Bush's Chioce for Supreme Court and Nudism

[Aaron Adams]

[Aaron Adams]

[jon71]

Arch conservatives like Thomas and Scalia hate America and hate personal freedom. Their entire judicial philosophy is anti personal freedom. They and Bush are a lot like Osama Bin Laden in that way.

[Nude in the North]

He hasn't made a choice yet. Unless I missed something.

I think everyone should just go sip a lemmonade untill something actually happens.

Steve

[Evernude]

Im' sure Bush will pick the wackiest nutball religious zealot he can find. After all, he would love to see this country turn into a christian theocracy. He would be so happy if the ultra right wing sickos ran everything. Then, he could have all the "immoral" people rounded up and jailed. The right wing nutjobs could sexually molest them and not get caught! Or perhaps sell them into slavery to make cheap crap for Sprawlmart. It's a win win for everyone!

Happy "Independance" day. Do your fireworks naked.

[Aaron_bongart]

that sounds a littl dangurous

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
Arch conservatives like Thomas and Scalia hate America and hate personal freedom. Their entire judicial philosophy is anti personal freedom. They and Bush are a lot like Osama Bin Laden in that way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would you care to elaborate? Perhaps you might cite one of their cases...

[jon71]

Anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, pro-censorship, in favor of a strong police state with little or nothing in the way of rights for the accused (not to be confused with those who are actually guilty) demolishing the wall of seperation of church and state (which not only put religion in the state but the state in religion), anti-free speech and right to protest. Let me give you just one example off the top of my head. A few years ago there was a 7-2 case where prison guards beat a prison who was shackled. Two justices said that didn't necessarily constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The two, Thomas and Scalia of course. When it comes to being anti-personal freedom and pro theocracy Bush, Scalia, Thomas, and Bin Laden all think alike.

[Bob S.]

"Arch conservatives like Thomas and Scalia hate America..."

Cite an example where they have made such a statement or case where you get that from. The Dems got upset when some Repubs and RRR members questioned their patriotism by speaking out against the Pres and his policies. Now you are bashing two esteemed judges who passed the scrutiny of a Democrat-controlled Senate for the honor of serving on the SC as being anti-American sinply for the positions they hold.

Is this a goose/gander issue, jon?

Now I do not want to speculate about who will be nominated nor can I vote on this poll until I have a name, which may not come until August.

Bob S.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:

Let me give you just one example off the top of my head. A few years ago there was a 7-2 case where prison guards beat a prison who was shackled. Two justices said that didn't necessarily constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The two, Thomas and Scalia of course. When it comes to being anti-personal freedom and pro theocracy Bush, Scalia, Thomas, and Bin Laden all think alike. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good example. The inmate was only awarded $800 dollars in damages? Why? Because although the force may have been excessive the damage was exceedingly minor. Yes it was not nice but the case involved interpreting the phrase 'cruel and unusual punishment' which refers to such acts as torture, dismemberment and so on which are punishments as opposed to prison discipline. It was very clear fromt the decision no member of the court approved of the conduct of the guards. Note that denying that it was cruel and unusual punishment did not mean that the inmate did not have another remedy under the constitution.

[jon71]

Two judges did approve or it would have been 9-0 instead of 7-2. Even Reinquist who is very conservative let those two have it. If it's too extreme for Reinquist that is really saying something. Reinquist is very conservative, Thomas and Scalia are inhuman.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
Two judges did approve or it would have been 9-0 instead of 7-2. Even Reinquist who is very conservative let those two have it. If it's too extreme for Reinquist that is really saying something. Reinquist is very conservative, Thomas and Scalia are inhuman. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The court splits ALL the time. The US supreme court does not function as a jury.

[Trailscout]

I think the struggle is not between liberal and conservative as much as it is how libertarian one is.

I know of conservative libertarians and liberal libertarians and I think they are both champions of freedom.

On the other hand, I have seen both conservative and liberals who want to take freedom away from the people and give it to business and conservative special interests if they are conservative control freaks or give power to government and liberal special interests if they are liberal control freaks. We lose either way!

Now please note, I am not talking specifically about the Libertarian political party. Their numbers are small. I am talking about a libertarian attitude that can be found among both Democrats and Republicans as well as card-carrying members of the Libertarian party.

[P.J.]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
Anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, pro-censorship, in favor of a strong police state with little or nothing in the way of rights for the accused (not to be confused with those who are actually guilty) demolishing the wall of seperation of church and state (which not only put religion in the state but the state in religion), anti-free speech and right to protest. Let me give you just one example off the top of my head. A few years ago there was a 7-2 case where prison guards beat a prison who was shackled. Two justices said that didn't necessarily constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The two, Thomas and Scalia of course. When it comes to being anti-personal freedom and pro theocracy Bush, Scalia, Thomas, and Bin Laden all think alike. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Please Jon, c'mon get off your "hate Bush" attitude!

Anti-abortion? A lot of us oppose the laws which allow a baby to be butchered alive. Unborn babies feel pain. Some of us even support "Roe vs. Wade" (although I still think it was a tragic mistake), but the partial-birth abortion is absolutely horrible. What has President Bush done about the human carnage known as abortion?

Unfortunately very little.

As for the homosexual agenda, there are too many issues which are far more important than cheapening the institute of real marriage by legalizing the ridiculous spectacle of same-sex marriage.

I'm not a big supporter of censorship, but I would like to see some journalistic restraint.

We always had some freedom of religion. Now there are politicians who want to push a freedom from religion.

It's now alright to mock Christianity. In a lot of movies and TV programs, Christians are often depicted as some kind of nut jobs. It's open season on Americans who are conservative and Christian. It's time to stop anti-Christian bigotry.

Try to depict a Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim in any way that could be considered negative, and the media has hissy fits.

Justices Scalia and Thomas certainly are not perfect, and I'm sure that they have made some flawed decisions, especially the one concerning the rough treatment that an inmate was subjected to.

Have you ever been to a prison?

Have you ever spoken with any corrections officers? I visited a prison when I was considering a career as a corrections officer. Where I work, some of my co-workers are former corrections officers. I do not approve of any cruel and unusual punishment, but inmates are often very violent and dangerous individuals.

Back to the courts, I'm sick of the judicial tyranny of the left. The thugs in robes are unelected and too often are blowing off the wishes of the majority and subjecting America to their decisions.

But instead of complaining like some sort of whining radical left-winged crybaby, I have an idea which maybe we all can live with.

Maybe every appointed Supreme Court justice should be sent packing and be replaced by elected people who are elected by the people.

Think about it. No fillibusting. No dragging the process (unless the Democrats lose, then get the absentee ballots discarded and demand recounts). No allowing anyone who isn't elected to push us around and rewrite the Constitution.

Bin Laden is nothing like any one of our leaders. As much as I disliked Bill Clinton, he has a lot more in common with our President than that despicable camel jockey Bin Laden.

You profess to be a Christian, but you seem to be a strong supporter of those who are not friends of Christian issues.

I admit that I'm not a perfect Christian, but I'm not afraid to take a Christian stand.

I suggest that you read your Bible and get on the right side of the issues which really affect us.

[HereticChick]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
Anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, pro-censorship, in favor of a strong police state with little or nothing in the way of rights for the accused (not to be confused with those who are actually guilty) demolishing the wall of seperation of church and state (which not only put religion in the state but the state in religion), anti-free speech and right to protest. Let me give you just one example off the top of my head. A few years ago there was a 7-2 case where prison guards beat a prison who was shackled. Two justices said that didn't necessarily constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The two, Thomas and Scalia of course. When it comes to being anti-personal freedom and pro theocracy Bush, Scalia, Thomas, and Bin Laden all think alike. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Please Jon, c'mon get off your "hate Bush" attitude!

Anti-abortion? A lot of us oppose the laws which allow a baby to be butchered alive. Unborn babies feel pain. Some of us even support "Roe vs. Wade" (although I still think it was a tragic mistake), but the partial-birth abortion is absolutely horrible. What has President Bush done about the human carnage known as abortion?

We always had some freedom of religion. Now there are politicians who want to push a freedom from religion.

It's now alright to mock Christianity. In a lot of movies and TV programs, Christians are often depicted as some kind of nut jobs. It's open season on Americans who are conservative and Christian. It's time to stop anti-Christian bigotry.

Try to depict a Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim in any way that could be considered negative, and the media has hissy fits. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here we go.....! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Abortion?? Don't approve? Don't have one? Have you got a uterous? What gives you the right to govern someone elses body? And Puhlease, the incidences of your so-called "partial birth abortion" or so incredibly low, they hardly are worth mentioning. Doctors never did them just for the heck of it. What doctor goes in and says "Hmmm, I think I'll stick scissors in the head of the next fetus...that'll be so cool!"

Freedom from religion! At last someone is thinking! I want freedom from religion. I want freedom from people knocking on my door to "witness" to me, I want freedom from wackos who pass out pamphlets (or try to) at the mall. I want freedom from religion in my gov't. I hate the way I'm alienated every time Bush says something about his "faith". Makes me want to vomit. I want my kids to be able to go to school without the fear that someone's "christian" child will harass or taunt them because they don't go to church. That has happened before to my kids, and boy does it irk me. I want our gov't to stop making laws in reference to MY body because someone's religious beliefs think that that fetus has more rights than me. And personally, I think no man has the right to make laws about a woman's body.

Boo Hoo, poor Christianity is being mocked. You poor people. You're not the only ones being mocked. What about rednecks? Politicians? Women? Minorities? Cite a movie or show that mocks a christian? There's more TV coming out that's geared towards christians than ever before. Puhlease......

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[jon71]

Like most Christians I am pro-choice, pro-gay rights and strongly believe in seperation of church and state. The fundamentalists make a lot of noise but remain a small fringe, just disproportionally loud. I look at the fundys and I think they have religiosity INSTEAD of a personal relationship with JESUS. They have dogma INSTEAD of faith. They have doctrinism INSTEAD of morality. They are to Christianity what the first century Pharasees were to Judiasm and what modern day terrorist are to Islam, just an immoral distortion of what should be. Put bluntly Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and George Bush are the kind of "Christian" that satan approves of.

[Nude in the North]

I guess nobody had any Lemmonaid.

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Who remembers this famous quote? ( I don't remember it exactly )

Democracy is the Worst form of government in the world.
Except for all the rest.

[Jennifer1]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Anti-abortion? A lot of us oppose the laws which allow a baby to be butchered alive. Unborn babies feel pain. Some of us even support "Roe vs. Wade" (although I still think it was a tragic mistake), but the partial-birth abortion is absolutely horrible. What has President Bush done about the human carnage known as abortion? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Once you grow some ovaries and a womb, you can have a say in a womans body and actions surronding it, I personally would never have an abortion unless my child was extremely disable(and i mean really bad not something livable live downsyndrome) or i was rapped and got pregnat through that (maybe you see that as selfish, but its my body and my mental health would be at stake, i can do nothing for a child that makes me sick to my stomach when ever i look at it, i cant go through the long period of pregnancy with a rapish child inside me), but i would never stand in the way of someone who wants an abortion unless it was a repeatitive occurance where the girl is just using it as a contreceptive everytime she forgets to use some kind of protection during sex. I dont agree with a full stopping of abortion but i think there has to be tightened laws to stop the above senario, if your going to be a slutty girl and have unprotected sex with lots of people then you should live with the conciquences.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> As for the homosexual agenda, there are too many issues which are far more important than cheapening the institute of real marriage by legalizing the ridiculous spectacle of same-sex marriage </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Spectacle!! what the hell do you mean, are you saying a marrage between gay people is just a show? Well a hetro couple dress up in fancy outfits hire a church set out a huge after party go through mouths of arrangements to put on a good show to celebrate there day. I'm bi, right now my preference is girls, your saying that if i want to spend my life with my current girlfriend, i can't show my love through a marrage ceromney like a hetro couple can? So much for equal rights. I'm a devoted christan, Protestant to be exact, im a member of a devoted Protestant group (the Orange Order), i got to church so why should i not be aloud, i will be married in a church, no matter what sex its to.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I'm not a big supporter of censorship, but I would like to see some journalistic restraint.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What would you like to see restraint exactly?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> We always had some freedom of religion. Now there are politicians who want to push a freedom from religion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Whats wrong with that with the whole seperation of church and state thing there should be no problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I suggest that you read your Bible and get on the right side of the issues which really affect us.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Isnt there something about speration of church and state in your governments constitution or something. If so i don't see what the bible has to do with the governments choices and laws.

[Unwired]

Here's a quick primer: any court decision that expands individual civil rights and liberties is regarded as "judicial tyrrany". Any decision that encroaches on those rights is regarded as strict constructionism. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

How quickly even the most die-hard, state's rights-advocating, limited government-loving conservatives begin to resemble statists as soon as someone's personal liberty is at issue! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

As for the homosexual "agenda", I am in partial agreement with P.J.: there are too many issues far more important than cheapening the constitution by amending it to discriminate against a whole segment of society. If you regard same-sex marriage as a "ridiculous spectacle", then don't marry another man. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

BTW, I thought this topic had to do with the Supreme Court and nudism...

Edited for grammar and punctuation. I should not try to articulate my thoughts first thing in the morning.

UW

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">i would never stand in the way of someone who wants an abortion unless it was a repeatitive occurance where the girl is just using it as a contreceptive everytime she forgets to use some kind of protection during sex. I dont agree with a full stopping of abortion but i think there has to be tightened laws to stop the above senario, if your going to be a slutty girl and have unprotected sex with lots of people then you should live with the conciquences. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Do you think that's fair to the child? To be a consequence?

[Art900]

I cannot see the choice having any effect on the nudist community mainly because nudism is a local issue and even if a case were appealed the Supreme Court level; I cannot see the court accepting the case!

The State Supreme Courts are much more likely to be acting on cases involving nudism. Make sure your Governor appoints the clear headed Judges!

[Jennifer1]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">i would never stand in the way of someone who wants an abortion unless it was a repeatitive occurance where the girl is just using it as a contreceptive everytime she forgets to use some kind of protection during sex. I dont agree with a full stopping of abortion but i think there has to be tightened laws to stop the above senario, if your going to be a slutty girl and have unprotected sex with lots of people then you should live with the conciquences. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Do you think that's fair to the child? To be a consequence? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes

Now tell me how many of the children born in this world are planned? They are all consiquences, some good some bad, i personally know i wasnt planned, that doesnt effect me in any way, i asked my dad if i was planned as it would have appeared as though i wasnt considering the age gap between me and my big brothers.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for the homosexual agenda, there are too many issues which are far more important than cheapening the institute of real marriage by legalizing the ridiculous spectacle of same-sex marriage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Shame on you for cheapening the love between two people! Real love is never rediculous and never a spectacle. It should be celebrated, no matter who or what those two people are.

Look at what heterosexuals have done to marriage. That is the cheap part, not gay marriages.

Here is an article from the NY Times from just this week.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The Heterosexual Revolution

By Stephanie Coontz
The New York Times
Tuesday, July 5, 2005

The last week has been tough for opponents of same-sex marriage. First Canadian and then Spanish legislators voted to legalize the practice, prompting American social conservatives to renew their call for a constitutional amendment banning such marriages here. James Dobson of the evangelical group Focus on the Family has warned that without that ban, marriage as we have known it for 5,000 years will be overturned.

My research on marriage and family life seldom leads me to agree with Dr. Dobson, much less to accuse him of understatement. But in this case, Dr. Dobson's warnings come 30 years too late. Traditional marriage, with its 5,000-year history, has already been upended. Gays and lesbians, however, didn't spearhead that revolution: heterosexuals did.

Heterosexuals were the upstarts who turned marriage into a voluntary love relationship rather than a mandatory economic and political institution. Heterosexuals were the ones who made procreation voluntary, so that some couples could choose childlessness, and who adopted assisted reproduction so that even couples who could not conceive could become parents. And heterosexuals subverted the long-standing rule that every marriage had to have a husband who played one role in the family and a wife who played a completely different one. Gays and lesbians simply looked at the revolution heterosexuals had wrought and noticed that with its new norms, marriage could work for them, too.

The first step down the road to gay and lesbian marriage took place 200 years ago, when Enlightenment thinkers raised the radical idea that parents and the state should not dictate who married whom, and when the American Revolution encouraged people to engage in "the pursuit of happiness," including marrying for love. Almost immediately, some thinkers, including Jeremy Bentham and the Marquis de Condorcet, began to argue that same-sex love should not be a crime.

Same-sex marriage, however, remained unimaginable because marriage had two traditional functions that were inapplicable to gays and lesbians. First, marriage allowed families to increase their household labor force by having children. Throughout much of history, upper-class men divorced their wives if their marriage did not produce children, while peasants often wouldn't marry until a premarital pregnancy confirmed the woman's fertility. But the advent of birth control in the 19th century permitted married couples to decide not to have children, while assisted reproduction in the 20th century allowed infertile couples to have them. This eroded the traditional argument that marriage must be between a man and a woman who were able to procreate.

In addition, traditional marriage imposed a strict division of labor by gender and mandated unequal power relations between men and women. "Husband and wife are one," said the law in both England and America, from early medieval days until the late 19th century, "and that one is the husband."

This law of "coverture" was supposed to reflect the command of God and the essential nature of humans. It stipulated that a wife could not enter into legal contracts or own property on her own. In 1863, a New York court warned that giving wives independent property rights would "sow the seeds of perpetual discord," potentially dooming marriage.

Even after coverture had lost its legal force, courts, legislators and the public still cleaved to the belief that marriage required husbands and wives to play totally different domestic roles. In 1958, the New York Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to the traditional legal view that wives (unlike husbands) couldn't sue for loss of the personal services, including housekeeping and the sexual attentions, of their spouses. The judges reasoned that only wives were expected to provide such personal services anyway.

As late as the 1970's, many American states retained "head and master" laws, giving the husband final say over where the family lived and other household decisions. According to the legal definition of marriage, the man was required to support the family, while the woman was obligated to keep house, nurture children, and provide sex. Not until the 1980's did most states criminalize marital rape. Prevailing opinion held that when a bride said, "I do," she was legally committed to say, "I will" for the rest of her married life.

I am old enough to remember the howls of protest with which some defenders of traditional marriage greeted the gradual dismantling of these traditions. At the time, I thought that the far-right opponents of marital equality were wrong to predict that this would lead to the unraveling of marriage. As it turned out, they had a point.

Giving married women an independent legal existence did not destroy heterosexual marriage. And allowing husbands and wives to construct their marriages around reciprocal duties and negotiated roles - where a wife can choose to be the main breadwinner and a husband can stay home with the children- was an immense boon to many couples. But these changes in the definition and practice of marriage opened the door for gay and lesbian couples to argue that they were now equally qualified to participate in it.

Marriage has been in a constant state of evolution since the dawn of the Stone Age. In the process it has become more flexible, but also more optional. Many people may not like the direction these changes have taken in recent years. But it is simply magical thinking to believe that by banning gay and lesbian marriage, we will turn back the clock. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[krcNY]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jennifer1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">i would never stand in the way of someone who wants an abortion unless it was a repeatitive occurance where the girl is just using it as a contreceptive everytime she forgets to use some kind of protection during sex. I dont agree with a full stopping of abortion but i think there has to be tightened laws to stop the above senario, if your going to be a slutty girl and have unprotected sex with lots of people then you should live with the conciquences. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Do you think that's fair to the child? To be a consequence? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes

Now tell me how many of the children born in this world are planned? They are all consiquences, some good some bad, i personally know i wasnt planned, that doesnt effect me in any way, i asked my dad if i was planned as it would have appeared as though i wasnt considering the age gap between me and my big brothers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have a hard time with the abortion thing. Yes I think it is our choice, but so agree it is NOT a form of birth control, but there are circumstances that I would allow it.

If parents, school, inform the kids of Safe/protected sex and the insurance companies cover controceptives entirely on the insurance plans; we would have much less abortions. Personally I think the monthly cost of BC Pills are too expensive and the kids will have sex.

Jennifer:
We have 3 kids and none of them were planned. I love them with all my heart and will do anything for them. One of them is our bonus child and love him just as much as the other two. I would never say he was an oops, mistake or what not, to us he was a GIFT. Apparently we had enough love to spread to one more child.

[Aaron Adams]

It should be noted that I am a conservative who voted for Bush both in 2000 and 2004 as that gives you an idea of where I'm coming from. Might I suggest that we stick to the topic of how Bush's nominee, whoever that individual is, will affect nudists. Obviously Bush's nominee is not likely to be pro-choice, not likely to be pro gay rights, and is likely to favor a greater role for religion in public life than do most liberals. I was hoping to see what affect people thought Bush's nominee would have on nudists specifically.

[NudistGuy47]

Getting back on topic, I do not believe the Supreme Court nominee will have any influence on the nudist life or our ability to practice naturism and nudism throughout this country.

On the other hand, I do believe the nominee will have quite the slugfest in the Senate for confirmation.

[jon71]

Naturism is an issue of personal liberty. I anticipate his nominees to be generally hostile to personal freedom. Hopefully the issue of naturism won't hit the supremes or if it does Bush's pick will be in the minority.

[Jennifer1]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by krcNY:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jennifer1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">i would never stand in the way of someone who wants an abortion unless it was a repeatitive occurance where the girl is just using it as a contreceptive everytime she forgets to use some kind of protection during sex. I dont agree with a full stopping of abortion but i think there has to be tightened laws to stop the above senario, if your going to be a slutty girl and have unprotected sex with lots of people then you should live with the conciquences. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Do you think that's fair to the child? To be a consequence? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes

Now tell me how many of the children born in this world are planned? They are all consiquences, some good some bad, i personally know i wasnt planned, that doesnt effect me in any way, i asked my dad if i was planned as it would have appeared as though i wasnt considering the age gap between me and my big brothers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have a hard time with the abortion thing. Yes I think it is our choice, but so agree it is NOT a form of birth control, but there are circumstances that I would allow it.

If parents, school, inform the kids of Safe/protected sex and the insurance companies cover controceptives entirely on the insurance plans; we would have much less abortions. Personally I think the monthly cost of BC Pills are too expensive and the kids will have sex.

Jennifer:
We have 3 kids and none of them were planned. I love them with all my heart and will do anything for them. One of them is our bonus child and love him just as much as the other two. I would never say he was an oops, mistake or what not, to us he was a GIFT. Apparently we had enough love to spread to one more child. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well it was a mistake you didnt go out to have a child when you had sex that night, you wouldnt put it that way to spare the kids feelings, but still a mistake, that you didnt hate happening. What do u mean by bonus child?

Um, you have to pay for birth control in the US...that is just wrong, man seriously? I mean im not on them but im 99.999% sure you dont need to pay for them (i could be wrong, i know that in England they need pay a short cost for some prescriptions but i dont know if that includes Birth Control), oh and the who teenage pregnacy is totally the parents fault for presuming that the school will teach there child about it, when the schools wont teach it until 13+ way after they could possible have sex and get pregnant, but this isnt some debate on that so lets not get to far into it.

[HereticChick]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">i would never stand in the way of someone who wants an abortion unless it was a repeatitive occurance where the girl is just using it as a contreceptive everytime she forgets to use some kind of protection during sex. I dont agree with a full stopping of abortion but i think there has to be tightened laws to stop the above senario, if your going to be a slutty girl and have unprotected sex with lots of people then you should live with the conciquences. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hardly think people use abortion as a form of birth control since you have to pay for an abortion. From what I understand, it can cost upwards of a $1000. BC pills and condoms are WAY cheaper!

And another thing, just because one is a "stupid slutty girl" doesn't mean a child should have to be born and suffer the lifestyle of the parent as a punishment to the parent. That is punishing 2 people for one person's "crime".

[krcNY]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jennifer1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by krcNY:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jennifer1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">i would never stand in the way of someone who wants an abortion unless it was a repeatitive occurance where the girl is just using it as a contreceptive everytime she forgets to use some kind of protection during sex. I dont agree with a full stopping of abortion but i think there has to be tightened laws to stop the above senario, if your going to be a slutty girl and have unprotected sex with lots of people then you should live with the conciquences. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Do you think that's fair to the child? To be a consequence? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes

Now tell me how many of the children born in this world are planned? They are all consiquences, some good some bad, i personally know i wasnt planned, that doesnt effect me in any way, i asked my dad if i was planned as it would have appeared as though i wasnt considering the age gap between me and my big brothers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have a hard time with the abortion thing. Yes I think it is our choice, but so agree it is NOT a form of birth control, but there are circumstances that I would allow it.

If parents, school, inform the kids of Safe/protected sex and the insurance companies cover controceptives entirely on the insurance plans; we would have much less abortions. Personally I think the monthly cost of BC Pills are too expensive and the kids will have sex.

Jennifer:
We have 3 kids and none of them were planned. I love them with all my heart and will do anything for them. One of them is our bonus child and love him just as much as the other two. I would never say he was an oops, mistake or what not, to us he was a GIFT. Apparently we had enough love to spread to one more child. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well it was a mistake you didnt go out to have a child when you had sex that night, you wouldnt put it that way to spare the kids feelings, but still a mistake, that you didnt hate happening. What do u mean by bonus child?

Um, you have to pay for birth control in the US...that is just wrong, man seriously? I mean im not on them but im 99.999% sure you dont need to pay for them (i could be wrong, i know that in England they need pay a short cost for some prescriptions but i dont know if that includes Birth Control), oh and the who teenage pregnacy is totally the parents fault for presuming that the school will teach there child about it, when the schools wont teach it until 13+ way after they could possible have sex and get pregnant, but this isnt some debate on that so lets not get to far into it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We had planned on children at some point, just never actively tried to conceive. I was still on Birth Control when I found out I was pregnant, and two years later we had another child. We thought we were done, had the perfect family and 7 years later we found out we were going to have another baby. That is what I mean about bonus child.

Planned pregnancies to me are the ones where the couple are actively trying to conceive.

I am a parent and do not like the idea of Teen Pregnancy and will not leave it up to school to teach my kids. I definatley agree with you on that one.

[krcNY]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HereticChick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">i would never stand in the way of someone who wants an abortion unless it was a repeatitive occurance where the girl is just using it as a contreceptive everytime she forgets to use some kind of protection during sex. I dont agree with a full stopping of abortion but i think there has to be tightened laws to stop the above senario, if your going to be a slutty girl and have unprotected sex with lots of people then you should live with the conciquences. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hardly think people use abortion as a form of birth control since you have to pay for an abortion. From what I understand, it can cost upwards of a $1000. BC pills and condoms are WAY cheaper!

And another thing, just because one is a "stupid slutty girl" doesn't mean a child should have to be born and suffer the lifestyle of the parent as a punishment to the parent. That is punishing 2 people for one person's "crime". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Up until a few years ago, it was cheaper to have an abortion...because Medicaid paid for it in full but would not pay for birth control. I never understood it. The Gov't finally figured it out and now help with the costs of Birth Control, but in some areas....Birth Control needs to be very inexpensive.

[Jennifer1]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HereticChick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">i would never stand in the way of someone who wants an abortion unless it was a repeatitive occurance where the girl is just using it as a contreceptive everytime she forgets to use some kind of protection during sex. I dont agree with a full stopping of abortion but i think there has to be tightened laws to stop the above senario, if your going to be a slutty girl and have unprotected sex with lots of people then you should live with the conciquences. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hardly think people use abortion as a form of birth control since you have to pay for an abortion. From what I understand, it can cost upwards of a $1000. BC pills and condoms are WAY cheaper!

And another thing, just because one is a "stupid slutty girl" doesn't mean a child should have to be born and suffer the lifestyle of the parent as a punishment to the parent. That is punishing 2 people for one person's "crime". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah i guess but that doesnt mean that she doesnt have to take responsibibly for her carelessness, use protection if you dont want a child. I guess there is lots of issues her, like if she had used contreception then the egg would never have been fertailsed and thus never made a kid, but still its not right to abuse your body in such away as to have repeat abortions, that must **** u up inside both pyhsically and mentally. If they look at it as a punishment then so be it, its there punishemnt and the fathers too, cant forget them.

Also dont you have those free clinks things in america that does the abortion, if not then where are all these teenage girls getting the money to pay for there abortions.

[Willy Bill]

I guess the old saying is true, "All you need to do to start an argument is to talk around politics, religion or moral issues."

The funny thing is that this thread started with a dicussion about appionting a new Supreme Court person and their influence on naturism. Let us stop all this other stuff and get back to the topic.

I think that they will not even touch the subject of naturism at all because it will not be politically correct for them to do so.

[Naturist Mark]

Acceptance of nudism isn't part of the ideology of the left or right. It isn't addressed by "strict constructionist" or "judicial activists" not any other prominent judicial trend.

However, it does seem clear that nudism will fair better under a judicial philosophy that holds an expansive view of freedom of expression and personal freedom from intrusive regulation (right of privacy). Any candidate that held such views is unlikely to be acceptable to the neo-cons or the Religious Right.

-Mark

[Bob S.]

If we look at the recent decisions handed out by the SC, we will see the one that most negatively impacts the lives and rights of the American public is the Eminent Domain decision. And the liberal wing of the SC (plus one conservative) made that decision.

So in reality, we can have some horrible decisions made by both sides of the aisle.

"Here's a quick primer: any court decision that expands individual civil rights and liberties is regarded as "judicial tyrrany". Any decision that encroaches on those rights is regarded as strict constructionism."

So true, Unwired. If you agrew with the decision, it is right. If you don't, it is politically motivated.

"there are too many issues far more important than cheapening the constitution by amending it to discriminate against a whole segment of society."

How about a Constitutional Amendment that makes it unconstitutional to amend the Constitution to put more restrictions on Society? The last time an Amendment passed that made something illegal, the mafia gained a lot of power, the industry went underground, and it was an utter failure. We then had to create another Amendment to cancel out that one.

Say no to the Flag Burning and Anti-Same sex marraige Amendments.

"I thought this topic was had to do with the Supreme Court and nudism..."

It was supposed to be, but it seems to have morphed. It will be moved accordingly.

Bob S.

[P.J.]

We (and I'm as much to blame as almost evryone who has voiced an opinion on this subject) have all once again, jumped off of the track!

If the poll question was on littering the highways, I think that there is a probability that subjects such as abortion, birth control, bussing, prayer in school, homosexual rights, along with other controversial issues would be brought up.

To get back to the poll question, I strongly doubt that whoever President Bush chooses to replace Justice O'Connor will have any influence on the freedom to practice nudism.

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.:
If the poll question was on littering the highways, I think that there is a probability that subjects such as abortion, birth control, bussing, prayer in school, homosexual rights, along with other controversial issues would be brought up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well DUH!

Cause if you're a litterer you are most likely a homosexual, who wants better birth control, because now they have to have an abortion, (that they have to take a bus to) while praying at school.

It all makes sense now!!!

Qikdraw

[HereticChick]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yeah i guess but that doesnt mean that she doesnt have to take responsibibly for her carelessness, use protection if you dont want a child. I guess there is lots of issues her, like if she had used contreception then the egg would never have been fertailsed and thus never made a kid, but still its not right to abuse your body in such away as to have repeat abortions, that must **** u up inside both pyhsically and mentally. If they look at it as a punishment then so be it, its there punishemnt and the fathers too, cant forget them.

Also dont you have those free clinks things in america that does the abortion, if not then where are all these teenage girls getting the money to pay for there abortions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jennifer, nothing in the US is free. Without a doubt, abortions are not free. Not in any place I've ever been. I'm sure if you attempted to use abortion as BC, eventually you wouldn't be able to get pregnant any more. As far as punishment goes, you cannot use a child as punishment for the parents having sex and getting knocked up. It's absolutely reprehensbile to punish a CHILD for the sins of it's parents! Better to abort it first than to punish the infant with crappy parents. Did you also know that 41% of children that are abused are under 1 year of age? Also, the people who most often abuse and kill these children are young men in their 20's and you would punish an infant with this type of parent? I have no idea where you get your abortion statistics from, but the age group that has the most abortions are 20-24 followed by 24-29 year olds. Teenagers do indeed get abortions but not at the rate as those in their 20's. The information I have is from the CDC http://www.cdc.gov so I'm not just making it up. Your thinking is headed in the right direction, but I have to disagree with you on these points. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[KirkOntario]

Sorry folks but courts don't decide if abortion is a good thing or not: that is the proper function of legislatures. The Roe v. Wade argument is as to whether an unspecified privacy right exists in the constitution. It does not. Many liberals will concede that Roe v. Wade was bad law but a good result. The question is really about juducial activism is whether we allow 9 unelected judges to decide issues that belong in the public forum.

[jon71]

Actually it is in the constitution. The ninth amendment gives Americans unwritten rights, the most widely acknowledged of which are the right to privacy and the right to travel. Freedom of choice is predicated on the right to privacy. Even more and more conservatives admit that roe v. wade was a correct interpretation of the constitution. These are anti-choice people who know that to outlaw abortion nothing less than amending the constitution will suffice. Not enough people are gullible enough to buy any reinterpretation saying it's not there when anyone with even minimal knowledge about the U.S. constitution knows it is.

[missouriboy]

"I cannot see the choice having any effect on the nudist community mainly because nudism is a local issue and even if a case were appealed the Supreme Court level; I cannot see the court accepting the case!"

Exactly. When was the last time the SC heard and ruled on any case about nudism? And when was the time before that?

[MJ_KC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jennifer1:
i would never stand in the way of someone who wants an abortion unless it was a repeatitive occurance where the girl is just using it as a contreceptive everytime she forgets to use some kind of protection during sex. I dont agree with a full stopping of abortion but i think there has to be tightened laws to stop the above senario, if your going to be a slutty girl and have unprotected sex with lots of people then you should live with the conciquences. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, you think restrictions are fine as long as they are restrictions that you think are good.

Why not let the woman decide what is right for her? What gives anyone the right to decide for someone else?

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
Do you think that's fair to the child? To be a consequence? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Children have always been the consequences of sexual acts. That is why those relationships of man and wife that produced them were seen as a sacred bond. The question is whether we degrade that bond by allowing abortion to be so freely practiced.

[pek1]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
Like most Christians I am pro-choice, pro-gay rights and strongly believe in seperation of church and state. The fundamentalists make a lot of noise but remain a small fringe, just disproportionally loud. I look at the fundys and I think they have religiosity INSTEAD of a personal relationship with JESUS. They have dogma INSTEAD of faith. They have doctrinism INSTEAD of morality. They are to Christianity what the first century Pharasees were to Judiasm and what modern day terrorist are to Islam, just an immoral distortion of what should be. Put bluntly Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and George Bush are the kind of "Christian" that satan approves of. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You forgot to mention Fred Phelps, Jon! Have you seen that guy's website? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Seems he's forgotten what the Bible says about the fruits of the spirit, huh?

HereticChick,

out of curiousity, do you use the term, "Oh my god!" as an exclamation? Then, if you want "freedom from religion," then I suggest you refrain from this. Remember, you said it "Freedom from religion! At last someone is thinking! I want freedom from religion."


Pete

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pek1:
You forgot to mention Fred Phelps, Jon! Have you seen that guy's website? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Seems he's forgotten what the Bible says about the fruits of the spirit, huh?
Pete </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't he the guy who was going to protest at American soldiers funerals because America is getting what it deserves and God is punishing us because we are 'immoral'?

*edit*

Yes he is:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/228401_westboro14.html

"Our attitude toward what's happening with the war is the Lord is punishing this evil nation for abandoning all moral imperatives that are worth a dime," Phelps said.

Nice.

Qikdraw

[jon71]

You're unfortunately right. Phelps is a satanist pretending to be a Christian.

[Jennifer1]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jennifer1:
i would never stand in the way of someone who wants an abortion unless it was a repeatitive occurance where the girl is just using it as a contreceptive everytime she forgets to use some kind of protection during sex. I dont agree with a full stopping of abortion but i think there has to be tightened laws to stop the above senario, if your going to be a slutty girl and have unprotected sex with lots of people then you should live with the conciquences. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, you think restrictions are fine as long as they are restrictions that you think are good.

Why not let the woman decide what is right for her? What gives anyone the right to decide for someone else? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What are you serious, your cool about repetitive abortions by the same person. I mean can you imagine someone having 12 abortions a year, you would be cool with that?

What the hell is wrong with restrictions? The law restricts many other things that damage our bodies.

[soundman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jennifer1:
What the hell is wrong with restrictions? The law restricts many other things that damage our bodies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do you want to give control of your own body to others?

[Jennifer1]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by soundman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jennifer1:
What the hell is wrong with restrictions? The law restricts many other things that damage our bodies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do you want to give control of your own body to others? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would hope that if i was abusing my body that someone would care enough to take control and prevent me from hurting myself more.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
Do you think that's fair to the child? To be a consequence? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Children have always been the consequences of sexual acts. That is why those relationships of man and wife that produced them were seen as a sacred bond. The question is whether we degrade that bond by allowing abortion to be so freely practiced. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no question. Abortion has absolutely nothing to do with "sacred bonds" between married people. I have no idea where you got the idea that it degrades anything. Then again, I have no idea where you get most of your thoughts.

It seems like you intentionally post the opposite of what anyone else says just to troll. You can't honestly believe all the crap you post.

[MJ_KC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jennifer1:
What are you serious, your cool about repetitive abortions by the same person. I mean can you imagine someone having 12 abortions a year, you would be cool with that?

What the hell is wrong with restrictions? The law restricts many other things that damage our bodies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, does that mean that it is now OK for me to tell you what I think you should be allowed to do? You seem to think that it is OK for you to set a limit.

[HereticChick]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">HereticChick,

out of curiousity, do you use the term, "Oh my god!" as an exclamation? Then, if you want "freedom from religion," then I suggest you refrain from this. Remember, you said it "Freedom from religion! At last someone is thinking! I want freedom from religion." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that's just ignorant. How do you know I don't mean Gawd, or Goddess? Like the rest of you, I grew up saying "Oh my god" as an expression of my exasperation. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[Jennifer1]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jennifer1:
What are you serious, your cool about repetitive abortions by the same person. I mean can you imagine someone having 12 abortions a year, you would be cool with that?

What the hell is wrong with restrictions? The law restricts many other things that damage our bodies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, does that mean that it is now OK for me to tell you what I think you should be allowed to do? You seem to think that it is OK for you to set a limit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Limits... what do you mean, like how many you can have within a certain time or what?

Yeah i do think its ok for me to set a bounday for myself, something that would be nice to see practiced to prevent the abuse of the right to have an abortion.

[jon71]

education is the answer. Laws taking away personal freedom are a dangerous slippery slope. Without the right to choose we would be a taliban approved tyranny. Instead of more law we might simply give someone a brief on contraception and maybe some condoms or birth control pills following an abortion. I know that is simplistic and won't completely solve the problem but it would be a start without eroding our 9th amendment right to privacy and choice.

Good answer jon!

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
education is the answer. Laws taking away personal freedom are a dangerous slippery slope. Without the right to choose we would be a taliban approved tyranny. Instead of more law we might simply give someone a brief on contraception and maybe some condoms or birth control pills following an abortion. I know that is simplistic and won't completely solve the problem but it would be a start without eroding our 9th amendment right to privacy and choice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jon the 9th amendment is not a right to privacy. There is no such right as enumerated in the US constitution. It has been read in by activist judges the kind of judges Bush wisely wishes to keep off the court.

[jon71]

Wrong again. The ninth amendment gives all Americans unwritten rights including the right to privacy. Our forefathers did this deliberately so that no one could deny people their rights if it wasn't "spelled out". The most acknowledged of these rights is the right to privacy. Judges who acknowledge this aren't activist, they're honest. Any judge who can't acknowledge these rights is either dishonest or too stupid to have graduated from law school on merit. Bush in essense admits he is seeking dishonest anti-American judges.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
Wrong again. The ninth amendment gives all Americans unwritten rights including the right to privacy. Our forefathers did this deliberately so that no one could deny people their rights if it wasn't "spelled out". The most acknowledged of these rights is the right to privacy. Judges who acknowledge this aren't activist, they're honest. Any judge who can't acknowledge these rights is either dishonest or too stupid to have graduated from law school on merit. Bush in essense admits he is seeking dishonest anti-American judges. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm then why did it take 200 years for anyone on the Supreme Court to articulate a 'right to privacy'?? --It's simply not in your constitution. It was never expressed until the 1970's. It is a made up right.

[jon71]

It has always been acknowledged it just wasn't applied to abortion until the 70's. Have you actually read the U.S. constitution? I'm a college graduate with a degree in Political Science so this is my bailiwick. I wish it was something that people paid more attention to. In recent years conservatives have "discovered" the 10th amendment in that they are paying more attention to it than they used to but it's always been there. The ninth amendment is more appealing to liberals but it's always been there also. Hopefully it will be sited more often.

[jon71]

9th Amendment: The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In modern vernacular:
Putting certain rights in the constitution spelled out is not to be used to imply that there aren't other constitution rights held by the public that aren't spelled out.

Somehow "SO THERE" doesn't seem sufficient.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
9th Amendment: The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In modern vernacular:
Putting certain rights in the constitution spelled out is not to be used to imply that there aren't other constitution rights held by the public that aren't spelled out.

Somehow "SO THERE" doesn't seem sufficient. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Show me the word 'privacy'.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
It has always been acknowledged it just wasn't applied to abortion until the 70's. Have you actually read the U.S. constitution? I'm a college graduate with a degree in Political Science so this is my bailiwick. I wish it was something that people paid more attention to. In recent years conservatives have "discovered" the 10th amendment in that they are paying more attention to it than they used to but it's always been there. The ninth amendment is more appealing to liberals but it's always been there also. Hopefully it will be sited more often. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jon we want judges who respect and apply the law as it is written and not read things into the US constitution that are not there: that is what the amendment process is. So far liberals have dominated the courts as they have failed at the ballot box. Imagine a conservative activist court and what it you would think it did if it acted as liberal activist judges have done? We should support judges who apply the law not make laws. That is their task as they are unelected and largely unaccountable.

[jon71]

activist is a term used whenever someone disagrees with a decision. If a dictionary definition was used chances are Brown vs. Board of Education would be "activist". Are conservatives still upset over that? Also "certain rights" INCLUDES privacy. Only a fringe number of conservatives in deep denial have trouble admitting that.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
activist is a term used whenever someone disagrees with a decision. If a dictionary definition was used chances are Brown vs. Board of Education would be "activist". Are conservatives still upset over that? Also "certain rights" INCLUDES privacy. Only a fringe number of conservatives in deep denial have trouble admitting that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you admit no right was articulated for 200 years. So why was that? Activism is when you approach the constitution and interpret it not as it was intended, not as it was written. Brown and Board of Education was an incorrect decision but no one minds the result. The court could have said separate but equal applied but that there was no equality in the schools of the negroes versus those of the whites. The negro schools in the south were appalling. There was more than one way to approach the problem and properly apply the law.

[jon71]

The right was articulated all the time, just Roe v. Wade created more attention. It was always there and used, just didn't make as many headlines. I didn't expect you to actually say that about Brown v. Board of Education, I tossed that out there because outside of the ku klux klan 99.99% of us agree it was an obvious call. Oh my word. Let me sum up this way, if Brown and Roe are activism I am all for it, so is anyone else who loves freedom.

[Aaron Adams]

To tie this topic a bit back to the original subject of Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court and nudism, it has always struck me that one could use the 9th Ammendment to suggest that a right to be naked exists that falls under the 9th Ammendment. A right to be naked is not in the text of the 9th ammendment and neither is the right to privacy but people seem to rather like having a right to privacy. All that said it seems unlikely that a Bush appointee to the Supreme Court will ever interpret the 9th Ammendment to include a right to be naked if a case on nudism comes before the Supreme Court but one can hope.

[Bob S.]

As we have all found out, the Constitution is far from a rigid document. It is fluid in that it allows judges to interpret it when ruling on cases.

That is where we get caselaw, it is a judge's interpretation of the Constitution as ruled in a specific case. Let's look at the First Amendment rights. Freedom of Speech is specified, but in a rigid document, there would be no room for interpretation. In our fluid document, riot-inciting speech is forbidden.

And the recent decisions regarding the Freedom of Religion is enough to confuse anyone.

This is why there is such a demonic fight over any potential presidential nominees, especially for SC. It is their interpretation of the Constitution that will matter.

Bob S.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
The right was articulated all the time, just Roe v. Wade created more attention. It was always there and used, just didn't make as many headlines. I didn't expect you to actually say that about Brown v. Board of Education, I tossed that out there because outside of the ku klux klan 99.99% of us agree it was an obvious call. Oh my word. Let me sum up this way, if Brown and Roe are activism I am all for it, so is anyone else who loves freedom. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes most of us think Brown V Board was a good result but that's the point. The question is not is it a good result but is it good law? The US. Constitution allowed for equality not integration so technically separate but equal was more proper had it been truly equal. Problem was black schools were separate and UNEQUAL. Integration was a means but not the only means of achieving equality.

[Bob S.]

"The US. Constitution allowed for equality not integration so technically separate but equal was more proper had it been truly equal."

That was in Plessy vs. Ferguson in 1896. The "Sepaate but equal" phrase was used there. And it was constitutional. Brown overturned that by stating that "separate but equal is inherently unequal."

Neither one of them was judicial activism and I hate that term for simple rulings. Activism implies that the justices are going beyond making rulings and into essentially writing laws or suggesting what laws should say.

In fact, Brown did not stop all segregation in schools. States continued to defy this ruling with creative laws to get around the ruling. And it worked into the 70s in some places.

Brown 2 was a bit more of activism as it suggeted that integration proceed "with due dilligence" (I hope I got that right).

Roe was not activism either as it only legalized a previously illegal (or questionably legal) practice. It never went into the realm of writing law.

Bob S.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
Roe was not activism either as it only legalized a previously illegal (or questionably legal) practice. It never went into the realm of writing law.

Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Roe certainly was writing law. There was no right to an abortion prior to it. It made up a kooky trimester distinction that was purely judge-made, no basis in medical fact. Many of its supporters agree with the result but agree it was bad law.

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Show me the word 'privacy'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Kirk, let me offer this further explanation that I wrote back in May on another thread...<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Aren't only certain rights declared as inalienable in the US Constitution, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? The rest are granted by the government, or taken away aren't they? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not the way I understand it. Most everything I've read (casually, I admit) concludes that the People have all the rights, and by creating the Constitution the People granted some Powers to the government.

Let's not confuse Rights with Powers.

The Preamble says: "We the People ... do ordain and establish this Constitution...

Then Article 1 Section 1 states: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested..." and goes on to detail how that and other Powers will operate. The first two sentences of the Constitution give clarification that it's the People doing the granting, not the government.

When you later get into the Amendments you'll see that the term "Bill of Rights" does NOT appear in the title. That was just the name of the congressional Bill that proposed the first ten amendments, which were ratified December 15, 1791. When you read those amendments, you can discern from the phraseology that, instead of "granting rights" to the people, it instead recognizes the prior existence of those rights, and then specifically denies the government any Power to abridge those rights. Examples:

I. Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people...

II. ...the right of the people...shall not be infringed.

Note the use of the word, shall, which means in the future. The people's Rights are recognized to already exist before the passage of this Bill, and the government is admonished that it will NOT have subsequent Power to abridge them!

Further indication:

IX. The enumeration...of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

X. The powers not delegated to the United States...are reserved...to the people.

So! This was the uniqueness of the "American Experiment" in nearly all of history: the People's Rights are inherent in their very existence, not granted by the government. Instead, what got granted was certain government Powers, granted by the People, and it was those People who were the Sovereign, not the Government.

That was the original intention of the founders, anyway. The Constitution is today, however, called a dead letter by many scholars. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Our right to privacy, and any other non-enumerated right, is included in the word "others." http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
So far liberals have dominated the courts as they have failed at the ballot box. Imagine a conservative activist court and what it you would think it did if it acted as liberal activist judges have done? We should support judges who apply the law not make laws. That is their task as they are unelected and largely unaccountable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[TOS violation removed]

What judges do is interpret law and since the Constitution and federal law is often vague, never explicit, it is necessary that it is interpreted explicitly.

I wonder if Kirk knows as little about Canadian law as he does US law.

I do know that if moderate judges were being presented by Bush there would be no threat of filibuster, as history shows.

Either Kirk knows he's posting things that aren't true and is trolling or he doesn't know he's posting untruths and should probably stop posting about politics because he's so clueless.

Kirk, in many places in the US judges are indeed elected and not appointed.

[KirkOntario]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...AR2005072102347.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072102347.html)

How low can the press go? Attacking the choice of attire of Judge Roberts' wife and kids, that's how low.

"An Image A Little Too Carefully Coordinated

By Robin Givhan

Friday, July 22, 2005; Page C02

It has been a long time since so much syrupy nostalgia has been in evidence at the White House. But Tuesday night, when President Bush announced his choice for the next associate justice of the Supreme Court, it was hard not to marvel at the 1950s-style tableau vivant that was John Roberts and his family.

There they were -- John, Jane, Josie and Jack -- standing with the president and before the entire country. The nominee was in a sober suit with the expected white shirt and red tie. His wife and children stood before the cameras, groomed and glossy in pastel hues -- like a trio of Easter eggs, a handful of Jelly Bellies, three little Necco wafers. There was tow-headed Jack -- having freed himself from the controlling grip of his mother -- enjoying a moment in the spotlight dressed in a seersucker suit with short pants and saddle shoes. His sister, Josie, was half-hidden behind her mother's skirt. Her blond pageboy glistened. And she was wearing a yellow dress with a crisp white collar, lace-trimmed anklets and black patent-leather Mary Janes."

[hm0504]

Hey, for the record, I like their attire -- reminded me of pictures I've seen from the Kennedy days.

[hm0504]

Privacy, the right "to let be alone". As far back as 1834, the U.S. Supreme Court mentioned that a "defendant asks nothing — wants nothing, but to be let alone until it can be shown that he has violated the rights of another.":
http://www.rbs2.com/privacy.htm

I think the idea that the government cannot peruse willy-nilly one's non-illegal activities is generally seen as one of the founding principles of the United States. I say "non-illegal" because in the U.S., anything not specifically illegal is deemed legal.

[KirkOntario]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3jra.htm

A brand new low for the NYT...Going thru the adoption records of John Roberts darling children. But of course, privacy is a right, right? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Isn't it ironic that the people who are so concerned about privacy rights violate THE most private part of a the private part of the nominee's life: the childrens' life story. But then we saw in the campaign John Kerry violate Cheney's private life by dragging his lesbian daughter into the third debate.
For the Left: one law for them, one law for the rest of us.

[NudeOnLongIsland]

Roberts Donated Help to Gay Rights Case (http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20050804/ts_latimes/robertsdonatedhelptogayrightscase;_ylt=All6N4kAWjd 1maH.bdGz1Lqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-)

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeOnLongIsland:
Roberts Donated Help to Gay Rights Case (http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20050804/ts_latimes/robertsdonatedhelptogayrightscase;_ylt=All6N4kAWjd 1maH.bdGz1Lqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It sort of illustrates the point about attempts to attack a Roberts based on cases he worked on. Written legal opinions or arguments are based on research and not necessarily one's own views of the case or even the law.

[jon71]

For the record it was Dick and Lynn Cheney who made public their daughters orientation. Kerry answered an honest question honestly, something conservatives don't understand.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
For the record it was Dick and Lynn Cheney who made public their daughters orientation. Kerry answered an honest question honestly, something conservatives don't understand. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the record it was Kerry who tried to drive a wedge between father and daughter in a presidential debate. It was reprehensible. And guess what? It backfired and Kerry is now a footnote in history.

[jon71]

Kerry was the one who conducted himself ethically and honestly, something the Cheney's can't claim. I know honesty is a foreign concept to conservatives but the only wedge was between the Cheneys themselves. They betrayed their daughter and used her. The claim that it was Kerry driving a wedge is just one more example of Bush Cheney dishonesty. Not only are they lousy public officials, they are lousy parents and lousy human beings.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
Kerry was the one who conducted himself ethically and honestly, something the Cheney's can't claim. I know honesty is a foreign concept to conservatives but the only wedge was between the Cheneys themselves. They betrayed their daughter and used her. The claim that it was Kerry driving a wedge is just one more example of Bush Cheney dishonesty. Not only are they lousy public officials, they are lousy parents and lousy human beings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess you will believe whatever you want to Jon.

[jon71]

yeah, the facts.

[hm0504]

John Kerry did not "drag out" some Cheney family secret that Mary Cheney is lesbian -- that was well-known.

Was John Kerry trying to drive a wedge between the parent Cheneys and daughter Mary? What an absurd idea. John Kerry was expressing his support for treating gays and lesbians as equals. Seems to me that Republican efforts to limit, or re-criminalize, homosexuality is the real wedge-driver.

Was John Kerry using Mary Cheney to score a political point in the debate? Yes. Was it appropriate to use the opposition's offspring as a debate point? No. I think it is inappropriate. I don't think John Kerry was harming Mary Cheney or her family relationships, indeed quite the opposite. Still, I consider it inappropriate to mention family members of the opposition in a formal debate.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Was John Kerry using Mary Cheney to score a political point in the debate? Yes. Was it appropriate to use the opposition's offspring as a debate point? No. I think it is inappropriate. I don't think John Kerry was harming Mary Cheney or her family relationships, indeed quite the opposite. Still, I consider it inappropriate to mention family members of the opposition in a formal debate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it was a pretty sleazy thing to do. Will be talked about for years as a mistake in the debate. Unfortunately like the Roberts nomination and the attacks on his kids attire and now probing their adoptions kids are not off limits as they should be. Guess we have Kerry to thank for finding a new low.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
yeah, the facts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

High five jon! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Was John Kerry using Mary Cheney to score a political point in the debate? Yes. Was it appropriate to use the opposition's offspring as a debate point? No. I think it is inappropriate. I don't think John Kerry was harming Mary Cheney or her family relationships, indeed quite the opposite. Still, I consider it inappropriate to mention family members of the opposition in a formal debate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it was a pretty sleazy thing to do. Will be talked about for years as a mistake in the debate. Unfortunately like the Roberts nomination and the attacks on his kids attire and now probing their adoptions kids are not off limits as they should be. Guess we have Kerry to thank for finding a new low. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Though I consider it an indisgression, I consider it very minor -- though I certainly do expect SOME PEOPLE to talk about for years and years. Certainly, a lot worse things were done like the Swift Boat ads or the garbage John McCain had to go through when he was running against Bush.

Checking the adoption records is a standard thing, especially since sometimes these things are done illegally.

[KirkOntario]

Really? And it's the job of the NYT to do 'standard searches' of private sealed documents for ahhh the children of the nominee? I thought they reported news. Guess I was mistaken, they must be the official muckrakers of the Democratic party. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

The Swift Boat ads were brilliant. John Kerry fragged by the vets for being the Vietnam traitor that he was. Loved it.

[jon71]

The "swift boat vets" who incidentally never met John Kerry were the traitors. Helping Bush who is a deserter and coward was an act of treason in itself. Once more as far as Mary Cheney, Kerry answered a question honestly. He can hold his head high. Dick and Lynn however showed they are unfit as parents. One more point, vetting nominees IS news. In this instance small banal news but news just the same. So far Democratic nominees have conducted their campaigns ethically and honestly and I hope that stops. The R.s fight dirty and I hope we start. I want a nominee in '08 with the soul of an assassin. I hope by election day the Republican nominee is so messed up in the head that he has to be medicated.

[hm0504]

In 2008, I certainly would not mind seeing John McCain as President and Joe Biden as Vice-President (or maybe the other way around).Senator Biden, Democrat, has said he would be delighted to run with Republican McCain.

I think a Democrat-Republican Presidential ticket would be just what's needed.

[P.J.]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
The "swift boat vets" who incidentally never met John Kerry were the traitors. Helping Bush who is a deserter and coward was an act of treason in itself. Once more as far as Mary Cheney, Kerry answered a question honestly. He can hold his head high. Dick and Lynn however showed they are unfit as parents. One more point, vetting nominees IS news. In this instance small banal news but news just the same. So far Democratic nominees have conducted their campaigns ethically and honestly and I hope that stops. The R.s fight dirty and I hope we start. I want a nominee in '08 with the soul of an assassin. I hope by election day the Republican nominee is so messed up in the head that he has to be medicated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I respect your opinions and your right to express them.
The Swift Boat Vets are veterans who have certainly earned the right to question the claims of a candidate who is running on his military service.
Life-long civilians have no business trying to silence the Swift Boat Vets nor any military veterans for that matter.
Once again, I will say: I respect your opinions and your right to express them.
What I do not respect is accusing President Bush of being a deserter and a coward without sufficient evidence.
If your flimsy accusations are sufficient grounds to bring up charges under the the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the accused has similar rights as those who are brought up on charges in a civilian court. Among those rights, which you choose to overlook are the presumption that the accused is innocent until proven guilty of charges.
The UCMJ, like the civilian judicial system, also protects the accused of facing your some kangaroo court in which you act as judge, jury and executioner.
With your pro-homosexual liberal views, I'm surprised that you would stoop down to bring up the lesbian daughter of Vice President & Mrs. Dick Cheney and then accuse them of being unfit parents.
Your venomously hateful comments about the 2008 election are both uncalled for and out of line, especially for someone who professes to be a Christian.
Instead of wishing for a Republican candidate that is "so messed up in the head that he has to be medicated," wouldn't it be better if both the Republican and Democratic parties nominated candidates that we could all live with?

[jon71]

It would be great if both parties nominated a quality nominee, I just don't think it's realistic. Sen Collins of Maine, former Gov. Weld of Mass., former mayor Riordan of L.A., are all fine Republicans for President. Even Guilini or Pataki of New York are tolerable. Unfortunately they will probably give us another dumb conservative. Also what is this talk about "stooping" to bring up Mary Cheney. So she's gay. so what. GOD made people gay and straight and bi just like he made us right handed and left handed and ambidextrous. I have no problem with that at all. The people who do have a problem with gay people basically believe that GOD messed up when he created the human race the way he did. I believe 1 God is the author of creation and 2 that GOD is innerant. Therefore I support gay rights. I'll go further than that, homophobia is a form of blasphemy. I see no way to accept my points 1 and 2 and not support gay rights. If my daughter should happen to be gay I will love her without reservations same as I would if she were left handed, or tall, freckled, or whatever. If anyone ever tried to deny her because of any demographic detail they will have an angry father on their hands to deal with. Unfortunately the Cheneys believe that one of their daughters is entitled to live a happy life secure in the knowledge that she and her partner has legal protections and rights and their other daughter they work to deny this happiness and security just because the life's love of daughter no. 2 is female and not male. Shame on Dick and Lynn Cheney. Shame, shame, shame.

[jon71]

Additionally, I would love to see Bush courtmartialed like he so richly deserves. Then he could answer this matter direcly unlike his "campaign" answeres which is all the public has gotten so far. Thing is we both know this will never, happen. Justice and the truth will not be served. As far as the swift boat vets go I am not trying to silence them at all, I just wish to make it known that they are pathological liars.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
Additionally, I would love to see Bush courtmartialed like he so richly deserves. Then he could answer this matter direcly unlike his "campaign" answeres which is all the public has gotten so far. Thing is we both know this will never, happen. Justice and the truth will not be served. As far as the swift boat vets go I am not trying to silence them at all, I just wish to make it known that they are pathological liars. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would you also like to see his head on a pike? I don't think all this hate and desire for revenge is particularly good for you Jon.

Please, attributing such strong emotions to jon is a low blow, just short of a flame from my perspective. Grow up Kirk! The man has made very valid points and if you have to attack him it means you are unable attack his words.

If Bush evokes such emotions it's because he's caused them. And I think he most definitely has caused them. You try putting forth this "poor Bush is being attacked" crap when the man himself has brought it all apon himself. He cause the negative emotions to exist!

That you continue to post even though several people on here have blown every one of your posts to smithereens over and over makes me wonder what planet you are on. Facts just never seem to slow you down do they? ROFLOL!

The Swift Boat mess was worse than the investigation into Bush's military record because accusations were thrown about that had no basis in reality, just to discredit Kerry, as was the attempts at taking his innocent and truthful statements about the VP's gay daughter. Bush and his party won the election by flat out lying about Kerry and got away with it. If you say something long enough people (conservatives) actually believe it even if it's a total fabrication. From a personal observation the voters that actually researched the candidates before voting did vote for Kerry and the ones that believed the hype voted for Bush. Unfortunately we have no laws about actually being informed when you vote or Bush would have never made it into office.

There are still a lot of holes in Bush's record, holes that obviously were hidden and hopefully one day will be filled in. It was just all too convenient. We already have someone admitting they got Bush into the service in a safe place due to his father's influence.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
Please, attributing such strong emotions to jon is a low blow, just short of a flame from my perspective. . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I really don't think it is diputed that jon has strong emotions about Bush.

[jon71]

I have strong opinions yes, A desire for violence, no. I want the public to see what a failure Bush is and I hope we choose better Presidents in the future. I do not want physical violence towards him. O.k., an unnecessary root canal would be funny but that's as far as I go.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
Please, attributing such strong emotions to jon is a low blow, just short of a flame from my perspective. . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I really don't think it is diputed that jon has strong emotions about Bush. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you didn't use the words "strong emotions Kirk, you said "hate and desire for revenge" which is not in keeping with the TOS here. If anything I'd attribute hate and desire for revenge to you.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
I have strong opinions yes, A desire for violence, no. I want the public to see what a failure Bush is and I hope we choose better Presidents in the future. I do not want physical violence towards him. O.k., an unnecessary root canal would be funny but that's as far as I go. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well that's good jon. I don't think comparing him to Osama bin Laden or calling him a traitor or coward or brain damaged is quite fair. It doesn't really help advance any arguments.

[Bob S.]

Let's stop talking about the 2004 elections, please, at least here in this topic. This is for discussing Roberts, Bush's choice for Supreme Court.

"I know honesty is a foreign concept to conservatives"

jon, why are you trying to alienate the majority of AANR nudists? Are you telling me that I do not know honesty? That statement from you is an affront to who I am.

I find it disturbing that the NYT would go through the adoption records of John Roberts. That is not their business. If the records had to be looked into, there are officials who can do that with the utmost of professionalism and secrecy. I always thought they were sealed and only the two families, or a court order could unseal them.

I did hear about a case Judge Roberts heard where he found that the police did not violate a 12-year-old girl's civil rights when they held her in custody (handcuffed) for eating french fries on the DC metro, which has a law against eating any food there.

The police held her until she could be released to her parents. He acknowledged that the events were not good, but he could not find any violation of her Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights.

Bob S.

[KirkOntario]

http://factcheck.org/article340.html

this is how sad and desperate the Left has become about this nominee

[Ren]

It's true, I know or have witnessed many honest conservatives - few of those hold positions of power, though.

As for the Left not liking the nominee, NARAL is one small contingency of the Left and they don't speak for all of us. It seems there are groups on the Right, however, that don't like him, because he advocated to keep laws on the books in Colorado that would protect gays. The Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002430802_roberts10.html) lists that a group that amounts to hate masked as values has pulled support from him.

He's still an enigma and his Federalist Society ties are a bit frightening when you consider who's involved in that group.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
http://factcheck.org/article340.html

this is how sad and desperate the Left has become about this nominee </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right-wing Public Adovocate group Yanks Roberts Support due to Roberts' pro-gay activism (http://www.publicadvocateusa.org/news/article.php?article=790)

this is how sad and desperate the RIGHT has become about this nominee http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Trailscout]

Public Advocate did the honorable thing. Roberts defied the will of the people with his support of creating a specially protected class of people. All citizens should be treated the same.

The citizens of Colorado should not have their will thwarted by legal manuverings.

[Unwired]

The amendment overturned by Romer v. Evans was bad law, pure and simple. It did not pass the strict scrutiny test and was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. It was nothing more than legislation intended to legalize discrimination against gay people, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed in a 6-3 majority.

In my opinion the special interest group mentioned in the article hm linked to pulled their support of Roberts purely based on their own homophobia and bias.



Unwired

[Bob S.]

"Roberts defied the will of the people with his support of creating a specially protected class of people. All citizens should be treated the same."

Well Trail, the amendment in Romer vs. Evans created a special class of people and then denied them rights. But you are right, all citizns should be treated the same.

Now with both the extreme left and right wings both having spoken against Roberts, that makes him a very viable candidate in my eyes. We need more centrists in Washington.

Bob S.

[KirkOntario]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050817/ap_on_re_us/roberts__upbringing

First they ran false ads about him. Attacked the family. Tried to open sealed adoption records. Now they criticize the town he grew up in. All to the deliver the message that they cannot prove: the conservative stereotype about racism, intolerance, excusivity. Pathetic. Desperate.
_________________

[Bob S.]

I guess I should watch out. In a nearby county just a few years ago, a homeowner was selling his house but refused all blacks from buying. It was found that there was a leftover clause in the deed that specified that only whites could buy the property.

I also live in a mostly white city. Geez? Am I a racist as well?

Thanks Kirk. It is always fun and disturbing to find such outlandish attacks on people. And Roberts is getting it from both sides. Here's to a Roberts confirmation.

Bob S.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In a nearby county just a few years ago, a homeowner was selling his house but refused all blacks from buying. It was found that there was a leftover clause in the deed that specified that only whites could buy the property. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


When a clause in a deed breaks the current law it no longer applies.

[MJ_KC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
When a clause in a deed breaks the current law it no longer applies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Does a property owner have the right to sell to whoever they want to, and for whatever price they choose to?

Never mind. I just looked up the fair housing act and found that there are plenty of things that are prohibited.

[P.J.]

I honestly don't find any fault in President Bush's choice for Supreme Court.

From what I've read, John Roberts isn't the radical leftist that Ruth Bader Ginsberg is, but he's certainly not the right-wing extremist that liberals need to worry about either.

Some of the groups who claim to be the spokespersons of conservative thought also oppose John Roberts.

Aside from Mr.Roberts (and his family) being Roman Catholic (and I hope that there is not a return to the KKK-style of anti-Catholicism) and the choice of President Bush, I see no reason for everyone to worry about Mr. Roberts.

Relax folks... I don't see the Roberts nomination as bringing America one inch closer to bringing back slavery, overturning Roe vs. Wade nor restoring every anti-sodomy law that was ever on the books.

But probably most importantly, I doubt that Mr.Roberts will ever legislate against nudism!

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
I guess I should watch out. In a nearby county just a few years ago, a homeowner was selling his house but refused all blacks from buying. It was found that there was a leftover clause in the deed that specified that only whites could buy the property.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are called restrictive convenants and are void for public policy reasons. Usually made void by statutes passed 40 or 50 years ago. The offending clauses you would normally expect to have been removed since they are unenforceable.

[Bob S.]

"When a clause in a deed breaks the current law it no longer applies."

Yeah cyndiann. And he was found to be in violation of the law. But then he also suddenly had a change of heart about wanting to sell.

"Does a property owner have the right to sell to whoever they want to, and for whatever price they choose to?"

MJ, if I understand correctly, as long as the house is not up for public sale, they can discriminate. As soon as they announce the house to the public either in the media, with a sign, or some other way, they have to abide by the laws.

"The offending clauses you would normally expect to have been removed since they are unenforceable."

And that's why it made such news. Because it was an illegal clause that was never taken out of the deed. But this was all meant to show that racism can be found anywhere, Kirk, and to attack someone for where they grew up instead of how they act is just plain ignorant.

Bob S.

[KirkOntario]

Latest attempt to smear the President's nominee for the the Supreme Court


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...AR2005082501655.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/25/AR2005082501655.html)

trying again to paint him as a racist...just so sad and pathetic.

[Captain Zen]

Anybody appointed by the criminal family's offspring G. Walker B. is made of the same offal, to say it mildly.

[jon71]

what is really sad and pathetic is bush nominating an anachronistic right wing nut like Roberts.

[KirkOntario]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050912-031431-6476r.htm

"It took less than an hour before Senators considering federal Judge John G. Roberts Jr.'s nomination to the Supreme Court fell into disagreement over Hurricane Katrina.
In their opening remarks, the two top Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee invoked the tragedy as a reminder of the gap between rich and poor and the need for a Supreme Court that wants to close that gap. "

WOW...your US democratic senators at work, exploiting human misery for cheap politican gain. Are you proud?

[jon71]

Try dealing with a serious and relevant problem. How hideous would it be to just ignore the disparity and all the myriad problems it causes.

[Bob S.]

"what is really sad and pathetic is bush nominating an anachronistic right wing nut like Roberts."

Why would you say that, jon? Roberts is still an enigma in how he would vote in specific cases as his voting record is so limited. Most of his briefs have been to support the position of his employer.

He has suggested that he feels that SC caselaw is a strong argument and that he may not want to vote against it. He could very well be another O'Connor swing vote or more of a liberal. There is just no telling right now.

"In their opening remarks, the two top Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee invoked the tragedy as a reminder of the gap between rich and poor and the need for a Supreme Court that wants to close that gap."

I didn't even hear about that Kirk. I haven't read the story yet, but would be intersted in knowing the context of it. And how could the SC close the gap between rich and poor?

Bob S.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.: And how could the SC close the gap between rich and poor?

Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no where in the U.S. Constitution where judges have a role in closing the gap between rich and poor. Last I checked you do not have a communist or even socialist constitution and if you wish to have one you need to amend the constitution rather than have unelected judges running roughshod over it. And if the gap between rich and poor is such an issue what have these democratic senators done about it? Very little I imagine.

[usuallylurk]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
It would be great if both parties nominated a quality nominee, I just don't think it's realistic. Sen Collins of Maine, former Gov. Weld of Mass., former mayor Riordan of L.A., are all fine Republicans for President. Even Guilini or Pataki of New York are tolerable. Unfortunately they will probably give us another dumb conservative.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree -- and since this conversation is drifting toward gays and Republicans, note that Maine - with two Republican Senators - has a sizable, noticable gay and Lesbian community. Visit Ogunquit, Kennebunkport, York, Portland.....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

Also what is this talk about "stooping" to bring up Mary Cheney. So she's gay. so what. GOD made people gay and straight and bi just like he made us right handed and left handed and ambidextrous. I have no problem with that at all. The people who do have a problem with gay people basically believe that GOD messed up when he created the human race the way he did.

<snip>

Shame on Dick and Lynn Cheney. Shame, shame, shame. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yeah, but remember - many of Bush/Cheney's followers didn't know that about Mary. The revelation may have shocked a few folks among their followers.

And don't think twice that Rove & Company wouldn't bring out the Diaper Pail Paint if they found similar information on any of John Kerry's family members.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usuallylurk:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

Also what is this talk about "stooping" to bring up Mary Cheney. So she's gay. so what. GOD made people gay and straight and bi just like he made us right handed and left handed and ambidextrous. I have no problem with that at all. The people who do have a problem with gay people basically believe that GOD messed up when he created the human race the way he did.

<snip>

Shame on Dick and Lynn Cheney. Shame, shame, shame. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yeah, but remember - many of Bush/Cheney's followers didn't know that about Mary. The revelation may have shocked a few folks among their followers.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know where this came from but I'm assuming you are talking about when Kerry brought up Mary during the election. That Mary was lesbian was well known publicly. Her dad had mentioned it openly right before this happened.

I don't know why anyone would have been shocked.

[smoothm]

Has anyone read the Constitution lately? If you are over 37 and a citizen of the USA you are pretty much eligible to sit on the Supreme Court. Our Founding Fathers believed that the Constitution was written and should be interpreted by the common man. That being said, get a panel of 9 people to review the most controversial deceisions with just this in mind - Has there been a denial of the rights guaranteed by the constitution? I am a middle of the road democrat, but believe that using that criteria, I would have to find much differently than our Justices did.

[KirkOntario]

[/QUOTE]

I don't know where this came from but I'm assuming you are talking about when Kerry brought up Mary during the election. That Mary was lesbian was well known publicly. Her dad had mentioned it openly right before this happened.

I don't know why anyone would have been shocked.[/QUOTE]

Oh but you don't bring and use the sexuality of your opponent's daughter during a presidential debate. It's just not done. A huge mistake for Kerry. You are scoring cheap points and pitting fathers against daughters and confirming the Republican belief about the Democrats that they are anti-family. I remember watching the debate and turning to my wife when he did that sleazy move and I said: "That's a huge mistake. That's a career ending move." And happily for Americans and the world John Kerry was defeated. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[hm0504]

Hmmm, looks like President Bush may have picked another Supreme Court nominee who is NOT known as an ideological extremist. Of course, like Roberts, we really don't have a clue where Miers stands. Assuming Miers and Roberts turn out to be reasonable, sane Supreme Court judges, I will have to compliment the President on his choices.

Anyway, here is an article by a very right-wing, former White House insider who is displeased that Harriet Miers is NOT clearly a radical right conservative:
http://frum.nationalreview.com/

[Bob S.]

Again, Bush threw a curve ball to the Seante. Harriet Miers has no judicial past and most of her records are still private.

What is known, according to the macon.com (http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/politics/12806544.htm), and may cause some comsternation to right wingers, is that she gave money to Al Gore's failed presidential democratic primary hopes in 1988 which Dukakis eventually won. She also gave to Lloyd Bensten (D-TX) when he was Dukakis' running mate and running for re-election for the Senate.

Bob S.

[hm0504]

Today I heard Bush list among Miers credits that she worked for "Exodus International" -- the group that "helps" gay people stop being gay. Guess that may give us an idea of how she'll vote on gay rights, unless she has changed her views since then. Anyone got more info on this?

[meredith2kp4]

Question for Harriet Miers, 1989 Dallas City Council election:

Do you, as an individual citizen, support repeal of Section 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code, which criminalizes the private sexual behavior of consenting adult lesbians and gay men? Answer: No

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by meredith2kp4:
Question for Harriet Miers, 1989 Dallas City Council election:

Do you, as an individual citizen, support repeal of Section 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code, which criminalizes the private sexual behavior of consenting adult lesbians and gay men? Answer: No </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting. So we know she supports criminalizing homosexuality.

I see she has the support of Focus on the Family:
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0038129.cfm

[Naturist Mark]

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>Bush Nominates Actual Blank Slate To Supreme Court (http://tomburka.com/archives2/2005_10.php#000862)
Long Held Positions of Trust and Confidence in Bush Administrations
This morning President Bush named an actual blank slate to fill Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's place on the Supreme Court. "This slate has served me well," said Bush, "and it will make a heckuva great Supreme Court judge."

The slate, which has never been a judge before, has a long history with President Bush, dating back to his days when it hung in an office at the Governor's Mansion in Texas. "That slate did a good job," said Bush. "It held whatever we wanted to it to. This is an excellent slate."

more (http://tomburka.com/archives2/2005_10.php#000862)
[/list]

-Mark

[jon71]

The Exodus International people should be charged with crimes against humanity.

[NudeTopher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
The Exodus International people should be charged with crimes against humanity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exoudus and several other similar reprogramming groups started "camps" in other countries so that they would not have to deal with the pesky oversight in this country - particularly with all of the charges of abuse. Funny thing..after they opened "camps" in Mexico the Mexican gov't got so many complaints of abuse that they started to close down these reprogramming camps.

It's amazing, when it's in their favor the rapture rightists and neo-cons claim that people's private lives should be left. Yet, the sing a different tune when they wish to interfere in the lives of others and deny them the same privacy.

[Bob S.]

Republicans do not like the choice and a top democrat has come out in favor of the choice (not saying that either would vote that way).

I don't know what to think of her.

"So we know she supports criminalizing homosexuality."

Albinus, we know she has a personal view against gay rights. How would she rule in a court case?

Bob S.

[NudeTopher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:

I don't know what to think of her.

"So we know she supports criminalizing homosexuality."

Albinus, we know she has a personal view against gay rights. How would she rule in a court case?

Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surely you jest. You most certainly how she would vote in order to be true to her self.

[P.J.]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
The Exodus International people should be charged with crimes against humanity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


If I'm not mistaken, Exodus International provides help for homosexuals who want to escape from the so-called gay lifestyle.

Exodus International does not guarantee 100% success, but they offer a choice, a chance and hope.

Many Christians believe that in the New Testament, the 1st Chapter of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans clearly condemns sexual activities between same-sex couples.

If you wish to make issue about the rate of failure of Exodus International, let's mention the alcohol rehab program of the U.S.Navy.

I happen to be a clinically diagnosed alcoholic. My chances of recovery, especially considering the extent of my constant (except duty days and underway periods) abuse of alcohol (such as drinking up to an entire case of beer each day) were considered laughably hopeless by some, including family and some of my closest friends.

Those who go through Navy's in-patient alcohol rehab program have high chances of relapse. So, should we eliminate this?

After going through the Navy's drunk school over 15 years ago, I still pride myself in being among those who not relapsed.

Programs which have any success deserve to be allowed, as long as no one is forced against his or her freewill.

For the homosexual who wants to follow sound Biblical teaching, live a moral lifestyle, marry and perhaps have a family, Exodus International might provide what he or she wants.

For the drunkard, there are a variety of programs.

Ditto for addicts along with tose with psychiatric problems.

For someone who proclaims himself to be a liberal, aren't your views a bit intolerant?

By the way, I hope your sister-in-law is doing alright. I will continue to remember her in my prayers.

[jon71]

Gayness is not something that needs to be cured. GOD made us black and white, tall and short, male and female, and gay and straight and bi. I consider homophobia to be a form of blasphemy. You mentioned intolerance on my part. You are definitely right. I am intolerant of Exodus international and similar programs as well as their allies the Ku Klux Klan and neo-nazi groups everywhere. I have no tolerance for that.
Shifting gears radically thank you for the prayers. We have had a lot of different troubles lately but I will try and get an update.

[HereticChick]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
The Exodus International people should be charged with crimes against humanity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Exodus International does not guarantee 100% success, but they offer a choice, a chance and hope.

If you wish to make issue about the rate of failure of Exodus International, let's mention the alcohol rehab program of the U.S.Navy.

I happen to be a clinically diagnosed alcoholic. My chances of recovery, especially considering the extent of my constant (except duty days and underway periods) abuse of alcohol (such as drinking up to an entire case of beer each day) were considered laughably hopeless by some, including family and some of my closest friends.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Comparing homosexuality with alcoholism is one heck of a stretch. Alcoholism is a disease, on e I also have very close ties to. Homosexuality is not a "choice" or an "addiction". They are born that way. So, if you are a Christian, then God made them that way.

Personally, I believe that gays attend these Exodus programs because they're pressured by religious family members and are afraid of God's retribution. Trying to rehabilitate this "condition" goes against their very biological programming making the failure rate very high. It's probably higher than they admit.


BTW, congrats on being 15 years clean and sober.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
The Exodus International people should be charged with crimes against humanity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


If I'm not mistaken, Exodus International provides help for homosexuals who want to escape from the so-called gay lifestyle.

Exodus International does not guarantee 100% success, but they offer a choice, a chance and hope.

Many Christians believe that in the New Testament, the 1st Chapter of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans clearly condemns sexual activities between same-sex couples.


Programs which have any success deserve to be allowed, as long as no one is forced against his or her freewill.

For the homosexual who wants to follow sound Biblical teaching, live a moral lifestyle, marry and perhaps have a family, Exodus International might provide what he or she wants.


For someone who proclaims himself to be a liberal, aren't your views a bit intolerant?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gays already are as moral as they come, no need for programs that don't work to be forced apon them. It's proven that they don't work. The only people who participate in them have been under pressure from family and/or elders within the church who mistakenly think being gay is a "lifestyle" when it isn't. Matter of fact these programs have been found to be so detrimental to people by insisting they aren't mentally right that they have lead to severe depression and suicide. They should all be made illegal.

You see, they are all pressured to go, pressured to think that being gay is a bad thing when it's just a part of being human. I think these churches should be held accountable for the detrimental affects on the people who attend those programs. Put the church leaders in prison for allowing conditions that lead to suicide.

This is how well it works....

"Exodus International had its biggest scandal in 1979 when Michael Bussee (one of the co-founding members who had helped organize the 1976 conference that led to Exodus' inception) left the group to be with Gary Cooper, also a co-organizer of that conference and a staff member at the local Exodus ministry where they both worked. Later they held a life commitment ceremony."

Then there was this gem. (http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/changedingaybar.html)

"Board chair for the ex-gay group Exodus International, confronted in gay bar" Where he was caught inside lying about who he was.

"There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of 'reparative therapy' as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation". American Psychiatric Association's 1997 Fact Sheet on Homosexual and Bisexual Issues.

"There is no documentary evidence showing someone’s sexual preference can be changed by therapy. There is only anecdotal evidence, mostly from the therapists themselves, claiming that what they do works. That’s not very scientific. On the other hand, there’s no scientific evidence to show that this is impossible...It hasn’t been studied." Dr. Robert Spitzer, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University. In 2001, after he made this statement, he reported on a study that he had made. It indicated that reparative therapy has as a failure rate on the order of 99.98%

They regard a homosexual as a person who has sex with others of the same gender. That is, their definition is based on a person's behavior. This differs from the definition of "homosexual" by most therapists, human sexuality researchers, religious liberals, gays and lesbians. These latter groups define a homosexual as a person who is sexually attracted only to members of the same gender -- whether these feelings are acted upon or not.
bullet They rarely refer to bisexuals -- persons who are attracted to both men and women. They generally lump them together with gays and lesbians or with heterosexuals, depending upon their behavior at the time.
bullet A person with a bisexual orientation who enters therapy and makes a decision to confine their sexual relationship(s) to members of the opposite gender are considered to have "left the homosexual lifestyle," to have become "ex-gays" or "ex-lesbians," and to have become heterosexual. They are counted as success stories by reparative therapists or transformational ministries. Non-Evangelicals would suggest that the individuals are still bisexual; their orientation has remained unchanged.
bullet A person with a homosexual orientation who decides to become celibate is also considered a victory for reparative therapy or a transformation ministry; they have become an "ex." Again, non-Evangelicals would suggest that the individuals have not changed their orientation, which remains homosexual. They are simply celibate homosexuals.

[Sanslines]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by P.J.:



Many Christians believe that in the New Testament, the 1st Chapter of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans clearly condemns sexual activities between same-sex couples.

For the homosexual who wants to follow sound Biblical teaching, live a moral lifestyle, marry and perhaps have a family, Exodus International might provide what he or she wants.

QUOTE]

Believing that is fine but why do some feel that it is their duty to 'change' others to their belief system. Religion is supposed to be about accepting and caring for others. It is not supposed to be about judging or forcing change on others. This same neanderthal way of thinking is what the Europeen conquerers did to the 'savages' when they invaded and occupied their lands. Religion and religious beliefs were forced upon people under threat of death all in the name of being 'saved' under some so called religion. Today we don't threaten death but we sure have loads of religious groups that feel it is their 'god given duty' to get homosexuals to 'see the light' and 'be saved'.

[NudeTopher]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by P.J.:
[
If I'm not mistaken, Exodus International provides help for homosexuals who want to escape from the so-called gay lifestyle.

Exodus International does not guarantee 100% success, but they offer a choice, a chance and hope.

[/QUOTE

Actually P.J., you could not be more wrong!

Those that enter Exodus International, Love Won Out, Refuge, and similar programs are not given a choice. They are the children of Christian parents who have done an intervention and these children are not given a choice. These parents are assisted by religious social workers that work for such pyschologically healthy companies as Focus On The Family; which in 2003 spent $136 million on anti-gay efforts.

These programs are so harmful to the children (including abuse, torture, and other Christian approved activities) that the Departments of Child Welfare in many states have attempted to close down these camps. Of course, the camps claim a religious exemption to being inspected by not only Child Welfare Departments but also by those state agencies that license mental health and physical health (clinics, hospitals, mental health facillities). To get rid of pesky gov't intervention they have moved the actual camps outside of the U.S. In fact, many were set up in Mexico. However, the lax Mexican gov't received so many complaints of child abuse by these good Christian organizations that they too closed down the camps. The camps have now been relocated to other countries that have less oversight.

These programs cause a suicide rate much greater then found in similar teen populations (including suicide attempts) for either heterosexual or homosexual teens (not in these programs).

This problem is so large that Federal Rep. George Miller from California has filed a bill in the House back in April that will require Federal oversight of these programs outside of the country. The watchdog group, International Survivors Action Committee, not only declares these programs as dangerous but particularly warns parents against sending their children to Refuge, a program touted by Christian leaders due to child abuse, suicide rates, etc.

Child welfare advocates are deeply concerned about these programs. Since they claim to fall under the umbrella of churches and have a religious exemption many of the programs aren't required to file even the most basic information as required by federal and state law.

Every legitimate mental health agency and board (not those that are just invented names by Dobson's Focus on the Family) say that gay youth are mentally ok. The American Association of Pediatrics, The American Psychiatric Association, The National Association of School Psychologist, and National Association of Social Workers are all against Exodus and similar organizations!

A statement from the APA "The most important fact about 'repreative therapy'...is that is based upon an understanding of homosexuality (as a mental disorder) that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions...health and mental health professional organizations do not support efforts to change young people's sexual orientation through 'reparitive therapy' and have raised serious concerns about it's ability to do harm."

PJ, as I said, you could not be more wrong. Also, when it comes to Christian organizations many disagree with your fundamental view of homosexuality. If you would like detailed reading material on the harm of these organizations just PM me. I will happily provide a reading list.

Just in case there are any Christian gay youth reading this that need to find some support:
gaychristianoutreach@groups.msn.com
http://www.gsanetwork.org
http://www.mccchurch.org
http://www.outproud.org
http://www.soulforce.org
http://www.uua.org
http://www.ucc.org
http://www.whosoever.org

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
"So we know she supports criminalizing homosexuality."

Albinus, we know she has a personal view against gay rights. How would she rule in a court case?

Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is the big question. Here's the way I see it.

The reasons we have different levels of judiciary is because we assume that some cases are more complex than others. Ultimately, we assume that the Supreme Court handles cases that the distinction about what is legal or not, just or not, is the most difficult. Usually, such cases have little gotchas attached. For example, suppose federal law says abortion is legal but does not get into a certain specific, then some a legislature creates a law saying a woman can have an abortion only if she is 21 years or older, or that abortion clinics are to be taxed at 90%, etc.

While some may complain about judge-made law, like it or not, in a common law system, judges do set precedents under which laws are interpreted.

Because the Supreme Court judges cases most open to interpretation, the personal views of a judge can understandably affect how they will write their opinion.

[hm0504]

Clearly what the White House needs to do in preparation for the next election is to re-criminalize homosexuality federally but then rather than imprison gays and lesbians, it can, as an act of "compassionate conservatism", round them up and put them into concentration camps where Exodus International, operating through taxpayer support as a faith-based initiative, can be put in charge of "straightening" them out.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:

Then there was this gem. (http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/changedingaybar.html)

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As the article says, Paulk was on James Dobson's Focus on the Family staff at the time.

Curiously, James Dobson, in an interview let slip that he like Miers both for what the President has said about her and information he cannot reveal. Gosh, I wonder what James Dobson knows that we don't know.

[NudeTopher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Clearly what the White House needs to do in preparation for the next election is to re-criminalize homosexuality federally but then rather than imprison gays and lesbians, it can, as an act of "compassionate conservatism", round them up and put them into concentration camps where Exodus International, operating through taxpayer support as a faith-based initiative, can be put in charge of "straightening" them out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's not forget to provide a tax incentive to the wealthy to help pay for the 'therapy".

Also, when it comes to this type of therapy it should be duly remembered that therapist = the rapist.

[Unwired]

First off, my apologies for not attending to this sooner. I was on vacation and didn't get the chance to respond until now.

1. NudeTopher, HereticChick, Albinus, Jon and others have responded quite admirably to P.J.'s post in question so I don't really see much point in expounding on what they said. Bravo.

2. If someone is of the belief that homosexuality is inherently immoral, based on their selective and literal interpretation of religious texts, they're entitled to hold that opinion to their heart's content. However, comparing homosexuality to a psychopathology such as addiction is not only highly specious and offensive, but dangerously close to violating the TOS against defamatory speech.

3. If anyone is interested in not attempting to deflect a critical discussion of the success rate of so-called "Ex-gay ministries", they might be interested in a little incident involving John Paulk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-gay#1998_campaign_.26_the_Paulk_affair) some years ago. Is this indicative of the entire movement in general? Impossible to say. I have my opinion, though.



Unwired

[Naturist Mark]

From Democracy Now: (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/04/144235)

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>AMY GOODMAN: We're joined now on the telephone by former Independent presidential candidate, Ralph Nader. Over the last few months he has been writing Harriet Miers a series of letters. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Ralph Nader.

RALPH NADER: Thank you, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: What have you been writing to Harriet Miers?

RALPH NADER: Well, we’re trying to find out whether Karl Rove, during the 2004 election, obeyed federal law and properly allocated the time he spent in the White House on political activity, the resources he spent in the White House on political activity from his taxpayer funded role as special assistant to the President, performing duties that are well defined. And we can't get an answer. We wrote her -- Harriet Miers, that is -- in March, asking for an allocation to be made public, if there was an allocation, and there was no answer. We wrote her on the 18th of July, and there was no answer. And today, I'm writing President Bush, asking that that allocation be made public and if there is no allocation, what is his explanation under federal law?

The performance by Harriet Miers on this matter is not trivial. Karl Rove was the architect of President Bush's re-election campaign. Those were the words that President Bush used on the celebration after the election last November. And here we have the counsel to the President, Harriet Miers, a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States, refusing to answer a simple letter that basically says, “Did Karl Rove obey federal law 5-USC-7321 and have an accounting, separating his duties in the White House, in terms of time and resources? And if so, make it public.” No answer.

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Ralph Nader, wrote Harriet Miers a series of letters, got no response, asking should Karl Rove resign? Did you raise the issue of the exposing of Valerie Plame?

RALPH NADER: No, I just focused completely on the federal law that requires certain officials in the federal government, cabinet secretaries, as well as White House special assistants, to separate his or her time in terms of times and resources spent on elections or political activity and the time spent in the public service.

You know, Amy, in the Congress, if a staff member of a senator or representative engages in political activity during election time, that person can be prosecuted. So that's why the staff members of Congress people take a leave of absence, they drop their public salary, and they go out and push for the re-election of their senator or representative. But unfortunately, a number of years ago the Democrats and the Republicans got together in the Congress and said, ‘We’re going to make an exception from that law for the executive branch, for cabinet officials and for top White House officials.’ But that exemption required that accounting be established, clearly delineating the time, for example, Karl Rove spent in the White House making calls to re-elect Bush or spending materials and resources to re-elect Bush and the time he spent on government business as special assistant to the President. He didn't do that. And so, Harriet Miers is, in effect, by not answering those letters, is covering up for Karl Rove. [/list]

Miers Led Law Firm Repeatedly Forced to Pay Damages For Defrauding Investors (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/miers-led-law-firm-repeat_b_8277.html)
<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>In case anyone thought Harriet Miers wasn't a corporate-shill-in-White-House-clothing, take a gander at how Miers did her best Ken Lay impression while heading a major Texas corporate law firm. That's right, according to the 5/1/00 newsletter Class Action Reporter, Miers headed Locke, Liddell & Sapp at the time the firm was forced to pay $22 million to settle a suit asserting that "it aided a client in defrauding investors."

The details of the case are both nauseating and highly troubling, considering President Bush is considering putting Miers at the top of America's legal system. Under Miers' leadership, the firm represented the head of a "foreign currency trading company [that] was allegedly a Ponzi scheme." The law-firm admitted that it "knew in March 1998 that $ 8 million in [the company's] losses hadn't been reported to investors" but didn't tell regulators.

This wasn't an isolated incident, either. The Austin American-Statesman reported in 2001 that Miers' lawfirm was forced to pay another $8 million for a similar scheme to defraud investors. The suit, which dealt with actions the firm took under Miers in the late 1990s, was again quite troubling. As the 9/20/00 Texas Lawyer reported, Miers' firm helped a now-convicted con man "defraud investors and allowed the firm's [bank] account to be used as a 'conduit.'" The suit said "money from investors that went into the firm's trust account was deposited into [the con man's] bank accounts and was used to pay for his 'expensive toys.'"

If you think Miers wasn't involved in any of this -- think again. Miers wasn't just any old lawyer at the firm. She was the Managing Partner -- the big cheese. True, she could claim she had no idea this was going on. But that would be as laughable/pathetic/transparent as the Enron executives who made the same ones after they ripped off investors. [/list]
News outlets uncritically echoed White House line that Miers "cleaned up" Texas Lottery Commission (http://mediamatters.org/items/200510050007) <UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>As media outlets began delving into the professional background of Harriet Miers, President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, several reported that as chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission, she "cleaned up" an ethically troubled regulatory agency -- a characterization echoing that made by White House press secretary Scott McClellan during an October 3 press briefing. But as some media outlets have reported, her record on the commission is the subject of considerable debate. Dallas Morning News political writer Wayne Slater, for one, described her tenure as "troubled ... a real, real problem."
...
On the October 4 broadcast of National Public Radio's (NPR) Morning Edition, anchor Renee Montagne interviewed Slater about Miers's years at the Texas Lottery Commission:

MONTAGNE: What was her tenure like?

SLATER: It was troubled. It was a real, real problem. It was a troubled agency, but not when she arrived. She was there about a year, year and a half, and then questions of influence-peddling arrived, and during her tenure, it was a stormy time where two directors were fired, another lobbyist -- questions were raised about a lobbyist for the lottery contractor. Republican supporters say she was a person who sort of rode herd over an agency that was having problems, and she directed it in ethical ways. Democrats say that she was really a political lawyer who was hired or at least administered a Republican-minded discipline of Democrats. One of the directors who was fired had been an Ann Richards Democrat and was replaced, ultimately, by a Republican.

MONTAGNE: Is that still the view between the two sides -- nothing was resolved?

SLATER: Oh, you betcha. There's a conflict of interest about which side prevailed. I think there's a lot of feeling among people who know Harriet that she is a strong ethical person who was guided by the idea of protecting the integrity of the game. But still, Democrats say that this was an effort to purge Democrats along the way. And at some point later along the way, the second lottery director to lose his job raised questions of politics, and during the legal battle, the lottery's lobbyist at the time, former Lt. Governor Ben Barnes, testified in kind of a related case that he was involved in getting Bush [into] the National Guard. So it became a deep, deep political fight. [/list]

Yep, she looks like a keeper.

-Mark

[hm0504]

Conservatives looks sharply split over the nomination of Miers:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/05/scotus.miers.ap/index.html

Many feel she lacks "qualifications". Now I doubt if I share the same view of "qualifications" as some of those conservatives, but really, isn't the notion of requiring "qualifications" in order to hold critical federal governments somewhat quaint. I mean when Bush says he searched extensively to find the best possible director of FEMA and found Mike Brown, I believe him because I thought the Arabian Horse Association (from which Mr. Brown was apparently fired) would be one of the last places I'd look.

[hm0504]

Here's an amazing piece of historical trivia --this topic was started by Aaron Adams asking...

Poll Question:
Do you think President Bush's choice to replace Justice O'Connor on the Supreme Court will have any impact on nudists ability to practice nudism?

Given that Ms. Miers primary qualifications appear to be that she is close friend of President Bush, Focus on the Family's James Dobson (), and the radical religious right, Aaron's question is very pertinent indeed!

[NudeTopher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:

Many feel she lacks "qualifications". Now I doubt if I share the same view of "qualifications" as some of those conservatives, but really, isn't the notion of requiring "qualifications" in order to hold critical federal governments somewhat quaint. I mean when Bush says he searched extensively to find the best possible director of FEMA and found Mike Brown, I believe him because I thought the Arabian Horse Association (from which Mr. Brown was apparently fired) would be one of the last places I'd look. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Albinus,
You can now come over and clean my monitor. I had just taken a mouthfull of coffee when I read this post. I was laughing so hard I now have a coffee enhanced laptop. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[ken0254]

Bush said one reason he nominated Mier is that she most followed his ideology. Personally, I DON'T WANT someone who follows Bush's ideology. For that fact alone I'd give her a thumbs down. I have an idea.... how about someone that interperates the constitution the way it should be!!!! HHmmm.... I guess that would leave Bush out now wouldn't it.....

ken

[NudeTopher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ken0254:
Bush said one reason he nominated Mier is that she most followed his ideology. Personally, I DON'T WANT someone who follows Bush's ideology. For that fact alone I'd give her a thumbs down. I have an idea.... how about someone that interperates the constitution the way it should be!!!! HHmmm.... I guess that would leave Bush out now wouldn't it.....

ken </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bush, and the rest of the neo-cons, only approve of the activist Supreme Court decision that put him in office back in 2000. When the Supreme Court rules in their favor they rejoice; when it rules against them they cry activism. Too bad they are such bad losers.

[natural handy man]

we can only hope we can find why this country was founded and look at what our founding fathers was trying to create.
may our new justices put a great deal of thought in to the way they lead our country.
for thier decision do lead the way we will live.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:

Many feel she lacks "qualifications". Now I doubt if I share the same view of "qualifications" as some of those conservatives, but really, isn't the notion of requiring "qualifications" in order to hold critical federal governments somewhat quaint. I mean when Bush says he searched extensively to find the best possible director of FEMA and found Mike Brown, I believe him because I thought the Arabian Horse Association (from which Mr. Brown was apparently fired) would be one of the last places I'd look. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Albinus,
You can now come over and clean my monitor. I had just taken a mouthfull of coffee when I read this post. I was laughing so hard I now have a coffee enhanced laptop. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Glad I brightened your day, though darkened your laptop -- you'll have to le us know if caffeine speeds up the microprocessor.

[WacoTX]

If George Will is against her, I am for her.

[Bob S.]

Topher:"You most certainly how she would vote in order to be true to her self."

I don't expect any judge to vote in order to be true to themselves. I expect them to vote in order to be true to the Constitution. Can she do that? There is the question for the hearings.

[B]Albinus:[/B}"the personal views of a judge can understandably affect how they will write their opinion."

As I said to Topher, personal views are less important than personal interpretation of the Constitution. And that is how they will have to write a decision; based on caselaw, the appropriate clause in the Constitution, and other legalese.

Now as I mentioned, I don't know what to think so I am neither supporting nor rejecting her right now. What will be intersting is to see which Senators ask her the toughest questions. Will the Repubs give her the most grief or the Demos?

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

P.J."For the homosexual who wants to follow sound Biblical teaching, live a moral lifestyle, marry and perhaps have a family, Exodus International might provide what he or she wants."

Homosexuals who want to follow sound Biblical teaching and live a moral life have many possibilities other than giving up their homosexuality. There are homosexual-friendly Churches out there to take care of their spirituality.

What you, PJ, see as the Bible condemning the practice, others see as misinterpretation. Do you wonder why it is so hard for a homosexual to change? Because it is not something that is changeable. It is innate. About the only people who can decide to abandon homosexuality are bisexuals who could swing either way. Of course, they would need to find someone of the opposite sex to kindle in them their heterosexual tendencies.

Bob S.

[hm0504]

BTW Bob S., I like the style of bolding the poster's name and stating the quotation in question.

[NudeTopher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
P.J."For the homosexual who wants to follow sound Biblical teaching, live a moral lifestyle, marry and perhaps have a family, Exodus International might provide what he or she wants."

Homosexuals who want to follow sound Biblical teaching and live a moral life have many possibilities other than giving up their homosexuality. There are homosexual-friendly Churches out there to take care of their spirituality.

What you, PJ, see as the Bible condemning the practice, others see as misinterpretation. Do you wonder why it is so hard for a homosexual to change? Because it is not something that is changeable. It is innate. About the only people who can decide to abandon homosexuality are bisexuals who could swing either way. Of course, they would need to find someone of the opposite sex to kindle in them their heterosexual tendencies.

Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are two major problems with PJ's statements:

1. First, the assumption that only those of the Christian faith are capable of living a moral life. I refuse to accept the assumption that a person of Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or any other faith can't live as moral a life as a Christian. Regligious bigotry is just as wrong as other types of bigotry!

2. If PJ believes that sexuality is changeable
A) Why have the founders of Exodus International left that ministry and have abandoned the entire concept as fruitless? (I have previously asked PJ if he would like a reading/reference list but he has shown no interest)
B) If you accept the premise that sexuality is changeable through prayer or any other means; then you are saying that all sexuality is changeable. Now, I ask those of you who are very secure in your heterosexuality to imagine if you could change to homosexuality through prayer or any other means. If you find that prayer, hope, or anything else can't turn you into a homosexual what makes you think that it works in the other direction? Sexuality is about as changeable as eye color. You might be able to appear differently then you are with differently colored contact lenses...but in the end your eyes are the color they are. The same for your sexuality - it might be masked, hidden,or denied; but it is what it is!

[Bob S.]

Topher:"There are two major problems with PJ's statements"

Just two Topher?

Topher:"First, the assumption that only those of the Christian faith are capable of living a moral life."

I was going to mention that but felt that he was using the term to mean Christian morality. You are correct in that no single religion can claim the corner on morality. In fact, the things that are considered moral are usually good things to do anyway.

Albinus:"I like the style of bolding the poster's name and stating the quotation in question."

Thank you. Always willing to make things easier for the reader http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Bob S.

[NudeTopher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
Topher:"There are two major problems with PJ's statements"

Just two Topher?

Topher:"First, the assumption that only those of the Christian faith are capable of living a moral life."

I was going to mention that but felt that he was using the term to mean Christian morality. You are correct in that no single religion can claim the corner on morality. In fact, the things that are considered moral are usually good things to do anyway.
Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif there are a significant number of problems and false assumptions with PJ's statements. I do believe that the operative word in my statement was major.

Poor PJ, he frequently makes statements such as these but never comes back to further discuss/defend his statements and positions. That leads me to believe that he is either (a) very insecure in his beliefs; (b) he has no interest in having facts get in the way of his beliefs; or (c) all of the above.

[NudeTopher]

Tonight I heard a great line on West Wing:

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">(paraphraed) It is the job of the preident to select justices. It is the job of Senate to advise/consent the president's choices. If the reverends want input - let them run for the Senate first.</span>

[NudeTopher]

Re: Harriet:

Selecting somebody who has never sat a single day as a judge to the Supreme Court is a lot like selecting a medical student to be a hospital's Chief of Medicine.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
Re: Harriet:

Selecting somebody who has never sat a single day as a judge to the Supreme Court is a lot like selecting a medical student to be a hospital's Chief of Medicine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or like President Bush appointing a male veterinarian to be the Director of the Office of Women's Health at the Food and Drug Administration. Oh wait, that did happen:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...AR2005091901576.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901576.html)

(Hopefully, NudeTopher isn't drinking coffee as he reads this.)

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
Re: Harriet:

Selecting somebody who has never sat a single day as a judge to the Supreme Court is a lot like selecting a medical student to be a hospital's Chief of Medicine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Historically about 1/3rd of Supreme Court Justices were never judges before being appointed to the court. Including Chief Justices Earl Warren and William Rehnquist. However, most had extensive experience in judicial matters - Such as having taught constitutional law or having argued mutltiple cases before the court as Solicitor General.

Harriet Miers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers) has none of the qualifications the average, or even below average nominee has. She was not a litigator, she didn't teach constitutional (or any other) law, never argued cases before the court for Justice, or for private clients, never even served as a prosecutor. She is a corporate lawyer who has spent most of her legal career managing other lawyers or playing politics.

-Mark

[hm0504]

Bush: Religion factor in Miers pick:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/12/miers.ap/index.html

Well, with James Dobson, Karl Rove, and President Bush all agreeing Miers is exactly the right (that is religious right) person for the Supreme Court, I don't see how anyone could disagree.

[Baron Lake]

Hallelujah!! and Amen Brother. All those sinners gonna rot in Hell. (That don't mean we still shouldn't stick em in jail first tho.)
Anyone opposing Harriet is probably a Communist too.
b.l.

[hm0504]

Yesterday -> Bush: Religion factor in Miers pick:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/12/miers.ap/index.html

Today -> White House: Religion NOT a factor in Miers pick:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/12/miers.religion/index.html

Yesterday -> Dobson: "hinted he had inside information from the White House that persuaded him to support Miers' nomination"

Today (after Chairman Republican Arlen Specter says he might subpoena Dobson) -> Dobson: Inside information was "what we all know now -- Harriet Miers is an evangelical Christian, that she is from a very conservative church...":
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0038228.cfm

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Yesterday -> Bush: Religion factor in Miers pick:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/12/miers.ap/index.html

Today -> White House: Religion NOT a factor in Miers pick:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/12/miers.religion/index.html
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, it was a laugh to hear the president's press secretary scold the press for paying too much attention to Mier's religious views. The White House wants it both ways - to use her religion to show the religious right that she passes their litmus test, but to rule it out of bounds when mainstreamers look at those views and see what they mean.

-Mark