Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Heron TSG]

A Tea partier in the white house by 2016? Maybe...

God _*snrk* forbid.

[G-Flex]

God? But where's his birth certificate?

[alway]

It all makes sense now! We're a secular nation not because of enlightenment principles and a willingness of the founding fathers to get away from the religious bloodbaths in Europe, but rather because god is a Kenyan! Thus we can't have him, or any of his puppets acting for him as leader of our country: it would go against the requirement to be a citizen from birth!

[Duuvian]

It was awesome when, for the first time in American history, the Obama Administration addressed gays in the military.

This completely unforseen and unknown issue sprang to life after 2008, when before that, no one in this country had the time to consider such a drastic change in social policy. Ever. Ever ever. Conservatives were SHOCKED that such a thing could happen.



Yeah, all those murderers and rapists owe the Bible some royalties, because murder and such is a completely religious issue, predating man hitting another man in the head with a rock.

It's so nice to see Nikov active on the forums again.

I like to see him active on the forums again. (I mean this non-sarcastically) I like to hear his opinions, even if I disagree with some (many) of them.

And yeah, I just noticed that about the First Amendment! Apparently Congress not establishing a state religion also means it can't make law anything that constitutes anything similar to a religion-based law. Well, better let all the murderers, rapists, child molesters and thieves out. Gotta stay progressive!

This is incorrect however. Assuming that simply because of your religion you are superior morally to such a degree that the majority or even a decent percentage of those who aren't of your religion support the things you listed leads to precisely the kind of lawmaking that the founding fathers were so leery of.

I apologize if these images offend anyone, but I feel it is a valid second part of my argument which revolves around the word hypocrisy. I think the images do the speaking for me, as these men, members of the organization, or the real life counterparts to the cartoon were practicing members of their respective churches.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Priest/thief multiclass:

Also, I think it advisable that we should discuss something other than religion. It will only end up with the thread locked. Feel free to delete my post, Toady or 3toe, if you think it will cause a problem. I suggest we discuss Karl Rove's recent comments that lead to him being turned on by his fellow conservative.

[mainiac]

I love how your hatred for a minority group somehow is able to make anyone who disagrees a radical.  You have a constitutionally protected right to hate us gay folks.  But you are an asshole for doing so.  And don't give any of that crap about not hating us.  You are trying to keep us second class citizens, we feel the hate.

What scares me is that when the economy sucks, people tend to vote for the opposition regardless of what that opposition is.  It wouldn't be so bad if we had a multi party system and people could express their anger at democrats by voting for similar parties.  For instance in my local election, the challenger is the favorite.  His flagship policy is instituting a 23% national sales tax, i.e. the biggest tax hike on the poor in history.  Tons of voters who would normally hate this policy are supporting this guy because they are pissed off about the economy.  If we had a multiparty system this wouldn't be too bad because the reasonable minority parties would benefit the most from the dissatisfaction.  But we have a two party system, so no matter how crazy the republicans go, they still receive the pissed off voter bump.

BTW: the guy supporting the 23% sales tax is a Tea Partier.  That's the Tea Party for you, tax cuts for the rich, tax hikes for the poor.

[Sir Finkus]

Here I was hoping to discuss the merits of Arizona Green Tea 
As a pro-gay marriage, pro-smaller government atheist gun owner, politics never make me happy.  I can't really think of any political parties I wouldn't be ashamed of being associated with.

[Nikov]

As much as I'd love to post something, I feel even a groveling apology is going to result in another page or two of scathing browbeating. I am arguing against a hegemony of opinion and am simply not able to refute everyone. As before, it has turned into shouting down the dissenting view from the board's opinion. So go ahead and demonize me as the proponent of everything you hate.

And don't give any of that crap about not hating us.

This tells me there's no point talking to you. If you are convinced I hate you, and tell me to not bother explaining myself, you have a hatred of me, where "me" is whatever person you want to make as an target for yourself.

[Aqizzar]

You do, once again, still owe a comment to alway.

PS: Oooh! You forgot 'tack entirely undebated gays-okay-in-military-amendment onto the DoD budget they were too lazy to take care of at the start of the year'. That was a politically brilliant move. Legislate a major change in social norms in the most conservative element of our society in a fashion that leaves zero time to consult public opinion by turning the budget for that element into a poison pill before everyone goes on recess for campaigning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell#Comprehensive_Review_Working_Group_.28CRWG.29
And even without democrats' help, it would probably end up getting axed anyway. http://www.edition.cnn.com/2010/US/09/09/dont.ask.dont.tell/index.html?hpt=T2&imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail
As for the public opinion: http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/02/10/DADT_Poll_57_for_Gays_Serving_Openly/

Whatever else people are braying about, you did start an argument all on your own about Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell, and were proven wrong on every part of the issue.  Run away if you want though, since it doesn't matter and all.

[Nikov]

Honestly I didn't expect it to go in that direction. Can we discuss the intended direction; a majority party putting off budgets until the last minute, then putting on divisive amendments at the last second a budget can be passed before the campaigning recess? So incumbent minority party members have to either answer to why they didn't fund our troops when they voted no, or explain why they voted yes to something unpopular with their base?

Or was I the only one who saw that side of it?

[Aqizzar]

Or was I the only one who saw that side of it?

No, but you are the only one who thinks the Republicans have any right to complain, after holding the defense budget hostage, in the even less accountable manner of making them all Emergency Funding bills instead of making the defense part of the actual budget, all for even less relevant issues for years when they were in the majority.

[Nikov]

How do you hold a bill hostage against a majority in the House and Senate? There's 41 Republican senators. All Democrats have to do is come up with a bill the two most liberal Republicans can agree with. Or maybe thats too bipartisan for them?

[Phmcw]

Because the republican party is now completely extremist? When a right-center president like Obama is called a commie by the opposition, you know something is wrong with your country. (Hint: it's not the rest of the world that leaned toward communism).

[Nikov]

Regardless of the validity of your arguement, my point still stands. You just said Obama was center-right, however, so I'm not sure what your point of view is.

[Aqizzar]

Actually, if you were paying the slightest bit of attention to how the Senate works now, and the politics within the Republican seats, you'd know your point doesn't stand at all.

Not that you'll believe it anyway, but for the sake of everyone else who's curious: The split is really 57-41, with two Independent senators.  One is a Democrat in all but name, but the other is Joe Lieberman, who basically turned into a Republican in all but name out of spite for being ostracized by what used to be his party.  Since a filibuster only needs 40 votes, that means 57 Democrats, the 1 Socialist, and at least three Republicans.  There's exactly two Republican senators who could reasonably be called "most liberal" (Snowe and Collins).  They, like every other Republican in the Senate, know that if they make one move against Boehner's demand to filibuster everything, they'll lose all their Committee seats and Republican Conference campaign support, let alone earn the ire of the RNC for daring not to anchor themselves to the wingnut tidal wave.

Not that I don't think Harry Reid isn't the biggest limp-wristed milksop ever to worm his way into leadership of anything.  I'm actually hoping he loses in November, just to shake things up.

[Phmcw]

My point was that there is no possibility for a republican to agree with Obama since the republican party turned extremist. And that you need more than a fifty per cent majority to pass a law. Aqizzar explain it perfectly.