The Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

traditional marriage.

You see, it's posting stuff like that turns this thread into a pile of steaming crap rampant with political hackery.

Traditional marriage where the wife is purchased or traditional marriage within one race? The poster never made it clear.

Given the context of the poll the post was discussing, it's pretty clear it was talking about same-sex marriage.

I wasn't aware that same-sex marriage was traditional anywhere.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Oh, for Dave's sake.

Thou shalt not take the name of Lord of Hosting in vain!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

By the time Reagan became President, racial issues had mostly been resolved.

To be fair, they haven't been resolved any further in the past three decades.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'll grant he was trying to be humorous, but given that anyone who spends any time on this forum would know which Rick was meant, the post belongs here instead.

Rick would be welcomed by the masses in Tampa.

You sure that Governor Perry has a shot?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Clarence has compromised by moving one disastrous policy to another. Quite a low standard if you ask me. I really hope it doesn't become a trend for this Senate to ignore common sense because the sponsor of a bill expresses a willingness to compromise. After all, the Fugitive Slave Act was a compromise.

Um............

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, what an ABSURD statement.

Though if you are arguing semantics here, it would be inaccurate to call the Fugitive Slave Act a "compromise" in itself.  It was, after all, part of the much larger "Compromise of 1850".  Likely, it would've been very hard to pass it as a standalone act.

I think what sjoyce was getting at was that the neither the Fugitive Slave Act nor the Compromise of 1850 as a while are choice examples to use when talking up the advantages of beig willing to compromise.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Whyte Supremacist Rain should be banned for that Krystalnacht post.

Besides, Krystal and Chick-fil-A have nothing to do with each other.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Look, I have strong opinions, I'm sure you have strong opinions.

For someone with strong opinions, you are oddly coy about them at times.

For instance, your signature:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The quote is from Ian Smith and the picture is of Clem Tholet a Rhodesian folk singer who wrote and sang a bunch of war songs.

Combining these quotes with your user name, I presume you're part of the Rhodesian diaspora, and part of the part of that diaspora that wishes that minority white rule had been successful.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If this is a realigning election, it could very well be the most important election since 1980.

At times I wonder if J.J. is a bot, but no bot would write a post this inane.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Most foreigners love seeing America struggle, so naturally they love Obama and want the next four years to be like the past four years.

I'm going to start interacting with him as if he were the Scarlet Pimpernel.

Are there a lot of trolls on this forum?

Yes, and Politico is one of our most notorious ones. The 2012 board is pretty much open season for even good posters to be trolls, though. Welcome to the forum!

Be prepared to say goodbye to RhodieIII, Nathan.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What's absurd about this is not the post itself, but that the thread it is in went so far off topic from what it was about originally to yield this post:

I've spent time in Quebec City/the St Lawrence Estuary and in parts of the Maritimes, and while I personally thought that the former was nicer to visit I'd probably recommend sounding the latter for an Anglophone.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

and than there's this
http://www.examiner.com/article/liberals-on-twitter-curse-archbishop-dolan-for-pro-life-prayer-at-dnc-convention

Democrats curse the American Pope.  Nice job guys.

LOL. There's an American Pope now.

What's so absurd here?  I can easily see using "pope" in the figurative sense rather than the literal one, there's no reason to think he was being literal, and Dolan is the most senior member of the American Catholic clergy. If anyone is going to be called the American pope, it's Dolan.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Scott, for many people ethics should not be something compartmentalized but something that is part of the whole day.  Sending your kids to a public school where there is no 'one true religion' would be exposing your kids a different set of values if you were one of those for whom the first question in deciding whether something is moral is "Does my god approve?" rather than "Does this hurt others?"  While in most cases the two questions will lead to the same definitions of right and wrong, it doesn't always do so.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Scott, for many people ethics should not be something compartmentalized but something that is part of the whole day.  Sending your kids to a public school where there is no 'one true religion' would be exposing your kids a different set of values if you were one of those for whom the first question in deciding whether something is moral is "Does my god approve?" rather than "Does this hurt others?"  While in most cases the two questions will lead to the same definitions of right and wrong, it doesn't always do so.

Kids are going to be exposed to various religious and moral viewpoints throughout life, and the school a person goes to doesn't change that.  Learning ethics which do not exclusively stem from religious teachings doesn't make the experience of public schooling any more of a "gamble," nor should it make religious ethics any less valid, either.  If, for a religious person, applying the wisdom of both those questions to moral concepts isn't ideal, then you've lost me there.  The only gamble that exists is one that's imagined, and to suggest that it's just "serious Christians" taking any kind of risk is downright absurd.

The reason why there is for some religious a disconnect between the two queries is that the question used in the secular framing of morality "Does this hurt others?" suffers from the problem of who defines what hurts? For example, an addict would say being deprived of his fix would hurt, even as what he is addicted to is killing him.  While many on this board would disagree, for those who view homosexuality as a sin, they see it as an addiction that needs to be fought, not a lifestyle choice to be accepted or embraced.

Those religious people who are worried about the public schools see various activities that secular culture is either embracing or tolerating as sins that they are worried about their kids getting hooked on.  Their solution is to wall themselves off from the contagion of the immoral society around them, confident that in the end they and their progeny will be rewarded by their god for following the one true path of defining right or wrong not by perceptions of imperfect humanity, but of a perfect deity.

I agree that walling yourself off from the world is not a good solution, but it is one that quite a few religious people follow, and not just those who are Christian, which is why I've tried to express myself in this thread is as pantheistic a manner as I can.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Obama doesn't want Romney in his cabinet.

He is waiting for Ginsburg to resign so he can appoint Romney to the Supreme Court.  Romney does have a law degree as well as an MBA from Harvard after all.

Why do some people need smileys to understand something was posted as humor?  As I said in the Goldmine when I posted this same post there, if Politico (or J.J.) had posted this then it would belong here, but I'm certain Winfield meant it as humor.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I actually find it very funny in a watching-a-train-wreck kinda way.

I quote this as absurd. You apparently find train-wrecks to be funny.

So which was funnier this past week: Texas, where 4 veterans died when the parade float they were on was hit by a train, or Egypt, where 50 or so school kids died when the school bus they were on was hit by a train?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If she doesn't appoint Scott, she's an HP. Or more of one.

This would be the case if Scott weren't an HP.

But it isn't, because he's a black.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is why I like the New Deal.

---------------------

This random comment of his is from my thread 'The Rebel Yell'.   I hope it makes more sense given the context than it did to me.  

It's not quite as absurd as it seems at first glance since the 75th Anniversary Encampment was held in 1938 and while not strictly New Deal related, the New Deal was responsible for jumpstarting government funding for oral history projects.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

 The rogue mind in which the gun rest denies life again, its horror imagined lived infinity by the survivors of Adam Lanza; his capital sin, revenge - the Obama Christmas Present’.  The Obama Christmas Future’ - the denial and abuse of the Founding Father’s fundamentals can only foster greater atrocities. Their foresight was not void of mass murder, it’s forming was of it. Our Christmas Pass’, Obamacare - the aggrandizement of life, liberty and loot is met with equal distain.

Absurd in a good/hilarious way though.

Should I be worried that I think I understand what he is trying to mangle?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The whole state of Alabama should be the target of surgical strikes.

I don't think surgeons have labor unions.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

For purchase enquiry you can contact us via any email below... SATISFACTION GUARANTEED
Contact Name : Nguyen Guevara

WTF kind of name is that?

Vietnamese Hispanic it looks like.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The fact this this Oldies guy seemingly has 75% of the forum in an uproar whenever he posts is too funny. I don't think I've ever read one of his posts.

You should. It's comedic gold.

Silver.  Bushie is gold.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Stop conversing.......just post

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That's a nice job of selective quoting to make a position seem more extreme than it actually is, memphis.  You have a future in writing political attack ads.

It's only absurd if you insist that a marriage is a marriage only if the government is involved.  People were getting married long before governments were involved, and if governments decide to get out of the marriage business, people will still be getting married.  Keep in mind that in the interracial case that same-sex marriage activists use as a comparison, Loving v. Virginia, the Lovings were arrested and sentenced to one year in jail for being married and living together.  That's not happening anywhere in the US with same-sex couples.  So I'll stand by what I said in that post:

Ever since Lawrence v. Texas. everyone throughout the United States has had the right to be in a same-sex marriage.  So the right to be married is not what you are arguing for.  What you are arguing for is that same-sex marriages be given the same state privileges that opposite-sex marriages are, and only a few states do that at present.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You're really not making things any better for yourself. The right to have sex with somebody in private is obviously not the same thing as the right to marry somebody. 

Even married couples get in trouble with the law if they have sex in public, but that's not what you're talking about here. What we're discussing is whether being married requires a government.  You think people can't be married without government involvement and I think it doesn't require a government. It's as simple as that.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You're really not making things any better for yourself. The right to have sex with somebody in private is obviously not the same thing as the right to marry somebody. 

Even married couples get in trouble with the law if they have sex in public, but that's not what you're talking about here. What we're discussing is whether being married requires a government.  You think people can't be married without government involvement and I think it doesn't require a government. It's as simple as that.

I think government is required for a civil mariage, yes. Civil marriage is what that entire thread was about. If you want to suggest every sex act in the entire country is a government-free "marriage," that's your folly.

Not every sex act, just those committed by those in a loving relationship which involves mutual support and a common residence.