Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 12, 2019, 06:57:39 pm
News: 2020 Gubernatorial Predictions are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderators: TG, Associate Justice PiT)
  Summary of political beliefs
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... 58 Print
Author Topic: Summary of political beliefs  (Read 407308 times)
Vladimir
Newbie
*
Posts: 16
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.55, S: 8.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #950 on: March 13, 2014, 12:50:17 am »


May I be the first to say that you make me, as a gay man, an atheist, a man who thinks government shouldn't control what you put in your body, a man who believes that those who can afford it should give back to the community, who believes that science should lead the way on issues of women's health and that women shouldn't be made to carry their rapist's baby, that our military is bloated and needs to be cut, and that everyone deserves a basic standard of living, sick? I think you might find a certain other Vladimir to be a good friend of yours.

Are you really losing your sh*t to an obvious troll?

Then again, I'd probably do the same thing.  THese trolls are like watching a train wreck.  So horrible, but you just got to watch.

   Hey, you should take a look at my political matrix score before assuming that. I'm the real deal Wink
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,667
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -4.35


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #951 on: March 13, 2014, 12:50:44 am »

Very socially conservative. A few examples;
Abortion: Only when the life of the mother is seriously threatened.
Gay "Marriage": Completely and totally illegal.
Drugs: Marijuana should be completely illegal, and I'm not too fond of alcohol or cigarettes but I realize those two would be nearly impossible to illegalize, so I'll tolerate them in moderation.
Church and State: Keep "In God we Trust", school prayers should be allowed but determined based on the school districts, freedom OF religion not FROM religion, take out the "Solemnly swear" parts of oaths and return to what it was, etc.

Moderately economically conservative. A few examples;
Taxes: Should be a universal tax rate from the bottom of the ladder to the very top, with the exception being the absolute poorest of the poor, whom should receive government assistance, but must prove they are actively trying to secure a job that can pay for themselves.
Deficit Spending: Slash spending across the board, with the only exceptions being education and the military.
Welfare: Only for the poorest of the poor, and drug test applicants.
Debt Ceiling: Lower, lower, LOWER!!!!


May I be the first to say that you make me, as a gay man, an atheist, a man who thinks government shouldn't control what you put in your body, a man who believes that those who can afford it should give back to the community, who believes that science should lead the way on issues of women's health and that women shouldn't be made to carry their rapist's baby, that our military is bloated and needs to be cut, and that everyone deserves a basic standard of living, sick? I think you might find a certain other Vladimir to be a good friend of yours.

Actually, I'm a big Putin fan. So is 70% of Russians and most Crimeans. Smiley

Good to know, I'll need a good punching bag about which to get needlessly angry and rant on the internet. Now, starting with the easy questions, why should gay marriage be illegal?


 Good question! But, before I start, you don't have to get angry with me. I'm a nice guy once you get past your initial disgust and contempt with me Wink.
  Anyhow, I could simply answer that question based on my belief in God, but that's probably not what you are looking for, and I'd get a stock response for it so I'll stay away from that. Why gay "marriage" should be illegal; the definition of marriage is (or should be based on whatever view you have on the definition) a union between a man in a woman, based on love, for the purpose of creating a stable family environment for a child/children.
  Your next assertion would undoubtedly be one of the following; either, "If two gays love eachother, why can't they be happy too?" or, "Gays can create a stable family environment and raise children as well, so why can't they do so?". Well, before I continue, let me say that I have several gay family members/friends and I do not hate anybody for simply being gay. Now, with that said, I contend that homosexuality is not natural, and is a self-induced mental condition, meaning, a state of mind one puts themselves in. (I'll probably get questioned for this statement but I assure you I can back it up, but I'll save that for later). Also, for two gays to "create" a family, they have to either adopt a child, or artificially produce one through the help of modern science. Sure, on the outside it appears to be relatively similar to a "straight" marriage. But, the sad truth is, is that the vast majority of said gay "marriages" do not provide a stable family environment. Gays have a much higher; divorce rate, partner violence rate, disease (whether it be an STD or a genetic disease) rate, as well as a much lower percentage reporting marital fidelity.
     
    I could go on, but I have a feeling this is already a bit much. So, I'll continue whenever prompted to. Also, I can provide sources for these "accusations", which I will probably be asked to list. Also, let me assure you once more; I do not hate anybody for merely being gay. I have many gay friends/ a few gay family members. I do not hate anybody here that opposes my views/facts. Also, if you or anybody else disagrees, please avoid vitriol and stick to logical, factual responses; I'm not here for a pissing contest. (Just figured I should state all the above less I be called a 'homophobic bigoted hater' or something of the like).


Okay, I'll bite. What is your source for these, shall we say... strong claims?
Logged
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,275
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #952 on: March 13, 2014, 01:13:28 am »
« Edited: March 13, 2014, 01:31:56 am by Speaker Scott »

Let's take this apart one piece at a time, shall we?

Good question! But, before I start, you don't have to get angry with me. I'm a nice guy once you get past your initial disgust and contempt with me Wink.
  Anyhow, I could simply answer that question based on my belief in God, but that's probably not what you are looking for, and I'd get a stock response for it so I'll stay away from that.

Your point?  I am seeking and preparing to be on the ordination path this fall, partly because, and not in spite of, my unwavering support for increased LGBT representation and acceptance in the Christian church.  Your personal belief in God or what God wants should not dictate the law of the land.  In fact, it's worth absolutely nothing in the realm of civic discourse because it has no bearing on what other members of society believe in or desire.  Nothing warrants its mention.  If you oppose gay marriage for religious reasons, you have the right to not marry a person of the same gender.  You do not have the right to tell other people to live your lifestyle.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is your view on how marriage should be "defined" superior to any other view?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nobody cares how many gay people you know.  Really.  No one cares about your personal relations with other people.  If you affirm the right of opposite-sex couples to enter a marriage contract and oppose that same right for same-sex couples, you are essentially discriminating against the latter group.  I don't see how this doesn't constitute as hate.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Burden of proof is on you here.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure where you get the divorce rate statistic from, since gay marriage is not legal in most states.  However, domestic violence is common among both straight and gay couples, and the majority of same-sex couples are well functioning similar to that of healthy heterosexual couples.  Even if you can prove statistical disparities between these groups, the burden is on you to draw a clear and direct link to sexual orientation.
    
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You condescendingly put quotations around the word 'marriage,' when referring to gay marriages.  Why should we think of you as anything other than a bigot, given that you have a clear animus for same-sex couples?

I will say no more until you provide sources.
Logged
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,275
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #953 on: March 13, 2014, 01:22:48 am »


May I be the first to say that you make me, as a gay man, an atheist, a man who thinks government shouldn't control what you put in your body, a man who believes that those who can afford it should give back to the community, who believes that science should lead the way on issues of women's health and that women shouldn't be made to carry their rapist's baby, that our military is bloated and needs to be cut, and that everyone deserves a basic standard of living, sick? I think you might find a certain other Vladimir to be a good friend of yours.

Are you really losing your sh*t to an obvious troll?

Then again, I'd probably do the same thing.  THese trolls are like watching a train wreck.  So horrible, but you just got to watch.

   Hey, you should take a look at my political matrix score before assuming that. I'm the real deal Wink

Right, because it's not like any idiot can just type in a fake PM score. Roll Eyes
Logged
Solidarity Forever
Alfred F. Jones
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,021
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #954 on: March 13, 2014, 04:56:09 am »


   Is it Dr. Goebbels? Could've sworn that was Adolf. If you can show me it was Goebbels, I'll change my signature to show that.
[/quote]

Oh, wait, apparently you're right. Wikiquote says it's from Mein Kampf.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,703
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -7.65

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #955 on: March 13, 2014, 06:13:26 am »

Very socially conservative. A few examples;
Abortion: Only when the life of the mother is seriously threatened.
Gay "Marriage": Completely and totally illegal.
Drugs: Marijuana should be completely illegal, and I'm not too fond of alcohol or cigarettes but I realize those two would be nearly impossible to illegalize, so I'll tolerate them in moderation.
Church and State: Keep "In God we Trust", school prayers should be allowed but determined based on the school districts, freedom OF religion not FROM religion, take out the "Solemnly swear" parts of oaths and return to what it was, etc.

Moderately economically conservative. A few examples;
Taxes: Should be a universal tax rate from the bottom of the ladder to the very top, with the exception being the absolute poorest of the poor, whom should receive government assistance, but must prove they are actively trying to secure a job that can pay for themselves.
Deficit Spending: Slash spending across the board, with the only exceptions being education and the military.
Welfare: Only for the poorest of the poor, and drug test applicants.
Debt Ceiling: Lower, lower, LOWER!!!!


May I be the first to say that you make me, as a gay man, an atheist, a man who thinks government shouldn't control what you put in your body, a man who believes that those who can afford it should give back to the community, who believes that science should lead the way on issues of women's health and that women shouldn't be made to carry their rapist's baby, that our military is bloated and needs to be cut, and that everyone deserves a basic standard of living, sick? I think you might find a certain other Vladimir to be a good friend of yours.

Actually, I'm a big Putin fan. So is 70% of Russians and most Crimeans. Smiley

Good to know, I'll need a good punching bag about which to get needlessly angry and rant on the internet. Now, starting with the easy questions, why should gay marriage be illegal?


 Good question! But, before I start, you don't have to get angry with me. I'm a nice guy once you get past your initial disgust and contempt with me Wink.
  Anyhow, I could simply answer that question based on my belief in God, but that's probably not what you are looking for, and I'd get a stock response for it so I'll stay away from that. Why gay "marriage" should be illegal; the definition of marriage is (or should be based on whatever view you have on the definition) a union between a man in a woman, based on love, for the purpose of creating a stable family environment for a child/children.
  Your next assertion would undoubtedly be one of the following; either, "If two gays love eachother, why can't they be happy too?" or, "Gays can create a stable family environment and raise children as well, so why can't they do so?". Well, before I continue, let me say that I have several gay family members/friends and I do not hate anybody for simply being gay. Now, with that said, I contend that homosexuality is not natural, and is a self-induced mental condition, meaning, a state of mind one puts themselves in. (I'll probably get questioned for this statement but I assure you I can back it up, but I'll save that for later). Also, for two gays to "create" a family, they have to either adopt a child, or artificially produce one through the help of modern science. Sure, on the outside it appears to be relatively similar to a "straight" marriage. But, the sad truth is, is that the vast majority of said gay "marriages" do not provide a stable family environment. Gays have a much higher; divorce rate, partner violence rate, disease (whether it be an STD or a genetic disease) rate, as well as a much lower percentage reporting marital fidelity.
     
    I could go on, but I have a feeling this is already a bit much. So, I'll continue whenever prompted to. Also, I can provide sources for these "accusations", which I will probably be asked to list. Also, let me assure you once more; I do not hate anybody for merely being gay. I have many gay friends/ a few gay family members. I do not hate anybody here that opposes my views/facts. Also, if you or anybody else disagrees, please avoid vitriol and stick to logical, factual responses; I'm not here for a pissing contest. (Just figured I should state all the above less I be called a 'homophobic bigoted hater' or something of the like).


Sorry to pounce on the already lots of criticism of this, but there's no scientific evidence whatsoever to back this up. Also statistics shouldn't stop anybody from having a right to do something.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 25,175


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #956 on: March 13, 2014, 07:35:47 am »

Vladimir; back up your statement.

If you consider it to be a 'self induced mental state', please outline precisely how all observations of animal species that reproduce by procreation have shown the display of homosexual behaviours. Please give evidence that all these animals, separated by hundreds of millions years of divergent evolution induce themselves into a differing mental state.

With regards to humans, please provide hard evidence confirming the point in the life of an adolescent (and for my example I will choose a male) in which they induce themselves; i.e they make a conscious decision that their pupils will dilate, their palms will sweat, chemical responses will take place and blood will rush to engorge the penis to a state of erection whereby it may self lubricate when faced with an attractive specimen of the same sex. At what point in their life was that conscious decision made, particularly if they had not reacted in a similar fashion to females. If there is no sexual attraction until it actually manifests itself, can you please confirm with evidence at what point individuals made a conscious choice to have any sexual response heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise?

Please also provide evidence, that in the event your hypothesis is 'true' that it sets aside homosexuals as a group that should be denied rights on the basis that their orientation is either a choice or a self induced mental state. Please provide evidence, given that you believe in God, that people's religious choices which involve adhering to a faith, leaving it, joining another, changing what you believe over the course of your lifetime or abandoning it altogether would not fit the same definition of a 'choice' or a 'self induced mental state', or if it does, that it deserves an arbitrary exemption from the conditions under which rights can be given or received?

Please provide evidence that domestic violence rates amongst same sex couples are higher than amongst opposite sex couples.

You may wish to review the following source material;

Broken Rainbow Conference Report C Jones (2002)
Homophobic Crime and Same-Sex Domestic Abuse D Collins, M Vallely (2001)
Domestic Violence within Lesbian Relationships K Townley (2001)
At the End of the Rainbow: A Report on Gay Male Domestic Violence and Abuse M Lehman (1997)
Same-Sex Domestic Violence: Strategies for Change S Lundy, B Leventhal (1999)
Lesbian, Gay Male, Bisexual and Transgendered Elders: Elder Abuse and Neglect Issues L Cook-Daniels (2002)
Hold Tight, Tight Hold: A Project on Same-Sex Domestic Abuse: Same Sex Domestic Abuse - A New Approach D Shelley (2002)
Violence & Abuse in Same-Sex Relationships: A Review of Literature A Richards, N Noret, I Rivers (2003)
Hate crimes in Scotland: A summary of results from the Equality Network postcard and email survey on hate crimes  Equality Network (2004)
Gay identity, interpersonal violence, and HIV risk behaviors: an empirical test of theoretical relationships among a probability-based sample of urban men who have sex with men M Relf, B Huang, J Campbell,Catania, J (2004)
Violence and social injustice against lesbian, gay and bisexual people L Sloan, N Gustavsson (1998)
Domestic Abuse against Men in Scotland  D Gadd, S Farrall, D Dallimore,Lombard, N (2002)
Domestic Partner Abuse. L Kevin Hamberger, Claire Renzetti. (1999)
Loving in Fear: lesbian and gay survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Queer Press Collective. (1993)
Men who beat men who love them: battered gay men and domestic violence. David Island. (1995)
Naming the violence: speaking out against lesbian battering. National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Lesbian Task Force (1989)
No more secrets: violence in lesbian relationships. Janice Ristock. (2002)
Patterns of sexual violence among men. P.M. Davies (1998)
Professionalís guide to understanding gay and lesbian domestic violence: understanding practice interventions. J C. McClennen and J Gunther (2000)
Violent Betrayal: partner abuse in lesbian relationships. C M. Renzetti. (199

Please provide evidence, drawn from official government data of higher level of divorce rates

You may wish to refer to the following;

Badgett, M.V. Lee; Herman, Jody L. (November 2011). Patterns of Relationship Recognition by Same-Sex Couples in the United States

I am of course more familiar with UK data; the Office of National Statistics have confirmed that in the 7 year window since the introduction of civil partnerships, dissolution rates for those who had a civil partnership within those 7 years was 3.2% for m/m couples and 6.1% for f/f couples; which dovetails neatly into the existing understanding that in m/f couples, women are disproportionately higher instigators of divorce than men. The same figure for m/f couples, over the same 7 year window was 13%. While it is expected that over time these figures may converge, there is no evidence from my own country that divorce rates are higher.
Logged
Vladimir
Newbie
*
Posts: 16
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.55, S: 8.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #957 on: March 13, 2014, 05:42:17 pm »


May I be the first to say that you make me, as a gay man, an atheist, a man who thinks government shouldn't control what you put in your body, a man who believes that those who can afford it should give back to the community, who believes that science should lead the way on issues of women's health and that women shouldn't be made to carry their rapist's baby, that our military is bloated and needs to be cut, and that everyone deserves a basic standard of living, sick? I think you might find a certain other Vladimir to be a good friend of yours.

Are you really losing your sh*t to an obvious troll?

Then again, I'd probably do the same thing.  THese trolls are like watching a train wreck.  So horrible, but you just got to watch.

   Hey, you should take a look at my political matrix score before assuming that. I'm the real deal Wink

Right, because it's not like any idiot can just type in a fake PM score. Roll Eyes

   Please keep the insults out of this. I don't really care whether or not you are repulsed by me, but try to keep the conversation cordial. Resorting to insults makes you look bad Smiley
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,667
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -4.35


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #958 on: March 13, 2014, 05:51:35 pm »

I see you are dodging all of the questions, Vlad...
Logged
Vladimir
Newbie
*
Posts: 16
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.55, S: 8.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #959 on: March 13, 2014, 06:20:06 pm »

Let's take this apart one piece at a time, shall we?

Good question! But, before I start, you don't have to get angry with me. I'm a nice guy once you get past your initial disgust and contempt with me Wink.
  Anyhow, I could simply answer that question based on my belief in God, but that's probably not what you are looking for, and I'd get a stock response for it so I'll stay away from that.

Your point?  I am seeking and preparing to be on the ordination path this fall, partly because, and not in spite of, my unwavering support for increased LGBT representation and acceptance in the Christian church.  Your personal belief in God or what God wants should not dictate the law of the land.  In fact, it's worth absolutely nothing in the realm of civic discourse because it has no bearing on what other members of society believe in or desire.  Nothing warrants its mention.  If you oppose gay marriage for religious reasons, you have the right to not marry a person of the same gender.  You do not have the right to tell other people to live your lifestyle.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is your view on how marriage should be "defined" superior to any other view?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nobody cares how many gay people you know.  Really.  No one cares about your personal relations with other people.  If you affirm the right of opposite-sex couples to enter a marriage contract and oppose that same right for same-sex couples, you are essentially discriminating against the latter group.  I don't see how this doesn't constitute as hate.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Burden of proof is on you here.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure where you get the divorce rate statistic from, since gay marriage is not legal in most states.  However, domestic violence is common among both straight and gay couples, and the majority of same-sex couples are well functioning similar to that of healthy heterosexual couples.  Even if you can prove statistical disparities between these groups, the burden is on you to draw a clear and direct link to sexual orientation.
    
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You condescendingly put quotations around the word 'marriage,' when referring to gay marriages.  Why should we think of you as anything other than a bigot, given that you have a clear animus for same-sex couples?

I will say no more until you provide sources.

    About my faith; I recognize this and that is exactly why I chose to leave that argument out. I chose to go along the logical/statistical/factual/what-have-you side. Thus, please keep the Jesus bashing out of it.
     Secondly; my/many many people through history's view on the definition of marriage is "superior" because of a few things. First off, I will note briefly that the term "marriage" as is used today (not the simple unions between men and women used before in Greece, Rome, etc) was created by Christianity. Either way, my so-called "superior" definition is the definition that has been time-tested and time-proven to be the most effective and lasting of any unions between any 2 people. It is the definition that has been widely recognized as the "purpose" of marriage in our society and the definition which is the most logical. Now, if you want to allow gay "marriage" to be legal, than you'd have to redefine the definition of marriage and thus invalidate all marriages by the previous definition. If you want to allow gay "unions", then that is a different argument entirely.
    You then go on to state that nobody cares about how many gays I personally know. Before I continue, let me just state that that is a ridiculous statement. Of course nobody cares. I doubt you care about anything I could possibly say. Quite frankly, I don't care about anything you say either. Don't want to sound mean by saying these things, but it's the sad truth. This is the internet. Anything you say about yourself cannot be validated without myself personally going to your house and observing the said action/situation (Which, might I add, is a bit creepy Tongue). So, yes, I know that you do not care. Save both of us time and leave out obvious, irrelevant, statements. Clearly you intended that to in some way belittle/ "get" me. And, I will once more say, this makes you look bad and makes it more difficult for me to take your position seriously. I said that I personally know many gays for the sole purpose of removing any notion that I am either ignorant or that I "hate" gays. Clearly this was lost on you, however.
    Next, all the "bigot" accusations. Once more this makes it very difficult for me to take you seriously. You cannot "prove" that I am a "bigot", nor can I "prove" that I am not a "bigot", therefore these accusations are irrelevant and beyond the purpose of me stating my opinions here. I plead you again to keep your argument relevant, and logical. Your whole accusation falls under the guise that anybody that opposes gay "marriage" is a "bigot". This statement alone is beyond the realm of reality.
    Lastly, my "condescending" use of quotation marks; I use them around gay "marriage" because I do not consider it to be marriage, therefore I consider the subject to be false and only call it gay "marriage" for lack of a better term. Thus, I insert quotation marks to show that I do not recognize it's so-called legitimacy.
    
       My next post will include sources for you guys; but before I continue, I just want to ask this fellow to please keep any responses cordial and for them to be valuable responses that actually add something to the discussion. You say that you will not respond further until I provide sources (which I am about to do), likewise, I will not respond to you further unless your replies contain something of value and abstain from frivolous and trial accusations. I'd like a relatively serious discussion.
Logged
Vladimir
Newbie
*
Posts: 16
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.55, S: 8.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #960 on: March 13, 2014, 06:21:44 pm »

I see you are dodging all of the questions, Vlad...

 Give me a bit of time, Goldwater; I have many responses to attend to haha. I'm going to spend a bit of time and pull up my sources next. If you have questions after that, then I'll get to them.
Logged
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,275
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #961 on: March 13, 2014, 06:39:36 pm »
« Edited: March 13, 2014, 06:45:03 pm by Speaker Scott »

    About my faith; I recognize this and that is exactly why I chose to leave that argument out. I chose to go along the logical/statistical/factual/what-have-you side. Thus, please keep the Jesus bashing out of it.

Well, you obviously didn't leave it out, otherwise it wouldn't have been in your post.  And please, the last thing I am is a 'Jesus-basher."

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I fail to see how giving the same rights that everyone else has to gay couples invalidates the integrity of straight marriages.  As far as definitions go, no word is written in stone.  Language is an evolving thing, otherwise we would all be speaking the same language as our ancient ancestors.  Social institutions are evolving, as well, and many languages use one word to refer to multiple things.  In either case, semantics has little bearing on why two consenting adults should be allowed to enter a marriage contract.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can just as easily say, "I have a black friend," and support Jim Crow laws.  Again, it really doesn't matter.  My point is, you can say whatever you want and that doesn't change the context of your views.  No one is going to excuse you for bigotry based on how many gay people you know.  You will be called a bigot, and rightly so.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

But I can.  You openly oppose allowing gay couples to enjoy the same rights as straight couples.  The evidence speaks for itself.  Try saying to someone, "Y'know, I wish they'd bring slavery back.  That's not because I'm racist, or anything."  See how they react.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay.  I will continue to call you a bigot and refuse to recognize you as human-being to show that I don't recognize you as anything else.  Sound good?

I'm going to call a shovel a shovel regardless of how much it hurts your feelings or "makes me look bad."  Get used to it.
Logged
Vladimir
Newbie
*
Posts: 16
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.55, S: 8.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #962 on: March 13, 2014, 07:04:34 pm »

I see you are dodging all of the questions, Vlad...

    Whelp, I spent about 30 minutes readying a post and citing sources, but it says I cannot post links until I have 20 posts. So, you guys decide; should I remove the links or just wait until I have 20 posts and insert the entire thing? (Copy-pasted the whole post into a word document).
Logged
Vladimir
Newbie
*
Posts: 16
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.55, S: 8.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #963 on: March 13, 2014, 07:13:16 pm »

    About my faith; I recognize this and that is exactly why I chose to leave that argument out. I chose to go along the logical/statistical/factual/what-have-you side. Thus, please keep the Jesus bashing out of it.

Well, you obviously didn't leave it out, otherwise it wouldn't have been in your post.  And please, the last thing I am is a 'Jesus-basher."

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I fail to see how giving the same rights that everyone else has to gay couples invalidates the integrity of straight marriages.  As far as definitions go, no word is written in stone.  Language is an evolving thing, otherwise we would all be speaking the same language as our ancient ancestors.  Social institutions are evolving, as well, and many languages use one word to refer to multiple things.  In either case, semantics has little bearing on why two consenting adults should be allowed to enter a marriage contract.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can just as easily say, "I have a black friend," and support Jim Crow laws.  Again, it really doesn't matter.  My point is, you can say whatever you want and that doesn't change the context of your views.  No one is going to excuse you for bigotry based on how many gay people you know.  You will be called a bigot, and rightly so.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

But I can.  You openly oppose allowing gay couples to enjoy the same rights as straight couples.  The evidence speaks for itself.  Try saying to someone, "Y'know, I wish they'd bring slavery back.  That's not because I'm racist, or anything."  See how they react.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay.  I will continue to call you a bigot and refuse to recognize you as human-being to show that I don't recognize you as anything else.  Sound good?

I'm going to call a shovel a shovel regardless of how much it hurts your feelings or "makes me look bad."  Get used to it.


    It's pretty ridiculous to equate a lack of allowance for gay "marriage" to slavery. Texas doesn't have gay "marriage", and my cousin's doing just fine. He's recently got a new boyfriend and brought him over for my New Year's party. He's a nice guy too. But, I may have missed their shackles and whipping scars and the dogs that were chasing them down for escaping their plantation Wink. I never stated that I advocated suppression of gays in any kind or extermination of them or what have you. I simply said that gay "marriage" should not be considered "marriage". Am I a promoter of slaughter of the gay populace for this horrid offence? I'd think that the overwhelming majority of people would disagree with you.
   Anyhow, trying to speak to you logically is impossible. I even resorted to your class of rhetoric to reply. But, like I've said, I will stop responding to you if you continue to fail to make a legitimate statement.
Logged
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,275
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #964 on: March 13, 2014, 07:16:47 pm »

    About my faith; I recognize this and that is exactly why I chose to leave that argument out. I chose to go along the logical/statistical/factual/what-have-you side. Thus, please keep the Jesus bashing out of it.

Well, you obviously didn't leave it out, otherwise it wouldn't have been in your post.  And please, the last thing I am is a 'Jesus-basher."

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I fail to see how giving the same rights that everyone else has to gay couples invalidates the integrity of straight marriages.  As far as definitions go, no word is written in stone.  Language is an evolving thing, otherwise we would all be speaking the same language as our ancient ancestors.  Social institutions are evolving, as well, and many languages use one word to refer to multiple things.  In either case, semantics has little bearing on why two consenting adults should be allowed to enter a marriage contract.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can just as easily say, "I have a black friend," and support Jim Crow laws.  Again, it really doesn't matter.  My point is, you can say whatever you want and that doesn't change the context of your views.  No one is going to excuse you for bigotry based on how many gay people you know.  You will be called a bigot, and rightly so.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

But I can.  You openly oppose allowing gay couples to enjoy the same rights as straight couples.  The evidence speaks for itself.  Try saying to someone, "Y'know, I wish they'd bring slavery back.  That's not because I'm racist, or anything."  See how they react.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay.  I will continue to call you a bigot and refuse to recognize you as human-being to show that I don't recognize you as anything else.  Sound good?

I'm going to call a shovel a shovel regardless of how much it hurts your feelings or "makes me look bad."  Get used to it.


    It's pretty ridiculous to equate a lack of allowance for gay "marriage" to slavery. Texas doesn't have gay "marriage", and my cousin's doing just fine. He's recently got a new boyfriend and brought him over for my New Year's party. He's a nice guy too. But, I may have missed their shackles and whipping scars and the dogs that were chasing them down for escaping their plantation Wink. I never stated that I advocated suppression of gays in any kind or extermination of them or what have you. I simply said that gay "marriage" should not be considered "marriage". Am I a promoter of slaughter of the gay populace for this horrid offence? I'd think that the overwhelming majority of people would disagree with you.

Way to miss the entire point.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thank you for ignoring half my post.

I don't care if you decide to not respond anymore.  You will still be challenged on your assertions.
Logged
Vladimir
Newbie
*
Posts: 16
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.55, S: 8.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #965 on: March 13, 2014, 07:26:16 pm »

    About my faith; I recognize this and that is exactly why I chose to leave that argument out. I chose to go along the logical/statistical/factual/what-have-you side. Thus, please keep the Jesus bashing out of it.

Well, you obviously didn't leave it out, otherwise it wouldn't have been in your post.  And please, the last thing I am is a 'Jesus-basher."

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I fail to see how giving the same rights that everyone else has to gay couples invalidates the integrity of straight marriages.  As far as definitions go, no word is written in stone.  Language is an evolving thing, otherwise we would all be speaking the same language as our ancient ancestors.  Social institutions are evolving, as well, and many languages use one word to refer to multiple things.  In either case, semantics has little bearing on why two consenting adults should be allowed to enter a marriage contract.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can just as easily say, "I have a black friend," and support Jim Crow laws.  Again, it really doesn't matter.  My point is, you can say whatever you want and that doesn't change the context of your views.  No one is going to excuse you for bigotry based on how many gay people you know.  You will be called a bigot, and rightly so.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

But I can.  You openly oppose allowing gay couples to enjoy the same rights as straight couples.  The evidence speaks for itself.  Try saying to someone, "Y'know, I wish they'd bring slavery back.  That's not because I'm racist, or anything."  See how they react.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay.  I will continue to call you a bigot and refuse to recognize you as human-being to show that I don't recognize you as anything else.  Sound good?

I'm going to call a shovel a shovel regardless of how much it hurts your feelings or "makes me look bad."  Get used to it.


    It's pretty ridiculous to equate a lack of allowance for gay "marriage" to slavery. Texas doesn't have gay "marriage", and my cousin's doing just fine. He's recently got a new boyfriend and brought him over for my New Year's party. He's a nice guy too. But, I may have missed their shackles and whipping scars and the dogs that were chasing them down for escaping their plantation Wink. I never stated that I advocated suppression of gays in any kind or extermination of them or what have you. I simply said that gay "marriage" should not be considered "marriage". Am I a promoter of slaughter of the gay populace for this horrid offence? I'd think that the overwhelming majority of people would disagree with you.

Way to miss the entire point.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thank you for ignoring half my post.

I don't care if you decide to not respond anymore.  You will still be challenged on your assertions.

    I want to be challenged for my assertions. If I didn't, I wouldn't be spending time typing all this Smiley
Logged
Vladimir
Newbie
*
Posts: 16
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.55, S: 8.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #966 on: March 13, 2014, 07:35:11 pm »

Also, I'm open to other arguments as well. But, I don't want to leave off on the gay thing unfinished... just need to keep finding ways to make semi-meaningless posts so I can get my count to 20 and be able to post all of my sources Smiley
Logged
Sqad Member Omar
DeadPrez
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,062


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -7.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #967 on: March 14, 2014, 05:07:55 pm »
« Edited: March 14, 2014, 05:34:03 pm by DeadPrez »

Social: I'm socially liberal. Exceptions: abortions (Only in cases when a women's life is at risk or children). I'm also opposed to taking rights from others in order to benefit other indidivuals

Economics: Fiscally Conservative. I side a lot with Ron Paul, Friedman, Hayek, and etc.

War: Anti-war. Non-aggression principle.


I'm always up for a debate or open to changing my views
Logged
Solidarity Forever
Alfred F. Jones
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,021
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #968 on: March 14, 2014, 10:39:12 pm »

"I'm also opposed to taking rights from others in order to benefit other individuals" - Is this not the foundation of modern society?
Logged
Sqad Member Omar
DeadPrez
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,062


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -7.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #969 on: March 15, 2014, 04:21:40 pm »

"I'm also opposed to taking rights from others in order to benefit other individuals" - Is this not the foundation of modern society?
A modern Socialist society maybe.
Logged
Flake
JacobTiver
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,698
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #970 on: March 15, 2014, 05:18:00 pm »

A modern Socialist society maybe.

lol
Logged
Cassius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,884


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #971 on: March 15, 2014, 06:21:26 pm »

"I'm also opposed to taking rights from others in order to benefit other individuals" - Is this not the foundation of modern society?

To some extent, it is among the foundation stones of every society that has ever existed. I mean, some of us right-wingers, myself included, talk a big game about "left-wing social engineering'. We're correct, in the sense that the left does like to engage in social engineering (through the tax system, through education etc.). But, and this is a big but, so do we (or at least a few of us). I mean, take a few of my views, such as on keeping most drugs criminalised, supporting restrictions on Sunday shopping and censoring obscene publications. All of those count as some form of social engineering. The truth is, everybody supports it to some extent.
Logged
Solidarity Forever
Alfred F. Jones
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,021
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #972 on: March 15, 2014, 08:41:27 pm »

"I'm also opposed to taking rights from others in order to benefit other individuals" - Is this not the foundation of modern society?
A modern Socialist society maybe.

So how's the public fire department working out for you?
Logged
ajackson
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 57
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: 0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #973 on: March 17, 2014, 12:52:09 am »

I have a general mish mash of positions that could be summarized as "vaguely libertarian, centrist Republican".

On social issues; I adhere to the theory that liberty should be maximized such that we are free to administrate our lives in any manner we wish so long as the equal rights of others are not violated in any manner by our actions. I'm far from a radical Liberatrian, but I am pro-drug legalization and anti-surveillance state. I am generally opposed to social engineering and "progressive" regulations such as smoking and school prayer bans.

On economics; For starters, I want to abolish the federal reserve and the private central banking system in favor of a truly federal central bank that issues debt-free currency and that is backed  by either gold and silver or a bundle of several commodities which includes gold and silver.

Beyond that;
  • I want to replace as much welfare spending as possible with direct cash payments in the form of refundable tax credits.
  • I am opposed to Obamacare, but my plan involves replacing the entire bill with the public option - a government run insurance company that offers below market rates, forcing downward pressure on prices in the private sector - I oppose the personal mandate.
  • I am not opposed to a progressive tax system, but do believe rates should be flatter. I want the child and EITC credit expanded (in accordance with the first bullet), and fewer brackets (I like some of the proposals for two brackets). I support abolishing the corporate tax.

These would the issues I'm most focused on at the moment.
Logged
Sqad Member Omar
DeadPrez
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,062


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -7.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #974 on: March 17, 2014, 01:36:25 am »
« Edited: March 17, 2014, 01:40:20 am by DeadPrez »

"I'm also opposed to taking rights from others in order to benefit other individuals" - Is this not the foundation of modern society?

To some extent, it is among the foundation stones of every society that has ever existed. I mean, some of us right-wingers, myself included, talk a big game about "left-wing social engineering'. We're correct, in the sense that the left does like to engage in social engineering (through the tax system, through education etc.). But, and this is a big but, so do we (or at least a few of us). I mean, take a few of my views, such as on keeping most drugs criminalised, supporting restrictions on Sunday shopping and censoring obscene publications. All of those count as some form of social engineering. The truth is, everybody supports it to some extent.
That sounds pretty socialist to me

"I'm also opposed to taking rights from others in order to benefit other individuals" - Is this not the foundation of modern society?
A modern Socialist society maybe.

So how's the public fire department working out for you?
Considering my city has not had a fire in at least 18 years, I would say it's not working out that great.


I guess I should have noted my philosophical beliefs are more extreme than my political beliefs.

I have a general mish mash of positions that could be summarized as "vaguely libertarian, centrist Republican".

On social issues; I adhere to the theory that liberty should be maximized such that we are free to administrate our lives in any manner we wish so long as the equal rights of others are not violated in any manner by our actions. I'm far from a radical Liberatrian, but I am pro-drug legalization and anti-surveillance state. I am generally opposed to social engineering and "progressive" regulations such as smoking and school prayer bans.

On economics; For starters, I want to abolish the federal reserve and the private central banking system in favor of a truly federal central bank that issues debt-free currency and that is backed  by either gold and silver or a bundle of several commodities which includes gold and silver.

Beyond that;
  • I want to replace as much welfare spending as possible with direct cash payments in the form of refundable tax credits.
  • I am opposed to Obamacare, but my plan involves replacing the entire bill with the public option - a government run insurance company that offers below market rates, forcing downward pressure on prices in the private sector - I oppose the personal mandate.
  • I am not opposed to a progressive tax system, but do believe rates should be flatter. I want the child and EITC credit expanded (in accordance with the first bullet), and fewer brackets (I like some of the proposals for two brackets). I support abolishing the corporate tax.

These would the issues I'm most focused on at the moment.
GGGGGGGGGGGGGG
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... 58 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC