Surprised how few chimed in when it was noted JFK stated, "A rising tide lifts all boats" !!!

Must be an embarassment to modern day Dembastards, who are "bottom up" thinkers these days.

But that's to be expected from the party of bottom feeders!

You're quite welcome. I'm taking my que from the left these last eight years.

Reagan on the dangers of universal healthcare:

It's their new HUD project. The 28 million is simply a business expense to guarantee Democrat votes from the tenants come election time.

I guess approval of Clinton speeches is just too important an issue to vote "present" over.

Glad to see Obama is getting his priorities straight!

Ronald Reagan won the presidency by claiming 49 of 50 states.

Messiah Obama won the presidency by claiming only 28 of 57 states. We're still trying to figure out when the 7 additional states joined the union.

"A rising tide lifts all boats!" Ronald Reagan

"I'm not trying to punish you; I just want to spread the wealth around." Messiah Obama

Obama the next Reagan?

Time will tell.

I'm curious though! Does anyone here know how many times Reagan voted "present" when having to make a tough decision?

Yes, Jindal is a monster.

Now, because of his actions, it makes it more difficult for the entire state of LA to have a Marti Gras ethic informing its public policy and life.

What's a gay person to do?

Yes, let's side with the Islamists. Forget Israel and kiss up to Islam instead.

Yep, this board loves to court evil, and disparage the good.

....all so that we can have our gay sex and smoke dope.

Is Rosie O'donnell among the group?

Nuke gay whales for Jesus!

Scientists note a huge rift forming in Colorado River valley, with enormous gorge resulting! Some are calling it the grandest of canyons, and a sure sign that humanity must come together to save the planet!

One scientist was quoted to say, "Clearly the end of the world as we know it!"

story developing....

There was this guy. A US soldier in Gitmo who was asked to take part in a training excercise. Basically he was told to pretend to be a prisoner in order to help train one of the extraction teams who took unruly prisoners out of their cells.

#26 | Posted by dethspud

There was this guy??? LOL...LOL
Can't argue with that impeccable journalism.

And to be a Dembastard, one must have been born as a Thelidamide baby from yesteryear.

Boooo Hooooo! It only helped recruit more terrorists! Waaaaaa!

Bad evil gitmo! Baaaaaaad Gitmo!

It's better to be kind to terrorists than get information out of them, preventing a dirty bomb from going off. It's a matter of principle, you know.

And better not make 'em angry too. Then they might sign on to more terrorist activities. Just think how much better the Allies would have done against Germany if we'd have been nice to the Germans. I'm sure the war would have ended with handshakes on the battlefield.

Libtards have spoken!

I have to agree with many of the people on this one... You stir the pot then hide behind scripture without explaining yourself or Christ's gift.

Stop trying to be cute, stop trying to be witty and stop trying to come across as a biblical scholar. Be humble and address the issue of how some here are turned off from God because of your behavior.

Just screaming John 3:16 is not evangelical, nor very helpful, when confronted with a group of non-believers and seekers. You should know better.

Yes, if you embrace homosexuality and other forms of deviancy, that will make you a true Christian. Call evil good, and good evil, and that will make you a respectable and likeable Christian. Embrace not only the sinner, but tell him that when he indulges himself in all manner of ways he's just being the person God created him to be....and you will then be a Christian with great integrity.

What a joke!

Recount #1 - Coleman

Recount #2 - Coleman

Recount #3 - Coleman

Recount #4 - Coleman

Court Decision #1 - Coleman

Court Decision #2 - Coleman

Supreme Court Decision - Coleman

After all recounts have been completed, AND the courts have ruled, the Democrat conclusion will continue to be: Coleman stole the election!

Ya' gotta wonder what a legitimate win for Coleman would like for Dembastards?

Any Dembastards out there wanna chime in and tell us what that legitimate win would look like?

I also wonder if we'd be reading anything from you if the Indian vessel had been struck by the pirates, and Indian crewmen had been killed?

I doubt it. Such is the tragedy of conflict. But when tragedy happens on the other side, and fishermen get caught in the crossfire, why...it's a crime against humanity by evil imperial forces who are out to subjugate the entire planet, criminalize marijuana, ban gay marriage, and bring global warming all in one fell swoop.

Libtards are so predictable!

When numbers have depleted far enough, then the Japanese fleet will go out of business...just as the Cod industry went out of business in the North Atlantic years ago.

By the way, there are still Cod fish.

And when liberals whine, their talk radio programs still fail.

Just more envy from whining liberals who wish the American public would listen to them instead of conservatives.

Let the whining continue!

He doesn't get it that when you shoot the hell out of some boat, you go on a search to pick up survivors.

If you pick up pirates, you put them in the brig.

If you pick up sailors, great.

The Indians did not pick up anyone. They left the victims.. the Thai fishermen... floating in the ocean.

According to the law of the sea, that is murder.

#30 | Posted by Tosser

Maybe the Indian Navy should have used a bull horn and asked those mean ol' pirates to please stop? And then if they didn't stop, the Indians could have just turned their boats and left the area...like good liberals!

I find that those who bloviate about "innocent victims" are more often than not people who have trouble with authority. It's not that you're really concerned for the Thai fisherman, as you're against the Indian Navy. And probably because of who India's allies are. If, for example, it were some other country that had blown the boat up..say Yemen, I doubt we'd be reading anything at all from you Hoser.

in the end, you've contributed nothing more to this discussion. Answer these by a simple yes or no: can you understand that pedophilia requires a predator-victim dynamic? Can you understand that the act of homosexuality does not? If you answer those questions with a minimum of honesty, you'll understand why you can't compare homosexuality to pedophilia.

#201 | Posted by panchovilla

Obviously you're not familiar with ancient Greece where man/boy relations were regarded as the highest form of love? Look up the name Alcibiades (student of Socrates) and see if you can find any of his writings. You might find the words of this young man as who attempts to seduce his teacher....something many young boys did to gain the favor of their teachers. It was legal AND consentual. Of course, Socrates realized there was a higher good which many of his contemporaries failed to see, as they indulged their base desires. But the behavior was quite common and esteemed.

But I guess because American law has spoken pedophile relatins are now to be regarded in terms of predator-victim. Are you saying American Law is an absolute, and thus pedophile orientations are thus evil?

You need to get out more. Amercian jurisprudence is Johnny come lately to the world scene.

-

Nature also allows for psychopaths and mass murderers. Why should we not let them act accordingly?

#164 | Posted by panchovilla

Good question Pancho! There seems to be certain orientations found in nature that should not be esteemed as "good." Indeed, they should be shunned.

I wonder where this moral compas within us comes from? Certainly nature itself pays no attention to such things as proper behavior, rewarding it or thwarting it. Nature pays no attention to this artificial construct called "Consenting Adults." It's a world of survival, where the fittest survive and the unfit do not. That's about as close to a moral dictate that we can find in nature. So where do we get such arbitrary notions as "Sex is proper only when conducted between consenting adults."? You've created that notion, but on what basis from nature?

I know this grates against your emotional sensibilities, but let's remember people were once as emotional against homosexuality as you are against pedophilia...even using the same arguments.

Some would argue that homosexuality exists elsewhere in nature, not just in humans, and that this means homosexuality has a "purpose" in nature. What that purpose is many are guessing. Perhaps it's nature's built in "population control" some would say.

So nature apparently has some "purpose" it plants in itself to keep things as nature intends. One who has a homosexual orientation has so because he/she "was born this way." Nature has determined it. And since nature has determined some should be homosexual, then homosexuals should be able to act according to the way nature intends...to act homosexually, to engage in homosexual behavior.

But there are other things that also exist in nature. There are those who are oriented heterosexually, and those oriented homosexually, as nature dicates. But there are also those oriented with pedophile desires, who are sexually aroused by children. Certainly nature has placed them here with this orientation for a purpose?...else they wouldn't be here. And since nature has placed them here within our population, should they not also act accordingly?

Or is there perhaps something more than nature that speaks here? For example, where in nature do you find any supporting evidence for this human construct called "Consenting adults?" You don't find that in nature. Indeed, you find quite the opposite in a world ruled by tooth and claw. I can't seem to find anywhere in nature the law that says, "You have been given a certain orientation, but you shall only act upon that orientation with another consenting adult!" Can you tell me where in nature such rule is found? Show me where nature supports this idea that the homosexual can act out according to his orientation, but the pedophile cannot.

And if you find yourself unable to go forward on this question knowing where it will lead; if instead you want to call me the fool, you might want to do a google search on the phrase "kicking against the goads" to get at your real issue!

As has been pointed out to you time after time after time... comparing someone who claims they are "oriented" to commit crimes or harm others to sexuality is a false premise.

You keep insisting on trying to push it, but no one is buying.

Back to the drawing board Theo.

#156 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-11-26 03:24 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv e

#154 | Posted by TheOneBS at 2008-11-26 03:21 PM | Reply |

I think you're being deliberately obtuse: the answer to your question has been answered twice. It seems like the answer given doesn't fit your little Socratic model so you keep on keeping on.

#157 | Posted by panchovilla at 2008-11-26 03:25 PM

No, it hasn't been answered. Truth be told, you don't want to answer my question because you know where it's going, and you have nothing to stand on when we get there.

If a person who has a "heterosexual orientation" someone, we could not conclude that a heterosexual orientation is a bad thing. In the same way, if a person with a "homosexual orientation" were to rape someone, this too doesn't mean that a homosexual orientation is a bad thing, nor to be equated with rape. One might simply conclude that the act of rape is inappropriate, regardless of one's orientation, and that one's "orientation" simply IS. It is neither good or bad, desirable or undesirable. It simply is!

How about the pedophile orientation? Can the same be said?