Comments
23,421 - 23,440 of 30,444 Comments Last updated 12 min ago
mutt

Chillicothe, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25769
Feb 19, 2014
 
woo-boy wrote:
And just where in that statement was mentioned human-animal marriage? At least animals have more brains than you're sick mind. Even a chicken that has a brain smaller than a pea still has sense enough to get out the rain.
I assumed Kuda was responding to my entire post about human rights and marriage. I included bestiality/zoophilia in it. My quote:

Laws against bestiality are influenced by biblical morality. Wikipedia says that zoophilia was not uncommon among indigenous tribes in North America, and that in Hungary, where there are no restrictions, "zoophilic materials have become a substantial industry". There are discussion and support groups online -- one having a million members -- for people who want to discuss their sexuality.

Medical research suggests some zoophiles have no sexual attraction to humans at all, and according to Andrea Beets, PhD, it is not a lifestyle that is chosen.(In other words, they are born that way.(Where have we heard that before?)) According to several researchers, "the distinction between zoophilia and zoosadism is a critical one" and there is significant social harm caused by misunderstandings regarding zoophilia. Those misunderstandings destroy the lives of many citizens."
mutt

Chillicothe, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25770
Feb 19, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

woo-boy wrote:
And just where in that statement was mentioned human-animal marriage? At least animals have more brains than you're sick mind. Even a chicken that has a brain smaller than a pea still has sense enough to get out the rain.
Where do you get your moral authority? How have you decided what's right and wrong, or normal and abnormal? And what makes your morality better than someone else's?
kuda

Cincinnati, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25771
Feb 19, 2014
 
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
They weren't budgeted properly, for sure. But it's your opinion that the wars weren't needed.
Both of the Clintons were convinced that Saddam Hussein had WMD. They're both liars, so they're words don't mean much. But, they were also privvy to the same intelligence information Bush had. If Bush was lying, so were they.
Bill Clinton (2003): "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (2002): "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
I never call people liars regardless of their political leanings, nor do I recommend it. While it's a strategy tea partiers seem to embrace to discredit those whom they oppose, such raw hyperbole lacks subtlety, creates bad will and is entirely unnecessary and uncalled for in reasonable debate.

Indeed I do regard the war in Iraq a costly mistake that was entirely unjustified, other than as a cash cow for the military/industrial complex.
kuda

Cincinnati, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25772
Feb 19, 2014
 
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
I assumed Kuda was responding to my entire post about human rights and marriage. I included bestiality/zoophilia in it. My quote:
Laws against bestiality are influenced by biblical morality. Wikipedia says that zoophilia was not uncommon among indigenous tribes in North America, and that in Hungary, where there are no restrictions, "zoophilic materials have become a substantial industry". There are discussion and support groups online -- one having a million members -- for people who want to discuss their sexuality.
Medical research suggests some zoophiles have no sexual attraction to humans at all, and according to Andrea Beets, PhD, it is not a lifestyle that is chosen.(In other words, they are born that way.(Where have we heard that before?)) According to several researchers, "the distinction between zoophilia and zoosadism is a critical one" and there is significant social harm caused by misunderstandings regarding zoophilia. Those misunderstandings destroy the lives of many citizens."
Just because laws against bestiality may be influenced by biblical morality doesn't mean I would disagree with them. In fact, I do consider beastiaity completely unethical because animals can't be a party to humans having their way with them by consensual agreement, which makes it tantamount to rape.
kuda

Cincinnati, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25773
Feb 19, 2014
 
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do you get your moral authority? How have you decided what's right and wrong, or normal and abnormal? And what makes your morality better than someone else's?
What a great question!

I believe each of us has, by virtue of membership in the human race, a moral imperative to exercise ethical behavior. What's right or wrong is defined by society. What's normal is too since normal means the norm and abnormal means deviant therefrom. I don't believe my morality is better than anyone else's since it's the same (shared) within a society. I do take pride in striving to behave ethically, which I don't believe all others necessarily do, and I'm certain there are others who are more ethical than I. I'm also certain that there are others who are more normal than I in many regards.

Just don't hate me because I'm beautiful, of course.
kuda

Cincinnati, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25774
Feb 19, 2014
 

Judged:

1

mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the only liberal I've come across that would support incestuous, polygamous, and human-animal marriages. Usually when those unions are mentioned, libs bristle with the same judgmental attitudes they accuse their opponents of having.
I consider myself a progressive politically and evolutionarily, since "liberal" sounds so flaky somehow and I have little idea what it means, but that may be little different from what you may think of as liberal as long as you don't think too rigidly while squeezing me into that category.
mutt

Chillicothe, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25776
Feb 19, 2014
 
kuda wrote:
Just because laws against bestiality may be influenced by biblical morality doesn't mean I would disagree with them. In fact, I do consider beastiaity completely unethical because animals can't be a party to humans having their way with them by consensual agreement, which makes it tantamount to rape.
What are you talking about? Animals have inter-species sex. And how would a woman rape an animal anyway? I think you've picked up some talking points from the gays about why homosexuality couldn't possibly be compared to bestiality as being unnatural.

If human beings are animals, and decended from animals, then why are they they only ones excluded from inter-species breeding?

I'll stick to biblical morality and the concept that humans -- separate from animals -- are made in the image of God. But those of you who don't believe in a divine creator may want to rethink your position on this issue.
mutt

Chillicothe, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25777
Feb 19, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kuda wrote:
I consider myself a progressive politically and evolutionarily, since "liberal" sounds so flaky somehow and I have little idea what it means, but that may be little different from what you may think of as liberal as long as you don't think too rigidly while squeezing me into that category.
The founders were the true progressive-liberals. They wrote the greatest political document in the world, which recognizes and guarantees -- not grants -- each man's God-given rights. Current-day progressive-liberals have hijacked the word and pretend that their agenda is freedom, but it's actually huge, oppressive govt.
mutt

Chillicothe, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25778
Feb 19, 2014
 
kuda wrote:
I never call people liars regardless of their political leanings, nor do I recommend it.
You won't say that Bill Clinton was lying when he shook his finger at us and said he never had sex with that woman?
While it's a strategy tea partiers seem to embrace to discredit those whom they oppose, such raw hyperbole lacks subtlety, creates bad will and is entirely unnecessary and uncalled for in reasonable debate.
I wouldn't have thought to label Canton as a Tea Partier.
mutt

Chillicothe, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25779
Feb 19, 2014
 
kuda wrote:
What a great question!

I believe each of us has, by virtue of membership in the human race, a moral imperative to exercise ethical behavior. What's right or wrong is defined by society. What's normal is too since normal means the norm and abnormal means deviant therefrom. I don't believe my morality is better than anyone else's since it's the same (shared) within a society. I do take pride in striving to behave ethically, which I don't believe all others necessarily do, and I'm certain there are others who are more ethical than I. I'm also certain that there are others who are more normal than I in many regards.
Just don't hate me because I'm beautiful, of course.
I appreciate your thoughtful response, and won't pick it to pieces.

I would never hate someone because they're beautiful. His/her choice of political persuasions may present more of a challenge for me, though, as I value my freedom.
Canton

Canton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25782
Feb 19, 2014
 
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
You're uninformed (or willfully ignorant) as always.
Jefferson's word about Jesus:
"In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves....We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus .... There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man."
He also said, ""A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."
So, just because Jefferson doesn't fit your moronic notion of what a Christian is supposed to be, doesn't mean he wasn't one. He may have been one of the most sincere.
<quoted text>
That's the founders, you dumbass.
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."
---Edmund Pendleton, The Virginia ratifying convention, Jun. 1788.
"[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded."
---Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill, 1790.
I stated that Jefferson cut all of the miracles from the Bible, and you claim I am "misinformed". Once again, despite the fact that I was absolutely correct...you really showed me. Also, nice of you to point out how Jefferson believed the Bible was being used to push forward greed driven and political agendas.

Hey, want to see a video of oil industry paid Tea Party darling Sarah Palin telling her church that it's "God's will" to build a pipeline, or would you rather read a lengthy list of how many GOP and Tea Party candidates including all the top hits, claiming "God" told them to run for office, to push forward their political agendas?

Now I wonder how many of the founders of this nation were Deists, instead of Christians? I wonder if the Free Masons, who put knowledge over superstition, were involved with the founders of this nation? I wonder if any of the founders of this nation had anything negative to say about Christianity, the church, and any one particular organized religion being favored by the government over others?

Better dig out your super duper special Google Bing Firefox browser with the Klingon translator when you pretend to not notice the instant and easily found results in everyone's search engine to the questions I put before you in my above post.

Below is what you being VOID sounds like... Enjoy.
Just saying

Delphos, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25783
Feb 19, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

the reason the president is soo brown is because he was never born... just shit out... see he just isn't full of shit... he is shit....

he gives the kkk a good name....
Canton

Canton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25784
Feb 19, 2014
 
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
The founders were the true progressive-liberals. They wrote the greatest political document in the world, which recognizes and guarantees -- not grants -- each man's God-given rights. Current-day progressive-liberals have hijacked the word and pretend that their agenda is freedom, but it's actually huge, oppressive govt.
Ooops. Could you repeat that? I didn't have my tin foil hat on.
Canton

Canton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25785
Feb 19, 2014
 
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean energy industry jobs like stopping the Keystone Pipeline or closing down all those coal fired power plants? Maybe you mean like closing down the Gulf.
It would be funny to have your quote underneath a chart, showing exactly the abstract and exponentially growing amounts of money the energy industry makes each year. Not only could they continue to make ever growing fortunes, but they also could be regulated to make sure they are not exploiting our natural resources or causing long term damage to our environment which is passed on to future generations of Americans. I have to wonder just how brain washed you guys are to not be able to fathom that concept. I have no problem with my beliefs on not wanting unregulated damage to our water, air and soil. Don't sh1t where you sleep. Speaking of, I have to wonder how you sleep knowing you are a tool for a greedy 1% of the nation, and how you are willing to fight tooth and nail against even the slightest possible notion that fossil fuels being used at the rate we use it, just might be having long term effects that could have terrible consequences for our future generations of Americans, and the planet in general. This you do with nothing to gain from it. Those millions of dollars that the Koch Brothers spent in anti-climate change propaganda really paid off. Too bad even they now completely believe that climate change is happening and it is certainly being caused by man, while you still sit back in the past, desperately clinging to your outdated propaganda and mocking the global climate experts for their concern over something that quite possibly could end life on this planet. Something that more than likely is being brought on by a wealthy 1% group that probably places truck drivers in the hierarchy of things just slightly above livestock, and running neck and neck with those free loaders working 12 hours in the factories on a swing shift, until they die of some chronic industrial lung disease.
Canton

Canton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25786
Feb 19, 2014
 
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
You won't say that Bill Clinton was lying when he shook his finger at us and said he never had sex with that woman?
<quoted text>
I wouldn't have thought to label Canton as a Tea Partier.
You seem to have proving you a liar and calling you a liar mixed up. Considering he was talking about politicians, as shown by your immediate response about Bill Clinton, we'll just file your comment over in the ever growing "conniving" pile. Normally, your comments get filed under VOID.
kuda

Cincinnati, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25787
Feb 19, 2014
 
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate your thoughtful response, and won't pick it to pieces.
I would never hate someone because they're beautiful. His/her choice of political persuasions may present more of a challenge for me, though, as I value my freedom.
But you seem to prefer picking everything you think is “liberal” to pieces. It’s your forté and probably your comfort zone as you attempt to assign us to one of the two categories in your duality, into the category either the same as or in opposite to the one where you place yourself. In doing so, you often muse that I must believe something or other that I find alien or in some cases, ridiculous. I cite your verbal gymnastics about beastiality, the bible, unworthy takers,“liberals” vs. the good people like yourself, and on and on.

Thankfully, however, you’re not so oppressed by the bad guys that you can't recognize your freedom. I too value your freedom.
Canton

Canton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25788
Feb 19, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Just saying wrote:
the reason the president is soo brown is because he was never born... just shit out... see he just isn't full of shit... he is shit....
he gives the kkk a good name....
Imagine the nerve of me, when earlier I stated that you guys don't like Obama because of the color of his skin. Oh the outrage over the notion that I would dare suggest that the right doesn't like our president because of race. "Race card" you cried as I laid the facts before you. "Unfounded" you protested when I joked about all the racists in this country not suddenly and magically disappearing.

I know. I know. You can't judge all of you by what Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Timothy McVeigh, Pat Robertson, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, The founder of the Tea Party, the rebel flags and racists signs at the Tea Party rallies, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, the majority of the south, many old white Conservative GOP members and the above poster, Just Saying, has to say. I mean just because all of the right wing Conservative politicians I mentioned above have made public racist statements or supported racist legislation, and you totally agree with what they stand for, doesn't make you anymore a racist than Hitler's SS agreeing with Hitler makes them Nazis.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25789
Feb 19, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
Old Guy,
LBJ's own Liberal Democrats were the against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it was the Republicans that got it passed and there is no way Southern Democrats changed their affiliation to Republican.
Wrong.

"James Strom Thurmond (December 5, 1902 – June 26, 2003) was an American politician who served for 48 years as a United States Senator....Thurmond represented South Carolina in the United States Senate from 1954 until 2003, at first as a Democrat and, after 1964, as a Republican. He switched because of his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, disaffection with the liberalism of the national party..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond

"The Democratic dominance of the South originated in many white Southerners' animosity towards the Republican Party's stance in favor of political rights for blacks during Reconstruction and Republican economic policies such as the high tariff and the support for continuing the gold standard, both of which were seen as benefiting Northern industrial interests at the expense of the agrarian South in the 19th century....
Beginning in about 1948, the national Democratic Party's support of the civil rights movement significantly reduced Southern support for the Democratic Party and allowed the Republican Party to make gains in the South."

"The Democratic candidate, Johnson, who had become president after Kennedy's assassination, spared no effort to win passage of a strong Civil Rights Act. After signing the landmark legislation, Johnson said to his aide, Bill Moyers; "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come."[4] In contrast, Johnson's Republican opponent, Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, believing it enhanced the federal government and infringed on the private property rights of businessmen."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South

The nice thing is that bigots used to be quite proud of their bigotry. Now they try to conceal what they still believe, and distort their shared history. I consider that progress!
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25790
Feb 20, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
Imagine the nerve of me, when earlier I stated that you guys don't like Obama because of the color of his skin. Oh the outrage over the notion that I would dare suggest that the right doesn't like our president because of race. "Race card" you cried as I laid the facts before you. "Unfounded" you protested when I joked about all the racists in this country not suddenly and magically disappearing.
I know. I know. You can't judge all of you by what Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Timothy McVeigh, Pat Robertson, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, The founder of the Tea Party, the rebel flags and racists signs at the Tea Party rallies, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, the majority of the south, many old white Conservative GOP members and the above poster, Just Saying, has to say. I mean just because all of the right wing Conservative politicians I mentioned above have made public racist statements or supported racist legislation, and you totally agree with what they stand for, doesn't make you anymore a racist than Hitler's SS agreeing with Hitler makes them Nazis.
you have worn the ink off the race card.

it now is a tattered blank piece of paper.

How is it Rush Limbaugh's fault or achievement that you have the life you live?

Your race card is useless, and only way to fix it is with actions.
kuda

Cincinnati, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25791
Feb 20, 2014
 
Just saying wrote:
the reason the president is soo brown is because he was never born... just shit out... see he just isn't full of shit... he is shit....
he gives the kkk a good name....
Eww ... that's got to be just about the nastiest attack ever by any Obama hater. Your anal fixation is surpassed only by your racism and lack of reasonable decorum. We can never read posts from Delphos without doing so at our own risk of exposure to nasty visual imagery, compromised personal taste and poor judgment.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••

Fairborn Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Fairborn People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Fairborn News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Fairborn
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••