Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) As I would question anyone who refuses to see the good things Obama has done for the country. I don't think he's the best, but he's certainly not as bad as people would lead you to believe. He's certainly better than any of these morally-depraved assholes running on the GOP side this year, anyway. But it's hardly a GOP-Democrat thing for me. I would've voted for Bush on both terms, because I did not like John Kerry or Al Gore, either. Edited February 7, 2012 by DukeOfPwn 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 I thought we'd already established that all intellectuals went Democrat because Republicans are a bunch of evolution denying, science hating, hill-billies. I suppose indies could be less-idiotic Republicans, or less intellectual Democrats? Correction, Pseudo-intellectuals tend to vote Democrat. So do anti-religious bigots. Perhaps I'm a little biased, but coming from several religious areas, I have met way more religious bigots than anti-religious bigots. Also, war on religion is a load of horseshit. If anyone's leading a war on religion, it's the Christians attacking every other belief. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Oh come off it, Battra. Your continual labeling of others as bigots is ridiculous in light of the (entirely unprovoked, I might add) comments you've made in the past about atheism. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 I thought we'd already established that all intellectuals went Democrat because Republicans are a bunch of evolution denying, science hating, hill-billies. I suppose indies could be less-idiotic Republicans, or less intellectual Democrats? Correction, Pseudo-intellectuals tend to vote Democrat. So do anti-religious bigots. I imagine they did vote democrat too. You don't win an election in a two party system without the majority of the public voting for you, even the pseudo-intellectuals and anti-religious bigots get a vote. (unless you are a sneaky Republican). P.S. Can I just be an anti-religious-pseudo-intellectual please? No need to throw around labels like Democrat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Please tell me that's shopped... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Yeah it's shopped. It's in height order, and while there's not a huge multi-inch gap, "M" in this image is taller than "O". Problem is I can no longer find the original. Good shop though, and I guess says something about Romney when not everyone realised it was In other news: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07/proposition-8-california-same-sex-marriage-ban-ruling_n_1260171.html Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Which I'm unsure on how that whole thing works, but wouldn't that mean same sex marriage is constitutional? Also I thought California was meant to be a free love hippy state type place, why'd they ban it in the first place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post SixTwoSixFour Posted February 7, 2012 Popular Post Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 I think I'm gonna call him R-Money from now on. I really like that. Obama is not an amazing president, but it's amazing to me that people can say he's done nothing given the laundry list of shit he's taken taken of. He's expanded Pell grants and hate crime legislation, he's boosted private sector spaceflight programs (beat you to it, Gingrich), he's signed financial reform law, he's cut prescription drug costs for medicare recipients (like me) by 50%, he's extended benefits to same-sex federal employees, he created more private sector jobs in 2010 than Bush did in his entire two terms, he's led the White House to be more open to the public, he's gotten rid of the financial aid "gag rule" limiting aid based on whether or not organizations support abortion, given the FDA full power over tobacco regulation (FINALLY), signed another START treaty to prevent nuclear war, provided the Department of Veterans Affairs with an additional $1.4 billion to treat our veterans right. I could keep going. You may not like him as a president, but to say that he hasn't been working hard is just dishonest. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixTwoSixFour Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 In other news:http://www.huffingto..._n_1260171.html Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Which I'm unsure on how that whole thing works, but wouldn't that mean same sex marriage is constitutional? Also I thought California was meant to be a free love hippy state type place, why'd they ban it in the first place? It's going to go to the Supreme Court, the fight isn't over yet. But yeah, I would think that would mean same sex marriage was constitutional. The thing you have to know about California is... christ, I'm gonna sound racist saying this, I'm really not... it has a lot of Hispanics, Hispanics are very commonly Catholic, Catholics are (traditionally) very strongly against same sex marriage. California is in a lot of ways very progressive, but it does have a conservative streak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Naw, the laws don't work like that. If they manage to repeal it, it'll go back to normal where gay marriage can go either direction with another vote. Anyways, Proposition 8 passing was a result of an insane amount of lobbying and advertising from the mormon church. One of the biggest examples for Atheists when people try to tell them "well my religion doesnt do anything to you so how come youre always trying to convince me god doesn't exist?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) *Edit* - Wow, tons of replies while I was writing... I just came in here to link that too: http://www.usatoday....on-8/53000180/1 Even though the ruling aligns with my personal viewpoint I'm still not terribly happy about it. I fear it's too soon for this issue to go to the supreme court and so instead of getting the ruling proponents of gay marriage want we're going to get a ruling that it's absolutely fine for states to ban gay marriage, and that's going to set us back decades. @Dean: California is supposed to be a liberal hippie love fest, but they also have a large Hispanic population, which is predominantly Catholic. After the California Supreme Court said it violated the California constitution to ban gay marriage there was a ballot initiative to amend their constitution to ban it, and part of the strategy was targeting Hispanic Catholics to support the ban (not saying that was the only reason it passed, but it was a large contributor). Now the 9th Circuit federal court said that the amendment violates the US constitution. Edited February 7, 2012 by TheMightyEthan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 @FDS: The laws work that way to some extent. If the USSC says it's violates the US constitution to prohibit gay marriage then gay marriage will be allowed in all states, states would be prohibited from prohibiting it, and the only way to overturn that would be another USSC case or a constitutional amendment. A lot of it depends on how the court words its ruling though. In contrast, if the USSC says it's okay for California to ban gay marriage that doesn't automatically ban it it all states, it just would mean that the states would have the power to ban it if they wanted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 states would be prohibited from prohibiting it That's exactly what I'm saying. That doesn't make gay marriage legal, it just makes it not illegal. So it opens up the possibility to then take it the other direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Let me rephrase: it would make it illegal for the state to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples, thus making gay marriage de facto legal. Assuming of course that the court said that banning gay marriage generally is illegal. It's possible they wouldn't make such a broad ruling but would rather just say this specific ban is illegal. They could also (and I fear they will) say this ban is just fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Pirate Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/07/nj_teachers_union_boss_with_500k_salary_tells_poor_lifes_not_always_fair.html Someone should hack his bank account, steal all his money and leave a note that says "Life's Not Fair" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 http://www.realclear...lways_fair.html Someone should hack his bank account, steal all his money and leave a note that says "Life's Not Fair" Standard Operating Procedure for Unions, especially the teachers' unions. In fact most are nothing more than a money laundering scheme wherin money is taken from members (who are forced to pay) to give big donations to politicians who in turn send kickbacks to their union buddies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) Now the 9th Circuit federal court said that the amendment violates the US constitution. It's the 9th Circuit Court which means absolutely nothing. It's going to the Supreme Court before all is said and done. As an addition I also believe it is HORRIBLE that gay marriage is being fought through the courts. This is something that should be decided at the ballots and in the state legislatures. To say that the state cannot create a law to govern those within its borders in terms of a legal contract is madness! To say that a state regulating marriage is illegal opens the door to incest and polygamy. I know people think that's a straw man argument but really, where should the line be drawn? Perhaps you feel the line should be drawn at two people but how can a court decide that based on a law being discriminatory? Anti-miscegenation laws were struck down in state legislatures or with ballot initiatives and that is the correct path for those who wish to legalize gay marriage. Edited February 7, 2012 by Battra92 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post SixTwoSixFour Posted February 7, 2012 Popular Post Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 As an addition I also believe it is HORRIBLE that gay marriage is being fought through the courts. This is something that should be decided at the ballots and in the state legislatures. To say that the state cannot create a law to govern those within its borders in terms of a legal contract is madness! To say that a state regulating marriage is illegal opens the door to incest and polygamy. I know people think that's a straw man argument but really, where should the line be drawn? Perhaps you feel the line should be drawn at two people but how can a court decide that based on a law being discriminatory? Anti-miscegenation laws were struck down in state legislatures or with ballot initiatives and that is the correct path for those who wish to legalize gay marriage. Sounds kind of like what segregationists argued in the 50s- it's a state issue, let the people decide. No. The majority does not get to strip rights away from the minority simply because they're too ignorant to respect their differences. There are plenty of good non-religious arguments against incest and polygamy. The ONLY argument against same sex marriage is "it's against my religion," in which case, don't marry someone of the same gender yourself. What others do is none of your goddamn business. Islam forbids alcohol, but that doesn't mean the Islamic people are enforcing prohibition on other people. This is what pisses people off about Christianity. It's never enough for you guys to believe and act on something yourselves, you have to force everyone else to follow YOUR beliefs as well. It's what takes people like me- born and raised in Christian homes- and makes us want to have nothing to do with that religion. I'm fine with you believing whatever you want. Just stop trying to shove that shit down everyone else's throats. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) Now the 9th Circuit federal court said that the amendment violates the US constitution. To say that a state regulating marriage is illegal opens the door to incest and polygamy. I know people think that's a straw man argument but really, where should the line be drawn? Perhaps you feel the line should be drawn at two people but how can a court decide that based on a law being discriminatory? Anti-miscegenation laws were struck down in state legislatures or with ballot initiatives and that is the correct path for those who wish to legalize gay marriage. 1. It IS a straw man argument. 2. Who says the line should be drawn anywhere, other than children and violence? What gives you the right to decide what is wrong? Because some imaginary man in the sky tells you that's what's proper? Because some ancient tome is somehow applicable in the modern age? Edited February 7, 2012 by DukeOfPwn 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luftwaffles Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 As an addition I also believe it is HORRIBLE that gay marriage is being fought through the courts. This is something that should be decided at the ballots and in the state legislatures. To say that the state cannot create a law to govern those within its borders in terms of a legal contract is madness! We're a federalism, not a confederacy. Regardless of how you feel it should be done, that's not how this country was designed, and it's not what the constitution and the establishment of the United States of America was designed to accomplish, all the way back in the 1780s. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 edit: actually I should add something worthwhile.1. I live in a Christian state. I could go n marry Thursday if I wanted(well, civil partnership, same difference). But it's kinda my understanding that seems to be a bit special as far as denominations go in being dicks to everyone else.2. Just going back to earlier discussion surely same sex marriage is awesome? same sex couples can't reproduce, so no babies to abort. And then on top of that the only way they can have a family is to adopt, thus reducing the strain on the foster care system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 I don't think it's anyone's place to say that any two willing and consenting adults can't get married under any circumstances. That should be decided by them, not by anyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixTwoSixFour Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 I don't think it's anyone's place to say that any two willing and consenting adults can't get married under any circumstances. That should be decided by them, not by anyone else. Well, I'd like to agree, but I do feel weird about, say, a brother and sister marrying each other, even as consenting adults. Or a father and daughter. I do think we need some limits, and therein lies the problem- opponents of gay marriage immediately say "what is it about a brother and sister marrying that is wrong?" And I say "I don't know, it just... IS" and they say "That's how we feel about gay marriage" and then I'm just annoyed because I don't know what to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Gay people getting married don't create retard babies. There's a good way to draw the line. I mean, states have incest laws extending to cousins, don't they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Hey, science here again. Two gene pools mixing increases the risk of genetic defects, it's why it's always been considered wrong even before a complete scientific understand of genes. People were able to put 2 n 2 together even way back when. So yeah, for those unaware that's why incest is illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.