The Goat Pen

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Which Christian denominations approve of adultery?

Gods law and mans law are two different things.

None that I know of approve of adultery. Nobody said they comitted adultry. He says they are dating, nothing more. That is not adultery.

If he met his religions definition of divorce then even if he did sleep with her I think the proper term would be fornication, not adultery, which I know of no christian denomination that allows it but I don't know them all.

But he says he hasn't had relations with her and nobody has said different so who knows. There is no proof of any sexual relation.

I just know you can't say he is a hypocrite, you don't know enough to be able to do that.

[youtube]S_tYaSK8otY[/youtube]

I think D'Souza was once engaged to Laura Ingraham. Letting her get way should alone cause him to lose his job.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:LMAO

So morals are relative after all

Not really, but we'll get to that in a moment. I'm guessing you are not going to like what I will say next.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:If you think it's wrong to cheat on your wife, then what he did is immoral.

If you think it's only immoral if HE thinks it was, then you're a moral relativist.

In order for you to be a moral relativist, you must first understand the root purpose of morality. In order for us to do that, we have to go way the fuck back in time.

Morality (in and of itself) was based on the absolute premise that a woman can be ruined.

That's it. That is morality (or should I say IM-morality.) If your actions can cause (or help to cause) ruin to be brought to a woman, then what you do is immoral. If what you do is about preserving a woman so that she is NOT ruined, then what you are doing IS moral. Those are the guidelines for morality.

Okay so how is a woman "ruined?" Those six words I boldened, what do they mean exactly and why are they important? Why is it so important that women not be ruined so much so that customs and (in fact) LAWS are writen around the concept of morality?

A ruined woman is (for lack of a better term) an unmarried woman who is no longer virgin. That woman is now officially "ruined." That is what Jack Woltz was talking about when he told Tom Hagen that he would never cast Johnny Fontaine in a movie because Johnny "ruined" a girl (ie: ruined = fucked her while she was an unmarried virgin) Jack Woltz himself wanted. Because she was no longer virgin, she no longer had any worth/value to Jack Woltz. Now this whole concept of a woman being "ruined" doesn't mean that much today, but back in the day when people discussed the concept of morality, it made perfect sense. It made so much sense, I would never have had to explain this to you (or to anyone.)

So Dr Strangelove, why was it so important that a woman not be "ruined?" Well, back in the day (when the greatest earning power was derived from physical labor) it was almost impossible for a woman to financially support herself in adulthood. A woman was simply not physically strong enough to do a job that provided the earning power to afford a lifestyle to support oneself (let alone pay rent in a cheap tenement and support a family.) Teachers made next to nothing, librarians made even less than that, and nursing, well... the pay there was basically zero (a wage your typical Nun would earn in a Catholic hospital) mostly because nursing was little more than changing bed pans and making beds prior to Florence Nightingale. Forget nurses administering drugs, there hardly wasn't any. Really, no career jobs that offered earning power to pay for any lifestyle outside the home you grew up in...

How is a woman "ruined" by not being a virgin? Well, back in the day, men were sexual perverts. Not much has changed there (we are still perverts) but back in the day men judged women's value NOT by women's intelligence or education but instead, by their youth, beauty, and (most importantly) their unruptured hymens! Purity was of utmost value. That is what made a woman valuable to a man, valuable enough that he would be willing to marry her and support her for the rest of his life. And even then, a man was expected to have a DOWRY settled upon him from the father of the bride simply because the father of the bride will no longer be financially responsible for the financial burden of his own daughter! (That is a dowry.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry

Pretty disturbing huh, Dr Strangelove? Well it gets even worse. Where did diamond engagement rings come from? If you said they were some scheme created by DeBeers in order to add outragous value to a very hard piece of carbon you'd be wrong. The diamond engagement ring was created around the concept of insuring a woman against her "ruin!"

Lookie here: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... gs/255434/

The Atlantic wrote:Once upon a time, diamond rings weren't just gifts. They were, frankly, virginity insurance.

A now-obsolete law called the "Breach of Promise to Marry" once allowed women to sue men for breaking off an engagement. Back then, there was a high premium on women being virgins when they married -- or at least when they got engaged. Surveys from the 1940s show that roughly half of engaged couples reported being intimate before the big day. If the groom-to-be walked out after he and the bride-to-be had sex, that left her in a precarious position. From a social angle, she had been permanently "damaged." From an economic angle, she had lost her market value. So Breach of Promise to Marry was born.

In this sense: Damaged = "ruined."

Here too... http://www.wanderings.net/blog/posts/wh ... ven-to-men

....

In closing, what is and what is NOT moral, is not relative. It is entirely based on if what you are doing ruins a woman or helps to prevent her from being ruined. That is morality, nothing more, nothing less. That is why it is deviant and dastardly for grown men to prey upon young virgin girls (we send them to jail for that.) On the other hand, female teachers like one former Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader and Deborah Lefave (fucking their underage male students) there is no sexual taboo there since a boy is expected to be able to support himself in adulthood and could never be "ruined." Only a girl could. This is the reason why these women have not done prison time and why society doesn't frown upon it as much when women sexualize underage boys.

So, it doesn't really matter if what this guys thinks is immoral or not (and it doesn't matter what you or I think.) If we are talking "morality" it only matters if this girl he fucked was a virgin first before he had her. And no one on this board will ever know the answer to that.

And, if I might be so bold as to enter the epic Dinesh D'Souza/BOJ/DSL/IB fray, the non-denominationalism of D'Souza simply means he and his local church believe they get to decide whether it's okay or not for him to get engaged to a woman half his age before his current marriage is legally dissolved.

It's not quite moral relativism, as DSL states. It's more like a 51% vote by a local church that is not accountable to anybody else form of moral relativism.

Of course, if he loses out on this local congregational referendum on his morality, Dinesh is then free to seek non-denominational church membership and employment where the 51% vote goes his way. There's always the Episcopalians and Methodists. They'd be fine with what he did, although they'd prefer Dinesh be engaged to and be having sex with a guy.

Owlman wrote:R capital Gain taxes scheduled to increase next year?

Yes, from 15% to 20%. Dividends also increase from 15% to 39.6% ordinary rate. Goes back to the Clinton rates

Well that is good news...after all...higher tax rates certainly mean more revenue...don't they?

We're saved!

Owlman wrote:R capital Gain taxes scheduled to increase next year?

Yeah along with everything else literally. Every bracket, old brackets come back , child credit is cut from 1000 to 500 which is automatically raises my taxes by 1500 not counting any of the bracket changes.

Everything in W's tax cuts is set to expire jan 1

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

puterbac wrote:

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Local polling places which, in most counties, are also controlled by Republicans?

We've already had this talk.

Cleveland, st Louis, Miami dade, Philly are the usual culprits in either incompetence or planned chaos almost every election cycle. Thing in common: run by dems. You can throw Memphis in their with their library card bullshit.

Right. You say the same thing every election. You predict polls will be ordered open by corrupt judges so that Dems can drop off a few thousand more hobos, enticed to vote Dem with a bottle of Colt 45

Polls in cities are often understaffed and have to handle far more people than rural, backwater districts. It's only logical that they would have more problems and face longer lines. And cities and urban areas are overwhelmingly Democrat.

DSL that is a load of horseshit. How about fix the fing problem? If it is so severe and such a problem then fing fix it, but they don't want to fix it. They want a judge to let them keep THEIR polls open late and nobody else's. If the order applied statewide, it would still be phony but at least it would apply to all. That is how it happened in Cleveland and s Louis. In Philly they routinely have greater than 100 percent turnout, but controlled by dems so nothing ever changes. And they don't want it to.

Bottom line is if you want the bs fixed you need a judge to say, sorry dumbasses I'm not here to save you from your own (planned) incompetence. If I always bail you dumasses out, you will never fix it (not that you really want to anyway).

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Meanwhile the absentee voting policy you're ridiculing in Ohio was created by Republicans.

Jesus. No shit I said that in the original post. Its a recipe for chaos. Let people who want an absentee ballot request one.

Why is that so hard?

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Wow. Excellent example. Some election in a NW state where they did a recount and the Dem won so the fix was clearly in. The outrage must've really made an imprint on your mind.

Quit acting stupid. You know he is talking about wash st and gov race as well as mn senate.

And it would have been fl president if courts hadn't stopped madness.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

Big Orange Junky wrote:Here ya go.

"The election for governor of Washington on November 2, 2004 gained national attention for its legal twists and extremely close finish. Notable for being among the closest political races in United States election history, Republican Dino Rossi was declared the winner in the initial automated count and again in the subsequent automated recount. It wasn't until after the third count, a second recount done by hand, that Christine Gregoire, a Democrat, took the lead by a margin of 129 votes.

Although Gregoire was sworn in as Governor of Washington on January 12, 2005, Rossi did not formally concede and called for a re-vote over concerns about the integrity of the election. The Republican Party filed a lawsuit in Chelan County Superior Court contesting the election, but the trial judge ruled against it, citing lack of evidence of deliberate electoral sabotage.[1] Rossi chose not to appeal to the Washington State Supreme Court, formally conceding the election on June 6, 2005. Gregoire is Washington's second female governor."

They counted FOUR times (three recounts if I read that right with the second hand recount comment), until the democrat was declared the winner and then stopped counting. Just like predicted. So they counted three times and it wasn't good enough (they hadn't "found" enough democrat votes). They counted the the FOURTH time, a SECOND HAND COUNT and stopped counting. Why not count five if you counted four? Because after the fourth one the democrat had won and that's where the democrats have the "recount process" perfected. It does it's job in that they count until they win and stop counting.

Here's the link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington ... tion,_2004

Read your own links. There were TWO recounts. One automated, a second by hand. The Dems were allowed a manual recount by Washington state law. While doing that it was discovered that a bunch of absentee ballots in King County had been tossed out inappropriately. It was taken to a judge who ruled the ballots countable. The R's threw a hissy feet, stomped and screamed, threatened lawsuits, cried their eyes out, spat and drooled and frothed at the mouth. They were given an opportunity to present evidence that fraud had taken place and were woefully incapable of doing so.

Empty angry shouting. That's what conservatives do best. The R's have never been beaten fairly in the history of this country. The Dems always, ALWAYS cheat

Yes magically fucking found and magically giving the lead to the dem. ballots should have a chain of custody just like evidence in court and if that chain is broke such as ballots magically found in the trash, uh no.

I would love to have had prints on those ballots compared to the supposed voter they came from.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

Big Orange Junky wrote:

Dr. Strangelove wrote:I never said it was illegal, just immoral by the standards of his proclaimed religion.

No, not really. The college didn't think it looked good so they had him resign, but that doesn't mean it was immoral by his religion. He is Indian, as they pointed out. They have different ways of thinking and different customs with regard to divorce. He is nondenominational according to his bio on that page, was once Catholic but not any more.

I don't know how his religion percieves it, if they look down on it or not. His religion may believe that all he has to do is say "be gone" and he is divorced and the legalities are just a formality, or it could be a major offense. I don't know because I don't know his religion. He's nondenominational. Only his particular church would be able to answer that.

So there's nothing immoral about cheating on your wife with a coed. Got it.

And LMAO at "he's an Indian and has different ideas about divorce and marriage" For crissakes...

Holy shit dsl is on a roll. If they were separated for two years pending divorce, and you say that's cheating?

Woe. Just wow...I really hope someone asks Christie about this. Turning away utility workers from out of state to help in a disaster because they are non-union!?! Just fing reprehensible...Check the video in the article on the site as well...

Nonunion Ala. crews turned away from Sandy recovery

http://www.waff.com/story/19981857/some ... =printable

The hurricane-ravaged east coast has been receiving north Alabama help, but crews learned they'll be doing work in Long Island, New York instead of in New Jersey.

Crews from Decatur Utilities headed up there this week, but Derrick Moore, one of the Decatur workers, said they were told by crews in New Jersey that they can't do any work there since they're not union employees.

The general manager of Decatur Utilities, Ray Hardin told Fox Business they were presented documents from the International Brotherhood of Electric Workers at a staging area in Virginia. The documents stated they had to affiliate with a union to work, which the crews could not agree to.

The crews were originally called to Seaside Heights, but they never made it to New Jersey. They attempted to look for work in other areas but made the decision Thursday night to return home.

Moore said they're frustrated being told "thanks, but no thanks."

Huntsville Utilities said they were not turned away and are up in storm ravaged areas working.

Joe Wheeler EMC said they did not respond to New Jersey, but did go up to Maryland and headed home once they were done.

Copyright 2012 WAFF. All rights reserved.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the biggest change in employment over the last month affected black workers. In September, the unemployment rate for blacks was 13.4 percent. In October, that number jumped to 14.3 percent, an almost a full percentage point change, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.




Crickets continue chirping in the offices of Sharpton & Jackson....my how times change.

My personal favorite case of rampant voter fraud by Democrats is the 2008 Senate election in Minnesota. 1,099 felons voted in an election Franken won by 312 votes. 177 people were convicted - not charged, but convicted - of voter fraud. That stolen election gave the Dem's the last vote they needed to pass Obamacare.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-when ... JPtKYWkBok

Yet they would have us believe that voter fraud, like the mafia, doesn't exist.

Also in 2008, there was the Democrat hack Rokey Suleman, the Fairfax county registrar in the swing state of Virginia, who tried to throw out absentee ballots from servicemen and women overseas - most of them serving in war zones.

And in 2000, local Dem officials in the the mother-of-all-swing-states Florida tried to throw out military ballots. Thankfully the Florida Supreme Court put a stop to that.

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-10-28/poli ... M:POLITICS

Yet they would have us believe that sleazy voter suppression is practiced by Republicans.

"
You didn't say that. You said he was a hypocrite. Now you are trying to change the discussion."

Desuza (or whatever his name is) claimed in that movie that Obama does not have the same beliefs and values as other Americans. Leaving aside for a moment just exactly what those purported "values" are, as well as the fact that more people who purportedly have these "American values" voted for Obama than they did for McCain (and will likely do so again this Tuesday), it is certainly fair to say that most Americans will at least claim that it is wrong to get engaged to another woman while you're still married. So by doing that, i.e., doing something that most Americans would claim is wrong, and then accusing someone else of not sharing "American values" is, ipso facto, hypocritical. By definition, even...

On another note, that "documentary" he did on Obama was one of the most poorly researched and argued, slap-dash, ludicrous pieces of garbage I've ever wasted my time on. And I've read The Fountainhead, so that's saying something...

Big Orange Junky wrote:

bluetick wrote:

Big Orange Junky wrote:
He is the one that says the US should have their wealth redistributed to other nations.

I'm guessing you don't have a link handy for that claim.

And if you're referring to foreign aid then we'll have to scan backwards to George Wash- ah, screw it.

I am talking about the Denesh Desusa (Sp) movie about his upbringing and his beliefs of redistribution of wealth. Of course he has said things like this too I think but I would have to look it up to be sure. I was speaking more about his total outlook as documented in the above documentary.

You can't claim something as outrageous as "the president says the US should have their wealth redistributed to other nations" and not offer any proof. Yet you do this stuff all the time. Words have meaning, even yours. "Yes maam, I may have said your condition is terminal. But I was speaking more about your total outlook...we all gotta go sometime."