Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 30, 2015, 02:44:22 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10

 on: Today at 02:08:48 pm 
Started by Sawx, King in the North - Last post by RFayette for MW Legislature
In the past, I was a libertarian before joining the forum, though I had a brief stretch of being a rather anti-religious moderate when I had joined (this phase is long gone). I enjoyed political discussions with others of opposing viewpoints, and they usually came around to my way of thinking.  I admit I had seen right-wing economics as "enlightened."  This forum definitely humbled me in that regard with the talents of many of our posters here, many of whom are left-wing.  I've become a little less inclined to staunchly defend my viewpoints and if discussing something, I'd try my best to give both viewpoints, explain my viewpoint and why I respect the other viewpoint but do not share it.

Within my peer cohort at my high school, I'm near the top in terms of writing academic papers and exceeding in that dimension; in this forum, I'm near the bottom.  I can crank out an English paper, but the idea of competing against top university students in those domains seems quite intimidating.   I feel far more comfortable with VBA programming or math equations than writing long essays and reading large books.  Y'all who are talented in those fields, congratulations.  It's not something in my area of expertise, that's for sure.

 on: Today at 02:06:24 pm 
Started by CrabCake - Last post by Small L
President Huntsman and President Romney say no.

Are you shi**ing me, lol?

Romney is an old gizzard and he still cleans up fabulously. His business & money-appeal made him lest trustworthy to the average Joe but he looks extremely well & attractive for his age.
Pretty sure Vega wouldn't disagree with that. I read the comment as saying "Huntsman and Romney were attractive and they lost, so no, attractiveness does not matter."

 on: Today at 02:02:34 pm 
Started by TX_1824 - Last post by shua
That's completely disingenuous.

It's not a matter of legislating from the bench.  It's a matter of interpretation of the 14th Amendment. 

There have been a variety of interpretations of the 14th Amendment since it was ratified.  Some people said you could discriminate against black people as long as there was "separate but equal."  Some people said the 14th Amendment applied only to racial issues, other people said it applied to women too. 

I think the kernel at the heart of this ruling is that the government can't treat a group of people like homosexuals differently without a rational basis for discriminating.  In previous generations, that basis was the agreed upon idea that homosexuality was an immoral, sinful mental illness.  Some people still believe that and maybe you do.  But, the overwhelming consensus is that homosexuality is normal and healthy, it's just a natural sexual orientation and form of love. 

In court, the states with gay marriage bans never argued that homosexuality was evil or immoral.  They basically just hemmed and hawed the whole way from district court to the Supreme Court.  Their task was finding a rational basis for the law and they never produced one.  And, they lost.  That is the story of this case.  The consensus on the basic facts shifted and the argument was one by the same-sex marriage side.   

As for your bizarre opinion of the court's jurisdiction, that's also false.  The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear 14th Amendment challenges.  The 14th Amendment applies to the states and the Constitution is the supreme law of the United States.

The opinion did not focus on the equal protection clause and it did not make any claim about a lack of rational basis.

 on: Today at 01:58:29 pm 
Started by LibertarianRepublican - Last post by EliteLX
From a general prospect.

Cruz, Rand, Perry and such show as most conservative.

Your flopping RINOs are least conservative are Trump (the dude was a damn Democrat from 2001-2009??!), Christie, Pataki, .etc.

 on: Today at 01:57:12 pm 
Started by TNvolunteer - Last post by retromike22

 on: Today at 01:56:27 pm 
Started by TNvolunteer - Last post by Oldiesfreak1854
And if Hassan goes for the Senate, then what happens?

 on: Today at 01:55:52 pm 
Started by LibertarianRepublican - Last post by LibertarianRepublican
How would you rank the 2016 GOP candidates from least conservative to most conservative??

 on: Today at 01:55:35 pm 
Started by The Arizonan - Last post by Oldiesfreak1854
Aren't Mormons only about 5% of the population in Nevada?

To answer the question, its pathetic turnout and pathetic candidates (rather good Republican candidates too) that have allowed the Nevada GOP to sweep everything in the state except Harry Reid's Senate seat.
They would've swept that in 2010 too, except that we nominated a dreadful candidate.

 on: Today at 01:55:01 pm 
Started by CrabCake - Last post by EliteLX
President Huntsman and President Romney say no.

Are you shi**ing me, lol?

Romney is an old gizzard and he still cleans up fabulously. His business & money-appeal made him lest trustworthy to the average Joe but he looks extremely well & attractive for his age.

 on: Today at 01:53:58 pm 
Started by cinyc - Last post by True Federalist
This is an outrage and massive infringement on the personal freedom of these bakers! What's next, they'll be forced to bake cakes for blacks and Hispanics, because of a religiously justified opposition to their skin color!?

I wonder if people believe a baker should be allowed to close their doors to Jews looking for a cake for a bar mitzvah because of the baker's religious views.

I wonder if people believe a Muslim bookseller should have to sell an (Arabic) Quran to Pastor Terry Jones.  

(No, I don't really wonder, I already know they do. Same people who hate conservative Christians hate Orthodox Jews and Muslims, more often than not.)

Ok, so you are in the camp that believes that bakers should be able to discriminate against Jews if they want to use the cake in a bar mitzvah. Am I reading this correctly?
I'm not aware of anyone who has a religious objection to a bar mitzvah. Maybe an Orthodox Jewish baker would object to a bat mitzvah.

It's not part of the Christian faith to have a bar mitzvah, much as it's not part of some people's Christian faith to marry someone of the same sex.
You're being willfully obtuse now, almost trollishly so. There's a vast difference between something that is not part one's own faith and something one believes is an abomination that it would be a sin to be even marginally a participant in.

I'm not being obtuse, I'm highlighting the sloppy thinking and contradictions behind that assumption. Same-sex marriage is not mentioned in the bible, to my knowledge. Selling a cake that would be used in a celebration is not mentioned, either. (Slavery is, interestingly).

I'm not being obtuse. I just don't think that a Biblical injunction against an individual engaging in same-sex sex maps to the cake sale.
Mark 10:1-12 and Matthew 19:1-12 both define marriage as being both between one man and one wife and as being largely unto death they do part. I'll agree that it does seem arbitrary that many Biblical literalists don't get as agitated about no-fault divorce as they do SSM. In that respect the Roman Church is more consistent about applying these passages than many sola scriptura Protestant churches these days.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10

Login with username, password and session length


Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines