So, he is putting on a dog and pony show? If I was a member of that church I would be mad that the asshat is using my church as a stage prop.

No you wouldn't. If you were the sort who'd join THAT church, you'd feel honored to have Gov. Perry come down to sign YOUR bill. Think about it.

JC would not be cool with this.

Render unto Caesar...

Kelly64
"What the heck was the big deal? Just walk around it. It's not the great wall of china. Just another example of texas rewriting the history books to look important."

The Alamao was important because it symbolized the seperation from the Seidmar Pact, as well as protecting Verholst Union Clauses in legislation. Without those, there wouldnt have been any way of keeping fear of the powers enabled in Fletcher-Munson act from running through the ranks. Texas's system probably wouldnt have survived.

Did they not teach you any of this in school?

i thought the Alamo was about slavery...

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1479244
Nickelodeon airs spot claiming Battle of the Alamo was fought so white farmers could keep their slaves

feepness: Which is why this damn non-profit church thing HAS GOT TO GO.

Thank you brother feepness.

Can I get an Amen?

malainse

strifeknot:

Go troll elsewhere, if you had read the thread you find that the Libertarians on this board all freely admit a hatred of Bush's Policies.

Why then do most libertarians consistently prefer to vote for totalitarian-minded scum like Bush and his ilk rather than anyone who might be remotely perceived as a leftist? They may hate some of Bush's policies, but they cowardly support him and the conservative establishment when all's said and done. They're nothing but a bunch of venal hypocrites who consider their "liberty" to fark over anyone standing in their way of making a buck to be the only true liberty. I've known numerous libertarians, and each was has been a selfish, self-deceptive, intellectually lazy, morally bankrupt scumbag who places more value on his personal wealth than on the life or liberty of anyone else. Sell your horseshiat to someone else.

huh? if you define faith as meaning something like 'blind acceptance of claims of a fantastical nature, without any physical justification,' then i'll tell you flat out that you are wrong.

That's a pretty fantastical belief you've got there... can you provide physical justification?

Didn't think so.

Whoops.

Good reading for you:

News Sources

What Really Happened

And by the way, voter turnout in Texas is 29%.

Galveston Daily News

walkingtall:

I say the liberal 40 years we have had has been overall bad. Society is the worse for it in the long run. Humanism and unchecked individualism is what will be our downfall. The trends are there if you care to look.

Who would have guessed: Walkingtall = chicken little

Walkingtall, society has always been declining. For example:

Women's suffrage -> Women's lib -> WOMEN REVEAL MIDSECTIONS!!1one!
Abolition -> Civil Rights -> Mingling of races = INTERACIAL COUPLES (gasp)

The critics are generally those who object to people of faith participating in government or in the electoral process

Wow. OK everyone, weep for the poor assholes. How terrible of us.

In reality, no one has any problem with people of faith in government. In fact, I would guess most are. We just hate the ones who undermine what this country stands for.

OK, all you "libertarians" -one simple question:

Was Clinton worse for "your agenda" than Bush?

Please start the rabid self-justification now...

I find it really funny that the liberals here on Fark take more issue with the bill signing being in a church than they do with the issues at hand. Don't the issues the bills represent mean more to your core message?

Honestly I don't get it. I've said it before, I'll say it again. "Separation of Church and State" means that the government won't have a state sponsored official religion. It doesn't mean that churches cannot be involved in government, especially since a church by definition is the people that make it up. Do you honestly think that some athiest/muslim/buddist/insert your favorite here person is going to go "Oh, well the governor of Texas was in a church so therefore the whole goverment is making me believe what they do, guess I better switch"?

You do realize they are baiting you and its working? The government and the media love to play up these emotional issues, they want to piss you off because the more hatred spewed by one side the more fired up the other side gets. The republicans are using abortion especially to fire up their side and get the liberals in a tizzy. They aren't getting rid of it, they haven't even tried. (and no this bill in Texas is to force minors to get consent for a medical procedure, the idea that a girl can't get a tylenol at school without consent but can get an abortion which is a potentially dangerous medical procedure, just like any other, is ludicrous).

It doesn't make for good flamewars but if we as the citizens of the nation would stop and see what we have in common instead of letting ourselves be polarized over issues that really aren't going to change, then we'll be a lot better off and government will have less of a chance to pull the wool over our eyes with the things that do matter.

cfreak:

They aren't getting rid of it, they haven't even tried. (and no this bill in Texas is to force minors to get consent for a medical procedure, the idea that a girl can't get a tylenol at school without consent but can get an abortion which is a potentially dangerous medical procedure, just like any other, is ludicrous).

I'm all for Tylenol on demand...

""Separation of Church and State" means that the government won't have a state sponsored official religion. It doesn't mean that churches cannot be involved in government"

um, wrong? churches are given tax-exempt status partly in exchange for staying out of the political arena. separation of church and state is a 2-way barrier. the state won't force a religion on people, but religious organizations shouldn't play an active role in the political sphere

Has anyone investigated whether states that have a strong conservative christian presence suffer economically? Clearly the two correlate, but can one establish a causal relationship? For example, has anyone shown that professionals (doctors/engineers/teachers/etc.) avoid conservative areas, and prefer to live in urban areas (perceived to be more liberal)?

Let's sell Texas to Mexico.

If he had signed the abortion bill in front of an abortion clinic and the marriage bill in front of a bathhouse, then the same people that are biatching now about signing them in a gym would biatch about that too.

2005-06-05 04:20:56 PM Chelsea Clinton Is Carrot Top's Lost Twin

Oh man those pic of Kerry following Clinton's lead and showing up daily in a different 100% black church are just so......whoreish. The Dems really do win any vote whore contest, hands-down.

When was the last time either of those hypocrites even SPOKE to a black person much less spent a Sunday morning in one of their churches?

The IRS should simply revoke the tax-exemptions of whatever church is used as a politician's pulpit, be they Dem or Rep.

Tupuli

Who would have guessed: Walkingtall = chicken little

Walkingtall, society has always been declining. For example:

Women's suffrage -> Women's lib -> WOMEN REVEAL MIDSECTIONS!!1one!
Abolition -> Civil Rights -> Mingling of races = INTERACIAL COUPLES (gasp)


Do not even try it. Equal rights for different groups is NOT what American liberalism is all about. I heard the greatest line EVER about what American liberalism is about. "Liberals like the IDEA of people but actually hate REAL people". I think that is the greatest line EVAR. Liberals believe in any feel good gushy lovely idea out there but is not willing to follow the consequences of said ideas. Just like evolutionists accept NO responsibilty for Social Darwinism and eugenics. It is intellectual dishonesty to claim one does not logically follow the other. So liberals love the IDEA of freedom of choice but the consequences of murdering innocent babies and the social and economic consequences of abortion and the pain and regret the mothers feel is not as important as the IDEA of freedom of choice. That is liberalism in a nutshell and while unfortunately this is a battle I am destined to lose I will fight until the very end.

LocalCynic: I'm all for Tylenol on demand...

Are you for your daughter (say you have one someday) being diagnosed for cancer, and treated without your knowledge?

What if the doctor screws up, would you have wanted to know then?

The argument is silly. A minor cannot make medical decisions without concent from a guardian. Why should it be different for an abortion? And before you start screaming "rights", a minor has no rights other than what their guardian gives them (laws against child abuse and the like not withstanding).

walkingtall: Just like evolutionists accept NO responsibilty for Social Darwinism and eugenics.

Just like astronomers accept no responsibilty for supernovae?
Geologists accept no responsibilty for earthquakes?
Meteorologists accept no responibility for tornados?

Tupuli
Has anyone investigated whether states that have a strong conservative christian presence suffer economically? Clearly the two correlate

If you mean Christians that actually follow what the bible asks of them, yes. The bible strongly advises against materialism, shafting people in business deals (charging too much)and also working more than is necessary than to provide a certain level of comfort for the family. The latter so that more time is available to serve God.

If you're talking about "Christians" that have flags in their churches and let politicians make a mockery of their worship time, I'd have to say that those folks are just too damn stupid to earn a decent living because they can't even seem to understand the first of the commandments.

cfreak:

Are you for your daughter (say you have one someday) being diagnosed for cancer, and treated without your knowledge?

Assuming she can figure out the child lock cap, my daughter can have Tylenol at school without me knowing. For what it's worth I also think that kids should be allowed to bring plastic spoons and forks to school without being suspended.

I, for one, am shocked.
A headline with the word church inspires a flamewar?
There are hundreds of self-loathing farkers waiting, keyboards at the ready, to attack Christians?
Can this be?
Next thing ya know, people will claim they are accosted by Christians every place they go. This claim will come amid a torrent of hostility towards Christians.

Religion plays a much smaller role in our government than it did 250 yrs ago, and things have gone relatively smoothly. Don't get you soulless panties in a wad.

The Alamo was a church, too, and look what happened there.

Tupuli:

Has anyone investigated whether states that have a strong conservative christian presence suffer economically? Clearly the two correlate, but can one establish a causal relationship? For example, has anyone shown that professionals (doctors/engineers/teachers/etc.) avoid conservative areas, and prefer to live in urban areas (perceived to be more liberal)?

Nice troll. I'm a Christian software engineer and I work with several others. I've never met a doctor that wasn't religious in some way (though not always Christian). There are plenty of people in my church who are proffesional business owners. Heck you guys on Fark are always complaining about how church people are hypocrites because they build big churches! Where do you think that money comes from?

Rural areas = small economies, also have smaller churches. That isn't causality. The causality of both is because there are fewer people. Imagine that.

asshat.

LocalCynic:

Assuming she can figure out the child lock cap, my daughter can have Tylenol at school without me knowing. For what it's worth I also think that kids should be allowed to bring plastic spoons and forks to school without being suspended.

Tylenol at school was an example. My point is the nurse can't legally give it to her without your consent (because its considered something medical). Why should an abortion, as a potentially dangerous medical procedure be any different?

Yeah sure your daughter can do it without your knowledge with a coathanger but hopefully you've taught her better than that.

whatsishname

Just like astronomers accept no responsibilty for supernovae?
Geologists accept no responsibilty for earthquakes?
Meteorologists accept no responibility for tornados?


Wellll yeah ..... we did not do so well in logic class did we?

These are human beings studying natural forces. Social Darwinism and Eugenics are human constructed ideas just as is evolution. I truly hope nobody REALLY believes what you just wrote.

walkingtall:

Do not even try it. Equal rights for different groups is NOT what American liberalism is all about.

You've stated the wrong thing. To refute my point you'd have to argue "American liberalism has nothing to do with equal rights" which you know to be false, which is why you didn't say it.


I hate to pull out a dictionary definition on you but it's inevitable here:

A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.

Does equality of minority groups not fall under that definition?


I heard the greatest line EVER about what American liberalism is about. "Liberals like the IDEA of people but actually hate REAL people". I think that is the greatest line EVAR.

There are ivory tower liberals. There are ivory tower conservatives. You can't argue "trickle down economics" was a great idea for the working class aka REAL people.

I will say there is a great disdain among urban liberals for rural conservatives. However the converse is true also.

Liberals believe in any feel good gushy lovely idea out there but is not willing to follow the consequences of said ideas.

Is this where you tell me that communism is responsible for millions of deaths?

Just like evolutionists accept NO responsibilty for Social Darwinism and eugenics.

In the same way that:
"guns don't kill people, people kill people"
it's true that:
"ideas don't kill people, people kill people"

Social darwinism is a bastardization of the process of natural selection. It has no scientific connection or relevance. Moreover, science will tell you (and it is stated very explicitly in at least one textbook) that eugenics has little possibility for success given the presence of recessive traits.

It is intellectual dishonesty to claim one does not logically follow the other.

If you're claiming that science developed Social Darwinism or eugenics, you simply wrong for the reasons above.


So liberals love the IDEA of freedom of choice but the consequences of murdering innocent babies and the social and economic consequences of abortion and the pain and regret the mothers feel is not as important as the IDEA of freedom of choice.

This doesn't parse.

Economic consequences? You can borrow the coat hanger if it's that big of a deal.


That is liberalism in a nutshell and while unfortunately this is a battle I am destined to lose I will fight until the very end.

That's fine, I'll probably outlive you.

/lives in an ivory tower
//computer scientists probably don't count though

walkingtall: Wellll yeah ..... we did not do so well in logic class did we?

Apparently not.

The Right Wing has claimed the Church as thiers, because Churches represent the last bastions of open racism in this country. All-Black City Council or NFL team and Rush Limbaugh's anal implant goes into Mode 4. All black church...welll...that's to be expected.

Evangelism is where all of the anti-de-segregation lynch-mob members went.

For Walkingtall:

That is the idea -- that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion. It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked. You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs. In the so-called Ages of faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion.
-- Bertrand Russell, "Why I Am Not A Christian,"

cfreak:

Tylenol at school was an example. My point is the nurse can't legally give it to her without your consent (because its considered something medical). Why should an abortion, as a potentially dangerous medical procedure be any different?

Hey, it's your example, don't make me defend it. Fifteen and sixteen year olds aren't chimps. These extreme examples are ridiculous and I have no problems calling people out on them. If I was a legislator I certainly would propose a bill to remove the silly restrictions on ear piercings or pain killers just to see how fast the anti-abortion lobbysts will rush in to kill it. Instead of trying to spread fear and uncertainty, why not do the logical thing and try to have abortion classified as a medical procedure? That seems to address all of your concerns: kids couldn't get it without parental conditions, doctors would have to be certified to perform the procedures, and they could be held liable for screw ups.

Yeah sure your daughter can do it without your knowledge with a coathanger but hopefully you've taught her better than that.

Well if she's "doing it" it probably would be without my knowledge, but hopefully if she was concerned about pregnancy she'd know about using protection.

walkingtall

are due to the fact that red state people believe on the whole whether you believe it or not to live and let live but please stop peeing on my leg and telling me it is raining. For 40 years the great liberal experiment has gone along unchecked and it has brought pain and destruction and will destroy this country. DO NOT try to use the civil rights movement as an example of liberal success. MLK was a CHRISTIAN first who used biblical priciples to fight the good fight. He accomplished more with peace and non violent strength then every Black Panther demonstration and killing could ever hope to. So whether you believe it or not there will come a day where the consequences of your life will be revealed. Intentions will mean nothing.

walkingtall, you ass. Being a christian has nothing to do with conservative/liberal politics. It means you believe that Christ is the son of God. Pull your head out of your ass. I know plently of Christian liberals, and if you actually read the new testament, the teachings of Jesus fall more in line with the democratic party platform than the republican one.

Please get real. Do you HONESTLY believe Christians cannot share these same views. Are you really saying that only liberal thinking cares about human suffering? That level of ignorance is dangerous in the least.

Not only, but they do a much better job at actually doing it. (Look at the relative number of liberals/conservatives that are educators and health professionals vs. the numbers of liberals/conservatives that are attorneys and car salesmen.) Liberals are also better at giving someone food or shelter without rubbing Jesus all over their donation.

Humanism and unchecked individualism is what will be our downfall. The trends are there if you care to look.

...and the slide into madness continues. Not to sound like a mouth breathing red-stater, but what is the opposite of individualism? (Hint: starts with a "C" and ends with "ism")

Just like evolutionists accept NO responsibilty for Social Darwinism and eugenics.

I swear you must have a screw loose. Just because you produce a better understanding of something, doesn't mean you can prevent all of the consequences of its use down the road. There is some merit to Social Darwinism... it's the assholes that use it to justify demolishing a society that are the pricks, not the ones that figured out how it works.

Just as our understanding of the atomic nucleus has garnered x-ray imaging, MRI's, and nuclear power, it has also brought with it nuclear weaponry, which all of us can agree is bad. Does that make nuclear scientists evil? Of course not... but if you were to follow your line of reasoning, pretty much everyone that discovers something new or contributes knowledge to society is bad. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if you felt that way, considering many of the comments you've made.

Erg. Jesus good. Knowledge bad.

As a Texan, please allow me to apologize for this stupid ceremony and Gov. Rick Perry in general. Even his fellow Republicans are going after this goofy pretty boy. The state comptroller will shred him in the primaries.

I'd also like to say sorry for George Bush, but really, he's not a Texan. Kinnebunkport is a long way from Crawford.

Cfreak, any underage girl who seeks an abortion without informing her parents first probably has a good reason for not telling. If she had supportive parents, I'd say for the most part it is a non issue. But forcing a child to bear another is a form of abuse. Much less throwing her out on the street, or beating her (or both).

cfreak:

Nice troll. I'm a Christian software engineer and I work with several others. I've never met a doctor that wasn't religious in some way (though not always Christian). There are plenty of people in my church who are proffesional business owners.

First, I'm not trolling. Second, you didn't respond to my question. I asked whether conservative areas deterred professionals. For example, I don't think many engineers from outside the US want to settle in Alabama.

Heck you guys on Fark are always complaining about how church people are hypocrites because they build big churches! Where do you think that money comes from?

Fairies obviously. How is this relevant?

Rural areas = small economies, also have smaller churches. That isn't causality. The causality of both is because there are fewer people. Imagine that.

Yes, but why does fewer people -> conservative?

asshat.

walkingtall

tudying natural forces. Social Darwinism and Eugenics are human constructed ideas just as is evolution. I truly hope nobody REALLY believes what you just wrote.

Human's are natural and are therefore subject to natural forces, like evolution and social darwinism.

I contend that social Darwinism is real... it's just not politically correct as is it frequently used to justify supression of an ethnic group, so scientists stray away from it. From a moral perspective, I would say it is immoral to use SD to supress a group because such an act would violate the golden rule.

Repo Man
For Walkingtall:
That is the idea -- that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion. It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked. You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs. In the so-called Ages of faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion.
-- Bertrand Russell, "Why I Am Not A Christian,"

thank humanism this only occurs with the christians in charge; could you imagine how peaceful and tolerant the world and history would have been with the other religions or atheism in charge. dang christians for messing up a perfect world :-)

Social Darwinism

Another such view is "Social Darwinism", which holds that social policy should allow the weak and unfit to fail and die, and that this is not only good policy but morally right. The only real connection between Darwinism and Social Darwinism is the name. The real source of Social Darwinism is Herbert Spencer and the tradition going back to Hobbes via Malthus, not Darwin's own writings, though Darwin gained some inspiration on the effects of population growth from Malthus.

The claims made by Social Darwinists and their heirs suffer from the ethical fallacy known as "the naturalistic fallacy" (no connection to naturalism in explanations and the study of knowledge mentioned above). This is the inference from what may be the case to the conclusion that it is therefore right. However, while it is certainly true that, for example, some families are prone to suffer diabetes, as mine is, there is no licence to conclude that they should not be treated, any more than the fact that a child has a broken arm from a bicycle accident implies that the child should have a broken arm. David Hume long ago showed that "is" does not imply "ought".

Oh, look, walkingtall, shameless liar and coont came in to again dishonestly link evolution with eugenics. Does that lying sack of shiat ever stop lying? I guess not. Wonder when he/she/it will claim that anyone who accepts evolution has the same ideas as Hitler.

aesc:

As a Texan, please allow me to apologize for this stupid ceremony and Gov. Rick Perry in general.

Thank you for saying that. It's a start. Gov. Goodhair has GOT to go.......but considering I live in Cali, I'm talking out my shiny metal ass.

/no, I didn't vote for Arnie, and I voted against the recall

Texas wouldn't be in this jam if Ann Richards were still governor.

you voted against the RECALL RECALL RECALL?

Dimensio


Wonder when he/she/it will claim that anyone who accepts evolution has the same ideas as Hitler.

Dimensio, so good to see you old man. I was wondering when you would be in to spew your hatred of all that is good and holy. Sorry buddy but evolution and the ideas it spawns ARE what brought us to Hitler and some variant will again make its way into the human experience and the beat will go on. Social Darwinism and Eugenics ARE natural outgrowths of evolution with the only counter argument being that we as humans have evolved the RIGHT to put moral limits on evolution. Well it is interesting how easy it is for some people to get in power and remove those moral limits because they BELIEVE they have the right answer. When resources get scarce it is amazing how easy it is to remove those HUMAN made limits on the evolutionists credo that the only real rule in the world and for ALL of history is that the weak must give way to the strong and the rule of the jungle is the only real rule in nature there is. I REFUSE to live by that, believe it, or preach it to others. Sorry but calling ME a liar does not change that reality.

I'm_a_moran:

When was the last time either of those hypocrites even SPOKE to a black person much less spent a Sunday morning in one of their churches?


About the last time any Right Wing Assclown, obsessed with property and afraid of those beneath him, decided to actually do any goddamned thing Jesus tried to teach.