy target, because she makes herself an easy target. If she doesn't like answering "tough" questions from the liberal media then she shouldn't grant interviews with said media. I just hope for the Republicans sake that they nominate someone who actually stands a chance of winning an election. Nominating Palin on the Republican ticket would be a layup for another reelection bid for Obama. I have family that is getting drunk off of the Palin Kool aid and if she wasn't physically pretty, no one would give her the time of day.

Cappster wrote:

funbuncher wrote:Man, I had no idea hogs.net had a non-football forum.

Kazoo, your patience was on full display in this thread bro. Cappster, your ignorance and bias was on full display as well. why don't you just own it dude? Why pretend you're not a lib? every lib I know fancies themselves an independent. ride the fence too long and your crotch gets sore. Kazoo i'd footnote it if I knew who said it first. ha

Has anyone ever noticed that almost no one will ever admit to being a liberal, but at the same time plenty of folks are quick to jump in and "spew" (hat-tip Cappster) liberal talking points? meanwhile, a libertarian or conservative is ALWAYS proud to tell you exactly what they are and what they believe. you ask for examples of what they'd do different and they present you with their list. lol

Kazoo touched on this earlier. Liberalism is indefensible if you look to close, so the only strategy available is to smear the other side. call names and try to shift the focus to something irrelevent like racism. the race card is a signal that the liberal is out of ammo. I got nothing here, what the hell, you're a racist. This would never work except that is it aided by ridiculously complicit media.

Cappster, buddy, listen man, the tea party is not racist. they really aren't. they just want smaller govt. not that controversial. just because a bunch of people repeat the same lie, it doesn't make it true. There is enough racism in this world that needs to be stood up to without conjuring it where it doesn't exist. that only marginalizes actual victims of racism.

The history of liberalism in the world is failure after failure. Failures that often end in oppression and even genocide. Meanwhile conservatism is as American as apple pie, or better yet, pecan pie. Conservatism is the story of American Exceptionalism (hat tip Rush). The closer you look the better it sounds. The reason 30 million people listen to Rush is not because there are 30 million racists morons out there Cappster. it's because the message rings true. There is nothing to hide. you don't have to check your common sense at the door, or do mental gymnastics to "fool" anyone in a debate. Conservatism sells itself. The founding father's vision of the size and role of govt in this country is quite obvious if you read anything they wrote. They're spinning in the graves right now, but it's not over yet. The pendulum is swinging hard as the main-stream media is losing market share.

So it sounds like you are far right wing tea sipper as well. See, this is the problem with the country. You can only be considered some form of republican or liberal, but to hell if one can think for themselves. And on a side note, I've never voted for a liberal candidate. Anyway, I stated that the people I knew who were tea partiers are, indeed, prejudice against non-whites. I see nothing from the rest of the tea party that would make believe they are not all about protecting white privilege. And you want to talk about the size of the government? Both republicans and democrats have increased the size of government and neither side is willing to give their power back to the individual citizens.

spare me your indignation for not being appreciated as a most righteous and open-minded independant. I've got some news for you... independants are not considered unique anywhere but in their own minds. they are a dime a dozen, and their often times barely informed votes tend to decide elections in this country. Guess who suffers? the country. independants elected our current clueless, inexperienced lib college proffessor with extremist friends and views into office, and the results are on full display daily for the few of us who apparently enjoy pain and click on the headlines everyday with one eye closed.

A large majority of the population pays no attention to what the president or congress (or SCOTUS for thast matter) is actually doing until election time. They'll make their decison based on random, almost irrelevant issues. for example, last election, my mother-n-law told me that "McCain was too old and Obama won't wear the flag pin, so she'd probably flip a coin. Another friend of mine fully believes that Bush orchestrated 9-11 and he pointed me to a youtube video as proof. Their vote counts just as much as mine. They both claim no party affiliations, as this would apparenlty blur their keen political eye.

Most of these folks fancy themselves more open minded than us "sheep" who tend to follow a party. Now I may be generalizing a bit here, because certainly there are some independents who are engaged, but just conflicted. I just picked you out as a closet lib claiming to be an independant due to the zeal with whcih you attacked Palin using lib talking points.

Palin gave goofy answers because she was/is still largely unpolished "politically". Well guess what, she's not a career politician, and most of you independants tend to claim that you don't even like politicians so it would seem that an evryman like her would be right up your alley. And as "stupid" as you think she is, I'd bet my balls that she would wipe the floor with you in a political debate, political aptitude test, current events test, world geography tiddly winks or whatever. How well would you have done in that Couric interview Cappster? Her record as Governor speaks for itself. How many state budgets have you and Couric balanced? Now this doesn't necessarily mean she's a viable candidate for POTUS, but it should be enough to keep posers like you from calling her stupid.

also... FYI

Leviticus 20:13

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Those are the words of God. As you can see, He's not so concerned with political correctness. If you have a problem with His word, you will have the opportunity to take it up with him, instead of holding it against the far right.

And the comment about you "see nothing from the rest of the tea-party... (besides your racist friends/acquaintences), that would make you believe they are not all about protecting white priviledge"? What? after all the talk you hear from tea-partiers begging you to actually listen to what they're about, you see nothing that would lead you to believe that we aren't just in it to help whitey, and hold down the black man? you are purposely putting your head in the sand. you're so concerned about race yourself, I'm just guessing here, but you're black? dude, let it go. it will be a thing of the past a lot sooner if we let it.

^^^ Religion should have no place in politics...

spare me your indignation for not being appreciated as a most righteous and open-minded independant. I've got some news for you... independants are not considered unique anywhere but in their own minds. they are a dime a dozen, and their often times barely informed votes tend to decide elections in this country. Guess who suffers? the country. independants elected our current clueless, inexperienced lib college proffessor with extremist friends and views into office, and the results are on full display daily for the few of us who apparently enjoy pain and click on the headlines everyday with one eye closed.

Independents are not unique, but they help decide this country's elections? Seems kind of a counter point on yourself there. The rest of what you said is rhetorical speak.

A large majority of the population pays no attention to what the president or congress (or SCOTUS for thast matter) is actually doing until election time. They'll make their decison based on random, almost irrelevant issues. for example, last election, my mother-n-law told me that "McCain was too old and Obama won't wear the flag pin, so she'd probably flip a coin. Another friend of mine fully believes that Bush orchestrated 9-11 and he pointed me to a youtube video as proof. Their vote counts just as much as mine. They both claim no party affiliations, as this would apparenlty blur their keen political eye.

I'll give you the fact that people are ignorant and have some really dumb reasoning as to why they vote certain ways, but that is the society in which we live. And in republics where the people elect their representatives that is what you get..."representatives" of the people.

Most of these folks fancy themselves more open minded than us "sheep" who tend to follow a party. Now I may be generalizing a bit here, because certainly there are some independents who are engaged, but just conflicted. I just picked you out as a closet lib claiming to be an independant due to the zeal with whcih you attacked Palin using lib talking points.

I am an independent and I view Palin to be a joke. I mean she is good at using her looks to sway viagra popping republicans to be influenced under her Medusa like powers. It seems as though you have a crush on her and that is why you profusely defend her.

Palin gave goofy answers because she was/is still largely unpolished "politically". Well guess what, she's not a career politician, and most of you independants tend to claim that you don't even like politicians so it would seem that an evryman like her would be right up your alley. And as "stupid" as you think she is, I'd bet my balls that she would wipe the floor with you in a political debate, political aptitude test, current events test, world geography tiddly winks or whatever. How well would you have done in that Couric interview Cappster? Her record as Governor speaks for itself. How many state budgets have you and Couric balanced? Now this doesn't necessarily mean she's a viable candidate for POTUS, but it should be enough to keep posers like you from calling her stupid.

Goofy is not a good word substitute for ignorant. Being unpolished is one thing, but not knowing what you are talking about is another. Even an unpolished politician can give simple answers to what magazines they read (and I could answer that question from Couric). And lets not get all excited about "oh, she ran a state." Alaska's population is about that of Fairfax county so by that logic Bob McDonnell is 10x more qualified for presidency. Palin is the only poser funbuncher and too bad she isn't doing it for playboy.

also... FYI

Leviticus 20:13

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Those are the words of God. As you can see, He's not so concerned with political correctness. If you have a problem with His word, you will have the opportunity to take it up with him, instead of holding it against the far right.

The supreme law of the land is the US Constitution. Religion is the choice people make to be the supreme law over their lives. Like ATX said, religion and politics need to be separate, because your God is not necessarily the God of everyone else. Throw out all of the Bible quotes you won't, but it's not going to help your argument.

And the comment about you "see nothing from the rest of the tea-party... (besides your racist friends/acquaintences), that would make you believe they are not all about protecting white priviledge"? What? after all the talk you hear from tea-partiers begging you to actually listen to what they're about, you see nothing that would lead you to believe that we aren't just in it to help whitey, and hold down the black man? you are purposely putting your head in the sand. you're so concerned about race yourself, I'm just guessing here, but you're black? dude, let it go. it will be a thing of the past a lot sooner if we let it.

I stand by my statement. Those with prejudice will rarely admit to having said feelings about another persons skin color, religion, etc... And you are wrong, I am white. I do, however, have strong ties to the black community which allows me a "unique" perspective on social issues.

ATX_Skins wrote:^^^ Religion should have no place in politics...

I'm agnostic... but, if I were religious, I suspect I'd disagree. Your opinion on this has no more weight... and would be no more correct... than a fundamentalist who says religion must be considered when considering laws and candidates.

Countertrey wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:^^^ Religion should have no place in politics...

I'm agnostic... but, if I were religious, I suspect I'd disagree. Your opinion on this has no more weight... and would be no more correct... than a fundamentalist who says religion must be considered when considering laws and candidates.

But, you are not religious, and I am an Atheist. I see laws and candidates for what and who they are rather than a skewed perception through a religious lens. So that is my opinion, keep religion out of politics.

"But, if I were religious, I suspect I'd disagree". If I was born in Canada, I suspect I'd know how to ice skate.

I have a hard time taking fence riding agnostic people seriously. As much as I am not religious I admire the dedication of those who are.

ATX_Skins wrote:I have a hard time taking fence riding agnostic people seriously

It's fence sitting to not realize you actually don't know the great cosmic truth? There are lots of things that I don't know because I don't know them. I don't understand what's admirable about anyone claiming they know what they clearly don't on any subject.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:I have a hard time taking fence riding agnostic people seriously

It's fence sitting to not realize you actually don't know the great cosmic truth? There are lots of things that I don't know because I don't know them. I don't understand what's admirable about anyone claiming they know what they clearly don't on any subject.

Kaz, fence sitting/fence riding, same thing. Keep digging. I admire individuals who make a decision either way. Not sit in the middle and provoke pointless arguments like you do with your conspiracy theories.

I have already said I am an Atheist and that is where I stand. If you would like to discuss that, start another thread and I will be happy to discuss that with you.

I still say religion and politics should not share the same bed.


"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful"

- Seneca

ATX_Skins wrote:Kaz, fence sitting/fence riding, same thing. Keep digging. I admire individuals who make a decision either way. Not sit in the middle and provoke pointless arguments like you do with your conspiracy theories

Hmmm....can you give me an example of one of my "conspiracy theories?"

Countertrey wrote:Your opinion on this has no more weight... and would be no more correct... than a fundamentalist who says religion must be considered when considering laws and candidates.

The ONLY LITTLE problem is ...

... a fundamentalist will try to IMPOSE ITS TRUTHS on everybody.

Like most people I feel that fundamentalists have the right to express their views -among many other views- in a democratic society. Too bad they do not share that view, by definition, and they have a tendency to create teocracies and destroy democracies EVERYWHERE.

The rights of one person end where they curtail the rights of others. If religion had remained separate from government, the world would be in better shape in many countries.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:Kaz, fence sitting/fence riding, same thing. Keep digging. I admire individuals who make a decision either way. Not sit in the middle and provoke pointless arguments like you do with your conspiracy theories

Hmmm....can you give me an example of one of my "conspiracy theories?"

"How's government protecting you from reality working out for you?"

You believe that the gov't is purposely hiding the photos or actual death of Osama Bin Laden for the better good of the people.

However, don't get too wrapped around "conspiracy theories" as I was mostly poking fun. Let's get back to the discussion.