Robertson and Bush...
-
If I'm not mistaken Clinton got spritual/marriage advice from Jessie Jackson, who towards the end of Clinton's presidency admitted to having a child with a woman other than his wife, needless to say I feel much better about Bush being in office. Joshua Guy
Sonork ID: 100.9944 ICQ: 519642 Hotmail: JoshuaJGuy@hotmail.com
-
Joshua Guy wrote: I feel much better about Bush being in office I'd rather have some guy getting a BJ then some guy making money off of his wars, while getting advice from Pat Robertson.:laugh: We should just elect Homer Simpson Later,
JoeSox -
JoeSox wrote: if you believe that JFK was shot by one man, there is something wrong with you I for one only believe things which can be proven. Not things that are popularized by BAD Oliver Stone Docu-Dramas. What Would Uncle Steve Do?. -Michael Martin
Chris Austin wrote: I for one only believe things which can be proven. Not things that are popularized by BAD Oliver Stone Docu-Dramas So what do you believe on the matter then?
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRoger Wright wrote: Using a feather is kinky; using the whole chicken is perverted!
-
How can it be proven when the evidence was tampered?? Please read Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in... (if you haven't already) and get back to me. Later,
JoeSoxJoeSox wrote: Please read Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in... (if you haven't already) and get back to me. I've read it (I think in 92 or 93 -sophomore year of collage) as well as a dozen other papers supporting a conspiracy. Hell I was the biggest conspiracy nut I knew at the time. But now, I have changed. I need hard proof if I am going to believe anything (this used to really piss off my vendors when I would ask them to "Show me the Data"). Many of these authors draw on evidence tampering, of course the ballistics, and shoddy sources. They have yet to prove it without question. Until then is just another theory in my mind. JoeSox wrote: How can it be proven when the evidence was tampered?? One could even argue that those purporting an un-proven theory are also tampering by spreading “ideas” as facts. I can’t help but remember some of the implications of Heisenberg’s principle: by measuring or interacting with a system we alter it. BTW. I’m not saying it wasn’t a conspiracy, I am just not convinced. What Would Uncle Steve Do?. -Michael Martin
-
Chris Austin wrote: I for one only believe things which can be proven. Not things that are popularized by BAD Oliver Stone Docu-Dramas So what do you believe on the matter then?
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRoger Wright wrote: Using a feather is kinky; using the whole chicken is perverted!
Paul Watson wrote: So what do you believe on the matter then? I believe that it hasn't been proven. And Oliver Stone movies are very BAD:). What Would Uncle Steve Do?. -Michael Martin
-
Russell Morris wrote: Why is it a requirement that a president (or any political figure) be an atheist? It is important to keep Religion and State seperate. "Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, when choosing your representatives....Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. " http://members.tripod.com/~candst/leland5.htm[^] Later,
JoeSoxLoad my Sig here.....
JoeSox wrote: It is important to keep Religion and State seperate. Is it important to keep morality and state seperate? "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
JoeSox wrote: Please read Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in... (if you haven't already) and get back to me. I've read it (I think in 92 or 93 -sophomore year of collage) as well as a dozen other papers supporting a conspiracy. Hell I was the biggest conspiracy nut I knew at the time. But now, I have changed. I need hard proof if I am going to believe anything (this used to really piss off my vendors when I would ask them to "Show me the Data"). Many of these authors draw on evidence tampering, of course the ballistics, and shoddy sources. They have yet to prove it without question. Until then is just another theory in my mind. JoeSox wrote: How can it be proven when the evidence was tampered?? One could even argue that those purporting an un-proven theory are also tampering by spreading “ideas” as facts. I can’t help but remember some of the implications of Heisenberg’s principle: by measuring or interacting with a system we alter it. BTW. I’m not saying it wasn’t a conspiracy, I am just not convinced. What Would Uncle Steve Do?. -Michael Martin
-
Paul Watson wrote: So what do you believe on the matter then? I believe that it hasn't been proven. And Oliver Stone movies are very BAD:). What Would Uncle Steve Do?. -Michael Martin
Chris Austin wrote: Paul Watson wrote: So what do you believe on the matter then? I believe that it hasn't been proven. Damn Chris, you are taking tips from the politicians aren't you? ;) Guess many of us could learn from you in being able to admit we have no opinion on the matter when we do not know the facts.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRoger Wright wrote: Using a feather is kinky; using the whole chicken is perverted!
-
Chris Austin wrote: BTW. ...I am just not convinced. That's the way they wanted it, for the truth to always be untold, so it will never be proven. Later,
JoeSoxThe problem is is I don't belive that there is a "they". Who are "they"? The best thing I have ever seen that has covered this is "The Ilumanatis Trilogy"...frickin hillarious. What Would Uncle Steve Do?. -Michael Martin
-
JoeSox wrote: It is important to keep Religion and State seperate. Is it important to keep morality and state seperate? "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: Is it important to keep morality and state seperate? mo·ral·i·ty 1)The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. 2)A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality. 3)Virtuous conduct. 4)A rule or lesson in moral conduct. Which definition of "morality" are you referring to? Then I can answer your question;) Later,
JoeSox -
Chris Austin wrote: Paul Watson wrote: So what do you believe on the matter then? I believe that it hasn't been proven. Damn Chris, you are taking tips from the politicians aren't you? ;) Guess many of us could learn from you in being able to admit we have no opinion on the matter when we do not know the facts.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRoger Wright wrote: Using a feather is kinky; using the whole chicken is perverted!
LOL!... My biggest conflict is that I want to belive in a consiparicy. But no one has been able to prove it to me. What Would Uncle Steve Do?. -Michael Martin
-
JoeSox wrote: It is important to keep Religion and State seperate. Is it important to keep morality and state seperate? "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Of course not. Faith requires Morality, but Morality doesn't require Faith. Personally, I'd be ecstatic if everyone did have Faith, but realistically it's not going to happen anytime soon...and I'd rather not have religion jammed down the throats of those who don't have Faith. It doesn't work. Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschTrouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
-
The problem is is I don't belive that there is a "they". Who are "they"? The best thing I have ever seen that has covered this is "The Ilumanatis Trilogy"...frickin hillarious. What Would Uncle Steve Do?. -Michael Martin
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Is it important to keep morality and state seperate? mo·ral·i·ty 1)The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. 2)A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality. 3)Virtuous conduct. 4)A rule or lesson in moral conduct. Which definition of "morality" are you referring to? Then I can answer your question;) Later,
JoeSoxLets go with number 1. It seems the most ambiguous. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
I don't think it is, nor should it be, but Pat Robertson is definitely on the far right of the Church. Personally, I find the idea of an extremist of any kind having the ear of government terrifying. The nearest equivalent to people like him in the UK is the Evangelical Alliance - and if they had their way I wouldn't be able to get treatment even if (as I am) I pay for it myself. Worse, I certainly wouldn't be allowed to join any Church, which is a horrible thing to do to a Christian. I regularly get emails from other Christians with gender dysphoria. It's bad enough to have to tell them now that they may well lose their Church, but if the EA had their way there'd be no hope whatsoever. Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschTrouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
The Unitarian-Universalists would likely not object to your memmbership. Not all protestant cristian organizations intitutionalize bigotry as part of their creed, just a radical few. I suspect you wouuld get a bit of flack from any Islamic congregation as well tho... :rose: Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could have thought of them - George Orwell
-
Russell Morris wrote: Why is it a requirement that a president (or any political figure) be an atheist? It is important to keep Religion and State seperate. "Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, when choosing your representatives....Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. " http://members.tripod.com/~candst/leland5.htm[^] Later,
JoeSoxLoad my Sig here.....
I don't believe GWB has ever suggested state sponsorship of a specific religion... I have little problem with him being forthright enough not to hide his beliefs. Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could have thought of them - George Orwell
-
I have been told that Bush receives daily recomendations from Pat Robertson on how to execute god's plan. Here is a nice background article about Robertson and Bush. American Democracy is and has been in trouble for a while(if you believe that JFK was shot by one man, there is something wrong with you), I just wish the major of Americans would see it. http://www.detnet.com/wilke/robertson1.htm[^] Later,
JoeSoxLoad my Sig here.....
I think you have been reading that kind of tripe for far too long. It has appearently turned you into just as much a bigot as Pat Robertson, only at the other extreme. :suss: Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could have thought of them - George Orwell
-
Lets go with number 1. It seems the most ambiguous. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
morality:The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. You can not separate this definition of morality from State. State is made up of people, people are humans, all humans have morality. This definition of morality implies morality has a sliding scale, good morality, bad morality, etc. You need some sort of morality to govern, good or bad. Religion is not needed to govern. What do you think?;P Later,
JoeSox -
Russell Morris wrote: Why is it a requirement that a president (or any political figure) be an atheist? It is important to keep Religion and State seperate. "Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, when choosing your representatives....Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. " http://members.tripod.com/~candst/leland5.htm[^] Later,
JoeSoxLoad my Sig here.....
JoeSox wrote: Russell Morris wrote: Why is it a requirement that a president (or any political figure) be an atheist? It is important to keep Religion and State seperate. The conclusion doesn't follow the facts. A president holding strong religious convictions in no way leads to "a state established religion", which is what seperation of church and state is all about. Note that you are quoting a man who was deeply religious, who was agreeing with the very men who helped to create our government, who were also deeply religious. Way too often in modern times do we misrepresent what our fore fathers said, through poor reasoning. William E. Kempf
-
Lets go with number 1. It seems the most ambiguous. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle