Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 04, 2015, 03:43:28 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 547
26  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bush: GOP needs to broaden the map (with Hispanics) on: July 01, 2015, 04:26:02 pm
It's really as simple as this: right now, the GOP is winning the people who agree with them on both social and fiscal issues.  To win, they either need to use mainly cultural conservatism (while moderating on economic issues) to reach new voters - such as Hispanics, Blacks, some Dixiecrat holdouts, etc. - or use mainly fiscal conservatism (while moderating on social issues) to reach new voters - such as culturally liberal suburbanites in the North, Asians and young professionals.  Naturally, I'd prefer the latter, but I also believe that this path will yield more electoral advantage.  The college educated, the wealthy and those who live in suburbs vote at the highest rates.  Get their votes.  The GOP has already - in the past - proven it can do it.  It's never proven it can do the second.

It isn't either/or when it comes to fiscal and social issues. To reach out to Hispanics, Republicans need to show they are tolerant and supportive of people of different cultural backgrounds, while still holding onto a pro-life position.  They also need to make some policies that they can argue are good for the poor and marginal and for the aspirational middle class, including but not at all limited to immigration issues.
27  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Peter King won't run for prez on: July 01, 2015, 04:00:15 pm
He's been squeezed out by Christie.
28  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Democrats reacting negatively; Republicans reacting positively? on: July 01, 2015, 03:57:24 pm
Justin Amash, from his fb post (excerpt):

Quote
. . . To the extent that Americans across the political spectrum view government marriage as authoritative and unlicensed marriage as quaint, our laws must treat marriage—and the corresponding legal benefits that attach—as they would any other government institution. So, while today's Supreme Court opinion rests upon the false premise that government licensure is necessary to validate the intimate relationships of consenting adults, I applaud the important principle enshrined in this opinion: that government may not violate the equal rights of individuals in any area in which it asserts authority.
29  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Southron posters: Have you ever owned any Confederate flag mechandise? on: July 01, 2015, 03:30:20 pm
I believe I had (have?) one in my collection of small flags.
30  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Kansas still refuses to recognize same-sex marriages on: July 01, 2015, 03:28:30 pm
It was, but, I still believe what I believe.  A living document is something which helps with the times.  How can the rules of men who lived over 200 years ago still apply to us without a bit twisting.  We have so many things that they wouldn't have know about.  Without the notion of a living document, it's hard to apply the laws, and write them.  Social Security and Medicare, are they mentioned in the constitution.  No, but with some interpretation, you can find the rational for them. 

The tax and spending power is right there in the Constitution. That one was easy. Smiley

Doesn't the purpose of the spending have to fall within enumerated powers?
31  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: 1956 Conventions (The Hearse at Monticello) on: July 01, 2015, 03:22:39 pm
Kennedy/Dirksen
32  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Tennessee Hardware Store puts up "no gays allowed" sign on: July 01, 2015, 02:36:14 pm
His freedom of religion protects this expression of his spirituality and faith. You can't ask him to take down this sign, it's like asking an orthodox Jew to feed bacon to his baby.

There is no comparison between this person and someone like Baronelle Stutzman, who treats her gay customers and employees as human beings but does not believe in using her talents as directly part of a ceremony she believes is sacriligeous.  This guy is more like the person who sued her, as in both cases they treat people as means rather than as ends (full human beings in their complexity) in order to make a statement and advance their political agenda.
33  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Kansas still refuses to recognize same-sex marriages on: July 01, 2015, 12:23:50 pm
When you compare lack of gay marriage on demand to school desegregation, all credibility is lost.

The 14th Amendment was written in the 1860s to protect blacks from slavery and was co-opted by court to confer a right that never existed.

Just like how the 2nd Amendment was written in the 1790's to protect the state's right to a militia and was co-opted by the right to confer a right that never existed*.

When we as a country have something called a living constitution, you are able to adapt the meaning of the words to your time.  This is what our founding father's wanted.  They wanted us to bend and twist the document.  They wanted us to think different from them.  They didn't want us to live by the rules of their time.

*(When I say this, I mean Automatic weapons, not handguns, or shotguns.)

Who among the Founders wanted us to "bend and twist" the Constitution? 
34  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Tennessee Hardware Store puts up "no gays allowed" sign on: July 01, 2015, 12:18:40 pm
inb4 shua tries to tell us that this guy clearly has no problem with gay people whatsoever

Actually I was planning on making a lame joke about either The Village People or North Caucasian Tartars.  But instead I'll sit here and wonder why you are incapable of making rather crucial distinctions.   This guy is not saying he won't make them a wedding ring out of electrical wire.  He does not want gays in his store at all.  I suppose unless he has well-developed gaydar the ban involves self-deportation.  The cops are not going to enforce this ban thankfully, and hopefully the only business he gets in the future is from complete flamers.  
35  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Rank the GOP candidates from least conservative to most conservative on: July 01, 2015, 10:14:15 am
Why would Carson be the most conservative?
36  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Should the U.S. sign and ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions? on: July 01, 2015, 09:59:17 am
I'd support a law against using them aside from research and training, but the possibility of technological advancements to avoid noncombatant deaths would make me hesitate on a treaty.  It is not as though regular munitions aren't killers, and if the danger of delayed explosion is removed, I'm not clear on why cluster munitions would be worse.
37  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Breaking: Supreme Court rules SSM a legal right on: July 01, 2015, 01:04:02 am
I said the consequence of their actions is to spread hate. I did not say they themselves are hateful. I said it doesn't matter if the individuals are hateful or not. A few instances of anti-SSMers being nice does not undue the depth of damage they've done in spreading the culture they spread.

If a gay kid hears their parents are against gay rights, the message that it's somehow less acceptable to be gay still comes through loud and clear... with or without hate.

So, again, it doesn't matter. You're missing my point in your obsession to validate those who would see us be lesser members of society... and for the life of me, I can't understand why. If a religion says one thing against all the better judgement of decades' worth of experience in real life, you'd think the intuitive thing would be to realize that affording everyone equal rights is the way to go. Sadly, some people can't see it that way. They should. Religious freedom be damned. Because it really is that simple. "Religious freedom" is not an excuse to treat people who are different in a such a way as to cause them negative outcomes.

I guess the good they do for gay people as individuals doesn't matter, because of this one position, they're all bigots who are to blame for everything that's ever happened to gay people and deserve whatever they get.  Sorry, I can't respect that. 

Yeah, if a gay kid hears their parents oppose some aspect of gay rights, or gay marriage, that can hurt. I can definitely see that.  But what is the response?  Resenting the parent for it, or having a conversation to explain one's own feelings and see where they are coming from, and maybe convince them down the road, instead of burning bridges?
38  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Breaking: Supreme Court rules SSM a legal right on: July 01, 2015, 12:53:18 am
Some people used to see marriage and race in fundamentally different terms that we do. That doesn't stop us from seeing that viewpoint as deplorable.

Do I really have to explain why the relation between race and marriage and between gender and marriage are different?

If gender were not a crucial aspect of human society throughout history, there would be no such thing as marriage, at least as we know it.
All those who just won the right to get married to their same-sex partner should thank our predecessors that gender has been an important social category throughout history.
39  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Breaking: Supreme Court rules SSM a legal right on: July 01, 2015, 12:44:53 am
So, we should respect ISIS fighters, after all, they only follow their moral identity!

ISIS fighters kill innocent people.  That's a rather fundamental issue.   A better example: We should respect people who want to wear hijab, and not complain about how they are supposedly self-hating women who hurt our liberal feels.
40  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Breaking: Supreme Court rules SSM a legal right on: July 01, 2015, 12:36:37 am
Very interesting to listen to a straight person rail against a member of the queer community for "not listening to the arguments" of people who are against same-sex marriage.

I suggest you don't call shua straight. He gets very pissy about you "defining his sexuality" when he didn't "give you permission" to do so.

This, despite the fact that he identifies as a male and posts in the Hot Guys Thread, while twisting himself in knots to defend Indiana's RFRA law, putting the desires of religious conservatives to discriminate and legally disassociate themselves with LGBT people over the rights of LGBT people to go about their lives without discrimination, arguing you can oppose LGBT rights while not being straight yourself, and that supporting discrimination against LGBT people totally doesn't mean you hate them!

So basically, he's an unnecessarily wordy CountryClasslessSF going on about the persecution of "people of faith" without all the thread derailing. There's no point in arguing with people like them. Just pray for people like him to figure out how to accept themselves.

Kudos on the rest of your post though!

What are you insinuating?   Can't handle the fact that not everyone fits into your categories like sardines?
41  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Breaking: Supreme Court rules SSM a legal right on: July 01, 2015, 12:24:03 am
Very interesting to listen to a straight person rail against a member of the queer community for "not listening to the arguments" of people who are against same-sex marriage.

Um, we're the ones who are on the receiving end of this crap all the time. Roll Eyes Whatever backwards justification a person can come up with to legitimize their opposition to marriage equality really doesn't mean anything. With respect, same-sex marriage is about people who have same-sex attraction, and only people who have same-sex attraction. So we're the ones who get to be the barometers for whether hate is an active part of the equation. While it may be true that some anti-SSMers genuinely believe they can be against SSM without hating gay people (and perhaps some actually don't hate gay people), what they believe in this situation is moot. Because their words and actions impact the LGBT community whether there's intentional hate or not. And those viewpoints are oppressive, unjust, spread misconceptions, fuel distrust, encourage harassment, beat gay people into submission, nurture self-hate and depression, and, in general, make life worse for people who are not straight. So, for the last time, whether a person "intends" to hate means piss-all. It's a consolation prize. Because their actions and attitudes are hateful either way.

So no, I will not accommodate this garbage just because a few bigoted imbeciles can't get over themselves and accept positive change that has nothing to do with them. If you oppose equal marriage, you are either a bigot or stupid. Prove me wrong.

How am I supposed to prove you wrong when you offer nothing but tautology?   Me giving you examples of people who oppose gay marriage being nice to gay people clearly is not going to change your mind.

I will say this, that the more hateful the opposition to gay marriage is, the more it tends to draw attention to itself.  People quietly minding their own business and being friends to gay people while opposing gay marriage aren't so obvious in their opposition until they are asked to do something they disagree with, or they see people attacked for having their position.

And if you think that all gay people believe that those who oppose gay marriage are hateful, then you are just wrong, you don't speak for all gay people on this.  I'm sorry your experiences have led you to your position.
42  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Oklahoma Justices order 10 Commandments Monument Removed on: June 30, 2015, 08:07:34 pm
Why ruffle feathers by putting it up?

Fallacy alert.

Thanks for alerting us to the fallacy in your post that putting it up and not taking it down are exactly the same.
43  General Discussion / Constitution and Law / Re: My Take on SCOTUS Ruling on: June 30, 2015, 05:54:43 pm
Were you equally outraged by the Citizens United ruling?

I have no problem with criticizing government and don't support the BCRA. We, as a citizenry, have the right to be critical of government and those that place themselves in the public light. We should not be limited by arbitrary days before an election to discontinue the discussion; fair or unfair and regardless of party. Hopefully the electorate will do its own research and make an informed decision when voting and not be persuaded by platitudes. Unlikely, but my opinion. Any limitations on free speech by either party or political persuasion should be immediately be shunned. For example, there is a plan by a group to burn an American flag by a protest group in New York shortly before the 4th of July. I served in the Nave shortly after our involvement in Vietnam. I disapprove and find the act abhorrent. That said, I support their right to exercise their free speech and their right to petition the government even if I disagree with their message.

In other words, you're OK with the SCOTUS overriding existing legislation and going against the will of an overwhelming majority of citizens when you agree with the decision, but you're against doing the same thing when you disagree with it. Thanks for clarifying.

Isn't that the approach most people take?   

I for one make an effort to separate my judgment on constitutional interpretation from my policy preferences, as the post above yours attempted to illustrate. I can understand that others take a more partisan approach to these matters, but then don't go whining "RIP Constitution Cry" when you lose.

Ok. By saying "when you agree with the decision"  I didn't assume you just meant "agree with the policy." 

There's no contradiction here between agreeing with Citizens United and believing that the gay marriage decision overstepped its bounds, as the Constitution more explicitly deals with political speech than it does with the definition of marriage.  I think a good case can be made that Citizens United went too far in addressing questions not directly necessary for the resolution of the dispute before the Court, but that is different from criticizing the opinion on 10th amendment grounds.
44  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: U.S. and Brazil reach agreement on increasing renewable energy production on: June 30, 2015, 05:25:18 pm
This is hopefully leading up to something good in Paris. I'm very optimistic. Let's hope Harper is decapitated by communist Thomas Mulcair and Tony Abbott makes a fool of himself.

Weirdly, the electricity sector of Brazil is mostly hydropower, not fossil fuels - its gas plants account for 10% of electric generation and coal accounts for practically nothing. The focus for Brazil needs to be relying on less destructive renewables (especially as hydropower has some curious emissions of its own. Luckily, Brazil is an over performer at meeting its climate and forestry goals. Focus should be applied to often ignored Indonesia though.

Any idea where the wind and solar sources are going to be?

I presume for the former, mainly in the interior and off the east coast; and for the latter across the sun belt? (Although even the most northern areas of the U.S. can add solar capacity, tbh; just not the gigantic heat powered operations).

I should have specified i was wondering more about Brazil.
45  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Breaking: Supreme Court rules SSM a legal right on: June 30, 2015, 05:18:56 pm
I guess people who object to sex before marriage just hate single people too?

what? shua, i don't think you're very good at this whole comparison thing tbqh

You believe that someone can't oppose an act related to sexuality unless the hate the person doing it, when it comes to homosexuality, then why not sex before marriage?  Why there someone just has a moral belief, but you assume that anyone is full of hate and contempt if they say "I don't agree with this thing you are doing, so I'm sorry I can't take part in it, but I hope we can still be friends."

if you have a violent aversion to gay marriage that you do not have to straight marriage, then you believe that gay people are not worth as much as straight people. it's very simple.

a "violent" aversion?
yes?

Quote
Why is it hard to understand that some people think of marriage and gender in fundamentally different terms than you do,
why is it so hard to understand that those people's views are objectively bad? we don't defend people who believe vaccines are evil or people who believe black people are worthless, so why are we supposed to defend people who believe gay people are worthless?

Quote
and that it's not just about how much they like gay people?
spare me

And now we get to the heart of the issue: the people whose views you consider to be "objectively" bad (I don't know why you get to decide, you obviously haven't taken the time to really listen to anyone you disagree with on this) are people you therefore don't believe have any rights.  I find that disgusting and horrible, but I'm not going to try to force "rehabilitation" on you, because I'm not an authoritarian scumbag.
46  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Should churches that don't perform gay marriages lose their tax-exempt status? on: June 30, 2015, 05:13:17 pm
But yeah, basic freedom of conscience protections are pretty damn important.

True, but I'm not sure what that has to do with this subject? We're talking about public accommodations serving customers or declining to serve customers, not engaging in religious (or sacrilegious) activities. In any case, I agree with you! This is the most important issue of our time and all of our voters (especially the young ones) need to know where our leaders stand! Let's have the Republican candidate stake out this position and run on it in 2016.

You're being a bit haughty here, now aren't you?  Tongue

But I must agree with you, that it is being blown all out of proportion, this endangerment to religious expression. It's there at the margins, but it's hardly some sort of crisis, shocking to the conscience of those who care about religious liberty. Why? I suspect because it's a proxy, a channel to vent frustration that those who wish in a more "perfect" world that gays have a more marginalized status, consigned to the shadows, have endured a total defeat, both at the ballot box, in public opinion, in the trends in public opinion (the young, even the Pub young, have been "brainwashed" into a near total tolerance and acceptance of gays), and in the Courts. It's been a bloodbath for them as it were, and seemingly something of a permanent plate tectonic shift.

Anyway, I hope that we can try to be gracious in victory. Give them all time to process it all, and work it out to the point where they can just move on, to other issues.

In what sense is the threat to religious liberty "on the margins"? 

You are right, it is a proxy. It is a proxy as to whether or not a person must shunt his or her moral and religious beliefs in the course of everyday activities in order to not to offend others, and be punished by the state otherwise.
47  General Discussion / Constitution and Law / Re: My Take on SCOTUS Ruling on: June 30, 2015, 04:54:52 pm
Were you equally outraged by the Citizens United ruling?

I have no problem with criticizing government and don't support the BCRA. We, as a citizenry, have the right to be critical of government and those that place themselves in the public light. We should not be limited by arbitrary days before an election to discontinue the discussion; fair or unfair and regardless of party. Hopefully the electorate will do its own research and make an informed decision when voting and not be persuaded by platitudes. Unlikely, but my opinion. Any limitations on free speech by either party or political persuasion should be immediately be shunned. For example, there is a plan by a group to burn an American flag by a protest group in New York shortly before the 4th of July. I served in the Nave shortly after our involvement in Vietnam. I disapprove and find the act abhorrent. That said, I support their right to exercise their free speech and their right to petition the government even if I disagree with their message.

In other words, you're OK with the SCOTUS overriding existing legislation and going against the will of an overwhelming majority of citizens when you agree with the decision, but you're against doing the same thing when you disagree with it. Thanks for clarifying.

Isn't that the approach most people take?   
48  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Should churches that don't perform gay marriages lose their tax-exempt status? on: June 30, 2015, 03:24:28 pm
But yeah, basic freedom of conscience protections are pretty damn important.

True, but I'm not sure what that has to do with this subject? We're talking about public accommodations serving customers or declining to serve customers, not engaging in religious (or sacrilegious) activities. In any case, I agree with you! This is the most important issue of our time and all of our voters (especially the young ones) need to know where our leaders stand! Let's have the Republican candidate stake out this position and run on it in 2016.

For a religious person, there is not one morality for 'secular' situations and one for 'religious' situations.  All of life, including one's profession, are directed by one's moral duties.  Directing  someone to lend their expression and talents to something they disagree with is an infringement on their liberty.
49  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Breaking: Supreme Court rules SSM a legal right on: June 30, 2015, 03:13:25 pm
I guess people who object to sex before marriage just hate single people too?

what? shua, i don't think you're very good at this whole comparison thing tbqh

You believe that someone can't oppose an act related to sexuality unless the hate the person doing it, when it comes to homosexuality, then why not sex before marriage?  Why there someone just has a moral belief, but you assume that anyone is full of hate and contempt if they say "I don't agree with this thing you are doing, so I'm sorry I can't take part in it, but I hope we can still be friends."

if you have a violent aversion to gay marriage that you do not have to straight marriage, then you believe that gay people are not worth as much as straight people. it's very simple.

a "violent" aversion?

Why is it hard to understand that some people think of marriage and gender in fundamentally different terms than you do, and that it's not just about how much they like gay people?
50  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Oklahoma Justices order 10 Commandments Monument Removed on: June 30, 2015, 03:06:41 pm


I love the part about graven images.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 547


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines