Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 591 To 600 Of 657 Comments
JESUS, LORD! ARE THEY ALL HYPOCRITICAL BASTARDS?
@manning (#66):
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 30.08.2007 @ 19:26
perhaps the differnce in concern between the thousands killed in Iraq and the millions of abortions is becuase everybody agrees that the thousands dead in Iraq are human beings. The millions of abortions are open to debate as to whether they are human beings or simply growths of cells. For the people who believe the latter, then abortions aren't murder/genocide, but simple medical procedures, no more significant than getting a Botox shot or having a mole removed from your skin.
Obviously, from your position, the shock you feel at focusing on such a small number of deaths comparitively is understandable. But absent that initial presumption (life begins at conception), the disperate attention paid to Iraq deaths makes perfect sense (at least to me).
@manning:
"Allowing the Democrats into full power is simply beyond anguish and nearing chaos.""People, I seem to gather, like to watch porn, fornicate without penalty, play with the same sex, cheat on their income tax (if they pay anything at all), get money free from the government, or get free services such as medical care, schooling, college, home bailout loans, a job for life, a government retirement pension vested after 10 years, superb roads, rail and bus transport, zero smog, pure water, and jolly companions—also for life. But only if they don’t have to pay for it or work hard for it, or defend their nation for it."
Wow. You do realize how craaaaaaaazy that sounds, right? Republicans are morally upright (well, except for the adulterers, gays, and meth smokers) while Democratic rallys pass out crack and porn at the door. Just wow.
Remember about 10 years ago? Y'know, when Willie was in the white House? How everybody stopped working, the economy collapsed, everybody just lay around, cashing their free govt money and bought drugs to fuel same-sex orgies? Don't remeber that?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 30.08.2007 @ 00:30
Its because it didn't happen. *gasp* Clinton must have been secretly a Repuplican! It would certainly explain the adultery.
You seem like a well intentioned person, but comments like that are outrageously offensive. I always wonder why the "Morality Party" is so rude.
@ Manning:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 29.08.2007 @ 22:31
I re-read the post, and if you are saying "would have completed a human being" equals "human being" then why qualify it in the first post? Why worry about "erase[ing] all of the structural information the fetus cells contain . . . "?
A child is in the process of growing. Its still a human being, not something in the process of becoming a human being.
An acorn contains all of the structural information to create a tree, but its not a tree. If I collect 1000 acorns and smash them with a hammer, I haven't chopped down a forest.
Your second post states your position much clearer: human life begins at conception, period. Thats a perfectly legitimate position to take, but its a position taken on faith alone. There is no evidence life begins (or doesn't) at conception, its what you believe. You may be right, you may be wrong. But to say "because I believe it, you must as well" does not sit well with non-believers, and when the (far) Right refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that they might not be 100% correct, it hurts the party.
@manning:
"Abortion: When you abort a fetus, you erase all of the structural information the fetus cells contains that would have completed a human being. That is surely murder."That is surely not murder. Murder requires the premedidated, intentional killing of a human being, not a "would have completed a human being."
I'm not passing judgement on whether a fetus is or is not a human being (the basis of the abortion debate), but your definition covers non-human beings that might eventually become a human being. Can't murder until it is actually classed as a human being.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 29.08.2007 @ 03:42
@ Mr. Cooper:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 28.08.2007 @ 22:44
Actually, you said it better than I could:
"If they want to be a real part of the community they have to stop demonizing everone who wil not fall in line with their restricted guide as to how non gays can think about homosexuals."
Apply this to the Republican Party and you have my point in a nutshell.
@edward cooper:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 28.08.2007 @ 22:42
Perhaps I did miss your point, and my snark tank was on full the other night (rotten day at work) so I got mouthy rather than discuss, and for that I apologize.
Let me re-approach the issue. The Republican party is not a religious movement, but a political one. While you are certainly free to insist that the politics you follow are in line with your religious beliefs, insisting that the political party strictly follow them is a recipie for disaster for Republicans, which seemed to be the concern of the original post (the danger of turning off non-Republicans from the party through apparently hypocritical actions).
Your original post seemed to allow only two possibilities: the Party of the moral compass, or "embracing a homosexual life style, gay marriage, abortion, or any other social aberration to win the 18-29 vote". As you've said, you have gay friends. I assume from the tenor of your posts that you yourself have not embraced the social abberation of a homosexual lifestyle, and yet you can still interact with those friends, work with them, even love and cherish them. Not decrying "social abberations" isn't the same as embracing them.
As you said, God will judge, not man. Its the tying of Earthly issues ("what is Caesars") to the spiritual ("what is Gods") that hamstrings Republicans, by excluding Conservatives of other denominations, if you will. The Bible doesn't hold opinions on Natinal Defense, on low taxes, on small government, yet these are all issues traditionally associated with Republicans. Focusing on those issues could theoretically garner new recruits to the party.
As the Bible notes, we are all born to sin. By holding themselves out as the paragons of virtue, Republicans only set themselves up to fall farther when those inherent sins are eventually uncovered. Take the example of Prez. Clinton. Most people I know who were disgusted with the Lewinsky affair were offended he lied, but not so much that he was cheating on his wife. After all, this was Slick Willie we're talking about. Now, if he spent his speeches talking about how he was living a Righteous Life, I personally think the fallout would have been far worse.
Nothing prohibits Republicans (or Democrats) from following their faith and conscience in their lives. Making it the prime reason for the existence of the Republican Party, however, by definition tells everybody who does not hold the same exact belief system "go away."
Far too long winded a post. Again, my apologies for the snotty attitude in my first reply.
@Becky:
Sorry for the snark, but think about the case you're making:
1) Craig gets arrested
2) Craig votes against the wishes of a majority of his constituents
3) Craig was blackmailedThat only holds up if (2) is an unusual occurance, something that should raise a red flag. Since elected representatives vote against the wishes of a majority all the time, how is it a suspicious occurance? If its not, then (3) doesn't follow at all, absent any additional evidence at(2).
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 28.08.2007 @ 22:13
I'm not saying he wasn't blackmailed -- I haven't got the slightest idea whether he was or not, and I don't doubt such a thing is possible. But to take the idea beyond wild speculation needs something, anything more, at least for me.
I am confused by how the criminal case played out. The police report seemed pretty beatable -- I've won far worse cases. No offer for sex, just toe tapping and reaching under the stall wall. I'm not sure why he pled, and I'm even more confused by him now saying he didn't mean it when he said "Guilty." He's claiming he should have spoken to a lawyer -- is he saying he didn't? He thought he'd just go in and wing that whole "trying to pay an undercover cop for sex" thing? And if he was winging it, why the heck did he cop to it? I assume he was fully aware of what would happen when he pled -- he seems a reasonably intelligent guy. Strange case to be sure, but it implies blackmail is going to require some additional.
@Becky:
The fact that a senator voted against the wishes of their constituency is not an earth-shattering event -- unfortunately, they do it all the time. Is it POSSIBLE that there was a blackmail plot? Sure, its possible. If the only envidence of a plot is that a senator (or representative) acted against what their constituency wanted, then I don't think thats enough to start looking for boogeymen (or boogeywomen).
Thats kind of the point of elected representatives for our form of government -- if it was simply a case of "majority rules," then they would all be irrevelant. Well, I think they are mostly irrevelant, but the system was set up specifically to avoid majority rule.@r4d20:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 28.08.2007 @ 11:29
On the down side, not being gay means I wouldn't like it. On the plus side, I'd be having alot more sex.
"But honey . . . its the law! Now shut up and put out!"
@Edward Cropper:
"The Republican party has a choice.They can follow the liberals into never never land, embracing a homosexual life style, gay marriage, abortion, or any other social aberration to win the 18-29 vote( which they will not). "and there's the essential weakness of the Right-Wing branch of the Republican party: absolutism. There's a big difference between "embracing a homosexual lifestyle" and simply not leading a pogrom against them. But to the "base," everything is complete black-and-white. When trying to express the goals and ideals of a legitimate political movement, devolving to "so what do you want? Gay sex mandated in the streets!?!?!" reeeeeeely chases most of the people away.
Oh and subtly throwing in people who don't back the extreme 100% are going to Hell isn't a particularly good recruiting tool either.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 28.08.2007 @ 00:27
If Republicans want to keep the party viable, they need to engage in exactly this sort of internal examination. Unfortunately, I have to go to blogs to hear honest internal criticism. Kudos to Mr. Moran.
Incidentally, I'm a Leftie opposed to gay marriage. I think we are both going to get kicked out of our respective clubs.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 27.08.2007 @ 21:51
