ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
^ maybe when the SOFAs are impossible to negotiate to an acceptable compromise? US was almost kicked out of Okinawa after a Marine rape of a local girl in the 1990s, IIRC.
 
Iraq was won & stabilized after the 2007 surge. Obama's political decision to cut & run to satisfy political promise lost it.

we still have troops stationed in Germany & Japan 71 years after the conclusion of hostilities with those countries. and on the Korean peninsula 63 years after the ending of that shooting war.

When are they going to leave? according to you, at some point they have to. say the date spanky, if occupying troops HAVE to leave at a date certain when do we do so in those 3 countries?
It was stable in 2007?
Graph of monthly U.S. military casualties in Iraq from beginning of war to February, 2008
Troop_wounding_and_deaths_during_the_Iraq_war_by_month_during_19-03-2003_to_1-09-2007.jpg

What is your definition of stable?

How many US troops have been killed in action in Germany, Japan or Korea since the end of those wars? How many billions of US taxpayer dollars have gone to pay for our continued occupation of those countries. If US soldiers continued to be killed the political will of the people would have demanded that our troops come home a long, long time ago.
We don't remain in Germany and Japan to keep the peace or to run the police state. US soldiers are as safe there as they would be here at home. Still, there is mounting pressure to bring those troops home as well. They stayed there for decades as part of the cold war...they stay there now as part of the military industrial complex.
 
BTW, pastors/churches can and have refused to perform interracial marriages, or even allow interracial couples as members. How come no one forced them? Because it's not possible? Yup.

I think I'll weigh on this. Skin color not the same as behavior, from a biblical standpoint. From a biblical standpoint, homosexuality is a sin, and gay marriage isn't a real marriage. In fact, a man/woman marriage is compared to Christ and the church. Pastors typically will counsel couples he will marry, and certainly could not condone a homosexual marriage, on biblical grounds. Find somebody else who is okay with it.

However, from a biblical standpoint, nothing at all wrong with interracial marriage. It's not there. In fact, if you believe the Noah account, as I do, the whole earth was populated from the 8 people who were left, Noah, his wife, their 3 sons, and their wives. So, bibllically, we are all their descendants, and you can't be opposed to interracial marriage.
 
For a pastor, the bible is the say so. Leave him alone.

Being gay is a choice, They like it better. I'm a born liar, but that doesn't give me the right to lie, or commit perjury. I just can't give in to it, neither can a person predisposed to being gay.
 
Being gay is a choice, They like it better. I'm a born liar, but that doesn't give me the right to lie, or commit perjury. I just can't give in to it, neither can a person predisposed to being gay.

No it's not. It's ignorant and is very stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GrandePdre
Which brings me back to the question that wasn't answered.

Do businesses have more freedom than the individual themselves?

Didn't the Constitution state all men are created equal?
 
BTW, pastors/churches can and have refused to perform interracial marriages, or even allow interracial couples as members. How come no one forced them? Because it's not possible? Yup.

I doubt that "Must officiate at weddings when asked" is on any minister's job description. It is a service that he/she may choose to offer to whomever he/she chooses but is not a required duty. Most pastors turn down requests to officiate at weddings all the time for numerous reasons. It is not even automatic that a pastor will officiate at one of their own members' wedding. My wife's pastor would not officiate at our wedding because I was not a Christian at that time. It's not like if he/she refuses they can't get married. Find a JP or go to the courthouse. Just get the license, pay the fee and they'll marry anybody.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big_Blue79
I doubt that "Must officiate at weddings when asked" is on any minister's job description. It is a service that he/she may choose to offer to whomever he/she chooses but is not a required duty. Most pastors turn down requests to officiate at weddings all the time for numerous reasons. It is not even automatic that a pastor will officiate at one of their own members' wedding. It's not like if he/she refuses they can't get married. Find a JP or go to the courthouse. Just get the license, pay the fee and they'll marry anybody.
Exactly. I think the HRC's issue with the Georgia bill is that religious charities in Georgia who get federal money (homeless shelters, rehab programs, etc) could use the bill to discriminate who gets the (partially taxpayer-funded) charity.

I have a feeling that even among liberals, there's very little support for prosecuting a Baptist minister if he refuses to perform a homo wedding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big_Blue79
Exactly. I think the HRC's issue with the Georgia bill is that religious charities in Georgia who get federal money (homeless shelters, rehab programs, etc) could use the bill to discriminate who gets the (partially taxpayer-funded) charity.

I have a feeling that even among liberals, there's very little support for prosecuting a Baptist minister if he refuses to perform a homo wedding.

It's the old "camel's nose in the tent" fear tactic. It is a version of the gay wedding cake uproar. "If we let these people get away with refusing to bake us a wedding cake, it's just a matter of time until we can't buy a wedding cake anywhere!" (Although probably any other bakery in town would have gladly baked them a cake.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big_Blue79
I think I'll weigh on this. Skin color not the same as behavior, from a biblical standpoint. From a biblical standpoint, homosexuality is a sin, and gay marriage isn't a real marriage. In fact, a man/woman marriage is compared to Christ and the church. Pastors typically will counsel couples he will marry, and certainly could not condone a homosexual marriage, on biblical grounds. Find somebody else who is okay with it.

However, from a biblical standpoint, nothing at all wrong with interracial marriage. It's not there. In fact, if you believe the Noah account, as I do, the whole earth was populated from the 8 people who were left, Noah, his wife, their 3 sons, and their wives. So, bibllically, we are all their descendants, and you can't be opposed to interracial marriage.
[roll]
 
Both liberals and conservatives alike, however, would support prosecuting a Jehovah's Witness minister for refusing to hitch queers cause we can all agree that they're (JW) just a bunch of weirdos.
Easy, my parents were/are J/W. I grew up in it and yes it is a bit weird.
 
Sorry, but you have zero basis for this whatsoever besides the fevered dreams of Ted Cruz. So you think that somehow churches can refuse to perform weddings on the basis of constitutionally protected classes like religion and race, but they cannot refuse for whatever class Kennedy's ramblings put sexual preference into? That's completely illogical.

Your post makes no sense in regards to what I said.

The other real problem here is not only the state intrusion, but theres no effective way to resolve the dispute. Everytime a pastor turns down a wedding, he may well be sued (in theory). Then what? Courts are tied up on a he said/she said case? What a waste of time.

It's the old "camel's nose in the tent" fear tactic. It is a version of the gay wedding cake uproar. "If we let these people get away with refusing to bake us a wedding cake, it's just a matter of time until we can't buy a wedding cake anywhere!" (Although probably any other bakery in town would have gladly baked them a cake.)

Kim Davis sucks. But there were people driving from other counties and states to Rowan county just to try and force her to marry them; when they almost certainly couldve been given a license right where they lived.
 
While everyone was spazzing out about Georgia's supposedly horrible bill, North Carolina quickly passed a more comprehensive law that's got a lot of people freaking out.

Hard to read up on this one to make a fair evaluation. Every article so far is slamming the bill.

Law basically says a transgendered person who hasn't had the sex change operation must use the bathroom of biological origin as stated on the birth certificate, and it forbids cities from passing laws to accommodate them. It also leaves out LGBTQ from employment and wage rights, and it says you can't sue the state in civil court over it.

Basically struck down a Charlotte ordinance that was just passed requiring special accommodation for the transgendered, too.
 
Winning a war is easy. Winning the peace is hard.
We wiped out Iraq's army in a few days...then spent the next 10 years dealing with the consequences. No doubt we could take any ground held by ISIS in the same manner...then what? At some point we have to leave and there is nothing to keep the cycle from repeating itself.

There is no such thing as winning the peace, that's a ridiculous notion.
You punish the adversary until the will to fight is removed.
Defeating the military alone doesn't do that, the will of the people supporting the military has to be broken as well.
 
Grande- If I understand it correctly. When trying to pass these bills, these states are trying to curb minimum wage increases. I could be wrong, but I think that's why these bills are being put out.

My bad. It's the Declaration of Independence that says "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL"

If all men are created equal, then religion has no right to discriminate. Period. IDGAF what some cracker ass honky gay, negro hating pastor thinks. If his words promote discrimination that mf'er can kiss my ass.
 
It was stable in 2007?
Graph of monthly U.S. military casualties in Iraq from beginning of war to February, 2008
Troop_wounding_and_deaths_during_the_Iraq_war_by_month_during_19-03-2003_to_1-09-2007.jpg

What is your definition of stable?

How many US troops have been killed in action in Germany, Japan or Korea since the end of those wars? How many billions of US taxpayer dollars have gone to pay for our continued occupation of those countries. If US soldiers continued to be killed the political will of the people would have demanded that our troops come home a long, long time ago.
We don't remain in Germany and Japan to keep the peace or to run the police state. US soldiers are as safe there as they would be here at home. Still, there is mounting pressure to bring those troops home as well. They stayed there for decades as part of the cold war...they stay there now as part of the military industrial complex.

And now we have 6000 soldiers back in Iraq, because A) we left too soon against military advice, and B) we tried to win hearts and minds, which only caused more US military deaths.
War is awful, there is no clean sanitized war.
Civilians and innocent people will die, but the goal should be to thoroughly win, and keep American troops as safe as possible, that's it.
 
I think I'll weigh on this. Skin color not the same as behavior, from a biblical standpoint. From a biblical standpoint, homosexuality is a sin, and gay marriage isn't a real marriage. In fact, a man/woman marriage is compared to Christ and the church. Pastors typically will counsel couples he will marry, and certainly could not condone a homosexual marriage, on biblical grounds. Find somebody else who is okay with it.

However, from a biblical standpoint, nothing at all wrong with interracial marriage. It's not there. In fact, if you believe the Noah account, as I do, the whole earth was populated from the 8 people who were left, Noah, his wife, their 3 sons, and their wives. So, bibllically, we are all their descendants, and you can't be opposed to interracial marriage.

While I agree with your assessment, the lack of historical context is befuddling. For years interracial marriage was considered wrong from a biblical stand point. People made the same claim about blacks as others do homosexuality.
 
Being gay is a choice, They like it better. I just can't give in to it, neither can a person predisposed to being gay.
So what you're essentially saying is you like playing hard to get so if ol' Willie decides he wants to get in on that you are going to make him go the extra mile before you bend over and cough? Does that technically make you a debutante?
 
While I agree with your assessment, the lack of historical context is befuddling. For years interracial marriage was considered wrong from a biblical stand point. People made the same claim about blacks as others do homosexuality.

They have learned to move the goal posts back.
 
While I agree with your assessment, the lack of historical context is befuddling. For years interracial marriage was considered wrong from a biblical stand point. People made the same claim about blacks as others do homosexuality.

IMO, historically people have taken some liberty with God's OT command for Jews not to intermarry with non-Jews, primarily because they didn't worship the same God and were primarily heathens. But it was on spiritual grounds, not skin color. By twisting this, they were able to justify their racism.

Now, with the NT, we are mainly admonished not be unequally yoked, or a believer shouldn't marry an unbeliever. It happens, and there are plan B instructions after that in the NT.
 
So what you're essentially saying is you like playing hard to get so if ol' Willie decides he wants to get in on that you are going to make him go the extra mile before you bend over and cough? Does that technically make you a debutante?

Uh, no. But I believe anybody is capable of most anything under the right circumstances, when it comes to moral issues. We make choices and fight with ourselves everyday. At least I do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: warrior-cat
Bigblue- Since you're the only one who seems to be able to answer my questions on legality.

Maybe get Transy's thoughts on it.

Does the Declaration of Independence trump the bible when it comes to making laws for this country?

I am just having a hard time seeing how gov't can't involve itself when people have not been treated as equals in this country, and how do equal people get equality without gov't intervention?

Because obviously people who think like Wkycat are a-okay classifying people as sub-human and not equal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaBossIsBack
Thought I would throw this in - I wouldn't fu^k Hillary Clinton with Hussein Obama's dick. She is fuc^kin gross. I don't blame bill at all.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT