Page 41 of 228 FirstFirst ... 3139404142435191141 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 410 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #401
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by andrewthewookie View Post
    so let me get this straight. It's totes ok to hate gay people, and elected officials can break the law to fuck over people from seeking their legal rights, all cause they're the icky gays. But someone hates god-fearing white christian men who think like me? Too far dude, too far.

    Is that about right?
    ftfy
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  2. #402
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewTheWookie View Post
    So let me get this straight. It's totes ok to hate gay people, and elected officials can break the law to fuck over people from seeking their legal rights, all cause they're the icky gays. But someone hates homophobes? Too far dude, too far.

    Is that about right?

    ...

    [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/k1q2KoW.gif[IMG]
    That's the problem with people like you. Wanting a specific legal definition of marriage doesn't mean anyone hates gays.
    Last edited by ironyusa; 12-27-2017 at 09:56 AM.

  3. #403
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    That's the problem with people like you. Wanting a specific legal definition of marriage doesn't mean anyone hates gays. Another weak attempt.
    What are you actually talking about? This conversation has completely devolved into a fact-less argument that isn't bound in any sense of reality. There is a "specific" legal definition of marriage. Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015):

    In defining the right to marry these cases have identified essential attributes of that right based in history, tradition, and other constitutional liberties inherent in this intimate bond....This analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry. The four principles and traditions to be discussed demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples. (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...4-556_3204.pdf)

    The one of many issues with Roy Moore is he advocated for positions that directly violated constitutional law as set forth in Supreme Court precedent. We are a nation of laws, not the whims of one man. If you can't see that as an issue, then I really don't know what to tell you at this point. People who voted for him and supported him should be shamed.

  4. #404
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Let me back up. In this case, I agree with the popular opinion here. I am not defending the guy.

    The specific definition of marriage is what was being discussed. The supreme court ruling in 2015 was handled irrationally by Roy Moore in 2016. Look at the dates again. 2015 is when it was ruled as a right, so up until that point, there wasn't actually a legal precident to consider it so. It was subject to debate and even after a supreme court ruling, there will always be some carry-over. Roy Moore made comments such as, homosexuality is "an inherent evil, and an act so heinous that it defies one's ability to describe it." I have no words to describe the idiocy. However, when you bounce back an forth between Roy Moore himself and the platform he supported you're making a rediculous assertion that everyone that votes for him thinks exactly like him. Again, supporting the politicies =/= suppporting the person. So, "shaming" people that voted for him is really an attack on an unfounded stereotype. Not only that, but there is no evidence of which I'm aware that his voters even cared about his position on gay rights. I think arguing about the definition of marriage is dumb, but just because people have differing opinions to mine doesn't mean they're assholes.

    As far as Roy Moore, he's clearly a shitty person as evident by the quote above AND a shitty politician as evident by his twice removal from a position.

  5. #405
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    That's the problem with people like you. Wanting a specific legal definition of marriage doesn't mean anyone hates gays.
    Yeah and the people on the redlining commission didn't hate black people, they just wanted to deny them access to affordable mortgages.

    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    Again, supporting the politicies =/= suppporting the person. So, "shaming" people that voted for him is really an attack on an unfounded stereotype.
    And those policies are discriminatory.

    Moore is just a proxy.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  6. #406
    I see where you are trying to go, but your position misses the overall point. Again, we are getting far afield of the issues with Roy Moore by combining them into a left/right voting dynamic. Let's clarify the issues with Roy Moore first before look at the other overarching principle that has infiltrated this debate.

    First, the man was a State Supreme Court judge in Alabama who was removed from the bench TWICE for directly and knowingly violating constitutional law - refusing to follow the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges and a federal judge's decision to require the removal of the ten commandments from the court house (violates the first amendment's establishment clause). Again, simply disregarding the law because you don't like it is a dangerous precedent to set and should be harshly condemned. If they want to change the constitution there is a process for that. Second, the man admitted on multiple occasions that he sought relations with teenage girls, some of whom were under the age of consent. His own memoir notes he first recognized his wife when she was between 14 and 15 years old! We all can agree that such inexcusable behavior should be condemned on both the right and left. Third, Roy Moore's views on race were despicable. He spoke of how the greatest period in American history was before the Civil War, a time when we had slavery. Again, this is inexcusable by all measures of basic human decency.

    My point in calling out his supporters is not that I believe the people that voted for Roy Moore think exactly like him, but that they were willing to accept this behavior. Voting for a candidate entails voting for that person's flaws - both policy and character. Roy Moore's flaws go beyond a left/right divide, they strike at the fundamental foundations upon which this nation is built upon and, as I mentioned above, defy the basic principles of human decency. For that reason, his supporters should be shamed for willingly supporting an individual who molested children, defied the rule of law, and spoke of the days of slavery as the greatest period in American history. That is shameful on both sides of the political spectrum and should be called out as such. Allowing Roy Moore supporters to hide behind a position that they voted based on policy obscures the fundamental fact those voters accepted as ok Roy Moore's engagement in immoral, criminal, and unethical behavior.

    Sorry for the wall of text

  7. #407
    Hebrews 13:8 going_home's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    563
    The reason "global warming" was renamed "climate change"

    endeavor to persevere.......

  8. #408
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    d0cwho, thanks for not jumping in with a false equivalency, but rather understanding the point. I certainly see your point and there really isn't much that can be said to defend the guy. Truthfully, I didn't know that much about him until after the election and, yeah, he's a pretty dispicable human being. I'd say that he is TRULY intolerant to the point that HE shouldn't be tolerated (even by his own party). I also understand the idea that voting for someone is condoning their actions, which I don't think is necessarily true.

    Many people I know that voted for Trump didn't even care about him or didn't actually want him as president, but wanted to have conservative nominations for the supreme court. So, I guess the general logic carried forward assumes that you know why people chose a specific candidate and in most cases if you call them an asshole right out of the gate you'll never get that far. Not to mention, tolerance and condoning are not the same thing which is a divide the right really doesn't see, IMO.
    Last edited by ironyusa; 12-27-2017 at 01:44 PM.

  9. #409
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by going_home View Post
    The reason "global warming" was renamed "climate change"
    The actual reason global warming was renamed climate change:

    http://www.motherjones.com/files/Lun...nvironment.pdf
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  10. #410
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    d0cwho, thanks for not jumping in with a false equivalency, but rather understanding the point. I certainly see your point and there really isn't much that can be said to defend the guy. Truthfully, I didn't know that much about him until after the election and, yeah, he's a pretty dispicable human being. I'd say that he is TRULY intolerant to the point that HE shouldn't be tolerated (even by his own party). I also understand the idea that voting for someone is condoning their actions, which I don't think is necessarily true.

    Many people I know that voted for Trump didn't even care about him or didn't actually want him as president, but wanted to have conservative nominations for the supreme court. So, I guess the general logic carried forward assumes that you know why people chose a specific candidate and in most cases if you call them an asshole right out of the gate you'll never get that far. Not to mention, tolerance and condoning are not the same thing which is a divide the right really doesn't see, IMO.
    oh god.

    i did not know that.

    .... well shit ....




    sorry, i don't know how to interact with someone who voted for someone who mocks the disabled, attacks gold star family's, attacks POWs, openly brags about sexually assaulting women ... and then doesn't want to be called an asshole.

    no really, at some point human decency must count for something. i honestly do not believe one can be a decent human being, and support donald trump, regardless of political leanings. since the rise of trump, i have to say i've respected the never trump republicans more and more, they may still be wrong, but at least i can respect them as people.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 12-27-2017 at 03:44 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •