(V):

> If we went by a rule that everyone who strays and is in public office has to resign.. Does that mean teachers, the bin men, police officers, etc all have to quit?

What about those who work for private companies but are paid contracts by taxpayers?

For example, the roof leaks in a government-owned building. The government hires a roofing contractor to fix that roof and the contractor is paid with tax dollars. The contractor does the same thing as Weiner did. Should that contractor be sacked and scrutinized publicly?

Another example. A "security contractor" is hired by the CIA to do some work among terrorists in Afghanistan. This contractor turns out to do what Weiner did. Should that contractor be ridiculed publicly and sacked?

What about a CIA operative doing a sensitive intelligence matter? If his identity is revealed publicly it would jeopardize an intelligence operation. He goes on to do what Weiner did. Should that person be scrutinized publicly?

There are a lot of examples of this. Many private companies are paid millions of dollars in contracts. Some of these companies do multi-billion dollar projects paid for by taxpayers. If the CEO of one of those companies uses his money and position to become a philanderer, should he be scrutinized publicly and sacked? After all, that CEO will make millions at taxpayers expense.

Tuesday: Then it should have been left as a private matter. Between him and his missus and any relevant family.

If we went by a rule that everyone who strays and is in public office has to resign.. Does that mean teachers, the bin men, police officers, etc all have to quit?

I ask this about David Duke as it would be strange to have a President automatically banned from certain countries due to his views on the Holocaust.

I imagine him being a KKK member and a believer in ....

"With the above understanding of nations and States, we Whites can examine our own situation better. Phrasing our position in terms of the basic nationalist arguments, one can state that we Whites are a nation, that the interests and values of that nation take priority over all others and that we must be as independent as possible. Therefore, we must embark on a program leading towards greater sovereignty and security for our nation. We must not let ANY government impose policies and programs that are harmful to our nation's interests."

.. will cause some problems when it comes to diplomatic relations with other countries.

Btw.. I think he hates Jewish people as well.. is this guy considered racist in the USA or just some neo nazi crackpot?

Is David Duke being asked to run for pres by the Tea party as he claims?

lizrising: “Diaper Dave” was forgiven and re-elected because if he stepped down the Republicans would lose a seat of power to a Democrat!!

(V): I agree that if you've done nothing illegal, there's no reason to just up and resign your position. It's up to your constituants to vote your butt out for being an immoral creeper! If you've broken the law (ahem, Vitter) you should be thrown out of public office. Taxpayers shouldn't pay the salaries of criminals.

Tuesday: So.... ???

Don't members of the public mess up their marriages, have open relationships.. swinging parties and other events... as in some places prostitution is legal.

Are these serving people formally members of the public? So why if the public can be human do we expect politicians, etc to be robots?

Tuesday: So those Christian funde's are going for more PR are they. Hasn't the case come to the Supreme court yet banning such action!! Or is the poor excuse of free speech going to run over peoples rights to have a peaceful funeral respecting America's war dead yet again!!

Why is it still so bad in some people's minds that a person has to lose their job if they are in public office and have sexual desires

.. If the same rule applied to the private sector... then directors, etc would be falling at the rate of ten a penny. But business doesn't seem to care, as being human seems to be a recognised condition and separate to how good you can run a business.

watch out what you "copy" from Google, you might get sued.....

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/93775/british-student-faces-extradition-to-the-us-for-linking-to-copyrighted-material/

Artful Dodger: well he's gone now LOL...resigned...

The secret Republicans and the Tea Party Supporters don't want you to know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k71DYM20WRM&

Maybe the USA government needs to undo some of Raygun's gifts to the rich. Now that administration will take far more than the neo-con's are saying Obama's doing to beat Raygun's reputation as the worst Presidents of all time.. His admin will certainly take alot to beat in terms of criminal activity, corruption and blatant lying.

Artful Dodger: Weiner's a creep but I'm still waiting for David Vitter to resign since what he did was actually illegal, and hypocritical given his political platform.

Bernice: Yep. I think no matter how changes in peoples views over marriage change (as it has) the King or Queen will have to get married. Church of England head of thingy

Bernice: Some are humour, some of it came from him being in the navy..some are just him being a 90 year old. Different age.

Some of this "Different age" has come to light over the remake of the Dambusters film and a dog who was called a latin name for black. Now.. it cannot be used.

It's like some Australians calling us Brits "Limeys" or thinking we eat chip butties all the time. Nobody except really sensitive people really care.

Oh wow...I didn't know that - married huh?

IDJIT...he is a goon....no tact is what it is....NOT HUMOUR

Übergeek 바둑이: I think his job as HRH hubby paid better.. Plus I think he'd loved more to have been on the Goon Show

(V):

If that is the case he should have joined the Montyh Python crew!

Bernice: He's 90 married to the Queen. And has a classic British sense of humour. Something one American comedian stated is hard to understand by those outside the UK.

Artful Dodger: Just think.. not that long ago, the enlightened world allowed marital rape...

As the concept of human rights has developed, the belief of a marital right to sexual intercourse has become less widely held. Feminists worked systematically since the 1960s to overturn the marital rape exemption and criminalize marital rape.[11] Increasing criminalization of spousal rape is part of a worldwide reclassification of sexual crimes "from offenses against morality, the family, good customs, honor, or chastity … to offenses against liberty, self-determination, or physical integrity."[12] In December 1993, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights published the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women[11]. This establishes marital rape as a human rights violation.

Despite these trends and international moves, criminalization has not occurred in all UN member States. In 1997, UNICEF reported that just 17 States criminalized marital rape.[13] In 2003, UNIFEM reported that more than 50 States did so.[14] In 2006, the UN Secretary General found "Marital rape may be prosecuted in at least 104 States. Of these, 32 have made marital rape a specific criminal offence, while the remaining 74 [sic] do not exempt marital rape from general rape provisions. Four States criminalize marital rape only when the spouses are judicially separated."[14]

Countries which were early to criminalize marital rape include the Soviet Union (1922/1960),[15] Poland (1932), Czechoslovakia (1950), Denmark (1960), Sweden (1965),[16] Norway (1971), and some other members of the Communist Bloc.[16] The Israeli Supreme Court affirmed that marital rape is a crime in a 1980 decision, citing law based on the Talmud.[17][18] Criminalization in Australia began with the state of New South Wales in 1981, followed by all other states from 1985 to 1992.[19] Several formerly British-ruled countries followed suit: Canada (1983),[20][21] New Zealand (1985), and Ireland (1990).[19]

Many United States rape statutes formerly precluded the prosecution of spouses, including estranged or even legally separated couples. In 1975, South Dakota removed this exception.[22] In 1993, North Carolina became the last state to remove the spousal exemption.[23] However, as of 1999, 33 of 50 U.S. states regard spousal rape as a lesser crime [Bergen, 1999]. The perpetrator may be charged with related crimes such as assault, battery, or spousal abuse. There are other criminal charges that may be inapplicable to married couples. For example, in the U.S., there is a marriage exemption to the charge of statutory rape even if one of the spouses is under the age of consent in the jurisdiction where the sexual act takes place.

France's Cour de Cassation authorized prosecution of spouses for rape or sexual assualt in 1990, but ruled in 1992 that a presumption of consent exists from the time of marriage until it is revoked by either party.[24] In 1994, Law 94-89 criminalized marital rape;[24] a second law, passed 4 April 2006, makes rape by a partner (including in unmarried couples, married couples, and in civil unions) an aggravating circumstance in prosecuting rape.[25] Germany outlawed spousal rape only in 1997, which is later than other developed countries. Female ministers and women's rights activists lobbied for this law for over 25 years.[26



............... Just think.. If we hadn't made such a mess by supporting fundamentalist groups to kill "our enemies", maybe the mindset would be different. Less neo-con.

Pedro Martínez:

From The American Muslim


"By the way, do you read Quran"

Bits and pieces, like I do with quite a few religions. I'm particularly fond of comparison you see, helps free the spirit.

Sufi's of the Islam faith I have read quite a few bits. Such as this....

"5.If a man has bad (sinful) actions [‘amal] so be it, but Allah forbid that his Belief [‘aqeedah] is bad. In a hadith it is written that run from a leper as you would from a lion; those with bad Belief are lepers of the heart—protect yourself from them, in fact do not even sit where they have sat. "

by Naqshbandi Sufi Master from Pakistan.

(V): “Muslim organizations, mosques and imams have endorsed the preceding fatwa as of July 28, 2005 (see below).”

Where exactly below can I see it?

By the way, do you read Quran, QurŒan, QurԒan, QurҒan or QurӒan?

The Fiqh Council of North America wishes to reaffirm Islam’s absolute condemnation of terrorism and religious extremism.
Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives. There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism. Targeting civilians life and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram Җ or forbidden - and those who commit these barbaric acts are criminals, not martyrs.Ӕ

The Quran, IslamҒs revealed text, states: “Whoever kills a person [unjustly]it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind.” (QurŒan, 5:32)

Prophet Muhammad said there is no excuse for committing unjust acts: “Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well, and that if they do wrong you will do wrong to them. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong (even) if they do evil.” (Al-Tirmidhi)

God mandates moderation in faith and in all aspects of life when He states in the Quran: ғWe made you to be a community of the middle way, so that (with the example of your lives) you might bear witness to the truth before all mankind. (QurԒan, 2:143)

In another verse, God explains our duties as human beings when he says: Let there arise from among you a band of people who invite to righteousness, and enjoin good and forbid evil.Ӕ (Quran, 3:104)
Islam teaches us to act in a caring manner to all of God’s creation. The Prophet Muhammad, who is described in the QurҒan as a mercy to the worldsӔ said: All creation is the family of God, and the person most beloved by God (is the one) who is kind and caring toward His family.”

In the light of the teachings of the QurӒan and Sunnah we clearly and strongly state:

1. All acts of terrorism targeting civilians are haram (forbidden) in Islam.
2. It is haram for a Muslim to cooperate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence.
3. It is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to cooperate with law enforcement authorities to protect the lives of all civilians.

We issue this fatwa following the guidance of our scripture, the Quran, and the teachings of our Prophet Muhammad Җ peace be upon him. We urge all people to resolve all conflicts in just and peaceful manners.

We pray for the defeat of extremism and terrorism. We pray for the safety and security of our country, the United States, and its people. We pray for the safety and security of all inhabitants of our planet. We pray that interfaith harmony and cooperation prevail both in the United States and all around the globe.


.....145 Muslim organizations, mosques and imams have endorsed the preceding fatwa as of July 28, 2005 (see below). More signatory organizations are to be added in the following days. To add your American Muslim organization to the list, please email your name, title, and affiliation to cair@cair-net.org.

Tuesday: China has had population control for decades, yet that is an extreme example of the problems of overpopulation and how to stop it.

Bernice: ?????????????

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Artful Dodger: Are you falsely claiming that others (including me are) not honest.

We are more honest then you are.

"And it's only been used twice and only in extreme circumstances."

I hear on three people so far (requires more investigation to reasonably confirm numbers), and the number of times on two people was 266 times. It can kill or even cause damage to the lungs and brain.

The technique of waterboarding or any kind of torture is against what Christ taught, by nature of what it says in the Bible. Even when arrested Christ healed the ear of one of the arresting party that one of his buddies had cut off.

If you cannot accept Christ's words then go back to being a non Christian please, as you are giving Christians a bad name.

Artful Dodger:

> You have to twist history for that (and you do and have).

How have I twisted history? Christians fought wars for wealth and empire. They came to the Americas and exterminated entire cultures to convert the native inhabitants into Christians. Christians fought wars during the Reformation and even in our present era conflicts between Protestants and Catholics remain. Christians burned people at the stake, they tortured people, forced people to convert to their religion against their will. Christians prosecuted Jews, Moslems, Gypsies, and other religious minorities.

These are not twisted historical facts. These are well-known historical facts.

> I don't defend war for the purpose of building empires or extracting commodities.

What was your stance on the war in Iraq? Did you see it as right or wrong? I hope that you did not celebrate its arrival like many Americans did. The Bush administration lied to the American people and carried on a war of empire building and oil supply control. Let's say for a moment that I am wrong. War of any kind should be abhorrent to any Christian. Violence of any kind should be abhorrent to any Christian. That is the core of the Sermon on the Mount. So can any war be justified on political or ideological grounds?

> By being against that, you would be in favor of seeing innocent people die rather than some low-life terrorist experience a few moments of fearful discomfort.

Now I will use fear to compromise my faith. I am afraid of terrorists, so I will justify an act of violence. I know that in the real world there are cruel people, but does that justify being violent? I see these politicians saying that they are Christians, then they turn around and justify violence out of political motives and fear. I suppose God makes exceptions when higher ideals are used to justify violence, physical or psychological.

> Gun ownership is legal.

I am not talking about the law or the constitution. I am talking about true Christian values. Is it a Christian value to say that it is OK for a person to buy and learn to use a lethal weapon? I will hide behind the constitution and say that something that is unChristian is acceptable because it is legal. Pornography is legal. It is legal to buy it, own it, see it, etc. Does that make pornography acceptable to a Christian?

I bring these things up not to put you on the spot, or to make Christianity look bad. I bring them up because I think a lot of people make compromises with their beliefs. There are many things that deep inside we know how wrong they are. Yet we justify them in the name of higher ideals. We hide behind those higher principles to do wrong.

That is precisely what terrorists do. These people know that killing is wrong. They know it is unacceptable to their version of God and their religion. But they do it in the name of some ideology.

Cristians might tell themselves that they are better, but are they really? How can a Christian make that claim when that person has compromised the core principles of Christianity in the name of politics, ideology or abstract ideals?

5. [Thereon] out of the Light . . . 1 a Holy Word (Logos) 2 descended on that Nature. And upwards to the height from the Moist Nature leaped forth pure Fire; light was it, swift and active too. The Air, too, being light, followed after the Fire; from out the Earth-and-Water rising up to Fire so that it seemed to hang therefrom. But Earth-and-Water stayed so mingled each with other, that Earth from Water no one could discern. 3 Yet were they moved to hear by reason of the Spirit-Word (Logos) pervading them.

6. Then saith to me Man-Shepherd: Didst understand this Vision what it means?

Nay; that shall I know, I said. That Light, He said, am I, thy God, Mind, prior to Moist Nature which appeared from Darkness; the Light-Word (Logos) [that appeared] from Mind is Son of God.

p. 6

What then?—say I. Know that what sees in thee 1 and hears is the Lord’s Word (Logos); but Mind is Father-God. Not separate are they the one from other; just in their union [rather] is it Life consists.

(V): I understand that thank you