Apology is 8 years late but fortunately he is out of office now.

Its only going to get worse with Obama, though. I'm no racist, ask any of my friends, but seriously, this guy is much worse, as he has no idea what he's doing.

Much worse than Bush? I doubt it. Bush destroyed your credability and economy in 8 years. No president will be able to turn that around in only a few months. There are no easy answers. Obama is going to make some mistakes. Humans usually do. But unlike Bush who confinded himself in a media free bubble and only listened to his war-monger advisors, Obama is listening to everyone and weighing all the options. Bush had one agenda and that was to finish his father's war at all costs including stripping away the freedoms of his own people in the guise of protecting them.

In any case, we have differing opinions when it comes to your current administration. I'm cool with that. Only time will tell one way or the other.

Well, we'll just see, then. As for me, I may see about moving to Canada if things keep inching towards what it looks like. (I recommend you look into this to see some of my latest concerns... http://articles.latimes.com/2009/ma.....a-obama-czars5 )

Come on up! Canada rocks, eh!! :)

Maybe I'll visit you sometime - I've always wanted to go beyond the US border...

D.O.P.R

Btw, Obama is hiring on dozens of "Czars" to do his job for him, so i would hardly call that listening to everyone or weighing anything. These Czars only answer to Obama, and not to any other form of regulation, not even Congress. A concept that should have people concerned, but since it doesn't, I'm moving if I can get my shit together, and find a place up there somewhere.

Having people reporting to you directly so you are not getting information 4th hand (like Bush) has nothing to do with who he is listening to. It sounds more like task forces to help get the job done once a decision is made. People want the country fixed NOW not tomorrow but when Obama tries to make that happen by cutting through the bullshit, people freak out again. The guy is not going to do something illegal or stupid to get himself impeached. Until I see him persoanlly gathering up people into prision camps, I am not going to listen to his enemies propoganda. I am going to wait 4 years and see if the US is in any better shape before I make my judgement call. But then that's just me. :)

I'm all for the information getting to him directly, but the fact that no one but Obama is capable of dismissing them. Not even Congress. Try looking into some of these "Czar"'s criminal histories, their moral leanings, their general pasts. Having only one man, have a damn army of litigators around him, that answer to him and ONLY him. THAT is dangerous. And in my opinion, a problem that everyone should be aware of.

Then if they mess up, then it will be Obama that goes. I don't see a problem here. I havn't taken the time to investigate what this "Czar" thing is or if this is just what his oponants are calling them so I can't make a proper arguement one way or the other at this time but I also won't base my opinion on the one artacle I read.

And we can all be glad of that, but unfortunately, there are still some less then agreeable people in high places making stupid decisions on our behalf.

D.O.P.R

sigh... what happened to our retarded big brother to the south now? (im canadian)

Take your pick. But what I had read this time was that Hillary Clinton threatened to end intelligence sharing with the UK if they released some transcripts which provided evidence that US military officials tortured terrorism suspects.

D.O.P.R

I suspect that evidance will come out when the current administration requests it. Getting it released now will only create huge upheval in the US at probably the worst time. I would LOVE to see jsutice done to anyone involved in those incidents but I am willing to wait till the economy and supporters of the old administartion have time to settle. I am surprised to hear the measures Hillary is willing to go through though.

Yeah, so is everyone else.

The British High Court asked for additional confirmation to see if the US would really consider such a drastic move, which would essentially endanger the lives of British soldiers.

One judge called it a "naked power play", and I can't disagree.

Personally, I think it was just a poorly attempted bluff. But seriously Hillary - bad move...

D.O.P.R

No one who believes in the bible should be allowed to vote, I swear.

I don't want to sound like an anti religious bigit but I totally aggree there .. I've actually heard several ppl tell me that "god" says .. Bla bla .. I'm sorry .. Thatsb when I have to hold my hand up .. I'm sorry .. God did not come down and insist that war is great, and he did not tell us all to be as retarted and hateful as we possibly could.. I get so sick and tired of these religious nutcakes who harp on me for things that I do then immedietly go home and do things that would make jesus flip over in his grave then go to church the next day and still claim to be a good "christian" .. I don't follow the word of god ..I'm draconian I'm sorry I've got a whole nother set of ideas that works into the ideals of right and wrong, yet these boushwa conserative hypocritical "christians" are the ones who seem to have all the voting and power control in this stupid country

Wow .. Should have put an agnst alert up

I was being a bit of a troll there, actually.

People who seriously believe what I said need a good smack. :)

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that, but I agree with the sentiment behind it.

I also am tired of religious fanatics using their religions as their sole reasoning behind decisions.
This country was founded on the idea that religion should be separate from government, so anytime someone says that "the Bible says", they're opinion is automatically invalid.

I'm not conservative, I'm not liberal, I'm not a party-slave. I just want the people in this country to be happy and healthy - all the people - not just Christians.

"Before you remove the speck from your brother's eye, remove the plank from your own eye."

D.O.P.R

Yeah, see, cuz I don't agree with it at all.

People have a right to believe in the bible and let it influence their opinions of what they do and do not vote for.

See, it's called freedom of religion.

Separation of church and state does not trump that.

It is legal to vote based on your religious beliefs.

Seriously, how would you have felt if I'd used "Qur'an" or "Torah" or "Ayn Rand"?

That's true, and I wasn't saying that I was against people making personal decisions based on their religion, but that the separation of church and state makes it illegal to make religious beliefs a factor in government.

While it's not illegal, I am nonetheless annoyed when I hear about someone voting for a paticular candidate because they are "more Christian" then the other one, or voting for policies because "that's what God wants".

I have my religious beliefs, but I know that not everyone shares them. Despite what the Bibles says about homosexuals, I very strongly feel that they should have the same rights as every other person. Some, using the Bible as a shield, try to keep them in a second-class status.

I'm sorry if I come across as anti-Christian, it's not what I am trying to be, but I recognize traits within many Christians that I don't think are in keeping with the true spirit of the faith.

D.O.P.R

It's true there are a lot of Christians who completely fail to ever subscribe to "Love thy neighbor" and all that. But there are a large amount of people in the world who are insulted simply by the knowledge that anyone disagrees with them about anything in any capacity.

There are also a large number of people calling themselves Christian. Thusly there will be a considerable number who are also offended by discretion of opinion, and respond thusly. The only true discrepancy here between, say, Christians and people who disagree with Christians, is that the latter is a very loose tying label, and doesn't really hold up in every day conversation like "Christians are morons" does.

If I ever heard someone say that, I may actually run up and give them a hug. If only because its so rare to see someone with a functional brain.

Indeed. I suppose it's a wonder to see someone with something you don't have, which would make it very easy to think that they have what you lack.

Well, that was uncalled for. I live in an area where you are completely blacklisted by everyone if you don't believe in God, so pardon me if I find the concept of others who think similar to the way I do a little unusual,

What, wanting to remove the rights of people who disagree with them to make their political and quasi religious platforms more easily imposed?

Sounds like you're among your kind already.

Taking your comment in context with what I said, made it sound like the insult was directed at me. I'm not saying that they are right, I'm saying that your vague insult was too easy to misinterpret. I figured I had insulted you in some way, so i said i'd take back the comment, and instead, you blatantly insult me. Congrats, you've joined the list of people that need to learn how to listen to themselves and others.

Y'see, it WAS an insult.

I was trying to insult you.

My aim from the start was to cause offense based upon the comparison between your statement and mine.

I intended to make my statement invoke the fact that I think very lowly of your character and upper mental capacities, and call light to the irony of your statement in that you respond to hateful bigots by being a hateful bigot against them.

In which case, don't you think it would be a better idea to simply walk away and as 2 gryphon would say: "Let them be retarded"?

Lets not degrade into insulting one another. That doesn't solve anything.

D.O.P.R

Yeah, well, as this journal was a vent to your frustration with stupid government types, as was my comment venting that probably would have best been done somewhere else. All the same.

The sentiment that those who are likely to vote one way or another should be banned from voting entirely for wanting to vote that way undermines everything about free will and human decency.

There is a good reason I said it was thinking that was SIMILAR to mine, and not exactly like mine.

If you are voting for something in a church, then they can bring the Bible into it all they want. If they are voting for something relating to the government, however, I believe that the people that base all decisions, based on a book from 2000 years ago, should not vote on the basis of their belief in said book. Statements from voters like "I'm voting for so-and-so because of their belief in the Lord" scares me, because at that point, what happens when the person who is perfectly capable of running our country, and fixing the problems within it, isn't christian?

So you are right, I AM a bigot against how they do things, but if they learn to have their beliefs, and not rob others of their right to believe, and do what they want (as long as that doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone else), then I'm more than willing to forgive and forget.

And if they don't?

Then what?

You push to get their right to vote taken away if it's determined their decision is too religiously based?

Establish a system where people have to prove they arrived at their decisions logically before they're allowed to vote?

Or just say that anyone who votes a certain way is obviously a right wing nutjob and should never be permitted to vote again?

Now you are simply putting words in my mouth, I originally only stated that I'd hug a person who stood up and said something that is VERY rarely said where I live. And typically gets them beaten down physically.

After the insults, I stated that I believe that decisions should be made on the basis of the topics at hand, and not on a 2000 year old book. I did not say they should have their rights taken away, nor did I say to establish any kind of system to prove anything about their decisions. Please, point out where I said those things.

So, wait

If there's, say, a neighborhood where everyone is atheist and there is a high population of gay couples.

Someone says one day out loud that gays shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Is that bravery?

If the gays are actually taking away that person's rights, and restricting their lifestyle, then yes I would call it bravery, to say something like that, and want things to change.

Uh huh. Sure.

Well, to clarify; restricting not just that one person's rights and lifestyles, but if they are a part of a minority, that the gays are targeting and removing rights from, then yes, I would deem such a comment as being brave.

But back to my request, point out where i said the things you seem to think that I said. This time without avoiding the topic.

I'm a bigot? For what? For not wanting my life litigated away by people who don't even know anything about me, or anyone that happens to be like me in some way or another? If that is the case, than you are damn right that I'm a bigot.

But you are wrong about one detail, I'm not a "hateful bigot". I don't hate the people, I hate that they cannot simply live and let live. I disagree with your opinion, and your methods of making points, but I don't hate you for it. You are entitled to the way you wish to live your life, I only wish that the same respect could be returned one day.

The way to stop that is to convince more people that voting that way would be wrong, not saying that those who would should have their rights stripped away before they can take yours. Because that's pretty much the fanatic right's mentality. If they don't stop the gays now, they'll permeate the government and ruin everything for the good christian folk!

Either way, it's bigotry.

I do have my christian beliefs but first and foremost I believe god gave me the ability to make my own decisions regardless of what may have been preached over 2000 years ago from a book that has been rewritten several times over by people with their own personal agendas.

Unfortunately I grew up in a christian home where people DID claim that the bible was relevant to today. I learned from my mother's own arrogance and complete hatred for anyone who did not believe the same as her. I learned NOT to follow in her footsteps but instead to take what I learned from my upbringing to better myself and not judge others for having different beliefs than mine.

In short, even though I am a christian, I feel qualified to vote but was glad my mother didn't (she just sat back and prayed for the right person to get into office) LOL!...

"Trust in God, but lock your doors."

Or, as I heard my mother say once, "God helps best those who help themselves."

D.O.P.R

AMEN!!! :)

Yeah, I was trolling a bit...I'm really sick of people who seem to think that hating christians is ok. It's still hate.

I guess maybe I should elaborate that I do not hate the christians .. I hate the attitiludes that many hold, the way they hold up a bible and beat you with it till their way is the only thing that's correct. Its why I do not go to churches or anything because its just 3 hours standing around listening to a grown man complain how "sinners" and them refering to gays, haters, non-belivers and so on when if you look at modern christianiay its really just become a big hate control group .. In my opnion anyways .. I've grown up with many "christians" in my life and and haven't found many worth spending time with. Now this is not true as a whole cause my mom just rediscivered christianity and I must say that overall I'm impressed with her .. She's useing teachings she is hearing again as an hope and a good example .. She's not takeing it as thw written law of how to live life .. She isn't thumping the bible in my face .. Hell she actually can't wait to meet my mate and yes were both males ..*chuckles*

There are a lot of assholes in the world.

There are also a lot of people calling themselves Christians.

Thus it stands to reason a good portion of assholes will also call themselves Christian.

But there is still a portion left of the assholes who are not Christians, but will still use whatever labels and belief systems available to them in an attempt to make themselves feel important and enlightened while degrading and insulting anyone who disagrees with them.

Considering that Christian beliefs including recruiting as many people as they can to the faith, there isn't exactly a screening process against people who may or may not remain assholes and may or may not actually follow the tenets of Christian beliefs, such as "love thy neighbor"

but will still use whatever labels and belief systems available to them in an attempt to make themselves feel important and enlightened while degrading and insulting anyone who disagrees with them


I think that sums up a lot of the frustration that is appearing in this journal. People who use the banner of Christianity as an excuse for hate-mongering or pushing agendas that are unfair to others who don't share that faith.

D.O.P.R

I'm pretty sure it's unfair to everyone else who shares that faith as well.

It is, and it frustrates me to no end.

D.O.P.R

What's horribly ironic is that I have this discussion defending Christianity in a way, I'm writing gay incest porn.

I'm Christian myself (although my religious stance has been shifting to a more agnostic view) and one look through my FA gallery would send just about any Bible-thumper into shock.

D.O.P.R

I've taken two years of Bible College and I still haven't found evidence that "god hates fags"

In Levidicus when the Jews were crossing the desert, there is one part that states, "a man must not sleep with an animal for that is confusion. A man must not sleep with another man as a woman, for that is sin."

Kinda fucked up isn't it. Fucking a goat is not a sin nor is fucking another guy but only taking it up the ass is.

Now if you take the entire chapter in context, it is simply warning the people of potential diseases that could be spread. In the desert there is no treatment or medicine for such ailments till they reach the promised land so no touching unclean pigs, mixing certain foods, having some dirty cock ripping your bowels, etc. It had NOTHING to do with morals otherwise fucking goats would have been a sin and at the top of the list. That and the fact that it was NOT one of the commandments (which was done away with in the new testament when Jesus said I give you only one commandment and that is to love one another).

Now in the new testament there is some debate over a word translated as meaning "a man being feminine" and that they are not to be tolerated. I believe this comes from the misunderstanding of the old tenement where it was thought having sex with another man was an 'evil thing'. This new testament was also man made and was not preached by jesus.

So, NO... god does not hate fags. He gave us free will so long as we don't use it to harm others.

To be fair, there is a certain "functional" obviousness of where the penis is supposed to go and what the stuff that comes out of it is supposed to be for. The way I was taught, sex is for making babies, so you should only have it with a woman you want to have babies with after you get married, yadda yadda, yeah, sometimes a man is infertile or a woman is barren or whatever, but that's the short and long of it that two of the same gender can never conceive through coitus no matter how ideal the circumstances.

I don't know anyone personally who actually thinks god hates homosexuality in any particular way, or really more than other types of sex outside of "god-sanctioned" marriage. Really, the only way it's worse than banging a chick out of wedlock is that there is no possibility to then decide that god IS watching you and get hitched in the eyes thereof.

And don't even get me started on the clusterfuck of societal implications that is marriage...

Then why is masterbation okay in the bible?

"When a man has a discharge, he is to go to the river and wash himslef this way, yada,yada,yada.
And when a man has a discharge with his wife, he is to go to the river and wash himslef this way, yada,yada,yada"

The word "discarge" is translated from the same word in both insances. So biblical scollers are thinking it does not mean taking a dump or piss since one would not be doing that with their wife. So it is means, when a guy masterbates. So even in the bible sex is referred to in a non-negative way when reproduction is not involved. it feels good. Even the animals do it. :)

When a man and a woman are together they can do all sorts of things to pleasure one another without making babies. So if a man loves another man why can't they also (assuming they're not living in the desert 3000 years ago)? :D

I have no idea- I'm only playing devil's advocate here, really.
















...Angel's advocate?

I know. I really don't have all the answers either. Much of my philosophy/religion is based souly on common sense.

"People who use the banner of Christianity as an excuse for hate-mongering or pushing agendas that are unfair to others who don't share that faith."

Sad but so true. I don't consider those people christians. But unfortunately they give the rst of us a bad rap.

Apology not accepted. X3

What happened?

I had read this morning that Hillary Clinton threatened to end intelligence sharing with the UK if they released some transcripts which provided evidence that US military officials tortured terrorism suspects.

D.O.P.R

All governments are stupid in their own way.

Anything in particular prompt this rant DOPR, or just frustration in general?

I had read this morning that Hillary Clinton threatened to end intelligence sharing with the UK if they released some transcripts which provided evidence that US military officials tortured terrorism suspects.

D.O.P.R

Amen man