Sneaking a lesbian onto the Supreme Court

[AMonger]

Forgot to link this bit, this one from Norm McDonald on the first two gay guys: YouTube - Norm MacDonald, Will Ferrell - World's First Two Gay Guys

Well, of course, it's not quite that simplistic, but yeah, it's part of it. It's not like I never sent to Sunday School or Church. I did.

But then you'd know that the reason we do so is because we're told to in that big book we like to read. It tells us to meet to worship and educate our younguns and such. I'm thinking that's probably a more likely explanation of why the church got together and built that building.

Being able to prove it isn't the only requirement of what constitutes fact, but the fact in question must exist or have actually occurred within reality.

Yes, whether or not we can prove it---or are even aware of it. There are animal species that lived and went extinct that we are completely ignorant of and will always be ignorant of. Their existence was still a fact.

A belief that it exists or has occurred, no matter hard hard you believe it, nor how many believe it, doesn't make it a fact unless it actually exists or has occurred.

...and the reverse is also true.

Unless and until you can prove it, it's still just a theory, no matter how strongly you believe it. Sorry, but that's just how it is. It's also why it's called "faith", duh.

No, if it existed, it's a fact regardless of our ability or inability to prove it. If we can't prove it, yet it exists or existed, it wouldn't be a demonstrable or provable fact, but it would be a fact nonetheless.

If next week you were able to prove his existence, then it is next week in which his existence becomes a fact, a reality, an incontestable, incontrovertible fact,

Entirely false. That's when it would become a demonstrable fact, but it was a fact the entire time of its existence.

It's a logical fallacy to use an actual fact within reality, like the discovery of new marine life, and then say because it (almost certainly) existed before we discovered it, then you should have believed it as a fact before we discovered it. And that's exactly what you are arguing, that we should believe in God, because one day his existence might be discovered in reality and therefor proven. At best you're in line for a really good, "I told you so," but until then, it's a theory, nothing more.

Actually, I'm not. I'm not saying that one day, someone will prove God's existence so you had better believe now. Nor am I saying that once something is discovered, that means you should have believed all along. After all, if marine biologists discover a silver-bellied puffselschnooper, how could you even suspect that you ought to believe?

However, I find the case for God to be compelling enough for an objective person to believe, as the Bible says, that creation leaves us enough clues. Those of us that realize this should make every attempt to steer society the way He, as the only true sovereign and potentate, wishes.

I don't doubt that this would offend non-believers, and that's fine. Evangelists, if they're doing their jobs right, recognize their jobs as informing the world of God's rightful claim over their obedience, and are laying down the terms of surrender. If people, like the presumed SCOTUS nominee, reject the demand for surrender, they suffer the penalties later. In the meantime, those of us who have surrendered are guilty of allowing the rebels to steer society, and we suffer the consequences here and now, in the form of all the trouble the rebels get us in.

That's an arrogance based purely on faith, that your God is the only one true God and that you're absolutely stone cold right about it. What if you're wrong?

If I'm wrong, I'd still come out ahead because living life according to God's morality is superior to not doing so. Forex, a couple who doesn't commit adultery has a zero percent chance of contracting STDs and such. It's as if you obeyed a supposed moral law to not drink strychnine then found out you misunderstood the moral law, and there was no such prohibition. You still came out ahead, didn't you?

Even the definition of religion itself speaks to a set of beliefs and practices agreed upon by a number of persons or groups. It's all based on faith, and not in facts nor reality.

If any given religion turns out to be right, it turns out that they were acting based on faith and reality. Like that idiot who said a spaceship was waiting for him and his followers behind Hale-Bopp; had he been right, that would mean the facts were on his side.

Make no mistake, I have not nor will not tell someone they should not believe in what they believe, whatever that may be, unless I can actually prove to them otherwise.

The problem with that is what it indicates about your belief. If you don't believe something to be a fact, then you don't believe it. If you say you won't tell them what they should believe, then you don't believe it (which is up to you, of course).

If you suspected a gas leak in your house, would you evacuate the place even though you couldn't prove there was a gas leak, or would you wait longer for proof? If you saw smoke coming from your neighbor's house, would you ignore it because you couldn't see any flames, or would you go wake him up for his own good and convince him he'd better look into it? After all, if all you see is smoke, you can't prove there's a fire.

Well, those of us who object to this nominee see smoke, and we're waking everybody up to the danger.

 

[Turtle]

Yes, whether or not we can prove it---or are even aware of it. There are animal species that lived and went extinct that we are completely ignorant of and will always be ignorant of. Their existence was still a fact.

Actually, no, it's not a fact. For a fact to be a fact, it must have occurred in reality, and if we are ignorant about it, always were and always will be, then it did not occur in reality, and therefor cannot be considered fact. If something is not known, has never been known, will never and cannot ever be known, then any existence is outside of our reality and therefor does not nor never has existed. Anything else is pure fantasy.

Actually, I'm not. I'm not saying that one day, someone will prove God's existence so you had better believe now. Nor am I saying that once something is discovered, that means you should have believed all along. After all, if marine biologists discover a silver-bellied puffselschnooper, how could you even suspect that you ought to believe?

Yet when you state God exists, and state it as an absolute fact, that's precisely what you are saying, that one should believe in God because even though it's not a fact, you think it is, and it might become a fact in reality some day. Otherwise you can't say it with any certainty beyond that of faith.

However, I find the case for God to be compelling enough for an objective person to believe, as the Bible says, that creation leaves us enough clues. Those of us that realize this should make every attempt to steer society the way He, as the only true sovereign and potentate, wishes.

Oh, my God. A belief in God, by its very nature is subjective, not objective. Facts are objective, unambiguous, and provably true. If no clear facts exist about a topic, when something intangible (like a belief) is at stake, then a balanced set of opinions must be considered in order to make up your mind or come to a conclusion, and opinions are always subjective ideas held by individuals and are always biased. An objective piece of information must contain either the whole truth or be at least unbiased and balanced, whereas a subjective point of view is always biased because it is either not the entire picture, or it is merely a viewpoint or expression of feelings. That's practically the definition of religion and a belief in God.

And then to take that subjective bias and use it to "make every attempt to steer society the way He, as the only true sovereign and potentate, wishes," is arrogant in the extreme in order to make people think they way you think.

I don't doubt that this would offend non-believers, and that's fine. Evangelists, if they're doing their jobs right, recognize their jobs as informing the world of God's rightful claim over their obedience, and are laying down the terms of surrender.

Replace "Evangelists" with "Muslims" and "God" with "Allah" and the same exact thing applies. Exactly. Word for word.

What it you're wrong and their right? What is both are right? What if both are wrong?

If I'm wrong, I'd still come out ahead because living life according to God's morality is superior to not doing so.

Again, arrogant. Everybody thinks their religion and belief is the only right one, and therefor they have the morally superior position.

Forex, a couple who doesn't commit adultery has a zero percent chance of contracting STDs and such.

Not zero. Some STDs can be transmitted via non-sexual skin-to-skin contact, through blood transfusions and contaminated needles, and in a few other ways. Herpes immediately comes to mind. STDs are called STDs because that's the primary method of transmission, but it's not necessarily the sole method of transmission.

It's as if you obeyed a supposed moral law to not drink strychnine then found out you misunderstood the moral law, and there was no such prohibition. You still came out ahead, didn't you?

That's the very reason Jews don't eat pork, actually. But trichinosis is no longer a problem with commercial pork, but religious traditions are hard to let go of.

The problem with that is what it indicates about your belief. If you don't believe something to be a fact, then you don't believe it. If you say you won't tell them what they should believe, then you don't believe it (which is up to you, of course).

Don't get too far ahead of yourself. There are some things that I believe absolutely, but are unprovable and are based purely on a belief, on faith. But while I believe them, absolutely, I'm not going to tell others that they should believe in the same things just because I believe them to be true.

If you suspected a gas leak in your house, would you evacuate the place even though you couldn't prove there was a gas leak, or would you wait longer for proof?

No, I wouldn't wait for proof. But the difference between you and I is, I wouldn't tell them that there is a gas leak to get them out of the house, I'd tell them that there might be a gas leak and it's better to be safe than sorry.

If you saw smoke coming from your neighbor's house, would you ignore it because you couldn't see any flames, or would you go wake him up for his own good and convince him he'd better look into it? After all, if all you see is smoke, you can't prove there's a fire.

Again, I wouldn't go over and wake him up and tell him his house is on fire simply because that's one of the possibilities, I'd wake him up and tell him that his house is smoking. He may have just forgotten to open the flue in the fireplace, or is slow smoking a whole pig and the smoke just appeared to be coming from the house but was instead coming from the rear patio. Won't know until I get there and see it, so there's no point in jumping to conclusions without having all the facts.

Well, those of us who object to this nominee see smoke, and we're waking everybody up to the danger.

Barbecued brisket is a dangerous thing.

 

[Pilgrim]

If The Obama administration wants to nominate a homosexual to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, why not be open about such a move? There is a news story today at Politics, Political News - POLITICO.com by Josh Gerstein entitled " WH riled by CBS web post on Kagan."

Apparently, Elena Kagan is a leading candidate to be nominated by Obama to the Supreme Court and the Obama administration is trying to squelch any questions about her sexual orientation. Wonder why? Let's have an open debate about whether this is a good direction for our country.

Obama promised to "fundamentally transform" the United States of America. In his quest to transform America, why not go all the way and nominate a pedophile from NAMBLA? That's diversity.

Good Call...

Obama picks Kagan as next US Supreme Court justice: media - Yahoo! News

 

[dieseldiva]

Good Call...

Obama picks Kagan as next US Supreme Court justice: media - Yahoo! News

This looks like it will be a turd in the punchbowl........

“I doubt that the American public will be impressed that Kagan kicked the military off campus in wartime but welcomed law firms that were donating their services to terrorists.”

Read more: President Obama will name Elena Kagan as Court pick - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com
​

 

[aristotle]

Can there be any doubt that Barack Obama is an enormously stupid man? Does he even live on planet Earth? He must really be spoiling for a fight in the Senate to have picked an oddball like Kagan. It's time for Barack Almighty to get a big slapdown.

 

[greg334]

Did you ever think this is a setup?

OK you won't want Kagan, WE got to fill the seat so how about ??

 

[aristotle]

Did you ever think this is a setup?

OK you won't want Kagan, WE got to fill the seat so how about ??

No, it's not a setup. Obama was deadly serious about ramming the healthcare takeover through Congress and now he's quite serious about pushing Kagan's nomination through the Senate.

Obama hates the values of traditional America. What better way to poke a finger in the eye of social conservatives than to place a homosexual on the Supreme Court? Kagan has never held a judgeship. She leaves no paper trail of judicial decisions on which to evaluate her fitness for this lifetime appointment.

Obama thinks he is clever to nominate someone with no judicial experience. It gives the opposition much less to work with in fighting this nominee. Anyone who dares question her sexual orientation will be labeled a bigot. That shuts down opposition, right from the word "go" ...

This will be a very nasty confirmation process. But, Obama has enough Democrats in the Senate to make it happen. I am ready to conclude Democrats are not simply wrong. They are much, much worse.

 

[greg334]

I think it is a setup and will be surprised if she is allowed to take the bench.

See maybe I'm seeing another academic ascending into a federal judgeship with not just a lack of bench experience but also a lack of professional experience. She not just held the chair at Harvard but also she has criticized the very process that is constitutionally required for all federal appointments. This is why I think he has someone else in the wings who may be worst than she is.

Here is the real problem for us, I expect to see no one will really oppose her with the republicans don't hold up the nomination but they will allow it to pass because of either some stupid deal or because they are too scattered in the wind. What happened to Bush's nominees should happen to Obama's, especially when there is someone who is critical of a constitutional process and the appointment is meant to be one that judges cases based on the consitution.

 

[AMonger]

From Jonathan I. Katz

In honor of Elena Kagan, the lesbian who doesn't even have the courtesy to be a hot lesbian:



In Defense of Homophobia
Jonathan I. Katz

Homophobia is the moral judgement that homosexual behavior (most of the arguments in this essay refer specifically to male homosexual behavior) is wrong. Homophobia is not like ethnic, racial or religious prejudice, which deny the intrinsic moral rights and value of other people. Rather, it is a moral judgement upon acts engaged in by choice.
If you are religious, you probably agree with the homophobic position, because most major religions make this moral judgement. The Jewish and Christian Bible describes homosexual activity, in most English translations, as an ``abomination''. This condemnation is found in the Book of Leviticus, along with condemnations of incest and bestiality. Unlike homosexuality, there has been no organized effort to win approval for those sexual sins, which are condemned by almost everyone. The same word is used to condemn moving boundary markers, a grievous sin in an agricultural society.
If you are a rationalist, you ask for logical explanation, beyond the word of the Bible, and beyond the revulsion which most people feel. Why have most cultures adopted this attitude? The rationalist does not accept any book as the word of God, but regards it as the embodiment of traditional wisdom. He cannot reject it out of hand; he must ask why traditional wisdom came to this conclusion.
Recent medical history provides a convincing argument. HIV, the virus which causes AIDS, has been present, and occasionally found in the human population, for about half a century (a few sporadic AIDS cases have been identified as far back as the 1950's, or even earlier). Yet they were quite rare; the modern AIDS epidemic began suddenly about 1980. Its first victims were promiscuous homosexual males; it was initially called ``Gay-Related Immune Deficiency''.
In America attitudes towards homosexuality changed in the 1970's. It went from a private, furtively practiced, vice to an open and accepted subculture. In many circles, ``sodomite'' ceased to be an insult. This acceptance led to the toleration, and wide practice, of gross homosexual promiscuity. HIV, falling onto that fertile soil, made the AIDS epidemic. Even before AIDS was recognized, practicing homosexuals were notorious for a high rate of venereal diseases.
The religious believer may see the hand of God, but both he and the rationalist must see a fact of Nature. The human body was not designed to share hypodermic needles, it was not designed to be promiscuous, and it was not designed to engage in homosexual acts. Engaging in such behavior is like riding a motorcycle on an icy road without a helmet. It may be possible to get away with it for a while, and a few misguided souls may get a thrill out of doing so, but sooner or later (probably sooner) the consequences will be catastrophic. Lethal diseases spread rapidly among people who do such things.
Unfortunately, the victims are not only those whose reckless behavior brought death on themselves. There are many completely innocent victims, too: hemophiliacs (a substantial fraction died as a result of contaminated clotting factor), recipients of contaminated transfusions, and their spouses and children, for AIDS can be transmitted heterosexually (in America, only infrequently) and congenitally. The icy road was lined with unsuspecting innocents, who never chose to ride a motorcycle. Guilt for their deaths is on the hands of the homosexuals and intravenous drug abusers who poisoned the blood supply. These people died so the sodomites could feel good about themselves.
At present, HIV testing has reduced the risk of infection by transfusion almost (but not exactly) to zero. However, should a new lethal blood-borne virus arise, it will not be detected, and a test developed, until thousands of people have been infected. Experience with HIV shows that the environments of homosexual promiscuity and intravenous drug abuse can readily turn a single infection into an epidemic.
The homophobe does not engage in violence against homosexuals. Repelled, he stays away from them. Homophobes are divided on the wisdom of laws against homosexual acts. Some believe laws are a good way to reduce their frequency and damaging consequences. Others, probably the majority, believe that outlawing these acts is futile, just as outlawing drug abuse may be futile, and that laws may lead to destructive witch-hunts. These homophobes believe the best approach is moral condemnation, which is the approach our society now applies to many other destructive practices, such as adultery, alcohol and tobacco abuse, and suicide. Moral condemnation will not extirpate them, but neither can the law; a climate of disapproval may reduce their frequency and their harm.
What of those cursed with unnatural sexual desires? Must they forever suppress these desires? Yes, but this is hardly a unique fate. Almost everyone has desires which must be suppressed. Most men and women think adulterous thoughts fairly often, and find themselves attracted to members of the opposite sex to whom they are not married. Morality requires them to suppress these desires, and most do not commit adultery, though they feel lust in their hearts. Almost everyone, at one time or another, covets another's property. They do not steal. Many people feel great anger or intense hatred at some time in their lives. They do not kill.
I am a homophobe, and proud.

Post-Script October 17, 2003: The homosexual movement is now campaigning against blood drives, because blood banks do not accept blood from men who have engaged in homosexual acts. This is ``discrimination'', the campaigners say (see, for example, Washington University Student Life October 17, 2003). Of course it is discrimination; the blood banks are discriminating against blood at risk of contamination with HIV, which would give the recipients the fatal disease AIDS. Intravenous drug abusers are also rejected as donors, for the same reason. People who have lived in the United Kingdom are now rejected because they are at (much lesser) risk for CJD. Some discrimination is wrong. Racial discrimination, for example, is almost invariably unethical (and generally illegal) because race is unrelated to the ability to do a job, study, fulfill a contract, or almost any other activity of daily life. Some discrimination, however, is both justified and necessary. For example, it is quite appropriate for a basketball team to discriminate among applicants on the basis of height, agility and stamina, for a prospective patient to discriminate among doctors on the basis of their academic qualifications and past record of practice, and for a blood bank to discriminate among prospective donors on the basis of the statistical risk that their blood is contaminated with infectious diseases. In order to satisfy their demand for full acceptance by society, the homosexual movement demands to kill some transfusion recipients by infecting them with AIDS, or to kill patients who need transfusions by making it impossible for blood banks to collect blood. Or, perhaps, this was just a joke. But I think not. Post-Script October 9, 2005: In recent weeks this essay has been the subject of controversy at, and even beyond, Washington University (see, for example, recent issues of Student Life). A number of critics have asked if monogamous homosexuals are also culpable. Quite apart from the question of the definition of monogamous (sexual contact with only one person in a lifetime? serial monogamy? some cheating? etc.), I suggest the following analogy: A man joins the Ku Klux Klan. He is not violent, and would never hurt a fly; he just wants a safe place to express his racist feelings. Is he culpable for the Klan's past acts of violence? I believe that even though he is not criminally responsible for acts that occurred before he joined, he is morally culpable for joining the Klan. The Klan has blood on its hands, and anyone who joins must share the guilt. So, too, with the homosexual movement.

 

[greg334]

I have to ask, who really cares?

I mean the only thing I can find that she lacks is actual experience on several levels.

 

[layoutshooter]

I have to ask, who really cares?

I mean the only thing I can find that she lacks is actual experience on several levels.

Just like the man who nominated her. Obama has no actual experience in anything, other than rabble rousing, and it shows.

 

[greg334]

I mean the whole lesbian thing is driven not be a specific issue but from religious zealots.

She commented on the process that she had to go through to become solicitor general. She said it was a waste of time, and went on to say other things that show me that she can't uphold the Constitution and the fundamentals of our country.

 

[layoutshooter]

I mean the whole lesbian thing is driven not be a specific issue but from religious zealots.

She commented on the process that she had to go through to become solicitor general. She said it was a waste of time, and went on to say other things that show me that she can't uphold the Constitution and the fundamentals of our country.

Not upholding the Constitution is the plan and ultimate goal of this administration. That is exactly why she has been nominated.

 

[greg334]

But Layout, did the last administration also uphold the constitution?

I don't think Bush did that great of a job when it came down to it and it seems that both administrations and in fact the three previous administrations didn't do a good job.

When did we have a president take it seriously?

Nixon?

Johnson?

Surely wasn't Kennedy.

 

[layoutshooter]

But Layout, did the last administration also uphold the constitution?

I don't think Bush did that great of a job when it came down to it and it seems that both administrations and in fact the three previous administrations didn't do a good job.

When did we have a president take it seriously?

Nixon?

Johnson?

Surely wasn't Kennedy.

So what? Obama is in there now. HE is just the next in a long line of bums who have been destroying this Nation for YEARS!! Obama is just accelerating the process. He is the PUTZ in charge now. The rest have passed, they were the "set up" people, NOW we have the ONE who will throw the switch.

Anyone want to bet that this administration INCITES the civil unrest and riots to give them the "IN" that they need to declare some sort of martial law? I would not put it past these guys.

 

[AMonger]

Just like the man who nominated her. Obama has no actual experience in anything, other than rabble rousing, and it shows.

I was just reading something online yesterday or the day before (believe me, I have plenty of time to read lately) about how wealthy Obama is. Apparently, he's a multi-millionaire.

So my question was HOW?!?!? He's never had a real job more substantial than Baskin Robins! Then his very, very brief political career (not a real job) during which his accumulated salary could have been, what? Low six figures. Investments? Riiiiiiiight.

 

[layoutshooter]

I was just reading something online yesterday or the day before (believe me, I have plenty of time to read lately) about how wealthy Obama is. Apparently, he's a multi-millionaire.

So my question was HOW?!?!? He's never had a real job more substantial than Baskin Robins! Then his very, very brief political career (not a real job) during which his accumulated salary could have been, what? Low six figures. Investments? Riiiiiiiight.

The "PupperMaster" bought him out. He is an "owned" man. Bought and paid for. He does his "masters" bidding. A slave to power, a political "". Man, the insults are flying!!

 

[Pilgrim]

Kagan is no more qualified than Harriet Myers - she deserves the same fate. The GOP should employ the same tactics that the Dems did with Bush's nominees - stall, delay, obfuscate.

 

[layoutshooter]

Kagan is no more qualified than Harriet Myers - she deserves the same fate. The GOP should employ the same tactics that the Dems did with Bush's nominees - stall, delay, obfuscate.

Why should they do that? The ReBumLiCans are after the same exact thing that the Dumb-O-Crats are. They just hide it better. They know far more about boiling frogs.