‘Absolutely Abhorrent’: Bachmann Shocked After White House Ignores Bestiality Question
- Posted on December 7, 2011 at 9:53am by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
Last week, we reported that the Senate had voted to repeal bans on sodomy and bestiality in the military. That raised more than a few eyebrows. Considering the many questions that surrounded the move, a reporter decided to ask White House Press Secretary Jay Carney about the move this week. The reporter was shunned and even mocked.
On Tuesday, GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann joined Glenn Beck on his GBTV program. After discussing Newt Gingrich, Beck decided to play the video of Carney brushing off the question and get Bachmann’s reaction. She didn’t disappoint.
“It’s absolutely abhorrent, reprehensible,” Bachmann said, before adding, “people have to be outraged and they have to let their member of congress know, and the White House, that they expect better than this.”
“Are we really going to say ‘ho hum’ and laugh and go back to sleep? There’s got to be something we stand for?”
Beck then wondered out loud if this was an example of “watch the other hand.”
“The big question is: Is there anything that’s wrong?” Bachmann asked. “That’s my question. If that’s not wrong, Glenn, what’s wrong?”
You can watch her full reaction, as well as hear her other thoughts on a potential economic collapse, below:
By the way, you can watch video of her thoughts on Gingrich here.
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 680 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 639 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 523 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 360 Comments
Have You Seen the Giant ‘Sand Obama’ Sculpture in Charlotte? 312 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 144 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 185 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 146 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Scathing New Ad Capitalizes on Rep. Ryan‘s ’Fading Obama Posters’ Remark 124 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 144 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (270)
RichNGadsden
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:22amI still can’t get over the fact that so many Republicans voted for this bill too. Otherwise 0bama had to help his little gay buddies for when they seek medical attention to have a gerbils removed from their rectums, the military cannot charge them. And, all of those other disgusting acts.
Report Post »Stoic one
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:49amperhaps charge them with animal abuse? Poor gerbil
Report Post »Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:14amThe things that you morons worry over are pathetic.
News Flash: If some sicko gets off on having sex with animals then a law against it won’t do much.
I don’t think people should have sex with animals. Ever. But you people are all about big government laws and regulations when you agree with it. How about getting appalled for the middle class being destroyed by corporatism? How about you find some morals there instead of calling everyone bums.
Report Post »banjarmon
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:24amCan you see the image in your mind of a muslim having oral sex with a goat???
Report Post »ProbIemSoIver
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:31amThey crossbreed with goats?
Report Post »That explains the very low I.Q. and the Covering of the inbred mutant women.
ProbIemSoIver
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:39amThis is another way of destroying our country, right out of the communist/progressive manifesto.
Report Post »Sneak a law into a bill to appease the muslims and shariah law.
The “Jobs bill” probably has a provision in it where muslims can cut off hands of theives and stone gays and infidels.
They will just SNEAK that one in too.
These POS’s in washington are running a de-facto government under emergency powers, doing whatever the hell they want.
They just can’t move too fast, or would be overthrown.
It is Slow tyranny !!!!
rush_is_right
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:46am“How about getting appalled for the middle class being destroyed by corporatism? ”
really explain to use how corporations, which give us jobs and pay us enough to be middle class, are destroying the middle class?
this should be good for a laugh or two…..
Report Post »ProbIemSoIver
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 12:01pmMartial Law was declared by President Lincoln on April 24th, 1863, with General Orders No. 100; under martial law authority, Congress and President Lincoln institute continuous martial law by ordering the states (people) either conscribe troops and or provide money in support of the North or be recognized as enemies of the nation; this martial law Act of Congress is still in effect today. This martial law authority gives the President (with or without Congress) the dictatorial authority to do anything that can be done by government in accord with the Constitution of the United States of America. This conscription act REMAINS IN EFFECT to this very day and is the foundation of Presidential Executive Orders authority; it was magnified in 1917 with The Trading with the Enemy Act (Public Law 65-91, 65th Congress, Session I, Chapters 105, 106, October 6, 1917). and again in 1933 with the Emergency War Powers Act, which is ratified and enhanced almost every year to this date by Congress. Today these Acts address the people of the United States themselves as their enemy.
This might explain H.R. #1867
Passed by the house and senate with an overwhelming majority.
The 7% of American patriots that voted Nay, stay.
The 93% that are Loyal factotums to the the ‘Corporation of the United States’
must immediately vacate Washington..
PLEASE PEOPLE research
Report Post »http://teamlaw.net
PAPPY72
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 12:09pm@Bible Quotin‘ Science Fearin’ Conservative American: So are you saying that since laws against beastiality can’t be enforced, it should therefore be legal? And so therefore we should just allow the sexual abuse of animals?
BTW – limited government doesn’t mean no government. No one is saying that we shouldn’t have laws against murder, rape, theft….
Report Post »ProbIemSoIver
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 12:13pmThe District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 created a private corporation (hereinafter “Corp. U.S.”, Trademark name, “United States Government”) owned and operated by the actual government for the purpose of carrying out the business needs of the government under martial law. This was done under the constitutional authority for Congress to pass any law within the ten mile square of Washington, District of Columbia.
In said Act, Corp. U.S. adopted their own constitution (United States Constitution), which was identical to the national Constitution (Constitution of the United States of America) except that it was missing the national constitution‘s 13th Amendment and the national constitution’s 14th, 15th and 16th amendments are respectively numbered 13th, 14th and 15th amendments in the Corp. U.S. Constitution. At this point take special notice and remember this Corp. U.S. method of adopting their own Constitution, they will add to it in the same manner in 1913.
Corp. U.S. began to generate debts via bonds etc., which came due in 1912, but they could not pay their debts so the 7 families that bought up the bonds demanded payment and Corp. U.S. could not pay. Said families settled the debt for the payments of all of Corp. U.S.’ assets and for all of the assets of the Treasury of the United States of America.
Learn more at:
http://teamlaw.net/HistoryOutline.htm
Spread the Truth !!!!!!
Report Post »ProbIemSoIver
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 12:38pm* not H.R. #1867
Report Post »It is NDAA ( S.1867 )
BAMMO
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 1:30pmObviously this is another case of senators not reading the bills they vote on. They want to pass appropriation bills as easily as possible. the question is how did this repeal get in this bill? and I thought the senate didn’t originate appropriation bills the House is supposed to do that. Is this an addition to a House bill that the Senate added? Why aren’t pundits asking the right questions?
Report Post »Ruler4You
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 1:39pmWe can thank the LGBTs being allowed into the military for this, I’ll bet you hard cold cash.
Report Post »USAMEDIC3008
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 2:02pmBanjarmon
could you state the suckor and suckee
Report Post »or was it 69
ConservDadASD
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 2:12pm@ misnamed Bible Quotin’ Conservative, who said: “News Flash: If some sicko gets off on having sex with animals then a law against it won’t do much.”
Let’s just use this point you made and see how ridiculous it sounds:
News Flash: If some sicko gets off on having sex with their cousins or other relatives, then a law against it won’t do much.
News Flash: If some sicko gets off on raping or molesting boys (aka Sandusky), then a law against it won’t do much.
News Flash: If some sicko gets off on killing other people then a law against it won’t do much.
News Flash: If some sicko gets off on _______, then a law against it won’t do much.
Just fill in the blank with anything we consider wrong and you get the point.
Shall we just legalize EVERYTHING since making laws against them would not prevent an individual from committing them???
The law is a teacher and it teaches us what is right or wrong. Behind EVERY law is some moral basis… someone’s moral basis. In fact, BQSFCA, you’re wanting laws to “punish” the activities of businesses, who create jobs that work for our benefit. Is yoru moral basis higher than those who want to keep abberrant sexual practices illegal? Is it more morally justifiable to push your everything goes, but punish businesses moral code down our throats than for us to also have a say in the law creation process?? Are your morals more enlightened?
Report Post »nelbert
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 2:18pm@Bible Quotin‘ Science Fearin’ Conservative American:
Report Post »So by your logic, since murders and rapes still occur despite laws on the books to prosecute it, we should just legalize murder and rape ’cause, ya know, people are still gonna do it.
That sick and twisted things happen doesn’t mean society has to embrace it.
babylonvi
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 2:47pmWhat if it was a consenting Gerbil?
Report Post »The Dark Side
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 2:53pmThere is so much misinformation regarding this change in the UCMJ. Sodomy is a noun defined as sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation.
First, this provision was solely about punishing homesexual sex. Second, there are a number of other provisions under the UCMJ that punish those having sex with animals … conduct unbecoming to name one. Third, the provision (on its face) prohibited normal hetrosexual sex as well … oral sex with your spouse is still sodimy. Fourth, no hetrosexual was ever charged much less convicted of breaking the provision although virtually every marine, soldier, and sailor was guilty . Fifth, if gays can now openly serve in the military (and not saying they should be able to) then what sense does it make to make it a crime under the UCMJ for them to engage in sex?
This was a stupid provision under the UCMJ when it was enacted and it needed to go away. Anyone that actually argues that Obama (and I do not like Obama) or the military are now condoning bestiality are idiots. If you do not want gays in the military that is another discusion. Making oral sex illegal, however, is not the answer and never was.
My pointed response to the idiotcy from the Dark Side!!!
Report Post »Jinglebob
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 3:04pmIs it true, that the WH is bringing in herds of sheep to graze on the lawn and calling it the new 4H program?
Report Post »qzak491
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 3:06pmReport them to the humane society or PETA.
Would you want the same spoon that took slop from a pig pen to take food from the same bowl you were getting food from. Something to think about ladies, you know what I mean.
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 3:16pmSuch legislation should not be needed..When the people turned their backs on God and did not honor Him or give Him thanks..He turned them over to perverse and reprobate minds..didn’t He say “If those people who are called ”My People” will repent and turn from their wicked ways and pray to Me…I will hear and heal their land.?” This is why this evil is being propogated.
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlpODYhnPEo
TH30PH1LUS
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 3:17pmLIBERALISM is always about the debasement of humanity. It is a self-loathing psychotic disorder that has been eating away at our churches, our homes and our government until now we stand at the brink of ruin. American finances in shambles, military embracing homos and perverts of the worst sort, and above it all smiles Obama.
Report Post »marybethelizabeth
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 3:21pmThis story is a lie. The President has said that he will veto the current defense authorization bill currently before Congress.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 3:31pm@The Dark Side
Well said, concise and direct. The true danger in the legislation is the section that allows US citizens to be detained indefinitely. That neither Beck or Bachmann address leads to the assumption that they either do not know about it… or support it.
In the case of Bachmann, I‘d imagine it’s the latter, not the former. In the case of Beck, I’d posit that he knows all about it, but knows that “bestiality!!! Sodomy!!!“ gets people much more riled up than ”US citizens can be detained indefinitely!” A business move from a businessman.
Report Post »Trophy
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 3:43pmWow! I just had to stop in and say aren’t you the same people that cry about big government ? LOL! Homophobia must run deep in the Tea Party!
Report Post »chazman
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 3:54pm@RICH
Gerbils … I‘m howlin’ over here, LMAO!!!
Report Post »JRook
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 5:02pmThe Senate on Thursday evening voted 93-7 to approve a defense authorization bill. Typical M. Bachmann misrepresentation on trying to lay this on the President or Democrats. Look at the vote tally. Please tell me why bestiality had to be specified in the military ban in the first place.. Is it that big a problem in the military??
Report Post »granolajohn
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 6:44pmIf this site would ever post the whole story of something you guys would get all the facts, it was all blanketed under one bill. With the eradication of the line item veto it makes it impossible to veto particular things from a bill, they either veto the whole thing or pass the whole thing. With the past law no sodomy was allowed if caught you could be expelled from the military. With DADT being removed they as well had to overturn that law. FYI as a Liberal I am sickened by bestiality I view it as a form of rape as the animals can not consent. They need to fix this.
Report Post »LouC57
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 7:20pmIt’s almost too disturbing to discuss and wrong on SO many levels. I lived in Washington state for a time, bestiality was okie-dokie with those folks—till a guy got killed by a mare he was…uh…ya know.
Report Post »If a State or a Country not only allows but encourages this behavior, it’s on a path to destruction. And, from the animal’s point of view, it’s a b u s e…(imagine all caps there).
Unbelievable. I‘m ready to bail to another country I’m so disgusted. Yeah, that’s shameful. Honestly, I have little hope the USA will survive obummer.
SoCaLCapitalist
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:40pmThis is probably because PETA loves their animals. I saw on South Park where they actually married their animals goats, dogs….
PETA probably thought that would be great and couldn’t consumate the marriage. Now they can.
Report Post »Mil Mom
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:25pm@Bible Quotin‘ Science Fearin’ Conservative American
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:14am
The things that you morons worry over are pathetic.
News Flash: If some sicko gets off on having sex with animals then a law against it won’t do much
Report Post »****
Better read that Bible more, IT‘S ALWAYS BEEN AGAINST GOD’S LAW!!!
We’re not talking ABOUT SOME SICKO HERE! WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THE US MILITARY! This law was A PART OF THE MILITARY CODE OF JUSTICE! Any SICKO (and there was a muslim soldier in Iraq last year, who was given a Dishonorable Discharge because an Iraqi farmer sued successfully the USArmy for damages because his donkey was raped by this Sicko [falsely called a ]u s soldier!) This is NOT WHAT WE SEND OUR TROOPS ALL OVER THE WORLD TO DO!
JMorcan
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:36pm@ RUSH_IS_RIGHT
“really explain to use (sic) how corporations, which give us jobs and pay us enough to be middle class, are destroying the middle class?”
Which parallel universe are you trapped in? Corporations aren’t giving us jobs, they’re sending them to emerging Asia. Politicians turn a blind eye because those same corporations finance their campaign war chests. The middle class is all but gone thanks to this conflict of interest. You and all the other dumb asses buying Chinese junk will soon understand that a job is more valuable than saving $10 on an iPad. The biggest regret is that when you finally ruin what’s left of America, you’ll take a lot of good people with you.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 10:50amUS Foreign aid is being used to promote gay rights!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505244_162-57337787/us-to-use-foreign-aid-to-promote-gay-rights/?tag=mncol;lst;6
I’m with Dr. Paul — cut all foreign aid — start from there when considering money for “outside causes”
Report Post »BurntHills
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:22amnot only is obama degrading America (and heavily promoting degeneracy worldwide), but he is endorsing bestiality for the muslims in the US Military… check it out for yourselves: in the koran, bestiality like pedophilia, is fully ENCOURAGED and PERMITTED
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:47amWell, blame yourself. Guess what, God is going to come flying in to save the day. God has all of time for people to understand God, and therefore you getting destroyed is a small, small thing for God to patiently watch. Just as I can patiently watch my younger son get mistreated by the older son until the younger son finally stands up for himself, only God does it on a galactic scale. What you don’t understand is that Progressives have over time warped your understanding and direction of thought by always coming to the rescue and protecting children from parents and parents from neighbors, and therefore your natural absorption of understanding is that God is going to come from space to whoop there rears, when God actually is not going to do any such thing.
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:48amCorrection to first line: God is “Not” going to come flying in.
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:56amAs a dad watches his son sit, and sit getting picked on by a brother until the younger son stands-up for himself is to the dad a very short span of time, maybe a day, a week, a month. But, for the young son the amount of time he is stuck with the brother seems like a 1000 years. You people keep viewing God by your time constraints, by your understanding of life. God will watch the U.S come and watch it go. God has eternity for men to get it right.
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:02amA false prophet will tell you that “God will save us, because he isn’t done.” A false prophet will doom you by letting you think no matter what God will save you. God saved the Children of Israel by sending the spirit of Moses, because the Children of Israel were “Lively.” Moreover a Father doesn’t save a dead child. A son conquers and is successful in life because he quits relying on his Father, instead taking the Father’s word and using it himself, but not using the Father, No, just the spirit the Father taught the son.
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:06amYou think because Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, you think Jesus raised a human flesh and bones, when he actually raised the spirit of Lazarus, by removing the “Stone” from the people’s heart, bring back to life their intuition, or call it their sixth sense.
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:11amYou, you think outside the box, you make a conclusion about the direction of life through thinking outside the box. You do these things because your brother Lazarus is helping you see the things coming into existence, because Lazarus is your sixth sense. Your spiritual brother.
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:16amLazarus was Mary‘s and Martha’s “Kindred Spirit” and in that also being their brother.
Report Post »frust@ted
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:20amEliasm
This will be the first and last time I ever respond to one of your posts. I know you think highly of yourself and like to bask in your false sense of superior intelligence. I’m sure in your mind you will disregard this response and somehow turn it into a winning an argument so you can continue to feed your ego. But you are nothing more than a megalomaniac who fancy’s themselves as a modern day Socrates. Go away, get some help you truly do need it, and I’m really not impressed with your posts they routinley fall flat.
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:23amfrust@ted,
Report Post »You are going to fall flat, and your neighbors will eat you after the coming collapse.
PAPPY72
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:59am@Eliasim: What do your replies to Burnthills have to do with what Burnthills said?
Report Post »americanfirst
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 12:07pmEliasim…just pulled this from another post – but if it fits??
It’s better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to post here and remove all doubt!!!
pull it in a bit, will you?
Report Post »PAPPY72
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 12:41pm@Eliasim: btw – I’m not getting down on you for what you said, I‘m just trying to understand why you’re saying to BurtHills that, for example: “your natural absorption of understanding is that God is going to come from space to whoop their rears…..” when that has nothing to do with what BurntHills said?
Also, God can interfere whenever and however He so Chooses, and I testify to the fact that God has interfered on my behalf on many occassions. God is directly involved in all things. Just because we don‘t see His hand doesn’t mean He’s not there. I‘m not saying that he’ll “save” the US. That depends on what His Plans are.
Report Post »MarketsClear
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:21amOh fundie Bachmann. Of course she can‘t see the difference between something she see’s as immoral because of emotion and religion, and something thats immoral because of a violation of rights. Government should be about protecting rights, not promoting a specific religious morality.
Report Post »SoupSandwich
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:29am@ Markets
Report Post »So you have goats with lipstick too?
rush_is_right
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:43amoh fundie wacko marketsclear have you no shame?
Report Post »David11
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:00amReligion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
Report Post »But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
rush_is_right
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:09am” But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.””
delusional. no one is good. and we’ve seen how wonderful you athiests like stalin, mao, pol pot, etc are…
Report Post »David11
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:25am“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it with religious conviction.”
Report Post »MarketsClear
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:29amI know sometimes property rights can be inconsistent with religious calls for prohibition, but from a natural rights perspective, the only limit on what actions a man can legitimately perform with his property are actions that violate the rights of another individual.You may find certain actions immoral, but you have no legitimate claim to restrict any action using your own force or the force of government. You are limited to peaceful persuasion.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:42am“I know sometimes property rights can be inconsistent with religious calls for prohibition,”
hey gomer, the progressives wanted prohibition…I would say get a clue, but its probably not possible in your case..
“the only limit on what actions a man can legitimately perform with his property are actions that violate the rights of another individual”
right so cruelty to animals is fine in your book…..you are sick, vile, evil and twisted.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:43am““Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it with religious conviction.””
really? looks like SMILIN joe Stalin was having a good time….
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:50am@RUSH_IS_RIGHT
That is completely an illogical assumption. Those guys were mass murderers, but they did not to do their evil deeds BECAUSE they were Atheists. They did not have delusions of a higher power telling them to do their deeds. They could not justify their deeds because a book told them to. They were just extremely evil people who did evil things.
Let’s talk about atheists in general. I’m an atheist and if I could I would go back in time to try and stop those evil deeds from being done by those insane monsters. I’m sure atheists agree that if they could stop Stalin, Mao, etc from killing all of those people they would.
Let’s talk about Christians now and the death of Jesus. If you could go back in time, would you choose to save Jesus from being crucified? If you believe Jesus died for your “sins” you MUST say NO. Not even would you NOT go back and save him from being murdered, you WANT him to die, you NEED him to die. You cheer and honor his death for your own sake. How moral is that? I would argue it’s not logical, then again Faith is not logical.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 12:00pm“Those guys were mass murderers, but they did not to do their evil deeds BECAUSE they were Atheists. ”
really, do you have ANY proof of that? its rather obvious when you think you are your own little god, you can do whatever you want to do.
“They were just extremely evil people who did evil things.”
of course, they just HAPPENED to be atheists…of course. so list your religious people that have killed as many…and please don’t give me hitler…getting into his religion, or lack of it, will get us nowhere.
“I’m sure atheists agree that if they could stop Stalin, Mao, etc from killing all of those people they would.”
you mean just like atheists stopped slavery?? oh wait that was CHRISTIANS who stopped slavery…sorry…..
“You cheer and honor his death for your own sake. How moral is that? I would argue it’s not logical, then again Faith is not logical.”
I know this is hard for you…but Jesus came to die…He did exactly what He wanted to do…He is God Almighty, and if He didn‘t want to do that then He wouldn’t have…..how hard is this?
its extremely logical, from HIS perspective….the penalty of sin must be paid for…no ordinary man could have done that…only HE could have….so it satisfies the penalty of sin, and brings more Glory to His name…..again, how hard is this? there are none so blind as those who say they see….
Report Post »MarketsClear
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 12:23pm@ Rush_is_right
Conservatives push prohibitionist policies all the time. Ever heard of the war on drugs?
Here is where you can discern the rational man from the emotionalist. I separate my view of logical ethics from personal morality. There is no coherent rational system where you can attribute rights to animals. The classical liberal tradition, man is granted rights either from his creator, or by the nature of his ability to reason. Since we cannot attribute rights to animals, they are either free in the state of nature or become property by a man mixing his labor with it. I may personally be opposed to animal cruelty and bestiality, but I will not use the force of government to limit the free and peaceful actions a man may perform with his property.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 12:32pm“Conservatives push prohibitionist policies all the time. Ever heard of the war on drugs? ”
the progressives outlawed drugs in the early 1900s…and nixon coined the term ‘war on drugs’ and he was anything but a conservative.
“Here is where you can discern the rational man from the emotionalist. I separate my view of logical ethics from personal morality. There is no coherent rational system where you can attribute rights to animals. The ”
oh so its rational to abuse animals…uh huh…you know the victorians didn’t abuse animals so much because they suffered, but because of what it brought out in the humans doing that….
“I may personally be opposed to animal cruelty and bestiality, but I will not use the force of government to limit the free and peaceful actions a man may perform with his property.”
so in other words your words are meaningless….kind of like the libs who are ‘personally’ opposed to abortion….right.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 12:55pm@Rush
Yes I have proof! If they were atheists(as you so label them), then they don’t believe in a God. The second you say they thought they were driven by a God, or Godly scripture, they are no longer an atheist. They were just evil people who did evil things. You can’t be “driven by Atheism” because then I would argue, “what is driving you?” You can’t claim that Atheists believe in nothing, but then they are driven to kill because they believe in nothing.
Have you ever heard of Exodus, the crusades, the inquisition, suicide bombers, the genocide in Rwanda. And that’s just in the three main religions that are prevalent today. If you had any sense of history, you would see how much carnage has been done BECAUSE of religion.
Christians were the ones holding the slaves! Go read your bible and read the passages where Jesus tells slaves to be good, and obey their masters like they obey Christ and for Masters not to whip their slaves too harshly.
And you finally proved my point. You did not say I was wrong when I claimed you would not go back and stop Jesus from being crucified. You used your religious faith to justify the murder of someone(on you behalf nonetheless), can you see that it’s not logical?
When did I claim to see? I am always open to new EVIDENCE and don’t let my faith keep me from being open minded.
You are the one who is grounded in their belief and KNOW they are right no matter the evidence.
Report Post »MarketsClear
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 1:17pmYou may be right that progressive enacted drug prohibition but modern so-called conservatives are appalled at the idea that an individual may ingest whatever he so desires (assuming its his property). Don‘t be so ignorant as to believe that both side don’t try to use government force to prohibit activities they don’t approve of.
“oh so its rational to abuse animals…uh huh…you know the victorians didn’t abuse animals so much because they suffered, but because of what it brought out in the humans doing that….”
This is inane and not a valid counterargument to asserting full property rights to the owners of animals.
And apparently you think the only recourse to promote your views is through using government force against anyone who disagrees with you. Libertarians aren’t so arrogant. I understand that not everyone accepts my moral code and it would be wrong to force it upon others. I will use only logic to find the cases where force may be legitimately applied, instead of appealing to emotion, tradition, religion, or using any other logical fallacy.
Rush, come back when you actually have a clue about natural rights theory and an understanding of secular logical analysis.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 1:57pm“Yes I have proof! If they were atheists(as you so label them), then they don’t believe in a God. The second you say they thought they were driven by a God, or Godly scripture, they are no longer an atheist. They were just evil people who did evil things. You can’t be “driven by Atheism” because then I would argue, “what is driving you?” You can’t claim that Atheists believe in nothing, but then they are driven to kill because they believe in nothing.”
and you think this is logical??? lol you didn’t understand what I said…if stalin believed in God, then he wouldn’t have been such a monster because he would understand the consequences….and he would believe that people are made in God’s image…but he didn’t, and slaughtering them was just like slaughtering cattle to stalin.
“Have you ever heard of Exodus,”
yes, I hate to tell you, but whatever God does is correct, just, holy, and right because HE does it…by definition.
“the crusades, ”
yes, THANK GOD FOR THE CRUSADES, or we would all be muslim…this is in no way comparable to what stalin did, and shows how shallow and desperate your arguments are. the crusades were defensive reaction to the muslim INVASION of europe…Charles Martel anyone?? the battle of Tours?? hmmmm??
“the inquisition, ”
oh gee the inquisition killed a couple of hundred people over a couple of centuries…and was instituted to eliminate vigilante justice…sigh…is this the best you can do?
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 2:02pm“suicide bombers,”
yeah a few THOUSAND victims…compared to TENS OF MILLIONS…uh huh.
” the genocide in Rwanda.”
again this is in no way comparable…this is tribal war…committed not on the orders of one man, like Stalin, as far as I know.
” And that’s just in the three main religions that are prevalent today. If you had any sense of history, you would see how much carnage has been done BECAUSE of religion.”
I see that atheism is responsible for more murders in one century than all the religious wars throughout history combined.
“Christians were the ones holding the slaves!”
and atheism has enslaved BILLIONS….oh and who was it who freed the slaves?? oh yeah christians…WILBERFORCE anyone? oh and I thought you atheists say our country was founded as a secular state, not a christian one…so you athiests are responsible for slavery in this country and the treatment of native americans in places like the trail of tears.
” Go read your bible and read the passages where Jesus tells slaves to be good, and obey their masters like they obey Christ and for Masters not to whip their slaves too harshly”
oh and the kind of slavery practiced then (debt slavery) was not the kind of slavery practiced in the 17th and 18th century…the bible actually forbids it…..
“He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16)
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 2:07pm“And you finally proved my point. You did not say I was wrong when I claimed you would not go back and stop Jesus from being crucified. You used your religious faith to justify the murder of someone(on you behalf nonetheless), can you see that it’s not logical?”
you have to twist what I say to try to prove a point…shows how desperate and how shallow your arguments are. I wasn’t arguing it from *my* perspective…rather from HIS perspective.
*my* perspective is rather meaningless in this case…HIS persepctive is the only one that matters…because HIS will be done, whether you like it or not, or approve of it or not.
oh and uh if you haven‘t noticed He’s not dead…so was He really murdered? hmmmm???
you really need logic (and honesty) 101
“When did I claim to see? I am always open to new EVIDENCE and don’t let my faith keep me from being open minded. ”
sure you are..I mean really its totally illogical to be an atheist in the first place…you are claiming you KNOW there is no god…when you cannot know that…its a matter of faith.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 2:12pm““Rush, come back when you actually have a clue about natural rights theory and an understanding of secular logical analysis.””
I understand I’ve made you look very foolish…and its not been very hard….
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 3:27pm@Rush
I beginning to think you are an Atheist or left winger who comes on here posing as a Christian just to make Christians look stupid. The majority of my friends are evangelical Christians, and they are all way more intelligent then you come across. I hope for Christianity’s sake, you are an imposter.
You claim I need honesty and logic 101 while above saying that everything God did was right because “he is God.“ Such ridiculous and childish thinking along the lines of ”My Daddy is right because my Daddy wouldn’t lie to me” you’d hear from a 6 year old.
All I hear you say is that the “numbers” compared don’t match up. And again, just because they were atheists(I’ll give you Mao and Stalin, Hitler is still questionable), they did those things because they were horrible human beings NOT because they were atheists. They had nothing but evil intentions driving their actions.
I am not twisting anybody’s words. I claimed that you would NOT go back and save Jesus from being crucified. You didn’t refute that, but instead told me WHY he had to be crucified. That is not logical or moral.
Did you just say Jesus is not dead? If he did not die, then he didn’t die for your sins, which is the whole point of your religion.
Atheists say there is no God based on the evidence. That we have not seen sufficient evidence to say there is a God, much less your God. I am always open to the possibility of being wrong. Can you make that same claim?
Report Post »ComradeAdam
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 3:44pmReligion is a call to be a better person. It implores us to make the most of ourselves, be industrious, kind, curteous, charitable etc. It sets a standard. If people fall short at least they are trying and a better person for it. To condemn the standard for failing to perfect the people is absurd. Imagine the state of the people that do not lift their eyes to a more lofty goal and hope for a better world. I find those that condemn religion do it because they hate that others are striving to become better, this casts a spotlight on the failures of their own life.
Report Post »Carter John
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 3:50pmMay I interpose some questions? You say that religion has killed millions. Tell me then how many homeless are fed and clothed by religious groups? How many sick kids have been treated for disabilities and disease at no cost to them or their family in religious hospitals? How many religious doctors go out to third world countries sometimes risking death to help their fellow man? How many ex-cons have been through a halfway house funded by religious groups? How many people have gone through AA and NAA at a church? How much aid has been sent to victims of natural and man made disasters be religious groups? Now tell me how much have you done?
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 4:00pm“I beginning to think you are an Atheist or left winger who comes on here posing as a Christian just to make Christians look stupid.”
oh you‘re just upset that I’ve made you look so stupid so easily.
“I beginning to think you are an Atheist or left winger who comes on here posing as a Christian just to make Christians look stupid.”
laughable stupidity…like you know better than God…why are you right, and HE is wrong in any given circumstance? hmmmmm??? oh yeah you think you are god.
“they did those things because they were horrible human beings NOT because they were atheists. ”
so you say, but you haven’t posted any logical proof, or sources that back up what you say.
“I claimed that you would NOT go back and save Jesus from being crucified. You didn’t refute that, but instead told me WHY he had to be crucified. That is not logical or moral.”
newsflash there gomer, the moral thing is to let Him be crucified…its what He wanted, and its the only way to save humanity. again how hard is this? again this goes back to God’s ways not being your ways, and His understanding is far beyond your understanding. the immoral thing is to do what you want, stop the crucifiction…just as Satan wanted to do…gee what an interesting ‘coincidence’
Report Post »ComradeAdam
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 4:01pm@ moderation
Report Post »Religion teaches us ‘Thou shalt not kill’. When some criminal zealot starts a religious ‘crusade’ and kills, is he doing what his religion has taught him? So, how can it be blamed on his religion? The religious crimes that have happened throughout the course of human history should not be blamed on religion, but a lack of religion and conviction.
People use charities to rob, should the charities be banned and condemn? A Religion should be accepted or rejected based on the teachings, not the faults of the imperfect people.
rush_is_right
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 4:03pm“Did you just say Jesus is not dead? If he did not die, then he didn’t die for your sins, which is the whole point of your religion. ”
yep He is Alive forevermore. didn‘t say He didn’t die, I said He’s alive…so was He really murdered? its a philosphical point lost on a simpleton like you, obviously.
“Atheists say there is no God based on the evidence. ”
what evidence? post your proof, it should be good for a laugh or two. you can look around at all this amazing complexity and say it just happened…..you prove the bible…when it says the fool says in his heart there is no god.
“I am always open to the possibility of being wrong. Can you make that same claim?”
oh sure, and I can tell you just how…Israel will cease to exists as a nation…now tell us your litmus test…bet ya can’t.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 4:09pm“I beginning to think you are an Atheist or left winger who comes on here posing as a Christian just to make Christians look stupid.”
(don’t know what happened to my response..so) you’re just upset becasue I make you look so stupid so easily…you atheists aren’t nearly as clever as you think you are.
“while above saying that everything God did was right because “he is God.“ Such ridiculous and childish thinking along ”
really? and who are you to judge what God does? such arrogance and hubris…you must think you are god.
“they did those things because they were horrible human beings NOT because they were atheists”
so you say, but you haven’t proven your point, by logic, or by any sources to back up such an idiot assertion.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 4:27pm““I claimed that you would NOT go back and save Jesus from being crucified. You didn’t refute that, but instead told me WHY he had to be crucified. That is not logical or moral.””
oh I forgot this response…
why would I refute that? He had to die…its the only logical and moral thing to do…otherwise He had to condemn all people to hell…again how hard is this? is it moral for a soldier to jump on a grenade to save his fellow troops? I mean seriously this is the level of atheist argument?? its pretty weak…
oh and I notice you are unable to refute my points about american slavery and treatment of native americans being the fault of atheists, so I will assume you concede the point.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 6:09pm@CARTER JOHN
All of those deeds could be done by non believers as well.
@Rush
I have refuted your claims, and what else is there to refute? I have NEVER said that there have never been evil deeds done by Atheists. I dunno where you get the feeling that I’ve said that. I’ve simply stated that when “Atheists” do evil things, it‘s because they’re evil people to their core. They don’t do it because their Atheism demands it.
You continue to make me laugh and when I point out the immorality in your so called “Good book” you come back with
“Well he’s God, so whatever he does is right.”
“Who are you to question God?”
The fact that I question your God, and you DON’T question your God is the whole point of this.
Not only that, but all you do is compare evil deeds to evil deeds and say “atheism has caused more.”
The fact that you compare proves my point.
If I could go back and stop all of the suffering that has been caused, I would do that.
If you could go back and stop all of the suffering in the Bible you would choose NOT to.
To whomever said “Our Bible teaches us thou shalt not kill.” Way to completely leave out the Old Testament in that thinking and the whole point is that people BELIEVE that they have God on their side in their actions. Would they do those things if they didn’t have their belief system? No one could know. Also how ironic that your Bible teaches “Thou shalt not kill.” but you cheer and honor Jesus wh
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 6:24pm“simply stated that when “Atheists” do evil things, it‘s because they’re evil people to their core. They don’t do it because their Atheism demands it. ”
so its just a ‘coincidence’ that so many atheist dictators slaughter people?? right.
“You continue to make me laugh and when I point out the immorality in your so called “Good book” you come back with”
you make me laugh when you think you know better than God does. God gives life…He takes it…and if He declares its time for one group of people to end, then His judgement is correct…and yours is incorrect…because who made you god?? I always enjoy reading the hubris and arrogance of atheists who think they know it all, and know better than God.
again this is a rather deep point that is wasted on a shallow intellect like yours.
“If I could go back and stop all of the suffering that has been caused, I would do that.”
really now? and do you know what would have happened without that suffering? you atheists trying to play god ITS WHY YOU SLAUGHTER PEOPLE ALL THE TIME…because atheists think they’re god.
” If you could go back and stop all of the suffering in the Bible you would choose NOT to.”
no because there are reasons, usually very good ones for suffering…for example do you think the japanese who suffered in the US firebombings and nuclear bombings should not have? hmmmm??
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 6:27pm“To whomever said “Our Bible teaches us thou shalt not kill.”
it actually says thou shall not murder…otherwise you couldn’t kill in self-defense. please.
“Way to completely leave out the Old Testament in that thinking and the whole point is that people BELIEVE that they have God on their side in their actions. ”
uh newsflash: there is no theocratic state of Israel anymore….the OT was given for a specific people at a specific time…that time is over.
but the whole point is atheists slaughter people because thats what atheism is…down deep you think you’re your own little god…and can do whatever you want…no restraints….its why atheistic governments, and people, are the most bloodthirsty evil people and regimes in history…you own it.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 7:06pm“I have refuted your claims, and what else is there to refute? I ”
uh you haven’t refuted any of my claims. you offer no proof, other than your own word, that stalin (for example) slaughtered for reasons other than atheism….you have stated no reasons for stalin’s slaughter, other than ‘he’s evil’. if stalin was an isolated example, it would make sense, but when you add to him all the bloodshed and slaughter of the atheistic communist rulers, then atheism has to be the driving force…I never read anything in the communist manifesto about slaughtering millions, have you?
your examples of religious slaughter are laughable at best, and you are unable to refute any of my points about the crusades, the inquisition, rwanda, etc.
I also notice you could not list anything that would prove the existence of God to you…mr. ‘open minded’ smirk….
Report Post »DooDooEcon
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:01pmI agree with regard to some religions, including Global Warming, progressivism, atheism and Islam.
Report Post »11:11
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:17ami’d really like to know who in the senate is for this repeal? last time i looked in a psychology book beastiality was deemed a sexual deviation, wow these people are nuts, and it won’t be long before oral sex with your spouse is grounds for imprisonment
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:20am“it won’t be long before oral sex with your spouse is grounds for imprisonment”
Ironically, oral sex is considered “sodomy” by the military, and was punishable by court martial until this was overturned. That‘s the part that won’t be discussed by Bachmann.
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:22amHa. You still haven’t figured out the direction. Why would they repeal a ban on something grotesque but lock you up for something else grotesque?
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:24amIt is more likely that they will tell you to do it outside your home, and if you don’t, then you will be locked-up.
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:29amHere‘s something people don’t like to hear. They are getting away with all these things because the majority of Americans are corrupt, selfish, and gossiping idolizers. You don’t have what it takes to “Really” tell them “No” as a collective, because ultimately you are afraid to lose your things, and far too jealous and distrustful of neighbors.
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:32amYou sit there saying “They are nuts” when it is in fact your government, you own it, it is you. And as long as people say “Them, those, those people“ instead of ”That’s me” then you will sit on your hands whining as it all crumbles around you.
Report Post »RichNGadsden
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:37am11:11, I’m sure you can count on every Democrat in the Senate starting with Dingy Harry. I want to know which Republicans voted for the bill. Particularly to find out how our two Republican Senators voted.
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:37amAnd while I say that the majority of American are just and reasonable it’s that I mean they have the potential to be just and reasonable, but that they won’t do, won’t perform, and just say. And that’s all it takes to be crushed.
Report Post »ReggieRay
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:43amSo like, at 5am this morning… me and the my old lady were commiting a crime? Oh Michelle, if you only knew the pleasures to be had between the sheet when you and you old man get-it-on!
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:08amHere is the November 30 vote for the NDAA, which included this overturning this provision. I’m not sure why it shows 88-12 instead of 93-7. But you can see the votes in it:
Report Post »http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2011-212
David
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:20am@LOCKED
“it won’t be long before oral sex with your spouse is grounds for imprisonment”
Definition: sod·om·y
[sod-uh-mee] noun
1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2. copulation with a member of the same sex.
3. bestiality ( def. 4 ) .
Where in this, or any definition have you ever heard sodomy concerning an OPPOSITE gender relationship???
The word, obviously, comes from the BIBLE, and the city of SODOM, and what was going on THERE, right, that was deemed sinful, whether you agree with (that part of) the Bible or not, right? And if you bother to READ it, there’s no mention or reference to any sort of improper sexual acts with OPPOSITE gender one on one relations, such as where to put their sexual organs for goodness sake!
I hate to break this to you, but according to the Bible, if a couple is married, the idea is that they are of “one flesh!” that means they can put whatever organ into whatever part of the body they want! it doesn’t matter… they are the SAME BODY and it is FINE with God. A man can stick his big toe into his wife’s mouth, or His wife her boobs into whatever! they are ONE BODY! Get it? holy unto God, ONE FLESH! That means it’s ALL GOOD! Sex only becomes bad if it’s out of marriage. in marriage anything goes! Maybe that’s one reason some of your marriages stink. lol Christian conservative marriages can be great if you love God and actually know the Bible! You just don’t touch
Report Post »David
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:26amAs for the military interpreting “sodomy” in any way about the sexual practices of a married (opposite gender, of course, the definition it’s always been) couple… that would be WAY out of bounds! I strongly suspect sodomy isn’t about opposite gender sexual relations. Maybe someone read a part about oral sex, and assumed it also applied to opposite gender. Sodomy by definition is only same sex. If the military meant it any other way, they would have changed the very defintion of sodomy, any dictionay defintion, just as the liberal want to change the defintion of marriage, making it a man with a horse, or a man with a man, or anything else than it’s ALWAYS meant since hisotry has began. Even throughout history, in times of homosexuality in cultures, it was never written about or seen as a “marriage,” there’s no allussions to that! It was simply seen as affairs of that nature. People never tried to make what a man had with a woman apply to same sex until these times, like trying to fit a suare peg into a round whole… sort of like trying to fit a male organ into a… well… nevermind. lol
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:35am@David
“Where in this, or any definition have you ever heard sodomy concerning an OPPOSITE gender relationship???”
In the UCMJ:
Article 125, explanation:
“It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.”
It took me by surprise when my friends overseas told me that at first. Turns out they were right. Anything outside of P-in-V sex has been forbidden up until this time. Overturning article 125 cleared this.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:38am@David
“As for the military interpreting “sodomy” in any way about the sexual practices of a married (opposite gender, of course, the definition it’s always been) couple… that would be WAY out of bounds! I strongly suspect sodomy isn’t about opposite gender sexual relations. ”
The UCMJ makes absolutely no differentiation between heterosexual or homosexual. It simply says “a person.” Again, if you’d look into the military rules, you’d know this. As many politicians say, the military has its own rules and isn’t always governed by civilian definitions. It was the same for sodomy.
Report Post »CanteenBoy
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:14amI am flummoxed as to why the Senate just legalized these acts??
Report Post »BurntHills
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:27amlike pedophilia, bestiality is permitted and encouraged in THE KORAN. obama is legally enabling the muslims in the US Military while totally opening the ranks to the most vile degenerates across America to enlist too. obama needs to degrade and corrupt the US Military to turn it into HIS private army of communist and atheist degenerates who will happily turn on the American citizens when obama commands it.
Report Post »CanteenBoy
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:43amInteresting approach.
Report Post »DesertRose1960
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:50am@Burnthills, What does the Bible say about judging others as you wish to be judged and treating others as you wish to be treated? Muslims are human beings and are no more likely to favor bestiality than you are, but since you can make the presumption that they’re all for it, maybe you’re revealing more about your character than you really intended. And don’t say you got your information from WikiIslam, that’s like saying you got your information on Blacks from a KKK site.
Report Post »OMG O Must Go
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 1:18pmBURNTHILLS reply seems to give the most credible reason Obama would want deviant sex in the military. I agree.
Report Post »Deckle
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:13amI would agree with Beck, watch the other hand something really foul is coming.
Report Post »copatriots
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:12amAgreed, but HOW did it pass the Senate with 93-7 in FAVOR????
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:18amBecause Beck and Bachmann are completely twisting what was repealed. It was a general ban against “sodomy,” which by the army’s rules, is anything besides v-a-ginal penetration. Under the old rules, getting a BJ from your legal wife could result in a court martial.
The “animal” part was simply written into the same sentence, so removing the section caused it to be removed too. Of course, laws against bestiality still stand, so it’s a complete non-issue. But controversy sells, so that‘s the part Beck and Bachmann aren’t discussing.
Report Post »copatriots
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:26amPathetic excuse, LOCKED. Somehow I think the numerous lawyers in Washington could have written the language such to disclude bestiality. This was, at best, lazy on the part of the Senate and sickening, at worst.
Report Post »balancebound
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:27amThis just shows that in America we can still kick ass. We are kicking Rome’s ass in terms of the rise of Decadence and the fall of an Empire.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:28am@Locked
Are you saying that Bachmann and Beck are inventing an issue to get the fundies up in arms over a non-issue. Distorting the truth in such a manner is lying…maybe the roots were right in their description of her.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:33am“Pathetic excuse, LOCKED. Somehow I think the numerous lawyers in Washington could have written the language such to disclude bestiality. This was, at best, lazy on the part of the Senate and sickening, at worst.”
You don’t like the answer? Petition the military to put in a section only about bestiality… or be content knowing that it’s still illegal to sexually abuse animals and thus that part was redundant at best.
Also, disclude means “to make known,“ not ”to not include.”
Report Post »copatriots
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:42amDisclude can mean both definitions and you obviously knew which I meant.
Verb
disclude (third-person singular simple present discludes, present participle discluding, simple past and past participle discluded)
To disclose, make known.
To exclude, not include; to remove from inclusion.
That clarified, perhaps you are right that it is disallowed in the military……and I hope you are. Either way, the language worked for decades until we were “nudged” enough to have to change it. I remain disgusted at the direction this country is heading as it burns.
Report Post »almont
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:54amI think we need to implement random drug tests for members of both houses and the WH……they have got to be on something. This is getting crazy.
Report Post »BetterDays
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:21amNot to mention ( again ), the “ indefinite detention” of American citizens this bill contains. And on that tact, KBR a division of Haliburton has released a request for “ contractors ” in the five “ regions”. Contractors shall bid as follows ( see link ) http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-government-activating-fema-camps-across-u-s/.
Report Post »Hopefully someone here can get into the bidding process, doing so will guarantee a three day heads’ up warning for the rest of us , I‘ve a feeling we’re going to need it!
Locked
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:47am@Betterdays
That’s EXACTLY what should be discussed about this bill, not the repealing of a redundant article. I wonder if Bachmann either doesn’t know about the indefinite detention portion, or if she supports it?
Report Post »grudgywoof
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:12amSodom and Gamorrah. We’re Doomed.
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:20amWell, you are doomed because almost all Americans sit on their hands because they are slothful.
Report Post »Rillobymorning
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:31amYou’re so right. When Bibles are not allowed now in some military hospitals, while Senate is repealing laws against sodomy and beastiality, this country is being reduced to Sodom and Gomorrah. I pray every day for God’s quick return.
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:42amI’ve got news for you, God isn’t just going to come save you, and the spirit of God returns when people do. Otherwise you are going to sit there getting pounded until there is nothing left of you.
Report Post »PAPPY72
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 12:02pm@Eliasim: What do you do in your life to confront the Godlessness we are experiencing?
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:11amI keep trying to write a good response, but I can’t seem to do so without coming off as overly insulting. I’ll rewrite it all again, and see if I can contain my distaste for the topic at hand.
There are a number of issues wrong with the subject and/or Beck and Bachmann’s understanding of it.
1. Sodomy included any penetration besides v-a-ginal. That included ********, for example, or anal sex with your legal, heterosexual wife/girlfriend. Some people are into that kind of thing. It was NOT a gays-only rule.
2. The bestiality part was written into the same sentence as the sodomy portion, something like “sodomy is not allowed with any other human or animal.“ By taking out the ”human” portion, it had to remove the bestiality portion as well.
3. General laws against bestiality still stand; it just is no longer specified in the Army’s rules. No goatse for anyone who doesn’t want to get arrested.
Trying to turn this into a political issue is a terrible distraction from actual issues. It shows once more that Bachmann is a joke candidate, and Beck is simply a talking head. I know that my friends fighting for us in Iraq are thankful that they don’t have to worry about an officer with a chip on his shoulder trying to bust them for getting some BJs.
Report Post »goatrope67
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:15amGolf clap!!! Bout damn time that someone said EXACTLY the thing I was thinking.
Report Post »atlantaguy111
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:27amGood clarification, thanks…
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:40am” “sodomy is not allowed with any other human or animal.“
” “sodomy is not allowed with any animal.“
I just removed it. Why did they *have* to include animals in removal? I don’t understand.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:47am“The bestiality part was written into the same sentence as the sodomy portion, something like “sodomy is not allowed with any other human or animal.“ By taking out the ”human” portion, it had to remove the bestiality portion as well.
”
yeah I know it was TOO hard for them to put in anything about beastialtiy…after all obama is FAR too busy trying to save the economy….
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:01am@Ghost of Jefferson
“I just removed it. Why did they *have* to include animals in removal? I don’t understand.”
Because the entire National Defense Authorization Act legislation was 669 pages and they didn’t want to have to redraft the entire thing when they could have just removed a provision that was redundant? That would be my guess.
For a clear answer, you’d have to ask the military heads who drafted the Act. Or else you get commentators and pundits giving explanations and really just taking shots in the dark.
Report Post »jeffile
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:01amThe military is a conservative organization and will surely respond appropriately.
925. ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
Simple and most probable solution
Report Post »925. ART. (new article) BEASTILITY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in carnal copulation with an animal is guilty of beastality. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
David
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:28am@LOCKED
“it won’t be long before oral sex with your spouse is grounds for imprisonment”
Definition: sod·om·y
[sod-uh-mee] noun
1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2. copulation with a member of the same sex.
3. bestiality ( def. 4 ) .
Where in this, or any definition have you ever heard sodomy concerning an OPPOSITE gender relationship???
The word, obviously, comes from the BIBLE, and the city of SODOM, and what was going on THERE, right, that was deemed sinful, whether you agree with (that part of) the Bible or not, right? And if you bother to READ it, there’s no mention or reference to any sort of improper sexual acts with OPPOSITE gender one on one relations, such as where to put their sexual organs for goodness sake!
I hate to break this to you, but according to the Bible, if a couple is married, the idea is that they are of “one flesh!” that means they can put whatever organ into whatever part of the body they want! it doesn’t matter… they are the SAME BODY and it is FINE with God. A man can stick his big toe into his wife’s mouth, or His wife her boobs into whatever! they are ONE BODY! Get it? holy unto God, ONE FLESH! That means it’s ALL GOOD! Sex only becomes bad if it’s out of marriage. in marriage anything goes! Maybe that’s one reason some of your marriages stink. lol Christian conservative marriages can be great if you love God and actually know the Bible!
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:53am@David
As you felt the need to post the same response twice, allow me to do the same:
“Where in this, or any definition have you ever heard sodomy concerning an OPPOSITE gender relationship???”
In the UCMJ:
Article 125, explanation:
“It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.”
Note that nowhere does it make a difference between homosexual or heterosexual. It just says that sodomy is sex involving the mouth or the anus.
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 12:09pmAll this wondering (confusion) is intentional, Mr. Carney could have laid ALL this to rest by answering the reasonable question directly, simply and honestly. That he did not do that tells me to be very cautious, especially so with this administration and the spirit that drives it. Contradictory laws do not make for good law. Based on the comments here that seems the case.
Report Post »I like Mrs. Bachmann, she is a righteous woman, this nation desperatly needs some righteous direction. There is no “perfect” candiate, but evil hates her!
I.Gaspar
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:11amCan you blame obama?
Report Post »He doesn’t want to alienate his main supporters on the far left, most of whom find bestiality just another path to follow…How can a true Progressive legislate against sex outside your species?
goatrope67
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:16amDo you honestly think that liberals think that bestiality is okay? If so you have have drunk WAY TOO MUCH of the kool-aid.
Report Post »I.Gaspar
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:19amGoatrope:
Report Post »Why is your name Goatrope?
I think it may speak volumes….
Hiswill
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:10amWhat has this great nation become that we would even be putting something like this before our Congress? What happened to our moral fiber over the past 20 years? If we continue on this path, we won’t have to worry about terrorist doing us in; we will do it to ourselves. The US is falling farther and farther into the pit. Pray for our country.
Report Post »copatriots
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:23amAgreed HISWILL (love your icon too)! Sadly, barring God’s intervention, we are already done as a country. I’ve been saying this for 3 years now……even if the most conservative among the Repubs get elected and conservatives control both the House and Senate, the czars currently are re-writing everything behind the scenes. They will tie up every single thing the new admin tries to do in the courts for years to come which will disrupt and bankrupt whatever is left of America. Worse, though, is that I don’t see a Repub winning the White House. The vote will be manipulated and/or stolen.
Report Post »littlefish
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:10amHow does one even propose to make sodomy for servicemen . . . .LEGAL . . .
Report Post »Conversation: “Now that gays can ”Openly” serve , we must pave the way for other personal preferences that our service men and women may indulge in . . . .Masturbation during Marches . . .Chomping off bat heads . . . . molesting children ( if parents approve ) , wiping Ass with US Flag…………………
simplygilly
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:10amAs commander in chief, the buck stops with Obama and ultimately his approval. Sodomy, I understand. That‘s what he’s been doing to the country for three years. But beastiality? It’s not in my religion. Is it in his?
Report Post »BurntHills
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:30amyes it is, like pedophilia, bestiality is encouraged and approved in the koran.
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 2:16pmYo Burnthills:
WHERE is this stated ?
Report Post »If you are going to make such a statement please provide some proof !
1stzookid
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:07amSodom and Gomorrah. The United States of America has been doomed by our government.
Report Post »Detroit paperboy
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:07amLook at what he sleeps with, its a no brainer……
Report Post »WarSquid
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:21amIf that’s not a “beast”, I don’t know what is!
Report Post »biohazard23
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:46amYes, Chewie does appear to reside in the White House.
Report Post »mrsalvage2
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 12:47pm@WarSquid – the First Knukle Dragger?
Report Post »mrsalvage2
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:07amThe Senate is abhorent and reprehensible.
Bachman is too – until she truthfully tells the world that she is ashamed of her working for the IRS because the 16th Amendment gave the Congress no new poweer of taxation (Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.) to harass, abuse, and destroy Americans.
Santorum is abhorrent, as he has sat with this filfth in Washington and not exposed them and the Lawyer Aristorcracy for removing the Preamble to the Bill of Rights from their Operating Procedure and thus violating their Oaths of Office.
The diseased thought of the past has got us to this point, and it must be confronted and eliminated. Her thoughts are still part of the Problem, not the solution of LIBERTY.
Report Post »JLGunner
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:07amlets see, the naacp going to the UN complaining about voter discrimination against minorities, tax dollars used to defend and promote lbgt movement globally, and repeal laws against sodomy and beastiality in the military. Yep, we are done as a country.
Report Post »KINGRUDDY
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:06amWhere is the common sense???!!!
Report Post »OMG….“repel bans on beastiality and sodomy”…OMG……and they voted to remove this…
What is next? If no common sense, then occuping forclosed homes will be approved, and of course to stop paying school loans will be no big deal and acceptable. Captialism will be dead!!!
Say good bye to our liberty, freedom, and persuit of happiness!!!
WAKE up America!!!!
FreedomOne
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:06amhow am I suppose to speak my mind if my posts don’t even get the chance to be posted? beck has clearly made his choice for his presidential vote.
Report Post »FreedomOne
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:05amSounds like Bech has made his choice who he is voting for! Bachmann is on more then any other front runner, and she isn’t even a front runner. I would have her as my staff but not pres.
Report Post »Hiswill
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:13amBeck chooses what’s right, not what’s popular.
Report Post »mrsalvage2
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:04amThe Senate is abhorent and reprehensible.
Bachman is too – until she truthfully tells the world that she is ashamed of her working for the IRS because the 16th Amendment gave the Congress no new poweer of taxation (Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.) to harass, abuse, and destroy Americans.
The diseased thought of the past has got us to this point, and it must be confronted and eliminated. Her thoughts are still part of the Problem, not the solution of LIBERTY.
Report Post »1stzookid
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:13amShe is the closest person that believes the way most Americans believe. So what if she’s not perfect in your eyes. Are you perfect? All the others that are running for President are liars and 2 faced.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:33amDr. Paul is not a liar — he is not two-faced — Ron Paul’s words have been twisted far too long —
“Ron Paul Blowback and Why They Hate Us”
video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_dd8WS0oOc
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 12:56pmBackman was hit on for taking earmarks, yet she and Glenn hit Dr. Paul for earmarks? What the heck is going on? Earmarks are complicated, but as I understand it money is set aside to spend. States vie for that money. If money isn’t spent, then Obama gets to spend it any way he wishes. Dr. Paul is just trying to prevent him from getting a “blank check. I agree with Dr. Paul on that! Congress should spend money, not the President.
Report Post »On The Bayou
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:04am@ Ghostofjefferson not the old USA my friend. It`s changing by the moment. And if it`s ok I`d like to know where the Commander In Chief stands on having sex with animals. And is he in fact having sex with animals?
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:04amNormally I would say: well why should it be a law to begin with when it is that people will just not have anything to do with a person who sleeps with sheep, and that one would be an outcast in the minds of many? Except, unfortunately I can not at this time embrace that view-point, because additionally (as I have determined from the direction of Society and law), the corrupt politicians will also pass legislation including the despise people have for those who commit bestiality, as a hate-crime. Anyone who despises people who sleep with animals will be charged with a hate-crime.
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:13amTherefore unless the majority of Americans either want to become an proponent of bestiality or get locked up for hate-crimes, they might want to all get on the same sheet of music with each other.
Report Post »randy
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:03amI’ll answer the question for Obama…..
OBAMA: Of course I support bestiality, just look at who I go to bed with every night.
Report Post »Captain Crunch
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:00amPresident Obama is “absolutely abhorrent, reprehensible”!
Report Post »stablepar
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:13amif you hit your computer and do a quick, simple study on islam and bestiality your mind is going to start opening up a slew of brand spanking new cans of worms. why am i not surprised, shocked and dismayed. seems to me christianity is being persecuted and islam is the religion of choice by the rulers of the usa. be very frightened or better yet get on your knees. this isn’t going away soon. bet you didn’t see this coming 6 years ago
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:17amYou said it all; pithy and true.
Report Post »