Well, your having sex with guys is an abomination.
It's ew.
It's icky.
It's an affront to God!
It's.....uh.....strike that last one.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
~ The Clinton Victory Thread ~
- Thread starter columbus
- Start date
It's ew.
It's icky.
It's an affront to God!
It's.....uh.....strike that last one.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Except we are in dire need of overhauling our gun laws. Too many careless and violent people have them, and that dose pose a danger to others. We have penalties for drinking and driving, why not drinking and shooting? Why are those who give someone a gun who is more powerful than they can handle not charged with criminal negligence? Why do we not train and certify people before they are allowed to buy them?
Again, there is just no comparison between restricting guns and laws that place religious ideology above the rights and liberties of groups of people whom those screaming for their "religious rights" have a problem with. "You're gay and not welcome here" is a worlds a part from "you had a violent history as a juvenile, you can't buy a gun."
I'd like to overhaul the laws too.
But Hillary is not the one to do it.
It would be like addressing child molestation by putting Oliver O'Grady in charge.
I don't like the social conservatism of either Donald or Hillary.
She is not the civil libertarian she pretends.
Whereas Trump is better than portrayed, eg, forcing Palm Springs Clubs to include Jews.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Except LBGT rights will be safe, workers rights will be safe, and evolution being taught in science classes will be safe with Hillary winning. Trump probably doesn't give a damn about any of those issues, but he will have Pence behind him, trying to persuade policy and Supreme Court nominees so none of those issues will be safe.
I really don't see any Republicans moving an inch towards overhauling our gun laws. If anything, they keep relaxing our gun laws.
You see the risks you see,
& I see the risks I see.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Exactly, which is why ISIS told their followers here that it's a lot easier for them to kill Americans since guns are so readily available here.
Hey @Revoltingest
Here's an article you might find interesting. A redstate.com blogger is taking Trump to task for Trump's support of the Obama policy that Trump is now criticizing.
Among the various Trump statements from a few years ago quoted is one where Trump insists that he is the most hawkish person in the world. "The most militant military person who ever lived", among other tidbits.
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/201...p-supported-obama-policy-hes-criticizing-now/
For those unfamiliar with redstate.com , it is a conservative Republican blog. I read it religiously.
Tom
Here's an article you might find interesting. A redstate.com blogger is taking Trump to task for Trump's support of the Obama policy that Trump is now criticizing.
Among the various Trump statements from a few years ago quoted is one where Trump insists that he is the most hawkish person in the world. "The most militant military person who ever lived", among other tidbits.
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/201...p-supported-obama-policy-hes-criticizing-now/
For those unfamiliar with redstate.com , it is a conservative Republican blog. I read it religiously.
Tom
I occasionally find a thoughtful article in the American Conservative. What is lacking in many on the left and the right is the ability to acknowledge that a cherished theory does not work in practice. There are some on the left that keep longing for nationalizing everything when we've seen that end badly every time it's been tried. On the right, tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, tax cuts that are supposed to stimulate the economy but don't and other ideological theology trumps the facts.
I think Hillary Clinton will be a good President exactly because she's a moderate - not a true believer. She's been around a long time and I believe she's learned valuable lessons. Of course, being human she'll do dumb things in the future as in the past, but on average I expect to be happy with her policies.
You're religious now, eh?
Some thoughts.....
- As Trump defines "hawk" in that instance, it's about a strong defense rather than military foreign adventurism.
- I agree with Trump about immediate withdrawal from the wars being best.
Even if this did create ISIS (a mere speculation), they harm us less than the wars harmed us.
- His sense of humor is weird.
I've been thinking about why Hillary's lead is so large, despite her flaws and baggage. I think it can be summed up as "team player".
Hillary has been a staunch Democratic party member for decades, with the fervor of a convert. She was born and raised Republican.
For better or worse. In good times and bad. She's toed the party line. She's raised funds and GOTV.
Even when the Dems jilted her in 2008. As soon as it became obvious that she would not be the nominee, in the easiest election in decades. She pivoted into pulling her supporters to vote for some black kid from Chicago, who'd snagged the nomination like a street thug might snag a dangling purse. She kept on with fundraising and organization and voter turnout. This team playing has been her consistent MO for 20 years.
That is why she has such broad and deep support in the Democratic party. Not because she has evil mind control powers or a magic wand.
This is in stark contrast to her two chief rivals, Trump and Sanders. Neither of them were even identifiably members of the party that they are running with a year and a half ago.
Trump seems more determined to exacerbate divisions in the GOP than unify the old school Republicans with the Tea Party wing.
The difference between a team player and a one man show is now being reflected in the polls.
And frankly, I think a team player will make a far better leader for this country.
Tom
Hillary has been a staunch Democratic party member for decades, with the fervor of a convert. She was born and raised Republican.
For better or worse. In good times and bad. She's toed the party line. She's raised funds and GOTV.
Even when the Dems jilted her in 2008. As soon as it became obvious that she would not be the nominee, in the easiest election in decades. She pivoted into pulling her supporters to vote for some black kid from Chicago, who'd snagged the nomination like a street thug might snag a dangling purse. She kept on with fundraising and organization and voter turnout. This team playing has been her consistent MO for 20 years.
That is why she has such broad and deep support in the Democratic party. Not because she has evil mind control powers or a magic wand.
This is in stark contrast to her two chief rivals, Trump and Sanders. Neither of them were even identifiably members of the party that they are running with a year and a half ago.
Trump seems more determined to exacerbate divisions in the GOP than unify the old school Republicans with the Tea Party wing.
The difference between a team player and a one man show is now being reflected in the polls.
And frankly, I think a team player will make a far better leader for this country.
Tom
Underhill
Well-Known Member
You do realize that makes no sense right?
Hillary isn't going around shooting people.
If you believe we need to overhaul gun laws the options are a) someone willing to change them or b) someone who isn't. Trump and every other republican out there won't even entertain the notion of addressing our gun laws.
That's taking the analogy too far.
Let's just say she'd molest/abuse the laws.
Trump actually has a reasonable approach to gun laws.
Largely keeping the ones we have, but boosting mental health care.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights
Underhill
Well-Known Member
Boosting mental health care won't do much. It needs a major overhaul.
It's still the preferred approach, offering better potential for benefit (without loss of civil liberties) than Hillary's to tax & restrict.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
That's debatable. It's an approach that may be effective for the worst of the worst crazies out there. But it certainly won't do much for criminals or the spur of the moment, wife slept with the neighbor time to shoot her, type stuff.
I expect nothing less!
I'm not looking for a solution to all gun related problems.
Instead, I look for improvement without loss of Constitutional rights.
Trump offers more than Hillary, who is much more interested in guns as a much larger source of tax revenue.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
What's reasonable about thinking guns preserve our other rights when nations with fewer or no guns have more rights and liberties? There is nothing to suggest minimum mandatory sentences are reasonable, rational, or a viable solution. There is nothing reasonable about thinking enforcing current gun laws will work to reduce gangs and drug traffic. Though our poor mental health services do add some to the numbers, when we list people who had mental disorders when they bought their gun, there is no reason to actually blame mental health because they already getting some care, and yet despite those records they could still buy a gun - the facts are those with a mental illness are far more likely to be the victims of crime rather than commit an act of violence and other than demonizing those with a mental illness by making this incessant and consistently bad argument. There should be periodic mental health screenings for owning and possessing a gun, but that is a separate issue from mental health.
And of course there is nothing reasonable about saying gun and magazine bans are always a failure, because they actually do work in a number of places throughout the world. He also doesn't seem to notice that many would be criminals do go through the minority of non-Federally licensed gun vendors. And we need a strong military to make America great again? Whenever since post-WWII times has the American military not been strong?
But I do agree we need unified and streamlined federal gun laws that largely and mostly replace individual state laws. And even Trumps proposal goes against those "state's rights" Conservatives love throwing out when it comes to denying health care, welfare, education, and minority rights.
Is it?
To me, resolving such problems with mental health care smacks of, "You don't agree with government policy? You must be insane. What you need is 20 years of 'treatment' in our special unit for people like you. "
Tom
The usefulness of gun rights is a separate & complex issue,
& beyond the scope of this thread.
But other countries differ in one very important way, ie, they
don't have our Constitution, which codifies our rights.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
I wonder if anyone outside the libtard/social justice warrior crowd actually WANTS Billery for pres.
It seems like the vast majority of her 'supporters' are just choosing what they see as the lesser of two evils?
I can't help but think if the 'pubs had a real candidate he could probably just spend the next 6 months on some tropical beach somewhere and still get a landslide.
It seems like the vast majority of her 'supporters' are just choosing what they see as the lesser of two evils?
I can't help but think if the 'pubs had a real candidate he could probably just spend the next 6 months on some tropical beach somewhere and still get a landslide.