Meh, I look at the Europe handles some things and think you people are insane
Don't worry there's enough indignation to go around
Printable View
Meh, I look at the Europe handles some things and think you people are insane
Don't worry there's enough indignation to go around
Not indignation. It's more like a very bad horror movie. Comic because of how unhinged and distasteful it is, yet at the same time this one is real which makes it somewhat horrifying at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Where do you live?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
I only ask to know which mountain of videos I need to pull out
I fully understand that it is rhetoric being used as a weapon basically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
but like you stated...the use of this level of rhetoric has serious and real results......what I find surprising is that they are willing to roll those dice.
and the tea party might be in part the result of all that rhetoric coming home to roost, I look at the majority of the republican party and understand it is rhetoric...crazy rhetoric but just spin nonetheless.....with some of the tea party people I´m starting to question if they truly believe what they are saying in some cases.
Those aren't migraines. That's just God speaking to her. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
European and Asians have plenty of their own loon politics that disgust me and leave me incredulous. Your post was insulting Lemur. Speak for yourself and do not try to lump us all together. I do not give a damn what the rest of the world looks at my politics because I only have to look at theirs. Like Strike says which pile of videos do you want me to unearth first.
Sorry you feel insulted; it's hard to talk about large groups of people and decades-long trends without making gross generalizations, but I tried to be as careful and specific as possible. As for limiting myself to talking about myself, I like ice cream and long walks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
what flavor?
Ack. I'm beginning to hate the word politics, as more often than not it's a liars game.
When did you ever hear us say that ours are anything to write home about...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
I'm still betting on Justus Aardvark. I think he has shown a strong commitment, he has a good track record, he is fiscally sound and legally married to a woman of the female persuasion. Go Aardvark.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
AII
Lemur, there is literally a gay conspiracy to de-legitimize heterosexual relationships as the natural order. It was under the table, and now it is an open conspiracy. Whether you agree with what they are doing or not, you can see that this is the objective and that some Democratic politicians have hidden their true agenda in order to be elected, right?
And it's faaaabulous!Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Pshaw, this is meat for a whole 'nother thread. I'll just say that "natural order" is a phrase that needs to be chewed on for a while. Maybe recycle my line about how many gay men and women does the Lord God need to make for you to get his point.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Right, because everything that happens in the world is proof that God wants it that way. Or were you just being cheeky.
Why would anyone be surprised that people vote with their real or perceived interests? We aren't the only ones who play at "gamesmanship". I was attempting to illustrate how democratic politicians play lip service to things in order to get elected. We are playing in the same vacuum.
Links?Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I literally heard on NPR this morning the precise and unwavering long term procedure for the normalization of the homosexual lifestyle in American culture. First in popular culture as a hip thing, then in courts, then in showing homosexual relationships on TV, then in a slim majority legislation in big states blue, then in revocation of "dated" state and Federal impediments, Then in law, then in educational curriculum.
Does any of that sound un-realistic? We saw this coming in the 1990's, but most people couldn't fathom the idea of gays marrying or thinking that was appropriate, so it seemed harmless and sensible to revoke callous laws criminalizing that type of conduct. My Aunt, who is a lesbian, always said "a marriage is between a man and a woman" around that time. She doesn't say that anymore. None of what I just wrote is partisan. Was anyone else listening at 9:20-9:30 Am?
Edit*: either this interview or this interview from this morning. Probably the second. I mean, it is perfectly sensible if you buy into the agenda, I just hadn't heard them outline it like we've all (I thought i'd save you the "edit") had it outlined before.
are you just like one giant troll wherever you tread; making us dance like puppets? Did you have too much natty light this morning before you went laxing with your strong island boys?
Ha! No, I just like irritating people on forums. I'm so polite and political all week that I just love to tear into people sometimes. I don't work where my interests lie, so I am forced to argue with people online - It gets my blood up. I do honestly think that the gay rights movement is crap, but people are entitled to the laws that they support - we don't live in a theocracy. I'm just interested in getting as many types of "marriages" on the books as possible, so the civil institution stops being a marriage and is just a contract. The gay marriage debate has taken me half the way there, I just read an article in the Economist suggesting that we lay off of attacking the polygamists for their lifestyle choices (arguably inherent nature), which is exiting. The faster we can demolish "marriage", the sooner marriage will be saved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
It doesn't sound like much of a conspiracy if they're discussing it on NPR, does it?Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
And, of course, there was no conspiracy discussed. None of what you above referenced was highlighted in either of the pieces you linked to.Quote:
The first one was about the first gay wedding, a pastor who is pleased that the NY law didn't force him to marry gay people, and the wedding business at Niagra Falls. The second was about the changing attitudes about gay marriage and how that will play out in the political/legal systems.
There was nothing about a subversive gay conspiracy to normalize gay relationships. And why would there be? It's happening on its own. As more and more (primarily young) gay people come out, more and more (primarily young) straight people see that they are, in fact, normal people deserving normal treatment.
Also, I'm not sure what the Hitler picture has to do with anything. The sentence it is used in makes no sense.
Again, links?
The strategy I've outlined is pretty basic stuff and the political interview sums it up. Most people recognize that homosexuality has historically been viewed as abominable and that peoples attitudes are changing. If you think that it is just natural progression, I would disagree, I believe that there is a concerted effort to normalize homosexuality in our society. I'm not sure whether you are arguing with my perspective on the issue itself, or whether you don't believe that the gay rights interest groups have cleverly and successfully sold their issue to the masses in short order.
I think that most things happen in a short period of time through PR campaigns.
Within the next 5 years DOMA will be repealed, gay marriage will be allowed on a Federal level and same sex partners will be eligible for Federal benefits. I just hope that polygamists, family members and best friends are eligible in 10 years for the same benefits. I will get on that bus, because I believe that the civil institution has become a contract, and it is better a simple contract than an institution with a warped meaning that we all have to condone. Face it, we no longer agree on what marriage is as a society, so let's get rid of all the bells and whistles as a society.
The interview does not at all sum up what you earlier claimed. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Most people have a very limited understanding of history. Those who look beyond a very specific period in European history would certainly take issue with that statement.Quote:
Most people recognize that homosexuality has historically been viewed as abominable and that peoples attitudes are changing.
I'm asking for some sourcing that 'there is literally a gay conspiracy to de-legitimize heterosexual relationships as the natural order'.Quote:
If you think that it is just natural progression, I would disagree, I believe that there is a concerted effort to normalize homosexuality in our society. I'm not sure whether you are arguing with my perspective on the issue itself, or whether you don't believe that the gay rights interest groups have cleverly and successfully sold their issue to the masses in short order.
You seem to be arguing that gay people saying 'being gay is ok and here's why' constitutes some sort of conspiracy against heterosexual relationships.
Of course there are gay and straight people advocating for causes important to gay people, just like there are advocacy groups for all sorts of causes. That fact is not evidence of a) a conspiracy or b) an attack on heterosexual relationships.
Again, links or it isn't happening.
It is clearly happening. I have to post an exact outline of the "gay agenda"? That is not a reasonable request. Last week on nor they had an interview with a guy who wanted to replace schoolbook curiculum with the gay struggle. The interviewer made a good point; "if we add that and the school day is the same, what are we eliminating?" People are getting tax breaks for being in love. There will soon be nothing distinguishing heterosexual male female life partnerships from other relationships in law, both will get the benefits... but why do we have those benefits? Why are people being rewarded for getting married? Why does society celebrate that relationship 1 person with another person over other types of relationships? It is a pointless fight. They are making the civil institution of marriage into a bigger sham than it already was becoming on its own. When you say that there is nothing more special about 1 man and 1 woman than any other relationship, civil marriage is pointless.phone typing is a struggle
If by 'it' you mean change in social attitudes towards gay people, yes it is clearly happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
If by 'it' you mean the execution of a gay conspiracy to de-legitimize heterosexual relationships, then you'll need to provide some sort of evidence to support that claim as it is hardly 'clear' cut.
There is nothing unreasonable in my request. I can go to the HRC website or a hundred others and find the gay agenda - marriage equality, employment non-discrimination, repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. It's all right there in the open, and none of it targets heterosexual relationships.
If, in your extensive research, you've unearthed a far more sinister conspiracy, then please share it with the group. :book:
Quote:
Last week on nor they had an interview with a guy who wanted to replace schoolbook curiculum with the gay struggle. The interviewer made a good point; "if we add that and the school day is the same, what are we eliminating?"
This is more gross exaggeration on your part. Nobody wants to replace the schoolbook curriculum with the gay struggle.
Certain gay advocates want gay history included in the history curriculum. The movement is a response to the recent spate of gay youth being bullied into suicide. The theory is that if young gay people are able to read about important gay historical figures that had a significant positive impact on society, they will be less effected by people who would call them abominable and their relationships shams.
Obviously, it is a highly flawed idea. When there is a limited amount of time and space in which to teach history, what is chosen should be based on historical significance and not mandated based religious, racial, or sexual quotas. A more appropriate response to bullies is a zero-tolerance policy.
Is it proof of a gay conspiracy, though, or simply a reflection of the pluralistic democracy we live in? Was it a conspiracy when black, Native American, Christian, asian, and the myriad of other groups lobbied for the same type of inclusion?
I believe the initial rationale for the tax incentivization of one man-one woman marriage was to promote a socially beneficial atmosphere for procreation and inheritance. Even if we discount the changing attitudes towards the meaning of marriage, the fact that gay couples are now capable of having children in several different ways renders that original scheme somewhat obsolete and makes it obvious that they should be included in civil marriage.Quote:
People are getting tax breaks for being in love. There will soon be nothing distinguishing heterosexual male female life partnerships from other relationships in law, both will get the benefits... but why do we have those benefits? Why are people being rewarded for getting married? Why does society celebrate that relationship 1 person with another person over other types of relationships? It is a pointless fight.
How is it a sham? What makes the one man-one woman relationship special?Quote:
They are making the civil institution of marriage into a bigger sham than it already was becoming on its own. When you say that there is nothing more special about 1 man and 1 woman than any other relationship, civil marriage is pointless.
I'm surprised you managed that much. Trying to respond to posts on my Android device is far more trouble than it is worth.Quote:
phone typing is a struggle
People who are trying to take over the world:
Jews
Muslims
Gays
Yet, Coropartions can now donate infinty money to campagins and the tax rate on the top 1% is the lowest it's been since WWII
Nary a peep?
Corporations are on that list when most people compose it though most crazies would say that jews are out of fashion and gays simply want to destroy us not control us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Because throughout the history of man, the overwhelming majority of married people (or life partners, or common law, or co-habitants) settle, raise children, get jobs, fight wars, pay taxes, then their kids grow up and do the same thing. Two parent households also have children who are far less likley to be burdens to society.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Nuclear families are good for government. They are the backbone of any civilized country, because they are predictable. It's future income for the government, future labor for the economy and future meatshields for the war.
Not saying it's right, just syaing it's good governance.
Well, this is a step in the right direction. Kudos to Mr. Cain for apologizing.
"While I stand by my opposition to the interference of sharia law into the American legal system, I remain humble and contrite for any statements I have made that might have caused offense to Muslim Americans and their friends," he said in the statement. "I am truly sorry for any comments that may have betrayed my commitment to the U.S. Constitution and the freedom of religion guaranteed by it."
A more appropriate response is teaching children to have self-esteem and coping skills. Sure, there's malicious bullying that crosses the line into criminal harassment and that needs dealt with. But a zero tolerance policy fails to prepare children for the real world. No matter what age you are, there can be people who like giving you a hard time for whatever reason. It's far better to prepare children for this by teaching them not to measure their own self-worth by what some jerk claims to think of them. "Zero tolerance" policies to almost anything are usually wrong-headed and counterproductive.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Off topic, but I had to get my $0.02 in.... :bow:
Time for an update: New Yorker has a long long long profile of Michelle Bachmann (with an emphasis on the writers and thinkers who have shaped her worldview), and Salon has an amusing hit piece on Rick Perry.
Rick Perry may be a neo-Confederate sympathizer with a recurring tendency to bring up secession, but he doesn't look as weird in a photograph as Bachmann does, I guess.
Perry's flirtations with neo-Confederate organizations and symbols -- ably documented by Justin Elliott -- are so extraordinarily reprehensible that it should immediately and permanently disqualify him from being taken seriously for national office. The Confederacy was not a bunch of generally well-meaning dudes who went a little too far, it was a gang of racist traitors who launched a bloody war to defend a monstrously unjust institution. Having neo-Confederate sympathies in America should be equivalent to supporting the reconstituted Fascist party in Italy, or worse. It should not be considered something that 50 percent of the nation should be willing to look past, or even embrace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I have been in Germany for quite a while now and thankfully don’t need to fallow the daily political happenings of the US.
I don’t know this guy from Adam. If there really is something such as a neo-Confederate then it is a bunch of idiots who deserve to be ignored but why do I jump to the conclusion that he must have been part of a Civil War reenactment group...
Just more political hogwash!
No wonder we always end up having to vote for who we think is least BAD.