en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/399132 Comments by AnonLiberals http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18824874 We don't want to win back our country for your imaginary God, we want to win it back for sensible people who can agree on this little thing we call reality. The last thing the masses need is more Christian world view, in fact the first thing we need is much less of it. Keep your dam religion to yourself! Guess what bub, we live in a country based on a secular document called the Constitution, and that's a good thing. It's hard to win them back because once you teach a kid logic and common sense they become immune to the ignorant religious non-sense their parents try and sell them. It's called progress. Thu, 16 Apr 2009 02:06:08 +0000 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18824874 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18824672 "There is no doubt that the christian faith was the foundation of our constituition. " There is plenty of doubt since it's clearly a secular document that goes out of it's way to keep religion and government separate. "Without it we will fall. Without a moral compass to guide us, we will fail. " Guess what, one doesn't need Christian faith to have a moral compass. Your faith didn't invent good values and it certainly has no hold on them. Stop bible thumping and realize that you live in a multi-cultural multi-religious society. This is not a Christian nation, our laws are not based on your values. Thu, 16 Apr 2009 02:00:10 +0000 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18824672 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18725055 Brain death *is* death. Unplug the machine and let the family have a proper funeral and move on. Neither is any more valuable than the other. You're still confusing potential with reality. It doesn't matter what an embryo's potential is, there is no such thing, it's a made idea in your mind. Until the brain boots up it is nothing more than a benign growth in the mothers uterus and having it removed is no different than having any other growth removed, it's just a part of the mothers body. If you really think about it, you'll find people who object to abortion are objecting because they believe in a notion for which there is zero evidence. They believe there's a ghost in the machine and abortion becomes an argument about when the ghost enters the machine. This is not a rational belief, it's a religious one. If you use reason and logic rather than belief, you'll wind up with a different conclusion. Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:18:42 +0000 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18725055 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18724640 "and logical arguments are hard to ignore" When your world view is based upon faith, logic is quite easy to ignore. Any amount of experience having discussions with religious folks will bear out this simple truth. Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:09:45 +0000 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18724640 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18724337 Actually, information can hurt you, specifically, dis-information. Studies tend to show the brain forgets trivial details like whether something you heard was true or not, you just tend to remember the factoid. Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:03:38 +0000 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18724337 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18710148 LOL, it's exactly what we think. Tue, 14 Apr 2009 06:41:20 +0000 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18710148 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18630839 "One does not need the ten commandments to say abortion is murder. It just is." That's not a good enough argument. Roe vs. Wade stands as the law of the land exactly because the majority of the population disagrees with you. It is not murder. If you want to make your case that it is, you need to use reason and logic, tell me why it's murder without invoking your religion. Here's why I don't think it's murder. Murder is the killing of another conscience being against his will. Embryos have neither consciousness nor will for 2/3rths of their development. It isn't until the brain becomes active that I'd consider a glob of cells a human. After that point though, I'd consider it murder. Late term 3rd trimester abortion *is* murder. But first trimester abortion isn't. Killing is not always wrong. Murder is what we call wrong-full killing. Assisted suicide is not murder because the person wants to die. Killing in self defense is also not murder. Abortion is not murder because a glob of cells has no wants, thoughts, nor will. Now, tell me why you think abortion *is* murder? Sun, 12 Apr 2009 18:39:04 +0000 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18630839 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18630180 You've become too accustomed to bad leaders who spout off emotionally at the mouth before knowing the full story and all the facts. You've come to think of that behavior as leadership; it's not. Obama is doing what smart people do, he takes his time, gets the facts straight, listens to his cabinet getting opinions from many points of view, and then and only then, when fully informed, does he make a decision. This is the hallmark of a good leader. Quick decisions about complex issues are always emotional ones and very seldom smart ones. Complex issues require deep thought. Deep thought takes time, analyzing all the angles takes time. When you ask for quick decisions and quick action, you're asking him to behave with emotion rather than intellect; that's a mistake. Sun, 12 Apr 2009 18:22:38 +0000 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18630180 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18629397 " (of course, the fact that it remains a "theory" gives away the fact that it is NOT proven). " This little nugget destroys your entire argument. It betrays that you don't actually understand science at all and have no awareness of the technical meaning of the term theory and how it differs from the layman's usage of the word. It makes you not even worthy of debating because it marks you as scientifically illiterate. You should really learn what the word means and what status it holds within the realm of science before using it inappropriately in the layman's sense in a scientific context. I'll make it easy for you. When a layman says "theory" that translates to the science term "hypothesis". When a layman says "fact" that translates to the science term "evidence or observation". Theories in the context of science, are as good as it gets, they are the currently accepted explanation of all of the available evidence. Hypotheses are promoted to theory, but theories are never promoted to anything, they are the top of the ladder. To call something "just a theory" betrays utter and complete ignorance. Sun, 12 Apr 2009 18:02:05 +0000 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18629397 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18629148 Perhaps you missed the last election. He strikes a chord with the *majority* of the population. He was setup by Bush being such an idiot; the chord he struck was people being tired of a badly spoken arrogant unapologetic and apparently stupid president. Many Americans were ashamed of George Bush; we elected a fool for president. Obama rode that negative sentiment quite expertly all the way to the White House. Like his policies or not, he's most certainly the anit-Bush. He's smart, well spoken, well tempered, appropriately apologetic, and very apparently *aware* in a way Bush never was and never will be. I'm talking about personalities here, not policy. Obama exudes class, intelligence, thoughtfulness, and leadership. It's what people look for in their leaders and Bush had none of these qualities. Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:55:35 +0000 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18629148 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18469231 She doesn't care, read her reply, she's not thinking at all; she's just blindly spewing rhetoric she's head someone else say. It's like talking to a robot. She has no awareness that we've established quite a few more laws and a hell of a lot of case law as to how the constitution is to be interpreted. Fri, 10 Apr 2009 03:15:22 +0000 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18469231 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18469050 Your approach won't actually work, you're trying to stand on principle rather than actually accomplish anything. The shortest path to end the discrimination faced by gays is to give them marriage licenses or have the gov only issue civil union licenses. If the gays have to wait until Congress stops taxing dead people, well, they'll die of old age before the discrimination ever ends. Fri, 10 Apr 2009 03:10:12 +0000 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18469050 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18417666 Marriage is a word. That's it; it happens to describe a common religious practice and is *also* a legal term that grants state given rights to people who have obtained a state given *marriage* license. Anyone claiming marriage is a religious thing doesn't understand the issue at hand. Gay people don't give a rats ass about your religious beliefs, they aren't seeking that. What they are seeking is access to the rights granted by the government to holders of a marriage license. Rights such as passing on *all* of your wealth to a spouse without being taxed. Our laws across all 50 states grant special rights to holders of this non religious marriage license. Though some have tried to create a separate but equal term *civil union*, they fail to understand that the legal term *marriage* can't simply be copied. You have to go change or amend hundreds of laws to include civil unions and marriages. It's a legal mess, thus gay people rightly insist on being given access to this existing marriage license so they too can partake of the benefits it grants. They don't care about your religion, or what word your religion uses to talk about couples. The very existence of a state regulated marriage license makes it's a non religious issue. Quite simply, "religious marriage" and "legal marriage" are completely different things and one side is ignorantly defending a word while the other just wants to be treated fairly by the government and is seeking access to something entirely different from what the religious folks are so bitterly defending. Thu, 9 Apr 2009 07:06:15 +0000 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18417666 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18417178 Drop your price to $1 per and watch how quick you go out of business. What you're failing to understand is the Laffer Curve, look it up, it's basic economics. Thu, 9 Apr 2009 06:48:09 +0000 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18417178 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18413241 I actually agreed with nearly everything you said. So answer me this Dave, how do you legally pass on all of your assets to your spouse without having to pay any taxes on them? I know how most people do it, it's called marriage. Thu, 9 Apr 2009 05:00:50 +0000 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18413241 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18364125 It would be more accurate to say "can't be modified casually" because it's a very hard thing to do. There doesn't exist the support necessary to get that amendment passed. No government should be in the marriage business, federal or state. The solution to the problem isn't to allow gay marriage, it's to eliminate the word marriage from the law. If the government wants to give benefits to couples, they should be required to have a civil union license. Civil unions would be given out to straight and gay alike. With it, straight religious people could then go to their church and get married in the traditional sense just as they do now. Churches that support gays, could *marry* gay people. All existing marriages should be declared equivalent to a civil union in the eyes of the law. Wed, 8 Apr 2009 14:53:51 +0000 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18364125 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18226891 If you live in America and you're proud of George Bush, you're an ignorant fool. This isn't a court of law; I don't need to establish this with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't even need to put forth any argument at all. The point of argument is to have a debate and attempt to persuade the person to change their minds. I had no intention of changing his/her mind; reason doesn't really work on fools. People who like ol Georgie aren't worth wasting my time on, they're damaged beyond hope. You fail to see this because you're still trying to apply your motives for being here to me. I'm not here to help your movement. I don't even think it's a movement, it's just a crazy little conservative website full of some really sore losers who can't handle not being in power any more. I'm here for entertainment, I occasionally enjoy a good argument with someone who disagrees with me if they aren't stupid and don't fall back on beliefs and faith. If you don't like it, don't talk to me. Mon, 6 Apr 2009 02:11:23 +0000 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18226891 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18226494 "just stating the facts" Actually, you're stating your opinion; there weren't any facts in that statement. Mon, 6 Apr 2009 01:55:45 +0000 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18226494 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18226368 That's certainly one way to look at it, but that argument fails because it doesn't acknowledge the oppressed minority who feel victimized by it. A few years back, everyone had the right to marry a member of the opposite sex of the same race. You would have argued to prevent mixed race marriages as well, since this is perfectly acceptable by your logic. Fortunately, judges are a little smarter than that and understand the law is intended to protect all people, not just narrowly defined groups. Gay people aren't allowed to get married, strait people are and that's simply wrong. It's bigotry, plain and simple, and allowing them to get married in no way victimizes you, so your objections are baseless. Future generations will look back and wonder how people could have been so ignorant as to not allow mixed race and gay marriages. Mon, 6 Apr 2009 01:50:47 +0000 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18226368 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18226128 It already has been, and the decision was already made when they passed the 14th amendment that guaranteed equal protection under the law. This is where judges come in, they get to look at the constitution and say "no, sorry, that covers gay people as well" and throw out all state laws in conflict with the constitution. For those who call that legislating from the bench, go back to school, this is what a judge is supposed to do. If you don't like it, and this will be what eventually happens, you can always just re-amend the Constitution to change the equal protection to clause to say ... "nor deny to any person (except gays) within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." So until it says that, gays should have all the rights and privileges given to strait people under the law. Mon, 6 Apr 2009 01:41:57 +0000 http://theglennbeck912project.com/9principles12values/#IDComment18226128