Its too late to apologize... by Wulfenstar

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

In all seriousness. After Obamacare, continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, BP, continuing the Patriot Act, attempting to obtain an internet cut off switch, continuing gun control, continuing Affirmative Action, and generally screwing the free market..

What?

Do you expect the people to roll over and pule to your rule? Really?

Have you cowards forgotten what makes us Americans?

Do you think that we will not fight back?

Yeah, we are being nice, right now. Tea Parties and the like.

But do you think thats it? Do you think thats the last?

Really?

Do you think that if you don't back off from your tyrannical ways that this won't end in blood and steel? Really?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 11:55 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

No, really, its fun.

Ignore the storm. Ignore that the people are finally waking up.

Wait for the coming storm.

No problem. They are just the "unwashed masses"

They don't know any better.

Pssshhh. Freedom, liberty... what is that?

Those ignorant people, they don't have nay idea what is imporatant. Right?

Let the government tell them.

Ooops.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 12:28 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Who's apologising?

If we could go back we would tyrannise you all over again - only harder! Ahahaha!!!

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 12:29 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

LOL

Yeah. Im sure you would have tried.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 12:35 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Yes, Wulfie, I *AM* calling you a coward. You're all talk, nothing but bluster, the original Internet Tough Guy™.

Your "blood and steel" consists of nothing but video clips. Your "calvary" is a myth.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 12:44 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 12:55 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Well.

You see, living in a free society means that you have to deal with people like Kwick, Nix, and the rest.

They have all the right in the world to express their opinions. In fact, its a good thing.

However. Unfortunately for them, the free people of America have started to realize their own worth.

It's NOT to be a servant or a subject of the will of government. Its to be a free citizen.

Sadly, Nix and Kwick wish for the simple people to know their place. But, these people, born of a strong willed blood, cannot meekly bow to their wishes.

And its driving the want-to-be masters crazy.

Watch as their heralds throw line after line, thread after thread, trying desperately to gain support for their goal.

But who wants to be a slave?

Do these modern day Himmlers really think that forsaking freedom will win them a place among the so-called chosen?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 1:01 PM

Quote:
Do these modern day Himmlers really think that forsaking freedom will win them a place among the so-called chosen?

Apparently YOU think so...

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 1:29 PM

I applaud your spirit Wulf, however, the difference between why the US rebelled, and what is going on today between a government and its people is significantly different.

Plus, we make a big deal about how we refused to be bound, I would ask how many "colonies" we've decided to bind, first in the name of "containing communism" and now in the name of striking down terrorism. Just because we don't do it with brandy in one hand, a globe in the other, while reclining using an Indian man as a footstool, doesn't make us any less of an Empire than England, Spain, Portugal, or France at their heights. We're just subjugating in the 21st century instead of the 19th and it looks different, different enough the American public, which is so obsessed with their own freedoms and their perspective, that direct enslavement of another region would be offensive, but with a little creative organization, we can make it about LIBERATING those poor people, rescuing them from their family farms to the promised land of Dole owned fruit plantations and Nike factories.

So you can take your finger pointing, and your whining and keep it to yourself, it's all just bitching because your team isn't winning right now so you're falling on the ground holding your ankle screaming "ref! ref!" Both parties aim to create a larger government, they just want them for different things. If the conservative party was actually about smaller, less intruisive government, I'd probably support them. Instead they are about incresing their own influence (like everyone else) and using that influence to moralize and stunt the academic and scientific growth of this country in the name of slowly sweeping over to a pseudo-theocratic state.

If Americans were really "awakening" they wouldn't be clinging to either party banner anymore, they'd be tearing down both institutions, looking to start anew. By this, I do not mean any kind of overthrowing of the actual government, but overthrowing of the superstructure, the system that has been built on tradition, on party politics, on the goals and aspirations of power, wealth and dynastic influence that exists in both parties.

But all conservatism doesn't work. If there were a pure conservative party, one that really stood out side of the way of the American people, that has it's problems too. You'd see a return to the Industrial revolution society, bottom of the bottoms and tops of the tops, Rockefeller's holding down the dirt poor because nothing says there has to be a minimum wage. As unions formed, violence would ensue. Would the private sector finally reach a similar conclusion to what a more socialist-ish government would, (minimum wage, maternity leave, safety regulations) probably, would the years of subservience, injustice and formative violence be worth it that the private sector holds the cards instead of the government on the regulation of business? Would there be any less corruption in private organizations than in a governmental one? I doubt it, To say so is to say some people are better than others by virtue of what sector they operate in, which is crap.

However, a realistic conservative party would regulate businesses at the base level, safety, workers rights, encourage unions or at least serve the same ends as unions for making industrial jobs doable in the united states. But also, not sit so closely in on the board of trustees of each company as to interfere beyond these "rules of play" Same goes for financial institution regulation, ground rules and general codes of conduct, if it's clear you've been engaging in practices that are destructive to others in a misleading way, that should be stopped and severely punished.

This sort of discussion is not what most people disagree on though I have to say, these are regulations and rules that are learned the hard way, mistakes are made, reactive government takes its steps to ensure that the next crisis will at least be different.

It's the hotbutton issues that we love to debate, which really have the least effect on our lives right? Of course these are generalizations

The Right
pro-life
pro-gun rights
pro-imperial expansion (wait for it)
anti-gay marriage
pro-biblical influence
anti-taxes and social programs

The Left
pro-choice
pro-gun restrictions
anti-relinquishing of imperial expansion(they're more just subtle about it
pro-gay marriage (and civil rights in general)
anti/neutral-biblical influence
pro-taxes and social programs

Now if the right was truly conservative, wouldn't the individualist rights to chose gay marriage be just that and INDIVIDUAL right, since society shouldn't impose upon the individual, one individuals actions should not impose on another. In that thought, one person getting married to a person of the same sex, shouldn't be halted on the grounds of an individual not agreeing with the concept. Similarly, the marriage of that individual should not impose upon the disagreeing individual. This is the kicker, some reps, say it does, by demeaning their marriage defined by their religion. That sounds like it imposes the religious belief system of the disagreeing individual upon that of the person seeking marriage. The person seeking marriage does not wish to enforce that the religious system of the disagreeing person recognize him, only that the state does, so that he/she might enjoy the same legal benefits a straight married couple does. A truly conservative party would have no problem with this. Abortion is a bit more complex and really comes down to definition of murder. If you really justify that every single reproductive cell is a potential life, you have to also illegalize male masturbation, and possibly the female menstrual cycle as they both kill reproductive cells, similar to how an early (first couple weeks abortion) does. This is even more true when it comes to the rights seeking to detract from the morning after pill, which kills reproductive cells before they've even met (takes longer than you'd think to actually be pregnant) But, if that's murder than yes any party will stand in the way of abortion, if it is just the life choice of a female than it would again be the state inflicting control over the individual, not a conservative idea.

So, the awakening public should form a new superstructure, if they are awakening, where firearms rights are not infringed upon (except for perhaps the standing rules about felons and the mentally defective), gay marriage is given a "doesn't bother me" policy, and religious statutes practiced in the home and in the temple/church/mosque/home/etc are not to be brought into the political arena, as equally as the political arena has no business in those places of religious intent.

I don't see that happening, and as I see it, I see less of those ideals being satisfied by the right than by the left, so until a third gun-toting, gay marriage party arises I have to vote to the left, and do what I can to not be an imperialist in my own little ways.

"...we need a hood ornament..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 2:53 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by reenact12321:
So you can take your finger pointing, and your whining and keep it to yourself, it's all just bitching because your team isn't winning right now so you're falling on the ground holding your ankle screaming "ref! ref!" Both parties aim to create a larger government, they just want them for different things. If the conservative party was actually about smaller, less intruisive government, I'd probably support them. Instead they are about incresing their own influence (like everyone else) and using that influence to moralize and stunt the academic and scientific growth of this country in the name of slowly sweeping over to a pseudo-theocratic state.

That's prettymuch it, yeah.

And anyone who knows enough history also understands the exact fate waiting in store for these useful idiot quislings who run across screaming freedom-freedom as they help slap the chains on, since once the fix is in they are too stupid to be useful and so wind up tossed headfirst into the machine they helped build, howling and whining about how loyal they were the whole time, to snickering sociopaths who played on their stupid ignorance to climb to power.

Without which - it would have never happened, and for that reason I consider Jackals like Wulf to be *more* dangerous than would-be dictators cause without the Jackals to take and execute their orders, what's a would-be dictator than one more punk with a big mouth ?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DyingLikeAnimals

Quote:
Jackals: "Finally, we have a strong leader ready to put those malcontents in their places! Where do I sign up?" Jackals are like Lemmings and Snakes: they eagerly collaborate with the villain because they think his campaign of terror and genocide are just causes. Whether it's out of hate, fanaticism, or ignorance, they prefer the villain's despotism to a more benevolent regime. Usually they're harmless once the villain is dethroned: their prejudice comes out only when the bad guys are in power.

So they are, in essence, the nuts and bolts, the very gears that make tyranny possible, and as such, my own theological and philosophical beliefs encourage their pre-emptive elimination as a protective measure since they are about as anti-human as it gets, and with no more emotional context or involvement than removing someone elses dogshit from your front lawn.

As Dreamtrove pointed out in another thread, when they start strapping on the jackboots and talking about the elimination of undesirables, no one HAS to dehumanize them, they have self-selected to do that, to voluntarily surrender their own humanity, and once they have actively made that choice of their own free will - why then, knowing what damage they're capable of, willing and wishing to do, should someone with any sense at all regard them as anything but what they are ?

The bullets in the guns of tyranny.
Servants of the Blind God.

-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 3:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
quislings

nice Churchill-ism usage

"...we need a hood ornament..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 3:06 PM

sorry double post.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 3:30 PM

Reenact

I disagree with your left right dichotomy. Sure, I'm in the middle tending right, and I agree that it's a strange situation when I have an argument with Mike on gun control, because he opposes it, and I would favor some restrictions on gangs, etc, or anything outside of the definition "well ordered militia" but still I have to nitpick:

pro-imperial expansion?

Then explain to me why the lion's share of all internationally deployed troops have been deployed by a democrat? If you are expanding an empire, it requires conquest, with troops. There are precious few major conquests that were arranged by Republicans. I think this is the same for most countries: Leftists governments are far more imperial (China, Russia, Germany) Okay, moving on...

anti-gay marriage

I think this issue is more complex. A lot of people on the right favor gay rights, and a lot on the left don't, but more, I think it's a wedge issue, it's doesn't really define the left or right.

pro-biblical influence

I thought this one was strange. I'm not a christian of course, and I think that most of the people on the right are not active christians. The non-christian right is not psyched about bibles in public schools, which is maybe why it hasn't happened.

On the left, again:

anti-relinquishing of imperial expansion(they're more just subtle about it

No, sorry, I haven't heard this position as a strong voice on the left. I hear it from the Ron Paul right, and maybe the Dennis Kucinnich vote, but I think Paul speaks for about 20% of the right, and Kucinnich speaks for about 2% of the left, just going by polls. I could be wrong, this is just how it seems, but it does seem pretty clearly that way. Maybe back in the McGovern days this was a left wing position.

pro-taxes

I'm sure there are people on the left who aren't particularly pro-taxes

All that said, I think that we could probably hammer it down to a list like that.

Spending would be a major one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 4:21 PM

Dreamtrove, there's several things you said I'd like to address, but I'm a little ADD so I'll try to just focus on one for now. I'm not saying there aren't religious conservatives, what I'm saying is that the religious right definitely has the teeth in the party. How else would you explain blithering incompetent types like Sarah Palin even have a leg to stand on. I should put it this way, there isn't a direct requirement to be Christian Fundamentalist to be part of the Republican party, but it has become part of the Christian Fundamentalism to be part of in part worship the religious right and the republican party (see: Jesus Camp) and that the Christian Fundamentalists represent a little less than a 1/4 of our population. Not only that, but they are a very active, very homogenized (in agreement on things) force. Their theocratic overtones and militant attitudes scare the living pants off of me, someone who is not religious and is something of a humanist. You as a moderate Republican are either a dying breed or being stifled by those who are louder and prouder about being religious, ignorant and aggressive.

As for Imperialism, my comments about the dichotomy were really supposed to be a backhanded joke on that issue. Both parties are equally responsible, just that the Democrats are better at playing it quietly hence more popular in the international arena (international leaders like dems more than reps in recent history)

Now I should explain, our Imperialism is neo-imperialism, it's very different from the Imperialism of old (British Empire) it involves not so much staking a flag and conquest, but quietly putting our fingers in the pie of peoples around the world that have something we want. Cheap coffee, bananas, oil, rubber (see Vietnam war) If you need more data, there are political analysts who can tell this tale much better than I, just google up USA neo-imperialism.

I'll put it this way, no matter who's in the White House, you think we'll leave Iraq until there's conveniently someone elected or installed that likes us a lot. As Tom Lehrer, the 60's satirical song-writer put it about countries we went into to stop communism..... "They've got to be protected, all their rights respected, 'til somebody we like can be elected" It's as true today as it was 50 years ago, we just find new ways to implement it. American standard of living wouldn't be what it is otherwise.

"...we need a hood ornament..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 5:14 AM

Points for the Tom Lehrer reference

I just get sick of the lefty claim that the right is militaristic when any check of the history books would show that the left should really turn around and clean their own house

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 5:28 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Who's apologising?

If we could go back we would tyrannise you all over again - only harder! Ahahaha!!!

Heads should roll

Thats the spirit...See KPO we are more alike than you think....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 5:30 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Points for the Tom Lehrer reference

I just get sick of the lefty claim that the right is militaristic when any check of the history books would show that the left should really turn around and clean their own house

Historically the right has been anti-war. It was the neocons that changed that. I think we are going back though

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 7:30 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

reenact12321:

You write of gay marriage.

I doubt anyone would oppose gay unions. I sure don oppose civil unions for gay folk.

Its a property issue at the heart of it. Gays want to be able to visit their signifigant others in the hospital, and to pass on their earnings to each other when they pass away.

Who could have a problem with that?

However, like so many issues, the fringe/fundementalist/psychos took it over and ruined it. In fact, i would argue, that gays have destroyed any chance of recognition BY forcing it to be known as Marriage.

Marriage is a RELIGIOUS insitution.

Civil Unions are not.

For all the people who scream and whine about the seperation of church and state, NOW they whine that the government is NOT forcing churches to marry gays.

How does that make sense? How is that even close to being correct?

I mean its such a simple thing. Churches do NOT have to marry you. BUT, you can probably get a civil union, which is essentially the same thing.

What you are really asking for, is that religions have to now accomadate your lifestyle, irregardless of whether their teachings say its wrong.

Its a dangerous, stupid path to tread.

And, by forcing the issue, by trying to force the government to force religions to obey, you've shot yourselves in the foot.

Noone will even consider civil unions anymore. Especially if you are marching and carrying on about "marriage".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 7:42 AM

BYTEMITE

I'm pretty sure the gay "marriages" in California that were stopped were actually civil unions, because they were performed by a judge.

So apparently there's lots of people who don't support gay civil unions, which might be why LGBT march on a gay marriage platform, so they have somewhere to go for a compromise.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 7:44 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Unfortunately for them, the free people of America have started to realize their own worth.

Americans are fat & lazy & only truly engaged in their personal gadgetry.

Quote:
It's NOT to be a servant or a subject of the will of government. Its to be a free citizen.

Don't go Glenn Beck on us. Nothing I see is threatening that.

Quote:
... these people, born of a strong willed blood, cannot meekly bow to their wishes.

The Tea Party people are mostly senior citizens; the rest just don't give enuf of a shit to do anything. Only half will even vote.

Quote:
And its driving the want-to-be masters crazy.

Really? I hadn't noticed that much. Liberal's toes seem to still be tappin'.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 8:09 AM

So Wulfie is arguing that governments should not recognize "marriage" in any context, right? After all, it's ONLY churches which can perform them, and churches have no place in governance; hence, on your tax forms and all legal papers, you have to refer to your significant other as your "partner", not your wife or husband, since those are only religious terms, to be used only inside the church.

Right?

Where do you get the idea that marriages are ONLY religious institutions, Wulfie?

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 11:05 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Who's apologising?

If we could go back we would tyrannise you all over again - only harder! Ahahaha!!!

Heads should roll

Thats the spirit...See KPO we are more alike than you think....

My malevolence is not a default... merely deep-seated.

Still a couple of differences I think...

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 11:28 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Americans are fat & lazy & only truly engaged in their personal gadgetry."

You know, I've heard this before. I don't buy it. Im neither fat, nor lazy. I do like my electronic toys (Playstation, Xbox-360 ect)...

Most of the people I run with are not fat, stupid, lazy slobs either. Just because the news likes to find the lowest on the Bell Curve doesn't mean that everyone is like that.

In fact, I tend to believe, (nd again this is my belief), that most are on the high end of the Mensa curve. Not that you have to have a good IQ to be brave, or strong, patriotic, or loyal.

"The Tea Party people are mostly senior citizens; the rest just don't give enuf of a shit to do anything. Only half will even vote."

Again, Im far from senior age. Neither are those I know. In fact, they are usually between the ages of 23-38. Far from being old. Besides, if a lot of Tea Party folks ARE senior citizens, thats a GREAT thing. THe older you get, the more oyu know and the higher understanding of things you have. Which just leads me to know that me and mine are on the right path.

"Really? I hadn't noticed that much. Liberal's toes seem to still be tappin'. "

I think its too much caffeine on their part. Plus when a person is nervous, they tend to have twitches. Toe tapping, blinking, drumming their fingers... it all points to a guilty and nervous mind.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 1:43 PM

Byte's right Wulf, I agree the church shouldn't be forced to recognize anything and the governmental end of a marriage, legally called a "civil union" should be open to all. But there are plenty of people (apparently not including you) who feel their legal marriage and their religious one are inseparable and giving heed to legal union among homosexuals demeans their own bonded sufferi... I mean bliss.

"...we need a hood ornament..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 3:40 PM

Kane,

Agreed. I was personally glad to see Steele oppose the war, also, I like that he's not afraid to have an opinion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 3:57 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Marriage = Religious institution

Civil Union = Government sanctioned union, with all the rights confered to said union.

Good gried, I'm giving you gold here.

How about this.

If gays want all the rights conferred to those "married", then they should be pushing for civil unions... not "marriage".

TO put it more bluntly:

A fag should not be swishing around downtown, demanding "marriage" (and calling it a civil rights issue.. whole nother angle/story)

They should be demanding civil unions.

But, hey. Don't listen to me.

Yep, just another stupid blogger... labelled racist, tea-bagger ect.

Nope, no truth here. No ideas here.

Move along.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 4:04 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Plus, we make a big deal about how we refused to be bound, I would ask how many "colonies" we've decided to bind, first in the name of "containing communism" and now in the name of striking down terrorism. Just because we don't do it with brandy in one hand, a globe in the other, while reclining using an Indian man as a footstool, doesn't make us any less of an Empire than England, Spain, Portugal, or France at their heights. We're just subjugating in the 21st century instead of the 19th and it looks different, different enough the American public, which is so obsessed with their own freedoms and their perspective, that direct enslavement of another region would be offensive, but with a little creative organization, we can make it about LIBERATING those poor people, rescuing them from their family farms to the promised land of Dole owned fruit plantations and Nike factories.

Nice post

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 8:39 PM

um

Wulf

did you read my post? I sort of agreed with you, not sure why you're getting "assertive" No need for the namecalling, unless... you didn't read my post and just thought you'd blather on some more to hear the sound of your own keyboard. So... yeah

Magonsdaugher Thanks!

"...we need a hood ornament..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 10:37 PM

Wulf,

I'd be interested in your opinion on striking the word "marriage" from all legal documents and contexts and replace it with "civil union" for all such partnerships.

Since marriage is a solely religious institution, as you say.

Would you agree with that approach?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 9:26 AM

I am sad you won't reply, Wulf.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 9:32 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

My answer would be "why"?

Do we really have to reorganize our entire society to placate a small percentage of it? Really?

Marriage IS a religious institution. However, to be properly unioned, you still have to get a license from the state.

So, in effect, allowing civil unions for gays, satisfys the needs of them, while protecting the role of religion and the seperation of church and state.

Sorry, but being gay doesnt buy you special compensation. Nor should being a minority or anything else.

But thats a different matter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 9:47 AM

The way it seems to me, either you declare the term "marriage" to be cultural and make it available to everyone, or it is strictly religious and you take it way out of the legal process of civil unions. For any couple.

Homosexual asking for the Exact Same Thing that heterosexuals have - not separate but equal - how is that asking for special treatment?

Way it seems now, you're arguing for heterosexuals to get the special treatment by being allowed to use a religious (thus inappropriate) term in legal matters where homosexuals may not. Straight couples aren't "unioned" by the state, they are married.

Personally, I think marriage is a cultural term rather than a religious one, so I see no reason why it should be restricted to religious use - and it obviously is not. If a religion that doesn't condemn homosexuality marries a homosexual couple, they still wouldn't get so call their legal union a marriage. That's hypocrisy at work.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 9:55 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Marriage IS a religious institution. However, to be properly unioned, you still have to get a license from the state.

Is marraige really a religious institution, or has religion taken marraige and institutionalized it? If a man and a women go to City Hall to get married, is that marraige any less legitimate than a church wedding?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 10:00 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

You can go to the court and be unionized. TO be married, I.e. in the eyes of God, you fill out the paperwork for union with the state, then are married according to your religious beliefs.

How many here are married?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 10:09 AM

JONGSSTRAW

So you "stand before the eyes of God" and vow "til death do us part." A few months later your wife or you cheat, and then you get a divorce. What about the promise you made to God? With 60% divorce rate, isn't that religious institution just a desperate clinging to something they really don't believe in anyhow? And how does one square it with God? After all, you made a testament in his house.

I've been married for 29 years. We got married in a church, but neither of us really attends much anymore.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 10:14 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Again, it would help to understand who here is married or not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 10:29 AM

Wulf, unless they do NOT use the term marriage in the non-religious procedure for straight couples, I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 1:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
My answer would be "why"?

Do we really have to reorganize our entire society to placate a small percentage of it? Really?

Marriage IS a religious institution. However, to be properly unioned, you still have to get a license from the state.

So, in effect, allowing civil unions for gays, satisfys the needs of them, while protecting the role of religion and the seperation of church and state.

Sorry, but being gay doesnt buy you special compensation. Nor should being a minority or anything else.

But thats a different matter.

But being religious DOES? How is it treating gays "special" to treat them exactly the same? What you don't get is that it is YOU who is asking to treat gays "special", by singling them out to be called anything but married.

And how is saying a church CAN marry gays equated in your mind to saying that all churches MUST marry gays? If I'm Jewish, can I demand that a Catholic church performa Jewish wedding ceremony for me?

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 1:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Again, it would help to understand who here is married or not.

Well, I've been married to my wife since 1989, but we weren't married in a church, so by your definition, I suppose we aren't married. The IRS says otherwise, though. ;)

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 1:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Marriage IS a religious institution. However, to be properly unioned, you still have to get a license from the state.

Is marraige really a religious institution, or has religion taken marraige and institutionalized it? If a man and a women go to City Hall to get married, is that marraige any less legitimate than a church wedding?

Bingo. There were marriages before there was religion, and there were gay marriages in biblical times. Christ himself is even said to have presided over - and blessed - one such marriage!

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 9, 2010 10:08 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Marriage is a RELIGIOUS insitution(sic)

Ignoramus!

Let's see if you are capable of learning...

A religious leader proclaims marriage by saying

By the power vested in me BY THE STATE...

Get it?

Marriage = government institution

OH, and BTW? I was MARRIED in a courtroom by a judge and have been MARRIED for 35 years....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 10, 2010 2:31 AM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

A religious leader proclaims marriage by saying

By the power vested in me BY THE STATE...

Get it?

Marriage = government institution

I believe that Marriage as a government institution is most likely a historically recent usurpation of power from the Church.

Quote:

OH, and BTW? I was MARRIED in a courtroom by a judge and have been MARRIED for 35 years....

Congrats on making it 35years, we just had our 33rd yesterday.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 10, 2010 2:57 AM

Sig

A govt. coopting a religious institution does not make it not a religious institution.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 10, 2010 10:19 AM

ALIASSE

I did enjoy it IMMENSELY, thanks! The most laughs I've had for a long time! This conflict was about taxation without representation, right? Is it the taxation bit or the without representation bit that still burns so badly after all these many, many, many years?

Who's the fat chap with the wine glass? He's evil! I hate him! Taxing people and not allowing them any representation - apart from genocide, forcible resettlement, mass rape and murder, police brutality and torture and totalitarianism, I can't think of anything worse.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 10, 2010 11:12 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

A religious leader proclaims marriage by saying

By the power vested in me BY THE STATE...

Get it?

Marriage = government institution

I believe that Marriage as a government institution is most likely a historically recent usurpation of power from the Church.

Nope, it was a state institution before Churches as we know them even existed.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 10, 2010 4:40 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Sig A govt. coopting a religious institution does not make it not a religious institution.

I believe that's in line with what I said. Unless you meant to say "A govt. coopting a religious institution does not make it not a government institution" in which case I'd disagree with you. For example, many of our laws are based in religion.... the law about not killing, for example. Nonetheless, those laws are indeed government institutions.

KIRK

Quote:
Congrats on making it 35years, we just had our 33rd yesterday.

Well, congrats to you too! There aren't many people who've made it this far!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 10, 2010 4:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:

I believe that Marriage as a government institution is most likely a historically recent usurpation of power from the Church.

But as with most things religious, what you might BELIEVE has little to do with what actually is TRUE.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 11, 2010 4:01 AM