StrangeSox

Not all religions have a hell or even an afterlife at all.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 01:57 PM) And that is Democrats own fault for supporting these type of candidates. LGBT's aren't a unified, one-issue voter block.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 01:56 PM) Great, you want me to prove the impossible. I will not vote for someone who has changed a core belief. I will not vote for Mitt Romney for example. I voted for Ron Paul in our Primary on Tuesday even though there was no real reason to do so. Ron Paul repudiated the extreme racism he endorsed in his news letters.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ May 10, 2012 -> 01:54 PM) You say this like you don't think that a politician could ever have a change of mind or change of heart on an issue. That's a pretty high bar to live up to. People do change and their views do too. I don't doubt that a big part of his views are shaped by polling numbers. You could argue that's pandering. And its true if the views change with every audience. Something candidates like Mitt Romney, and to a lesser extent, John Kerry were very good at - as well as Abraham Lincoln, actually. However, if your views change because society changes, and your governance reflects the people you represent - that's not pandering, that's properly representing the people who elected you. I don't know why we have to assume that his mid-90's and 2012 positions are the dishonest ones and the 2008 position is his true feelings anyway.

e.g. while I'm sure Byrd still held some bigoted/racist views, I don't doubt that he repudiated the open racism of the klan in his heart.

If you're interested, greg, 3) is known as the "Problem of Evil" and philosophers and theologians have been wrestling with it for millennia.

Obama Pushes Reappointment of Svinicki to NRC Despite Objections from Key Senate Democrats

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 01:40 PM) Call it what you like. I'd rather support someone I disagree with and can trust, versus someone like this. Is there any possible way you'd ever believe Obama had a sincere, heart-felt change of opinion on this (assuming his 2007-08 positions were his true feelings and not his mid-90's non-national-spotlight statements)? Unwavering conviction isn't a positive trait.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 01:41 PM) They would be best supported by supporting candidates who actually support their beliefs. Yes, they would, but if your interpretation is correct, that's not an option.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 01:36 PM) I don't support hypocrisy. I know that doesn't make sense to you at all, but I think that is pretty silly. There's some amount of pragmatism that has to come into play for most people, though. Even if Obama's stated support is entirely political and not his actual beliefs, aren't the interests of the LGBT community better-served by someone making that a central platform of their party than by someone running openly against gay marriage?

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ May 10, 2012 -> 01:24 PM) His previous position was in favor of civil unions. If gay rights were a scale from 0 to 5, he's been roaming around between 4 and 5 during his political career. He hasn't been "all over the place". Yeah, this is distinctly different from, say, the Family Research Council coming out in favor of gay marriage. Obama may not have been the LGBT community's biggest friend, but he was far from an antagonist.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 01:18 PM) Yep. All over the place, and changing his position based on the tides. I'd bet if the country were against it in five years, he'd change again. IMO he was too big of a coward to openly support it in 2008 for political reasons. Which is still s***ty, but it doesn't mean his convictions are actually changing all that much. edit: it's not like support was strong in the mid-90's. It's only increased over time.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 12:50 PM) It is pretty much original, but the abuses of it really picked up in the last century or so. But so has the need for expansive, large-scale infrastructure as well as the percentage of land that's actually developed. You didn't have the electrical grid or communications networks or massive interstates 100 years ago. I'd imagine that there was plenty of abuse by Gilded Age railroad barons.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 08:00 AM) Ah yes, property rights, something else we have deeded to the governments in the last 100 years. Isn't eminent domain older than that? It has legitimate uses but it is abused (kelo).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 12:38 PM) One great indicator for me is guys who are willing to change their core positions as the polls change regarding them. It tells me that they will sell out on anything if the reward is right. I don't now that it is fair to say that he changed his core position here. I may be wrong, but in the past he didn't advocate for gay marriage. That is different from actually opposing it, even if it is still a bad position. As was pointed out, he ended doma and dadt. On the other hand, his wh just recently delayed implementing a non-discrimination policy for federal contractors.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 07:56 AM) Outside of the church structure, yes. Absolutely. The government shouldn't have the right to decide anyone's morality. We have ceded enough freedom to our government in the last 100 years. I see no convincing reason why this one. Even if you believe it is wrong as a Christian, (which I am not totally convinced of) I believe it is pretty clear that we are not to serve as arbiters and judges of morality. There is only one judge. :internet high-five:

You know, I'm still confused by kap's posts here. It's not like Obama was getting unconditional praise from everyone here for those move.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 9, 2012 -> 05:57 PM) I'm not going to have time to debate this, but I'm just going to drop in an assertion so that you know people don't agree with this...you're both wrong and it's been a long, long time, decades, since you could reasonably classify the media as "Liberal". Lazy, corporatist, motivated solely by money, sure. Are there Liberals in the group? Sure. Are there some liberal shows? Is CNN, ABC, NBC, or CBS a markedly liberal network? No, and it's been a long time since you could actually say that, if ever. They are so desperate to be seen as unbiased that they focus on horse race crap, repeat press releases verbatim and refuse to call out bulls*** when it is plainly obvious.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 9, 2012 -> 10:09 PM) It could be another wild summer in California...we are hearing potential rolling blackouts... Link Songs is hoping to get back on line next month, but the nrc is rejecting any timelines right now.

Kap or ss2k5, will either of you unequivocally support gay marriage?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 9, 2012 -> 04:29 PM) But if the a) overwhelming majority of people are religious and b) consider religious belief to be a "must," why isn't that number closer to 80-85% (the number of people in the US who consider themselves religious)? a and b are two separate claims.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 9, 2012 -> 04:45 PM) The President of the United States publicly states he supports gay marriage in the year 2012 and this is your reaction? Come on. f*** him for not doing it sooner.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 9, 2012 -> 03:18 PM) It does if you can define the words away because there is no such thing as nothing, just certain patterns of vibrations. (This is a very difficult one to put into text that is remotely comprehensible). Again...if "requiring that the universe came out of nothing" is a key part of your belief system, or that science cant explain how something came from nothing...then your belief system is in very short order going to be on shaky grounds. You might not understand it, and I probably won't...but that's where we're going. Turtles all the way down

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 9, 2012 -> 03:09 PM) I think a candidate could run a campaign of being agnostic and win yes. It's becoming less and less important for voters under the age of probably 40. Edit: and you do know that polling shows a mormon beating a christian right now right? I mean, mormons are more ridiculous than athiests, amiright? Mormonism is a branch of christianity.