|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jeez, is COPS still on the air? 
A conservative will tell you that the problem is government, and a liberal will tell you the problem is industry. The more I pay attention, however, the more convinced I become that the real problem is collusion between the two.
They used to play a game on LoveLine called Germany or Florida. Someone would call in with some just unbelievably bizarre story and it would always be from either Germany or Florida.
"Looks like this poor guy was just... *puts on shades* trying to save face." YAAAAAAAAAAAAOOOOOW! 
If I had to say, it's probably the T-Virus. 
We'll Angie liked her present. Once she realised there was a coded message it took her about two minutes to crack it open. She said yes. Thank you all for giving me a hand with it. 
Ladies, gentlemen, and goblins, this is a very hot button topic, and we've all had a bit of a shakeup with some of the posts lately. Let's take a collective deep breath and calm down a bit before clicking on "submit post". We aren't going to change anyone's minds by insults, aggrandizement, sarcasm, putting words in each other's mouths, being contrary or just plain irritable.
I just absolutely don't get so-called social conservatism. Fiscal conservatism I get. Though I'm not fiscally conservative, I understand the concern that too much government intervention, economic or otherwise, encroaches on our liberties. My disagreement lies in how much assistance the market requires to deliver optimal outcomes, but the ideology is internally consistent. But social conservatism seems to be the opposite of freedom. Social conservatives want the government to determine who can get married. They want the government to favor one religion over another. They want the government telling people what they can and can't do with their own bodies. How is any of that remotely conservative? And how can people who consider themselves supporters of freedom actively campaign to have our freedoms curtailed? I can't even imagine the cognitive dissonance. If I were the Republican party I'd look hard at my bedfellows, lest the Libertarians eat my lunch. 
And then there's one here from Dr. Ron Paul. It says: "Dear Comrade Anklebiter, You are so cute. When I think about you and the shovel, I get all giddy inside. Tee hee." [blushes]
I cannot wait to eat the vegetarians here. I'm sure they will be delicious.
Ooh! Blast from my past! 
I am still waiting for my 6' cut of Rich Guy. I bet it will be tasty with a side of Fava Beans.
Also, if you see our leader grabbing a shovel, for gods sake, man, run. Ron seems to like it. 
Blisters on one's toe in Toebiterland are exceedingly dangerous, however. And we'll just sit back and let Citizen Badger find out what happens when he wears too many weapons at once!
There is no plutocracy in Comrade Anklebiterland! and, also, to all of you: I'm gonna git you sucka! Does that mean we all get theme music in Anklebiterland? I'm so in! So long, Plutocracy! Vive le Galt! 
And now we don't have those toys because of all the alleged lead contamination. Who would've thunk we'd put 'em in our mouths? Anyone? :P njaspduhrpwqeuy qaqaqahriweuorf Lead ioaahhsufq2uye Poison qpwuerh;uoqwe
These are not the typos I'm looking for...
I would like to be the Minister of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Marijuana. Like I said: in smoke-filled backrooms...[bubble bubble bubble] And can we abolish indecent exposure, indecent acts, etc. as crimes? Because, as has been said many a time before, goblins do it in the street. You know it! Maybe that should be Comrade Ankelbiter's campaign slogan when he runs for the single-party "elections." Using scare quotes to cast aspersions on the legitimacy of our political process? To the Fun-Timey Reeducation Through Labor Supercenter with you, Citizen Gersen! Also, stop editing your post!
Libertarians are what I'd term True Conservatives, which are a lot less offensive than modern conservatism. I'd be a lot less up-in-arms if the Republican party were made up of nothing but libertarians, but it's not. This is what I'm getting at though. That's why I don't say that I hate conservatism, only the current incarnation of the Republican party. You just said don't let's talk about Rep/Dem, but prog/conservative. But true conservatives don't irk me.
Why is it that big government proponents hardly ever look towards cutting costs rather than spending more and more. Something like 52% of the discretionary budget of the United States is military spending. Let's cut that by about 50%, get out of Afghanistan among other places, and call the budget balanced? I've very much like to cut spending, but defense spending is too much of a sacred cow.
The Senate passed it by a 52-47 margin and the House passed 250-183. Okay. Sure. He wasn't authorized. It's the slippery slope to totalitarianism. Iraq and Afghanistan were both authorized as well, but that doesn't mean they are popular, either with US citizens or the world as a whole. He started a war without actually declaring war. I mean, he wasn't the first to do it, and he wouldn't be the last, but it should always make one uncomfortable, no? You do admit that it was a war, and there was no actual declaration of war, right? I was just trying to point out that, for a very long time now, the US has relied on global warfare as a mechanism for economic growth. When Bush II tried it, it failed. It's just not predictably a positive thing any longer. The rest of your statement I was fine with.
(side note: You all are aware you can vote for anyone right? your not limited to the names on the ballot?) I just turned 35 last December, so, please, consider voting for Comrade Anklebiter for President of the United States of America this fall. 
Im just going to point out, neither the republicans or the democrats actually care... Both parties are out for their own personal glory, and 200k+ a year paychecks. You want to actually have a chance at something resembling order? dont support either party, find the people who can accomplish what needs to be done. It will take work and a fair amount of time BUT it can be done. Out of this election im going to vote for who i think might be able to do so. Most people will probably think im crazy, but im voting for Ron Paul (side note: You all are aware you can vote for anyone right? your not limited to the names on the ballot?) But please stop defending either party, they are both horrible for this country. It was stated a long time ago, that this country divided would fall, and the republican and democratic parties are doing just that.
I'm starting to believe he is talking like a little dictator so the moderator shuts down this thread. He knows this topic among many others critical of B.O. are bad press for the President. Yep, you got it. The battleground for the next presidency begins and ends IN THIS THREAD. /eyeroll
I think a big problem in the discussion of the subprime mortgage crisis here and irl, is that the camps fall into: blame the Democrats for giving out the loans/blame the Republicans for deregulating finance. I, personally, think the camps should be: poor people who got f+!*ed over by predatory lending and/or taxpayers who had to foot the bill for the bailout/rich people who profitted immensely from the aforementioned and the Republicrats who bipartisanlly helped them by deregulating finance and bailing them out. In this regard, I have seen very little that indicates that Obama is much different than Bush. [Cough-cough-Timothy Geithner-cough]
Oh, look, this thread never got closed. The Constiutional Crimes of Barack Obama by Dave Lindorff Choice bits: "As we slog towards another vapid, largely meaningless exercise in pretend democracy with the selection of a new president and Congress this November, it is time to make it clear that the current president, elected four years ago by so many people with such inflated expectations four years ago (myself included, as I had hoped, vainly it turned out, that those who elected him would then press him to act in progressive ways), is not only a betrayer of those hopes, but is a serial violator of his oath of office. He is, in truth, a war criminal easily the equal of his predecessor, George W. Bush, and perhaps even of Bush’s regent, former Vice President Dick Cheney." --- "I have no illusions that the current even more craven and spineless Congress, even with the House in the hands of Republicans, would seek to impeach this president. Indeed, many of the crimes listed above involve activities that the Republicans in Congress themselves actively support and are thus also guilty of, such as threatening Iran with war, supporting the ongoing theft of the nation’s wealth by the financial industry, or ignoring the threat of climate change. It is nonetheless important, I believe, to publicly announce this bill of particulars, so that it is clear that we continue in the United States to be led by a gang of thieves and sociopaths." Hee hee! 
You misunderstand me by omitting the rest of my argument. If this group is disproportionately likely to actually be up to no good and suspicious behavior (something near-universally recognized by criminologists, who have moved on to arguing about why this is the case), it makes sense that this is the group stopped disproportionately. I understand you perfectly. The problem is you're wrong. You. Can't. Do. That. The street is not an airport. You cannot stop people at random and search them. They have a constitutional right against being searched on grounds as flimsy as "furtive movement" or "they looked nervous". I'm not being politically correct and saying that blacks don't cause a disproportionately large amount of crime: they do. I'm saying that even though that's true and the program would be useful in stopping crime you still can't do it.
I'd point out the FBI's statistics that show that about 45-50% of violent crime is committed by blacks (13% of the population). Further research has shown that most crime is committed by males from 16-24. Just because you belong to a group more likely to commit a crime does not absolve you of your constitutionally guaranteed liberties. Treating the individual involved as if they don't have their full rights as a citizen because they are more likely to commit a crime deprives them of their equal protection under the law.
@BNW, Skin colour? or is it suspicious people behaving suspiciously Its skin color. What "suspicious" activity were the other 80% up to? Its also more than 80%, since the cops aren't reporting every stop. and in 20% of cases are actually up to no good? Now you might not like the drug laws, but they are the laws and not just 'optional guidelines' Ok, so the drug laws aren't a guideline you can ignore but The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated is completely optional when you're looking for a dime bag? Why is the law the law for one group of people but not another? 
Cory,
Plus, which is more tolerant: expressing disdain for a person's views or banning them from marrying because of their sexuality? One of these thigns is justa little less tolerant than the other. Let's see if you can figure out which. Also, civil rights are not up for popular vote. That's what makes them rights. Would you support a state that said all Christians couldn't marry? How about one that banned mixed race marriages? Would you call the people calling for such laws bigots? If so, what's the difference? If not, could you give your defnition of the word as I'm not sure it matches the one in common usage? 
So, uh, blowjobs are against natural law? Man, natural law sucks. Spoiler:
Pun intended
Flap over gay marriage == perfect example of what happens we when blur the line between church and state. Fortunately, public opinion is shifting rapidly enough that the whole argument will soon be moot -- thank goodness.
Pres Man,
As to Natural Law, find me a species of animal besides humans who get married and we'll talk. Until then, marriage is totally unnatural and against natural law. And that stupid argument is far more accurate than the one it's parodying. Sad, isn't it?
Wikepedia is not a valid academic source.So that you can sort of educate yourself. I present Wikipedia.Marriage, according to the Natural Law, is between a man and woman for the purpose of bringing forth and protecting children and for the love and support of the couple,in the context of the marriage covenant. Anything outside of that context defies the Natural Law.What exactly is this natural law? Humans apparently evolved in poly-amorous relationships, not one on one relationships. I'm sure this has been ninja'ed but... Well, then it's a good thing this isn't a valid academic discussion.
. Anything out side of that is against the Natural Law. Am I the only one picturing Charles Darwin in a judge dread mask saying that line or have i been up way too long? 
Homosexuality is not the norm in primates and since when did humanity have to excuse their baser behaviors from the permissions of animals?Marriage, according to the Natural Law, is between a man and woman for the purpose of bringing forth and protecting children and for the love and support of the couple,in the context of the marriage covenant. Anything outside of that context defies the Natural Law.Homosexuality is found in nature, especially among primates - therefore, it is Natural Law. Also, there are evolutionary arguments for homosexuality. You mention "protecting children". Homosexuals adopt children who might not other wise ever belong to a family. Also, one of the social pressures that possibly led to the evolution of homosexual behavior in mammals would be that a homosexual pairing would not produce more children that strain a reproductive group and thus allow for the homosexual pair to focus on the protection and maintenance of the group. It is the norm. It isn't the prevalent norm. But is is NORMALLY found in nature. This means that homosexuals are not choosing to be homosexuals - they just are. To deny them this is to deny their very nature. My point is that homosexuality is found in nature from penguins to bison to monkeys to chimps to humans - and yet you tell me that it isn't natural or the norm. Perhaps we are looking at different sets of data. Because it is natural, I have no problems with homosexual pairing. Because it is non-exploitative, I have not problems with homosexual marriages. 
Marriage is a state issue not federal. Civil rights are a human issue. Individual states do not get to legislate human rights into non-existence. That's why they're called rights.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posts
