The W
Views: 99904901
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.10.07 0000
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Election 2004 results thread Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9(517 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (176 total)
A Fan
Liverwurst
Level: 68

Posts: 940/1164
EXP: 2715104
For next: 13710

Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 3556 days
Last activity: 3556 days
#161 Posted on 5.11.04 1220.07
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1220.18
If you cut the space program even Bush said he wanted to go to Mars. You cut off all hope of the species. It doesn't take a genius to realize there are too many people on the planet already, new study shows 9 billion in the next hundred years. The planet can barely support the 6 billion we have now. I argue we haven't spent enough or be daring enough to actually go out there. I'd also contend our galaxy sucks, so trying to do colonize Mars will be really tough to do as well.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 213

Posts: 5321/16297
EXP: 142618191
For next: 748716

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 7 hours
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#162 Posted on 5.11.04 1233.34
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1234.03
    Originally posted by A Fan
    If you cut the space program even Bush said he wanted to go to Mars. You cut off all hope of the species.
Speaking for the species, we're doing just fine.

    It doesn't take a genius to realize there are too many people on the planet already
Well, one too many perhaps...

    new study shows 9 billion in the next hundred years. The planet can barely support the 6 billion we have now.
Hogwash.

    I argue we haven't spent enough or be daring enough to actually go out there.
You're volunteering?

    I'd also contend our galaxy sucks,
Please return to your home galaxy, then.

    ...so trying to do colonize Mars will be really tough to do as well.
...because....our galaxy sucks? What?

You're REALLY kooking out today.
messenoir
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 204/449
EXP: 647104
For next: 13065

Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 544 days
Last activity: 411 days
AIM:  
#163 Posted on 5.11.04 1400.15
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1402.59
I said I would leave this discussion for other people, and I will. But just this:

If we use the Bible as our reason for outlawing homosexual marriage, we should also be making "Turn the other cheek" into a national law. We need to stop picking and choosing which Biblical verses our politicians should follow.
SirBubNorm
Salami
Level: 33

Posts: 168/219
EXP: 221597
For next: 7585

Since: 2.1.02
From: Under the table

Since last post: 3591 days
Last activity: 3540 days
#164 Posted on 8.11.04 1406.03
Reposted on: 8.11.11 1412.59
Faith = morality = belief.

How exactly do you vote without voting for what you believe is correct? Are we really looking for a country that votes on things they don't believe in?

    Originally posted by tarnish

    America was founded by people fleeing, among other things, religious persecution. The grand irony is that the religious right, though they appear to be ready to persecute (via legislation against things they don't agree with) will stand there and tell you, straight-faced, that they are the ones being persecuted, that, for example, allowing gay marriage impinges upon the rights of non-gays. I can never quite follow these arguments, but they always sound compelling.



Those who fled from England were against a "national" church. They weren't against God. As a matter of fact, the whole separation of church and state has been blown *way* out of proportion. It's nowhere in the Constitution. If the founding fathers (or others who came to this country) were so against God, how did "In God We Trust" end up on our currency. How did it end up in the Pledge of Allegience? Etc.

    Originally posted by messenoir

    If we use the Bible as our reason for outlawing homosexual marriage, we should also be making "Turn the other cheek" into a national law. We need to stop picking and choosing which Biblical verses our politicians should follow.



Don't judge a person for we have all fallen short, but also do not lead someone into temptation.

Before we continue this, do a search on the word "rebuke" in one of the online Bible sites and then if you want to we should probably move to PM or e-mail.



(edited by SirBubNorm on 8.11.04 1407)
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator
Level: 139

Posts: 2897/6012
EXP: 31955331
For next: 512196

Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 12 hours
AIM:  
#165 Posted on 8.11.04 1439.36
Reposted on: 8.11.11 1442.15
I don't know where to start with your post.

1) "Those who fled England were not against God."

Well, that's true. In 1627 when the Pilgrims came to America, they weren't against God. It's just too bad for your argument that they didn't write the Constitution 150 odd years later

2) "Are we really looking for a country that votes on things they don't believe in?"

Yes. I don't want a country to vote that Chritianity/Hinduism/Islam is the national religion because a majority of people believe in it. You wouldn't want this either if you weren't part of the majority that is currently pushing their agenda.

I'm not even going to get into the specific Biblical problems I have with trying to legislate a Christian morality.

The argument at hand is this: Should issues that are based in religious argument be allowed to be made into the law of the land?

I say No.

In my opinion, this means that creationism shouldn't be taught on an equal level with evolution science. We also shouldn't tell children that the world exists on the back of a turtle, or that Titans hold the world up, or any other number of religious stories - no matter how seriously some people take them or how many current believers there are. Look, I'm also not going to stand for L. Ron Hubbard trying to story-tell his way into the classroom with Scientology either. To get into a classroom, you should teach things that are factual, or accepted by the scientific community as the best example at the time.

In my opinion, it means that since we can't prove the root cause of homosexuality, that we give people the benefit of the doubt and allow them to live their lives with all of the rights and dignity of anyone else - because the best arguments against homosexuals are based on religion, plain and simple.

In my opinion, it means that all races should be treated equally, even if the majority "knows" that some are inferior. If you ever get a chance to read an old encyclopedia, read up on what the average person thought about race in the early 1900's. We had a set of Encyclopedia Britannica's from 1908 and the part discussing the different races is just amazing and scary.

I shouldn't be forced to fast for Ramadan.

I shouldn't have to eat only Kosher food.

I don't want to cut my hair because it says in the Bible that men should not have long hair.

I'm not going to become a vegetarian because some religion in India says that we can't kill any living thing for food.

I don't want stories about flying donkeys, burning bushes, gods that turn into swans, vampires, werewolves, the great coyote spirit, etc. taught to children as fact. Feel free to educate your own children however you want - but don't try to legislate to everyone else.

I don't want to hear how the phrase "In God we trust" means that everyone knows America is a Christian country.
rockstar
Salami
Level: 34

Posts: 179/229
EXP: 236963
For next: 16691

Since: 2.1.02
From: East TN

Since last post: 3567 days
Last activity: 3445 days
#166 Posted on 8.11.04 1602.26
Reposted on: 8.11.11 1602.27
    Originally posted by SirBubNorm
    If the founding fathers (or others who came to this country) were so against God, how did "In God We Trust" end up on our currency. How did it end up in the Pledge of Allegience? Etc.


"The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War." Source: U.S. Treasury

-

Between 1924 and 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance was worded:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954, during the McCarthy era and communism scare, Congress passed a bill, which was signed into law, to add the words "under God." The current Pledge reads:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Source: ReligiousTolerance.org

I think it's worth mentioning that all of the Founding Fathers were dead when these two phrases were added to their respective places on currency and in the Pledge.
tarnish
Frankfurter
Level: 60

Posts: 457/859
EXP: 1713757
For next: 59031

Since: 13.2.02
From: Back in the Heart of Hali

Since last post: 499 days
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#167 Posted on 8.11.04 1735.14
Reposted on: 8.11.11 1739.28
    Originally posted by SirBubNorm
    Faith = morality = belief.

    How exactly do you vote without voting for what you believe is correct? Are we really looking for a country that votes on things they don't believe in?

      Originally posted by tarnish

      America was founded by people fleeing, among other things, religious persecution. The grand irony is that the religious right, though they appear to be ready to persecute (via legislation against things they don't agree with) will stand there and tell you, straight-faced, that they are the ones being persecuted, that, for example, allowing gay marriage impinges upon the rights of non-gays. I can never quite follow these arguments, but they always sound compelling.



    Those who fled from England were against a "national" church. They weren't against God. As a matter of fact, the whole separation of church and state has been blown *way* out of proportion. It's nowhere in the Constitution. If the founding fathers (or others who came to this country) were so against God, how did "In God We Trust" end up on our currency. How did it end up in the Pledge of Allegience? Etc.



I have major problems with the idea that "faith = morality = belief". I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow; this has absolutely nothing to do with morality. I believe that I will have a chicken sandwich for dinner; this also has little to do with faith or morality. Some sort of logical argument needs to be added to that equality for it to make sense to me.

The Pilgrims being against a National Church is exactly my point: any religiously-based enforced morality is essentially the same thing as a National Church. The Pilgrims were people who wanted the freedom to practice religion in their own way. Many of them were from differing and "incompatible" sects that didn't really get along. The point was, they wanted a place where nobody was going to ask or force them to believe anything in particular. Even then, many of them ended up being overzealous in their own faith; I think the Salem witch trials are a viable example of this.

How I vote without voting what I believe is "correct" is I vote much like Guru has described: voting based on what I believe provides the most freedom to the individual. The only caveat I have involves not granting freedoms to anyone that would impinge upon the freedoms of others. The "freedoms of others" in this case is probably most easily equated with the famous, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

If I am a Christian and I am against homosexuality because the Bible says it's wrong, that's fine. But I cannot in good faith deny others the right to practice homosexuality as there is no reason to expect that they share my religious convictions on the matter, and there's especially no grounds to force them to.

When I'm feeling charitable, I like to think that the religious right voted more against Kerry than for Bush. Kerry would have, ostensibly, pushed for a change in legislation that allows for the recognition of homosexual unions. Bush & Co. don't have to change anything to maintain the status quo. Somewhat moderate right-wing groups caught on to this. Unfortunately, I believe in this case that existing legislation is prejudicial and does impinge upon the freedoms of others.

Christianity is, in many ways, a near-perfect religion. It's marketable, it's attractive, and it's viral in the way it spreads. It's even got some nifty paradoxical answers to the "big questions" that make it virtually impossible to argue against. But it is not universal. No religion is, no matter how much the people who practice it wish to believe it is. And unless someone comes up with some proof that's not predicated on a verse from the Bible or the faith itself, there are going to be people who don't believe it. Even if there were proof, I don't think you'd get unanimous adoption of Christianity. God's son apparently came for a visit once and despite his compelling arguments (and documented miracles) didn't make a whole lot of headway. It took hundreds of years for the philosophies of Christ to become in any way "popular" and this occured largely on the backs of humans like ourselves. I understand that these humans were acting in sincere imitation of Christ himself, who made the ultimate sacrifice, but we all know who did the grunt work.

If someone has true faith, it will show in his or her life and the way he or she lives it. That is one of the challenges of Christianity the way it was taught to me: to be strong in one's faith in spite of the trials and tribulations of life. St. Augustine. Sir Thomas More. Mother Theresa. They believed, and they taught; they did not judge, nor did they force their beliefs on others. That is the model of a truly Christian life.

Enforced morality is necessary; that is why there are the laws of the land. But the laws on the books tend to be those that nearly everyone can agree with, not just 51% of the current voting population. Otherwise, enforced morality seems to me to be a crutch and a mask to hide behind.
SirBubNorm
Salami
Level: 33

Posts: 169/219
EXP: 221597
For next: 7585

Since: 2.1.02
From: Under the table

Since last post: 3591 days
Last activity: 3540 days
#168 Posted on 8.11.04 1825.45
Reposted on: 8.11.11 1827.37
    Originally posted by Guru Zim

    The argument at hand is this: Should issues that are based in religious argument be allowed to be made into the law of the land?

    I say No.

    In my opinion, this means that creationism shouldn't be taught on an equal level with evolution science. We also shouldn't tell children that the world exists on the back of a turtle, or that Titans hold the world up, or any other number of religious stories - no matter how seriously some people take them or how many current believers there are. Look, I'm also not going to stand for L. Ron Hubbard trying to story-tell his way into the classroom with Scientology either. To get into a classroom, you should teach things that are factual, or accepted by the scientific community as the best example at the time.




Just to be clear, if you're talking about how some things evolve over time, OK. If you're talking about Darwin's theory, it's just that. Theory. And actually Darwin's theory is tied in with Scientology. So if you don't want to teach that in school great. Same with Big Bang. Otherwise, I don't see how creationism is just as valid.

You know, it seems to me we've had this conversation before.

    Originally posted by tarnish
    If someone has true faith, it will show in his or her life and the way he or she lives it. That is one of the challenges of Christianity the way it was taught to me: to be strong in one's faith in spite of the trials and tribulations of life. St. Augustine. Sir Thomas More. Mother Theresa. They believed, and they taught; they did not judge, nor did they force their beliefs on others. That is the model of a truly Christian life.



Isn't voting one of the ways I live my life?
And how exactly can you *teach* without delivering/forcing a set of beliefs?


tarnish
Frankfurter
Level: 60

Posts: 458/859
EXP: 1713757
For next: 59031

Since: 13.2.02
From: Back in the Heart of Hali

Since last post: 499 days
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#169 Posted on 8.11.04 1839.14
Reposted on: 8.11.11 1840.27
    Originally posted by SirBubNorm
      Originally posted by tarnish
      If someone has true faith, it will show in his or her life and the way he or she lives it. That is one of the challenges of Christianity the way it was taught to me: to be strong in one's faith in spite of the trials and tribulations of life. St. Augustine. Sir Thomas More. Mother Theresa. They believed, and they taught; they did not judge, nor did they force their beliefs on others. That is the model of a truly Christian life.



    Isn't voting one of the ways I live my life?
    And how exactly can you *teach* without delivering/forcing a set of beliefs?





Voting is one of the ways you live your life, yes, but there is a component of responsibility. And I believe that that responsibility is to your country and its society, not necessarily to your religious beliefs.

You can teach by example. Mother Teresa was known for helping anyone in need and not demanding anything (including conversion to Christianity or cessation of "evil" practices) in return. Sir Thomas More died horribly because he would not budge on the matter of his beliefs. But at the same time he did not demand that others adopt his point of view. Augustine, once he found his faith (a looooong and winding road) did not immediately rush out to convert the masses; he taught to those who wished to learn and lived an examplary life.

Consider the sage vs. the missionary. The sage provides knowledge to those who seek it; the missionary tries to bring knowledge to those who don't have it. Very different paradigms, there. The missionary makes the assumption that those who do not have the knowledge are somehow "missing out". To my mind, this is not a safe assumption.
fuelinjected
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 2514/2679
EXP: 9190511
For next: 126847

Since: 12.10.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 3260 days
Last activity: 3260 days
#170 Posted on 8.11.04 1845.43
Reposted on: 8.11.11 1849.10
    Originally posted by SirBubNorm
    Just to be clear, if you're talking about how some things evolve over time, OK. If you're talking about Darwin's theory, it's just that. Theory. And actually Darwin's theory is tied in with Scientology. So if you don't want to teach that in school great. Same with Big Bang. Otherwise, I don't see how creationism is just as valid.


Uh, no. Theory's explain a group of FACTS. Creationism is a belief.

If you want your children to learn about creationism, send them to Sunday school. Its a belief, not based on anything provable or disprovable.

You cannot legislate Christian faith. Its dangerous and wrong. For example, if you legislate that abortions are illegal based on the idea the Christian idea of when life begins then why shouldn't you legislate other faith based ideas? Why not Islamic laws that apply to all Americans? Why not ban pork in the entire country?
BigSteve
Pepperoni
Level: 64

Posts: 219/1091
EXP: 2204436
For next: 9673

Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2840 days
Last activity: 2568 days
#171 Posted on 8.11.04 1849.03
Reposted on: 8.11.11 1859.01
To act like the impostion of a ban on gay marriage would be akin to the institution of a national Church is a pretty weak arguement because MANY religions teach that homosexuality is a sin. MANY religion shares common beliefs on morality, especially the religions of the Middle East. Our society's laws are based on Judeo-Christian values. The root of the vast majority of our laws are based on the Bible, so let's not act like secular law and religious law are mutually exclusive. (I'm not applying this to whther or not gay marriage should be legal. I'll try to stay out of that arguement.)

And personally, I think that Jesus made a lot of headway as a preacher in just two years of spreading His message. It wasn't as widespread as it is now, but of course he didn't have the luxary of hopping in his pickup Truck and driving to other towns. If he didn't make any headway, His message would have died when His apostles did.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 1021/1084
EXP: 2439249
For next: 22615

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2986 days
Last activity: 2983 days
#172 Posted on 8.11.04 1911.38
Reposted on: 8.11.11 1923.30
    Originally posted by SirBubNorm
    Just to be clear, if you're talking about how some things evolve over time, OK. If you're talking about Darwin's theory, it's just that. Theory.


Yes, in scientific speech, but the way you and I use the term is completely different. A "theory," in the scientific sense, is a conclusion reached based on factual evidence. In essence, it is "fact," as we use the term.


    And actually Darwin's theory is tied in with Scientology.


Wait, did Darwin travel forward in time, study Scientology, then go back in time to spread the theory of evolution?


    So if you don't want to teach that in school great.


I'm assuming you're referring to Scientology, which you jus tried to tie to evolution. Scientology, again, is not a scientific theory. It should not be taught in school in any science class.


    Same with Big Bang.


Uh, no. The Big Bang, again, is a scientific "fact." It is not some made up idea about how the universe started. Scientists have studied the universe, and come to this conclusion based on the evidence that they have.


    Otherwise, I don't see how creationism is just as valid.


Just to hammer my point home: Creationism has no evidence for its support outside of a book. Evolution has a fossil record and human observation behind it. The difference between the two is amazing, and to pretend like they have equal merit is simply dishonest. To pretend like "creationism" has any scientific merit is dishonest.
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 2592/3273
EXP: 12774559
For next: 316794

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 197 days
Last activity: 197 days
#173 Posted on 8.11.04 1915.20
Reposted on: 8.11.11 1927.40
    Originally posted by BigSteve
    To act like the impostion of a ban on gay marriage would be akin to the institution of a national Church is a pretty weak arguement because MANY religions teach that homosexuality is a sin. MANY religion shares common beliefs on morality, especially the religions of the Middle East. Our society's laws are based on Judeo-Christian values. The root of the vast majority of our laws are based on the Bible, so let's not act like secular law and religious law are mutually exclusive. (I'm not applying this to whther or not gay marriage should be legal. I'll try to stay out of that arguement.)



Until you start arguing that women shouldn't be allowed to wear pants/shorts/skirts because many religions in the Middle East believe it, I'm going to be forced to think your argument is invalid.

-Jag

(edited by Jaguar on 8.11.04 2016)
SirBubNorm
Salami
Level: 33

Posts: 170/219
EXP: 221597
For next: 7585

Since: 2.1.02
From: Under the table

Since last post: 3591 days
Last activity: 3540 days
#174 Posted on 9.11.04 0747.00
Reposted on: 9.11.11 0749.28
We're way off track of where I came or why I came in. So let me summarize that and then I'll be done. You want to debate the other issues with me fine, but somehow the Election 2004 results thread doesn't seem appropriate.

The reason I got started in this topic was because of the statements about morality not having a place in the voting booth.

To clarify something I said earlier. Morality (or Moral Code) is set of social beliefs. How or why I came to my moral code should really be unimportant to you when it comes to election day. However, the only way I can leave my moral code home come election time is to not vote on social issues. The problem with that is two-fold.

1) Society is a social issue. Wars are fought because of social beliefs. We're taxed. That money is used to support social causes through the government. People aren't allowed to steal or kill because of social beliefs. Even the rules of arguing/war/name-calling are socially based.

2) Everyone else is going to vote based on their social beliefs so to not vote is effectively voting *against* my social beliefs.
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1854/2042
EXP: 6308847
For next: 83952

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3032 days
Last activity: 246 days
#175 Posted on 9.11.04 0902.25
Reposted on: 9.11.11 0902.25
    Originally posted by SirBubNorm
    And actually Darwin's theory is tied in with Scientology.


Hold on, my brain just exploded. WHAT?

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    Uh, no. The Big Bang, again, is a scientific "fact." It is not some made up idea about how the universe started. Scientists have studied the universe, and come to this conclusion based on the evidence that they have.


And my exploded brain can't parse this completely, either.

The Big Bang is the best conclusion available, but it's not a "fact" unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Given the obvious and immense difficulty in proving the exact nature of something that happened eons ago, that's never going to happen. It's a supposition, a hypothesis, a theory, not an ironclad fact.

Science has come up with tons of theories about the origins of the universe. These have been revised, refined, discarded and retooled over and over again, due to new evidence and advancements in the tools used to gather it, and the Big Bang will be no exception to this. It's the best explanation we have now that fits the evidence we have now.

However, that's a lot of evidence. Creationism is based upon a single piece -- that the contents of the Bible are true and accurate, and that that should be taken on _faith_ without clear supporting evidence. It's a tall order to suggest that such a concept should be taught in science classes.

As far as morality in the voting booth... believe it or not, even an atheist like myself is not opposed to it. I use my own morals and ethics as a guide to whom to vote for, and I have no problem with religious people doing the same. Religious morality does have a place in American society.

The key is that that place is absolutely NOT "the law." There are plenty of places where secular morality and religious morality intersect, plenty of things that they can agree on, most of which are common sense. That's what the law is drawn from. But there's a difference between religious morality and religious doctrine; laws should never be specifically based upon a particular religion's teachings, and I will fight tooth and nail against politicians, legislators and lobbyists who want exactly that.

If there's valid secular reasoning for a prospective law, and a case can thus be made that happens to coincide with the Christian perspective (or other religion's perspective) on that subject, I have no problem with it. If the reasoning behind a law is boiled down to nothing more than "Because [insert religious figure or group here] says it's wrong," then it's an infringement upon the rights who view that particular religious figure/group as having no authority whatsoever.

(edited by vsp on 9.11.04 0728)
A Fan
Liverwurst
Level: 68

Posts: 952/1164
EXP: 2715104
For next: 13710

Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 3556 days
Last activity: 3556 days
#176 Posted on 9.11.04 1008.12
Reposted on: 9.11.11 1011.40
Now, we get into the dangerous portion of the religious vs. science thread. How much stock do you put in something when you have to take it on faith vs. in a lab? Its easy to say, its my faith, thats what I believe and you cannot prove it otherwise. Its a bit childish. Its like closing your eyes and putting your hands over your ears and saying, "I can't hear you." Science doesn't tell us everything, but it comes closer than anything else we got.

I know that creationist believe the Bible is the true word, being a Catholic most of my life and studying the teachings of the Bible, its not. The Bible is written by a number of different writer with different agendas. After you get past that you find that the heroes of the Bible, Moses, David and Jesus were people trying to do the best they can with what they got.

Moses did get the Jews freed, but the cost was 40 years of wandering the desert and ultimatly testing his faith past the point of breaking. Moses' laws did set-up most of the laws we have today, but to say that murder, lying and the other shall nots were not around during that time is ludicrous. Mostly the ten commandments are about showing reverance to the "One True" God and making sure their society would decay through their own actions.

David's job was tougher than most. He was a boy king who got a lucky shot and saved his people. After he ruled an kingdom with what he had. He was in a tougher role, because ruling a kingdom is a lot harder espically in those days than leading religious movements. When people critize David, its hard, because ruling an empire means breaking most of the ten commandments right off the bat.

Jesus in my opinion never wanted the spotlight. He would have been content on being a teacher who tried to bring some peace to land ruled mostly by fear, intolerance and war. You have to remember during his time, the Romans were conquering everything left and right. Teaching to turn the other check and love one another was a bit naive. Jesus probably wanted his message spread by violence or intolerance which is what happened. I don't think Jesus would vote Republican either, hes a Green Party member through and through. I also don't believe in a God that hates someone before being in love with another human being. I don't want to hear about small children and adults either, because you know damn well what I mean. If we have a God like that, we are better off with it.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Thread ahead: Attorney General Ashcroft resigns
Next thread: Less than shocking new study on the root causes of terrorism....
Previous thread: Conservative Groups Put Research on Watch List
(517 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Election 2004 results threadRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.297 seconds.