Kathrine Harris - Separation of Church and State?

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
dcwrestlefan, regarding your pic of miss harris: You purposely picked a bad one. A better one would have been one in which she was drunkenly jiggling her titlets at a tv camera, right? Isn't that (well, miscounting ballots, too) her main talent?

and regarding the pic of miss tripp: call Oz and ask if they are missing a wicked witch.

I'm thinking that there's really something terribly wrong with K. Harris, maybe some substance abuse in conjunction with mental disorder. If you have ever seen a clip of her interacting with the media, you know what I mean. Her comments don't surprise me, don't even make me raise an eyebrow. I expected this from her. She's under the impression that she's got a sweet deal going on, what with her being all buddy-buddy with Jebya. And I won't be surprised if Jebya makes a surprise announcement next year - his intent to become one-third of histoy's first "father-then-son-then-another-son" presidential dynasty.
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
DC_DEEP said:
She's under the impression that she's got a sweet deal going on, what with her being all buddy-buddy with Jebya. And I won't be surprised if Jebya makes a surprise announcement next year - his intent to become one-third of histoy's first "father-then-son-then-another-son" presidential dynasty.

Oh shit:eek: God, please deliver us from this. Ten more years of Bushes? The entire Consitution will be in flames by then.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Freddie53 said:
Oh shit:eek: God, please deliver us from this. Ten more years of Bushes? The entire Consitution will be in flames by then.
I mentioned this during the last election/appointment, and everyone dismissed me and pointed out that jebya has stated, for the record, he will not run for president. Perhaps he won't, he has a pretty sweet deal in America's Penis. But I'm guessing that it was a distraction tactic.

As for the Constitution, I doubt it will be in flames. Dubya's been wiping his ass with it for a while, and little pieces of it are going down the drain in big wet swirlies. Even the Constitution won't burn when it's been soaked in the toilet.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
COLJohn said:
But don't vote for them. If enough people agree with her to vote her in, it'll be we who are fucked.:mad:
My dear, idealistic John... if only it were that easy. When the stakes are this high, do you think that actual votes will make a difference, or do you think that (once again) we will find out just how hung chad really is?
 

D_Sheffield Thongbynder

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Posts
2,020
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
183
DC_DEEP said:
My dear, idealistic John... if only it were that easy. When the stakes are this high, do you think that actual votes will make a difference, or do you think that (once again) we will find out just how hung chad really is?

I confess to being somewhat idealistic. To me, the hung chad issue did at least point out that our system, flawed as it is, can survive the incursions against it. *give me props for avoiding the hung Chad Hunt response I at first considered*
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
COLJohn said:
I confess to being somewhat idealistic. To me, the hung chad issue did at least point out that our system, flawed as it is, can survive the incursions against it. *give me props for avoiding the hung Chad Hunt response I at first considered*
I'm confused here, John. The "hanging chad" issue pointed out to me that someone is building flaws into the system, rather than insulating the system against the flaws.

Those votes in question with the hanging chads were never re-counted. The issue was (illegally, I think) referred to, and then decided by, the Supreme Court. Until that happened, I was not aware that the Supreme Court had the authority to select a president, or to interfere in any way with elections on any level, especially the state level.

Additionally, we should not forget the several states that "suspended" their own laws regarding ballot deadlines. The RNC, due to an unusual set of circumstances, did not have their candidate on the 2003 ballots prior to the deadlines in several states. Every one of those states allowed the republican candidate to appear on the ballot anyway.
 

D_Sheffield Thongbynder

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Posts
2,020
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
183
DC_DEEP said:
I'm confused here, John. The "hanging chad" issue pointed out to me that someone is building flaws into the system, rather than insulating the system against the flaws.


That was the incursion I was referring to.

Those votes in question with the hanging chads were never re-counted. The issue was (illegally, I think) referred to, and then decided by, the Supreme Court. Until that happened, I was not aware that the Supreme Court had the authority to select a president, or to interfere in any way with elections on any level, especially the state level.

I am not defending not doing a recount. However, though the Supreme Court overstepped the powers granted to it, I believe its being included in the process of straightening out an explosive mess helped calm things down so that no violence ensued, no dissenters were thrown into prison, and the likelihood that such shenanigans will crop up again were minimized. It was a strange version of due process, but it reminded me that because democracy is more fragile than we sometimes realize, sometimes we need to take unorthodox measures.The hanging chad scam was just the latest in a long line of ballot counting scandals (Do we owe such scandals the JFK presidency?). IMO, the end justified the means because it helped restore stability.

Additionally, we should not forget the several states that "suspended" their own laws regarding ballot deadlines. The RNC, due to an unusual set of circumstances, did not have their candidate on the 2003 ballots prior to the deadlines in several states. Every one of those states allowed the republican candidate to appear on the ballot anyway.

Again, I don't think this is a Republican issue. Both major parties have long histories of underhandedness to try to gain an edge. It is an inherent flaw of our system that we need to combat whenever possible. Maybe you give our system more credit than I do. I think that the acquisition of political power is every bit as vulnerable to greed and corruption -- maybe more so -- as Big Business. Because both Dems and Reps are humans, they will be afflicted equally with the potential to corrupt.
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
SurferGirlCA said:
Hmmmm, do they breed these people in FL? Wasn't there some FL woman in the 1970s with big hair who made statements like this and someone threw an orange at her or something at one of her public appearances?
You wouldn't be referring to the infamous Anita Bryant would you? She came up with the idea that gays should be denied housing. Either she planned on all gays staying at her house or she planned on gays being homeless. I suspect the later.
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
Originally Posted by Freddie53
I am absolutely horrified this is taking place in 2006 here in America


Heather LouAnna said:
If that's truly the case, then prepare to be "absolutely horrified" until your death, or learn not to overreact so much. Bigotry is rampant. Embrace and silently step over it without feeding the fire with words.

The rest of the quote is not there. I don't think I am overacting here. This woman believes God selects all elected officials here on earth. That would include Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim (from North Korea) and the list goes on.

This woman does not believe in secular laws. She does not believe in the Bill of Rights. Apparently from her remarks, Harris believes in a theocracy based totally on Christianity and its predecessor, Judaism.

Not only that but Harris would have herself and people of HER CHURCH decide the form of Christian laws that would be enacted for the REST of us to follow.

If that doesn't scare the jeepers out of you, then what will?

I'm a practicing Christian, but my interpretations of Scripture are far different than Harris. In my personal life, Jesus is at the head of my lifeand for practicing Christinas he should be. But we never can make personal religous rules, regulations, dreams and worship experiences mandatory for everyone.

Religious beliefs are personal and they need to remain that way. There is a group of people in our nation that would like to completely do away with the Bill of Rights

So I am not going to back down on my choice of words. When a well known national leader is seriously questioning our commitment to the Consitution and the Bill of Rigjts, I consider that a national crisis.
 

Expando1

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Posts
82
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
153
Age
44
Location
Texas
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Heather LouAnna said:
If that's truly the case, then prepare to be "absolutely horrified" until your death, or learn not to overreact so much. Bigotry is rampant. Embrace and silently step over it without feeding the fire with words.

Here, here!
 

Expando1

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Posts
82
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
153
Age
44
Location
Texas
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Heather LouAnna said:
Yeah, because those in the entertainment industry, whether they stand on a religious platform or not, don't hold any ground when it comes to swaying public opinion.

Please.

I went to the same high school as a few of the hollywood celebs. Back then they weren't exactly the ones who you listened to for any kind of advise and let's say no one was looking at their answer sheets during exams from which to cheat. Except for one who went to college with me, all ended their education after high school graduation. And we all rememeber how educated and worldly we were upon high school graduation, eh. It therefore surprises me that grown men and women would afix such influence to the points of views of celebs who are no more informed (and at times entirely misinformed) than themselves.

i suppose when you have the attention of a public forum it's far too enticing to espouse your views on all matters of interest and disinterest...like a diarrhea of the mind.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
I agree with the previous posts that indicated the difference between a celebrity exposing wacky ideas and a political hopeful exposing wacky ideas.

Harris' announcement is tantamount to "I'll call in favors until I get on the Hill. Once there, you, the American people, will be my little dolls to play with. I will dress you up and send you to tea parties and make you go to my church and believe as I believe." It's scary.

To the post regarding the difference between a senator or congressman voting his beliefs or voting his conscience, of course your belief system will influence how you vote on a given issue. The difference is not too difficult a concept though. Any politician should have enough intellect to understand that his CHOSEN PROFESSION requires that he makes his decisions within a certain construct, in this case specifically, the First Amendment. If he or she cannot balance their personal beliefs with that document, then they should not be in politics. One Christian sect says that musical instruments should not be used in worship; another makes instrumental music an integral part of the worship service. Who is right? Should the anti-instrument legislator be able to pass laws to make it illegal in all churches? Of course not. Should a pentecostal legislator be able to ban all cosmetics in the US? Of course not. Should Harris be elected to the Senate when she publicly claims she wants to re-make our government according to her own theocratic views? Uh, I don't think so.