Now that Ive cooled off....

[Dmitry M. (Lazer)]

Originally posted by KCAA


I have to say we agree on a lot of points. I will agree that we aren't a theocracy yet, but we are headed in that direction.

I never did get that slant on Kansas.

I like your closing statment alot.

It seems however, we are surrounded by people who just do NOT want to open their minds to ANY possibilities. It also seems that one's opinion has to be FACT, therefore not an opinion. But that rule only applies if it is someone other than themselves talking.

I think we agree with eachother voice..we're just out manned.

Dimitry-



Does that apply to Magoosh!'s thread?

(or since he agrees does it not imply :P )

OMG, are you ****en moronic KCAA, you're even worse then Voice. We are not even headed to Theocracy. Just because Bush had the Religious groups influence and votes, that does not mean we are headed to ****en theocracy. Firstly lets not forget the President is not all mighty in US, we do not live in a ****en Dictatorship. We live in something cllaed a Republic where the government is ruled by a Senate. And the Senate can always overrule any law the president trys to pass.

It's the most ignorant thing to say we are close to ****en Theocracy. You have never lived in a land like Iraq, Israel, or specifically the Middle-East which is completely rules by a Theocracy. You don't even know what the **** a theocracy is. So please STFU, we are no close to being a theocracy. Stop ****en thinking just because Bush got elected and many people that elected him were those of Religious Beliefs we are headed to theocracy.

Read your own posts KCAA. When Ryan explained abortion and it's process in Science, you next reply was simply:
"Sorry, but no. And I bet ALOT of people will disagree there.,"

Instead of saying just that how about saying why you said that. That line just made you so ignorant.

I simply meant that the ammendments that have been proposed are in line with the basics of a Theocracy, I never said that the proposal of these ammendments made us a Theocracy, that was an assumption made by Dimitry. I also never said that if these ammendments passed, that we would in turn, become a Theocracy.

Like i said making abortion illigal maybe a bases of a theocracy to some but not all. A bases of theocracy is making Religious Beliefs manditory, creating a church that has control of some portion of government, proposing that there is only 1 legal religion. These are 100% direct proposals of the bases of Theocracy. Making abortion illigal is not that. Your only valid point about theorcracy is Same-
Sex Marriage. Why worry about it anyways, the laws will not be passed no matter what.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
-Constituton

[KCAA]

Originally posted by Dmitry M. (Lazer)


It's the most ignorant thing to say we are close to ****en Theocracy.

No. No its not. Moreover, I never said in that last post we are CLOSE to a theocracy. I said

I will agree that we aren't a theocracy yet, but we are headed in that direction.

Thats not

It's the most ignorant thing to say we are close to ****en Theocracy.

Read your own posts KCAA. When Ryan explained abortion and it's process in Science, you next reply was simply:

You obviously don't read my post either.

I said.

Does that apply to Magoosh!'s thread?

That is, I was asking if your criteria:

but no please give an extensive analysis onto why you say that and not just go about it in that nature.

included this:

Reading all the stupid shit KCAA and Voice have posted...well I just cant bring myself to lock the thread

That was posted by magoosh! (BTW I meant reply not thread. )

He jumps in says something and then leaves. Doesn't offer his opinion(aka FACTS in your terms) even.

Heres some links and quotes to play around with:
http://www.theocracywatch.org/

n the second usage of the term theocracy, in which the governmental rulers are identical with the leaders of the dominant religion. governmental policies are either identical with or strongly influenced by the principles of the majority religion, and typically, the government claims to rule on behalf of God or a higher power, as specified by the local religion.

Granted our government isn't claiming to be ruleing by God. if they did, they would lose alot of support.,
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20011121.html

What would you say if this bill passed:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3799:

http://litmuse.maconstate.edu/~gluca...s/000471.shtml <--that one is pretty extreme.

http://www.workingforchange.com/arti...m?itemid=16391

Mull those over.

[farfus]

Its always interesting to note the idea that we may be becoming a theocracy, after having been formed as an independent country under GOD over two hundred years ago. So, if you believe for some reason were becoming a theocracy, are you also saying were going back to what the founding fathers originally believed in and practiced when they founded this country? If so, what would be wrong with that, ive always believed its our foundation that is holding us somewhat strong and semi-reasonable, not the things that have been changed over the past century...

[KCAA]

Originally posted by farfus
Its always interesting to note the idea that we may be becoming a theocracy, after having been formed as an independent country under GOD over two hundred years ago. So, if you believe for some reason were becoming a theocracy, are you also saying were going back to what the founding fathers originally believed in and practiced when they founded this country? If so, what would be wrong with that, ive always believed its our foundation that is holding us somewhat strong and semi-reasonable, not the things that have been changed over the past century...

True to an extent. The founding fathers also strived for Seperation of Church and State. They also never legislated against certain things because of religious beliefs. (Gay Marriage & Perhaps abortion but mostly gay marriage)

[farfus]

Whether or not they strove for seperation of church and state, they openly acknowledged the presence of God in their decision making, and the country was founded by people who acknowledged the presence of God, and the need for God, in their daily life. Due to those circumstances, the fact that biblical christianity prohibits even the thought of a gay lifestyle, and people adhered to biblical principles in those days, mostly, people were practicing what they believed in. If for any reason George Bush were to attempt to change some current laws to appeal to his and the country's biblical beliefs, they would much more closely resemble the beliefs that founded this country originally, and made this country the great country it is, not what it has become over the past several generations of change due to inflow of various belief systems and factions...

[Magoosh!]

"That was posted by magoosh! (BTW I meant reply not thread. )

He jumps in says something and then leaves. Doesn't offer his opinion(aka FACTS in your terms) even."


Here's a fact ...



I dont feel the need to argue with people that dont know what the **** they're talking about.I clearly came in here to state my feelings on the state of the thread and why I havent locked this long winded arguement that keeps going around in circles...like I said,it's just too funny to lock.


PS- I dont feel the need to give an extensive analysis on why I think your posts are stupid.

[KCAA]

Originally posted by Magoosh!
"That was posted by magoosh! (BTW I meant reply not thread. )

He jumps in says something and then leaves. Doesn't offer his opinion(aka FACTS in your terms) even."


Here's a fact ...



I dont feel the need to argue with people that dont know what the **** they're talking about.I clearly came in here to state my feelings on the state of the thread and why I havent locked this long winded arguement that keeps going around in circles...like I said,it's just too funny to lock.


PS- I dont feel the need to give an extensive analysis on why I think your posts are stupid.

Perhaps but you don't even offer your stance on anything. It's just a meaningless post.

[Magoosh!]

"It's just a meaningless post."

The same could be said about your posts which lack hard facts.

Lets not play this game,be happy the thread is still going.

[Odin]

I also said that George W. Bush is using these views of a large majority of our population to his advantage.

Or perhaps to the advantage of his constituents who happen to oppose abortion, too?

My logic when it comes to what I've said about us being close to a Theocracy makes perfect sense to me. It's been taken way out of proportion, and made to seem like I said we are one ammendment away from being one.

The reason people are making such a fuss about it is because the mere suggestion is too stupid for words. If you care at all about your image you might want to consider abandoning that ship.

George W. Bush has not ONCE brought up science when talking about making abortion illegal. He has not once brought up the legal reasoning while talking on making same-sex marriage illegal.

It's tough to find documentation that specifically refutes absolute negatives, isn't it, Voice? A citation or two would really help your case.

I think we agree with eachother voice..we're just out manned.

It's not that you're outnumbered; you could marshal as many cronies as you wanted and you'd still get flagellated by the same three people. You're just badly, *badly* outgunned.

[farfus]

Amen, Bryan, its not even close...