Kirsten Powers for President

Wavels said:

I am well aware of Ms. Powers and have been for years, my question was, quite simply, who is Finshaggy?

Click to expand...

Wavels said:

Well then, Thanks Mr. Finshaggy...you provide an interesting perspective.

Click to expand...

Commander Strax said:

Rose Tyler for president, count me in!!!

Click to expand...

Pinworm said:

Get a fucking dick, fin.

Click to expand...

Finshaggy said:

Get a fucking clue, Pin.

Click to expand...

Pinworm said:

Can I use that as my siggy?

Click to expand...

Finshaggy said:

I made this other thread when the Republicans were calling Hillary old https://www.rollitup.org/politics/804579-lofl-2.html

But I just realized something, and I know there are a bunch of people from the UK on RIU, so I know you know who this is. Doesn't Kirsten Powers look like Rose Tyler?

Kirsten Powers

Rose Tyler

Kirsten Powers for president, she worked for Hilary, she is younger (for the 80 year old Republicans that think a 69 year old woman can't do the job she has prepared for since she was 7) and more willing to look at both sides of the issue.

Tweet @KirstenPowers to let her know if you support her for 2016.

Click to expand...

Doer said:

Having never seen her naked, (and I have looked) I can say my support for her is rather soft. But, it can prick up.

She is no politician. She is a rehearsed talking head. And she is wishy washy to me...blowing in the winds of change as a Token on Foggs. She has no original thought. She has tapped danced back, all her support for Obama without ever having said so.

I think she is a stunning., wide eyed, open mouthed Babe. But, she is a paid hack. They all are. I am trying to think of one cross over from the 5th Estate into politics. The only one I can think of is the guy that was the Press Secretary for Bush, that died of Cancer. He was on Fox.

But, I cannot think of a single elected person from the Press.

Click to expand...

Finshaggy said:

I understand how hard it is to get past the fact that she is on FOX and I guess for most people it's hard to get past the fact that she is pretty, but she doesn't JUST appear on FOX. She is in USA Today and the Washington Post I think it is, so when you see her she is trying to be fair to the conservatives and is respecting the fact that THEY are letting her on THEIR show, but that is just her being fair.

And can you think of any black presidents? Besides Obama and Clinton.
Shit happens. And if she was president, I think people like Edward Snowden would get a voice.

Click to expand...

Conservative Christian groups in Arizona cheered the passage Thursday oflegislation that would allow individuals and businesses in the state to deny service to same-sex couples due to religious beliefs.

All eyes have shifted to Governor Jan Brewer, who must now decide whether to sign the bill. Similar legislation died in Kansas last week, but has also been introduced in Ohio, Mississippi, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Oklahoma.
The Arizona law seems to apply to services beyond those tied to weddings, but same-sex weddings are the impetus for these bills. Specifically, they are in response to lawsuits against three different Christians who refused to photograph, bake a cake, and sell flowers for same-sex weddings. The backers of these laws claim that a Christian cannot, in good conscience, provide a good or service for a same-sex wedding because it violates the teachings of Christianity.
If these bills become law, we could see same-sex couples being denied service not just by photographers and florists, but also restaurants and hotels and pretty much anyone else who can tie their discrimination to a religious belief.
Many on the left and right can agree that nobody should be unnecessarily forced to violate their conscience. But in order to violate a Christian’s conscience, the government would have to force them to affirm something in which they don’t believe. This is why the first line of analysis here has to be whether society really believes that baking a wedding cake or arranging flowers or taking pictures (or providing any other service) is an affirmation. This case simply has not been made, nor can it be, because it defies logic. If you lined up 100 married couples and asked them if their florist “affirmed” their wedding, they would be baffled by the question.
Strangely, conservative Christians seem to have little interest in this level of analysis and jump right to complaints about their legal and constitutional rights. It’s not that these rights don’t matter. Rather, they should be a secondary issue for Christians. Before considering legal rights, Christians wrestling with this issue must first resolve the primary issue of whether the Bible calls Christians to deny services to people who are engaging in behavior they believe violates the teachings of Christianity regarding marriage. The answer is, it does not.
Nor does the Bible teach that providing such a service should be construed as participation or affirmation. Yet Christian conservatives continue to claim that it does. So it seems that the backers of these bills don’t actually believe what they are saying. Because if they truly believe that a vendor service is an affirmation, then they need to explain why it is only gay and lesbian weddings that violate their conscience.
If you refuse to photograph one unbiblical wedding, you should refuse to photograph them all. If not, you'll be seen as a hypocrite and as a known Christian, heap shame on the Gospel. As all Christians know, Jesus saved his harshest words for the hypocritical behavior of religious people. So, if Christian wedding vendors want to live by a law the Bible does not prescribe, they must at least be consistent.
Before agreeing to provide a good or service for a wedding, Christian vendors must verify that both future spouses have had genuine conversion experiences and are “equally yoked” (2 Corinthians 6:14) or they will be complicit with joining righteousness with unrighteousness. They must confirm that neither spouse has been unbiblically divorced (Matthew 19). If one has been divorced, vendors should ask why. Or perhaps you don’t even have to ask. You may already know that the couple’s previous marriages ended because they just decided it wasn’t working, not because there were biblical grounds for divorce. In which case, you can’t provide them a service if you believe such a service is affirming their union.
If your hotel is hosting the wedding and you don’t see rings on both individual’s fingers, you must refuse to rent them only one room. The unmarried couple must remain in separate rooms until after the ceremony. Otherwise, you may be complicit in fornication. And of course, you must not under any circumstances rent a room to a gay or lesbian couple.
These are serious issues to many Christians. So serious, that many pastors will not marry couples that fall into some of these categories.
Performing a marriage ceremony is a case where the first criterion in the analysis is met: it is without question affirming a marriage. Even so, orthodox Christian pastors have not singled out gay weddings in the way that the people backing these bills have. While these pastors won’t perform a gay or lesbian wedding, many also would not perform a wedding where one of the participants was unbiblically divorced, nor would they perform a wedding between a non-believer and a believer or a one between two atheists. Christian wedding vendors and the leaders admonishing them to turn away gay wedding customers seem unconcerned about all these other categories of unbiblical marriages.
The truth is, telling wedding vendors to only provide goods and services for “biblical” ceremonies is an exercise in futility. There is not a baker or florist or photographer in existence who hasn’t provided services for an unbiblical wedding. Perhaps that’s why Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, stated in a column this week that a photographer should refuse to film a same-sex wedding but for all other weddings, “need not investigate … whether the wedding you are photographing is Christ-honoring.”
Apparently, ignorance is bliss. This makes sure to put just one kind of “unbiblical” marriage in a special category. Why? Moore uses the example of a pastor presiding over an unbiblical heterosexual wedding. He says that would be “wrong” but it would still be a marriage recognized by God, whereas a same-sex wedding would be wrong and not recognized by God.
So, Moore–a sincere Christian and a leader we respect–is telling Christian vendors that it’s okay to do something “wrong” by providing services for a heterosexual wedding as long as they don’t know its unbiblical. But do we really believe that Christians don’t know that many weddings they provide service for are unbiblical without “investigating?” That’s a real stretch.
Rather than protecting the conscience rights of Christians, this looks a lot more like randomly applying religious belief in a way that discriminates against and marginalizes one group of people, while turning a blind eye to another group. It’s hard to believe that Jesus was ever for that.

Click to expand...

Finshaggy said:

I understand how hard it is to get past the fact that she is on FOX and I guess for most people it's hard to get past the fact that she is pretty, but she doesn't JUST appear on FOX. She is in USA Today and the Washington Post I think it is, so when you see her she is trying to be fair to the conservatives and is respecting the fact that THEY are letting her on THEIR show, but that is just her being fair.

And can you think of any black presidents? Besides Obama and Clinton.
Shit happens. And if she was president, I think people like Edward Snowden would get a voice.

Click to expand...

Doer said:

Sure, always a first time. I watch as much FOGGS as SINN. I am very familar with Powers and her work. Swishy washy. A mouth piece that changes her stripes slightly to get paid.

She is actually way too fluffy minded, as a person to be President. I can see it every time there is a crisis. She is not tough. She gets that deer in the headlight look about Ukraine, Syria, Iran, ...the wielding of power in general, for example.

Since you need a big machine to even apply to run, she can never get the backing. No one in the Press can get the backing. The try to tell the truth for a living.....the very opposite of Politics.

But, a run against Hillary? Do you think she would even be employable after that failure? Sure she would. Running is big bucks, personally, if you can raise big bucks. We will see.

BTW, Rose is a knockoff, fugasi, compared to Kristen.

Click to expand...

Finshaggy said:

I understand the perspective you are taking. Whether you are liberal, conservative, libertarian, or anarchist, she is NOT consistent with any of your views, and would seem not to be consistent politically because of that. But as a journalist she has to try to understand the people she is writing about, and as someone from Alaska she probably views things a little differently in other regards as well since she is kind of a "foreigner" that has integrated, much like I imagine someone from Canada would feel. So she has a unique perspective on the whole country.

And I understand that you need a big machine to get anything done, but there are 2 years left and according to many of the trolls on this site I am a human spam bot .

Click to expand...

Doer said:

I will not mind anyone that crawls from the caldron and emerges with the win.

Click to expand...