The Atlas Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts

[Paul Kemp]

Mostly because of who this is coming from:

Obama is surrounded by yes men, lackeys, flunkys, toadys, and sycophants, who tell him what he wants to hear.

So obviously Obama.

[Governor Scott]

Why do you assume I wouldn't love my child?

I'm not at all accusing you of not loving your hypothetical child. I'm simply pointing out that by being so intolerant of their lifestyle (getting pissed when they bring their partner around) you're making life a lot, lot harder for them than it needs to be.

Love does not mean always agreeing with everything someone does. It is in many cases the exact opposite: still honestly hoping the best for someone when you are distinctly not in agreement. Loving one's enemies does not mean they are no longer enemies.

In the case of a child, I would have made a promise before God to raise that child in the practice of faith upon baptism and engaging in a homosexual act or entering into a homosexual relationship is a grave sin thus contrary to God's teachings. Their partner would not be permitted to enter my house as a partner and my child would not be permitted to see his/her partner. I would teach my child to remain celibate with every bit of effort I can muster. It would likely be difficult to succeed but what choice would I have? Loving a child would include wishing them eternal life in heaven not just temporal happiness.

[TJ in Wisco]

Why do you assume I wouldn't love my child?

I'm not at all accusing you of not loving your hypothetical child. I'm simply pointing out that by being so intolerant of their lifestyle (getting pissed when they bring their partner around) you're making life a lot, lot harder for them than it needs to be.

Love does not mean always agreeing with everything someone does. It is in many cases the exact opposite: still honestly hoping the best for someone when you are distinctly not in agreement. Loving one's enemies does not mean they are no longer enemies.

In the case of a child, I would have made a promise before God to raise that child in the practice of faith upon baptism and engaging in a homosexual act or entering into a homosexual relationship is a grave sin thus contrary to God's teachings. Their partner would not be permitted to enter my house as a partner and my child would not be permitted to see his/her partner. I would teach my child to remain celibate with every bit of effort I can muster. It would likely be difficult to succeed but what choice would I have? Loving a child would include wishing them eternal life in heaven not just temporal happiness.

Since when does someone not have the authority to choose who can or cannot enter into his house? Parents have authority over their children while they are providing food, clothing, shelter, education, etc. for their children.

[Governor Scott]

Why do you assume I wouldn't love my child?

I'm not at all accusing you of not loving your hypothetical child. I'm simply pointing out that by being so intolerant of their lifestyle (getting pissed when they bring their partner around) you're making life a lot, lot harder for them than it needs to be.

Love does not mean always agreeing with everything someone does. It is in many cases the exact opposite: still honestly hoping the best for someone when you are distinctly not in agreement. Loving one's enemies does not mean they are no longer enemies.

In the case of a child, I would have made a promise before God to raise that child in the practice of faith upon baptism and engaging in a homosexual act or entering into a homosexual relationship is a grave sin thus contrary to God's teachings. Their partner would not be permitted to enter my house as a partner and my child would not be permitted to see his/her partner. I would teach my child to remain celibate with every bit of effort I can muster. It would likely be difficult to succeed but what choice would I have? Loving a child would include wishing them eternal life in heaven not just temporal happiness.

Since when does someone not have the authority to choose who can or cannot enter into his house? Parents have authority over their children while they are providing food, clothing, shelter, education, etc. for their children.

I don't object to a parent stopping their kid from being negatively influenced by someone they know.  It's the reasoning behind this decision that I find quite bothersome.

[TJ in Wisco]

Why do you assume I wouldn't love my child?

I'm not at all accusing you of not loving your hypothetical child. I'm simply pointing out that by being so intolerant of their lifestyle (getting pissed when they bring their partner around) you're making life a lot, lot harder for them than it needs to be.

Love does not mean always agreeing with everything someone does. It is in many cases the exact opposite: still honestly hoping the best for someone when you are distinctly not in agreement. Loving one's enemies does not mean they are no longer enemies.

In the case of a child, I would have made a promise before God to raise that child in the practice of faith upon baptism and engaging in a homosexual act or entering into a homosexual relationship is a grave sin thus contrary to God's teachings. Their partner would not be permitted to enter my house as a partner and my child would not be permitted to see his/her partner. I would teach my child to remain celibate with every bit of effort I can muster. It would likely be difficult to succeed but what choice would I have? Loving a child would include wishing them eternal life in heaven not just temporal happiness.

Since when does someone not have the authority to choose who can or cannot enter into his house? Parents have authority over their children while they are providing food, clothing, shelter, education, etc. for their children.

I don't object to a parent stopping their kid from being negatively influenced by someone they know.  It's the reasoning behind this decision that I find quite bothersome.

Entering into a homosexual relationship is sinful, therefore the partner would clearly be a negative influence.

[Senator Napoleon]

Well it is rude for one, and contradicts the notion of love thy neighbor. Typical.

[Governor Scott]

Why do you assume I wouldn't love my child?

I'm not at all accusing you of not loving your hypothetical child. I'm simply pointing out that by being so intolerant of their lifestyle (getting pissed when they bring their partner around) you're making life a lot, lot harder for them than it needs to be.

Love does not mean always agreeing with everything someone does. It is in many cases the exact opposite: still honestly hoping the best for someone when you are distinctly not in agreement. Loving one's enemies does not mean they are no longer enemies.

In the case of a child, I would have made a promise before God to raise that child in the practice of faith upon baptism and engaging in a homosexual act or entering into a homosexual relationship is a grave sin thus contrary to God's teachings. Their partner would not be permitted to enter my house as a partner and my child would not be permitted to see his/her partner. I would teach my child to remain celibate with every bit of effort I can muster. It would likely be difficult to succeed but what choice would I have? Loving a child would include wishing them eternal life in heaven not just temporal happiness.

Since when does someone not have the authority to choose who can or cannot enter into his house? Parents have authority over their children while they are providing food, clothing, shelter, education, etc. for their children.

I don't object to a parent stopping their kid from being negatively influenced by someone they know.  It's the reasoning behind this decision that I find quite bothersome.

Entering into a homosexual relationship is sinful, therefore the partner would clearly be a negative influence.

[Joe Republic]

Can we outlaw religion, yet?  I'm sick of these horrific people cluttering up our planet with their bigotry.

[TJ in Wisco]

This is why this thing got closed last time, because instead of actually arguing why something is supposedly "absurd", "ignorant" or "bad" you can all collectively troll anyone who disagrees with you and post it in this thread as though it's self-evidently stupid by your collective liberal group-think.

[Senator Napoleon]

A religious accusing others of groupthink? You can't help but love this sh**t.



It's okay. Step outside when you're ready.

[TJ in Wisco]

And what if I was in the closet? Would that disqualify my opinion any?

[Senator Napoleon]

And what if I was in the closet?

Weird phrasing.
Anyway my best friend since childhood is gay and came out to me. When you're ready, you will be accepted more than you may think right now. Not to mention, you will feel a lot better.

[ZuWo]

This is why this thing got closed last time, because instead of actually arguing why something is supposedly "absurd", "ignorant" or "bad" you can all collectively troll anyone who disagrees with you and post it in this thread as though it's self-evidently stupid by your collective liberal group-think.

I hope that this thread gets closed once and forever if it continues to go down the path you are describing here.

[Californian Tony]

It's sad to see how easily certain people are ready to make the lives of those they love miserable, in good faith.

[Governor Scott]

This is why this thing got closed last time, because instead of actually arguing why something is supposedly "absurd", "ignorant" or "bad" you can all collectively troll anyone who disagrees with you and post it in this thread as though it's self-evidently stupid by your collective liberal group-think.

What is there to argue, really?  If you hold morals like this because of your religious beliefs, there really isn't much to argue.  I, myself, have my own interpretation of the Bible that pisses off both militant Christians and militant atheists because they don't think my view on religion is the right one.

In fact, this is why I almost never argue religion with people or even discuss it with those who don't share my theological views.  But it was that one post in particular that bothered me, personally.  Religion should never surpass human decency, in my opinion; especially since that was ultimately what Christ preached: human decency.

Anyway, this is my last post on the matter.  I didn't intend to hijack this thread and I wish I had just been quiet about it in the first place, now.

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

Now that that's over:

Does the US electorate agree with the birther stuff that Obama was not born here?

I for one symphatise with the birthers.  Obama has not conclusively proved his birth and Sheriff Arpaio is doing an investigation.

 Republicans should use the birther issue more.  Why are they not pursuing it? 

 

[For Oklahoma]

I'm beginning to think Inks was right about this. Nearly every time a post ends up in here, it becomes a flame war.

[Yelnoc]

Maybe its time for the silent majority to speak.  All of the people who were bitching about Inks's decision to close this thread are, by and large, the same spammers and circle-jerkers that regularly degrade the quality of The Atlas.

[Paul Kemp]

Maybe its time for the silent majority to speak.  All of the people who were bitching about Inks's decision to close this thread are, by and large, the same spammers and circle-jerkers that regularly degrade the quality of The Atlas.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Maybe its time for the silent majority to speak.  All of the people who were bitching about Inks's decision to close this thread are, by and large, the same spammers and circle-jerkers that regularly degrade the quality of The Atlas.

LOL ... dude, why do you even post here?  A large amount of your posts are dedicated to simply reposting stuff in this thread.  Try actually engaging in poltical discussion instead of spending most of your time on the Forum Community board.  After all, this is a POLITICAL forum.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Maybe its time for the silent majority to speak.  All of the people who were bitching about Inks's decision to close this thread are, by and large, the same spammers and circle-jerkers that regularly degrade the quality of The Atlas.

LOL ... dude, why do you even post here?  A large amount of your posts are dedicated to simply reposting stuff in this thread.  Try actually engaging in poltical discussion instead of spending most of your time on the Forum Community board.  After all, this is a POLITICAL forum.

Respect your elders Inks. He's been around on this forum A LOT longer than you have.

[Senator Napoleon]

Maybe its time for the silent majority to speak.  All of the people who were bitching about Inks's decision to close this thread are, by and large, the same spammers and circle-jerkers that regularly degrade the quality of The Atlas.

LOL ... dude, why do you even post here?  A large amount of your posts are dedicated to simply reposting stuff in this thread.  Try actually engaging in poltical discussion instead of spending most of your time on the Forum Community board.  After all, this is a POLITICAL forum.

Respect your elders Inks. He's been around on this forum A LOT longer than you have.

Whoa dude. Don't you see his stars are green? Where is your hall pass?!

[dead0man]

Can we outlaw religion, yet?  I'm sick of these horrific people cluttering up our planet with their bigotry.

If that's supposed to be ironic, it worked!

[dead0man]

Maybe its time for the silent majority to speak.  All of the people who were bitching about Inks's decision to close this thread are, by and large, the same spammers and circle-jerkers that regularly degrade the quality of The Atlas.

LOL ... dude, why do you even post here?  A large amount of your posts are dedicated to simply reposting stuff in this thread.  Try actually engaging in poltical discussion instead of spending most of your time on the Forum Community board.  After all, this is a POLITICAL forum.

Respect your elders Inks. He's been around on this forum A LOT longer than you have.

I just glanced through his recent posts...he's had somewhere between 2-5 posts (depending on how you define things) of any substance on a real subject in his last 105 posts.  It doesn't take long to do because most of his posts are either one line, or long quotes with nothing added.  Inks is 100% correct.  He's like your buddy, but without the bright colors and old timey piano playing in the background.

[Gustaf]

The last 2 pages are good examples of why this is a stupid thread. TJ posted something that one can certainly find very disagreeable (I do) but which is an opinion and probably a fairly common opinion in the world.

Now, instead of actually responding to that and proving via argumentation why it is wrong, someone posts it here. General sneering ensues. When he responds here, his response is just quoted back. That's playground taunting of the kind that would be embarassing even to a 9-year old.

Are you guys really so uncertain of your opinions that you need to post them here to get validation? And do you really have to accuse homophobes of being closeted to make your points? I know some of you are young, but still. Grow up and either stand for your views or shut up about them.