 Patrick.net |
16,153 readers yesterday Get a free "Debt Is Slavery" bumper sticker! |
Watch (1) Share
Quote
Permalink Like Dislike Steve Vaillancourt, New Hampshire Lawmaker, Ejected From House After Nazi Salute
Michele Bachmann issues complete and total fiction about redistricting
http://news.yahoo.com/bachmann-fundraising-whopper-202734700.html
Tea Party members now bought and paid for by........big banks. (great revolution there eh trout?)
« First « Previous Viewing Comments 118-157 of 197 Next » Last » See most liked comments
« First « Previous comments Next comments » Last »
|
Premium member iwog is moderator of this thread. |
Follow
Befriend (8)
204 threads
4,416 comments
Davis, CA
rootvg says
Nothing? That's a trick question....no.
However it points out nicely that what is "natural" depends on when, where and who you talk to. Quite a lot of Mormons thought that 1M+*F was best, and a few of them still do. YMMV.
Follow
Befriend (12)
140 threads
1,355 comments
Emeryville, CA
rootvg says
Probably. When LBJ pushed through Civil Rights for Blacks, he knew he was giving the south to the GOP in his lifetime and the next.
Sometimes you have to do the right thing, despite the cost to you or your party.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
leoj707 says
Very true.
Follow
Befriend (12)
140 threads
1,355 comments
Emeryville, CA
In wealth, the right believes that there is an infinite pool that grows as each individual pursues wealth within their station. Everyone is poorer if you hamstring the wealthy with an unfair burden.
But in something truly limitless, like love or happiness, it must remain the privilege of a select group. Why is that?
Why are civil rights threatened when more people are allowed to exercise them? Were white males harmed when women got their franchise or colored folks were allowed to vote without being killed?
Make the pie higher!
Follow
Befriend (1)
250 threads
4,753 comments
Why didn't the ancient Greeks marry their bromances?
Follow
Befriend (12)
140 threads
1,355 comments
Emeryville, CA
CaptainShuddup says
There were troglodytes in ancient Greece, who campaigned against it so as to move the polls a point or two?
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
CaptainShuddup says
Yes, we should model all of our societal structures and relationships on ancient peoples.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
CaptainShuddup says
Oh, actually after looking into this a bit they did have gay marriage in ancient times. After Rome became christian they started passing laws against gay marriage.
Follow
Befriend
67 comments
Chico, CA
After alot of big talk during his 08 campaign, Obama is a real disappointment. Somehow he bought the idea (he surrounded himself with wall street hacks) that if you upset wall street there would be another depression. Therefore we got very little justice. All the usual players continue to take advantage of the people. I blame him for all of this.
Follow
Befriend (12)
140 threads
1,355 comments
Emeryville, CA
Zakrajshek says
That's silly.
Zakrajshek says
He had a little help with that, right? Like from Wall Street, who already acts like he is a regulatory zealot? Or the GOP/Teatards, who stifle and attack anything beneficial to the country?
Look at this board and you'll see intelligent people who quote Faux news, and can't see the insane brainwashing bias on that channel.
And then you have the idiotic citizens throughout the country. The same fools who think Obamacare is socialism?
The real question is why would anyone want to be President here.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
CL says
The Onion was thinking the same thing:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/black-man-given-nations-worst-job,6439/
Follow
Befriend (2)
15 threads
430 comments
Reston, VA
That Marriage = poster is great.
Is allowing gays to marry going to radically redefine marriage? Perhaps, but if it is a radical change than the current 'definition' is radically wrong. The only people that will be radically affected by this are currently being discriminated against.
Most Americans now agree, that gay marriage should be legal. It's time to stop beating up on gay people.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
YesYNot says
Did you know that it's possible to be against "beating up on" gay folks, but also be for traditional (for the last 400 years) marriage?
Of course you didn't.
Follow
Befriend
6 threads
490 comments
Alameda, CA
wthrfrk80 says
Is it possible to be for traditional (for the last 400 years) marriage, and also be for gay marriage? What makes you think the second has to be subtracted from the first?
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
bdrasin says
No, based on what is meant by "traditional" (one man, one woman) marriage.
I wasn't referring to "traditions" like wedding cakes and disco balls. Get real.
Follow
Befriend
6 threads
490 comments
Alameda, CA
wthrfrk80 says
With all due respect, that's not an answer. I think traditional marriage (one man, one woman) is great and people in such relationships, generally speaking, deserve society's respect and support.. That means that I am for traditional marriage. I also am for same-sex marriage, which does not diminish my support for the traditional type of marriage, as you put it. I think people in those (non-traditional, I do get that) relationships, generally speaking, deserve society's respect and support.
Therefore I am in favor of both, right? That's what I meant when I said the second isn't being subtracted from the first and I'm not sure why you didn't get it the first time.
Therefore you are wrong when you say it is not possible to be in favor of both. I don't see what cakes or disco balls have to do with anything, and I am very real.
Follow
Befriend
41 threads
907 comments
Ross, CA
I'm pretty sure that if the internet and forums like this were around during the civil rights movement and the debate over interracial marriage, we'd have the same type of "traditionalist" expressing "concern" that such unions would "diminish the institution".
Follow
Befriend (2)
15 threads
430 comments
Reston, VA
wthrfrk80 says
If you are pro-marriage and you are not anti-gay, then you should want gay people to be able to marry each other. If you are pro-marriage and want to discriminate against gay people partaking, then you are a bigot.
You are using 400 years of past discrimination as justification for your own bigotry. People with gay friends and relatives are rightly disgusted by that attitude.
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,098 comments
bdrasin says
I agree. It might be seen as broadening the definition of marriage, if someone previously insisted on defining it as man and woman. But really who cares ? The idea that it takes something away from hetero marriage is hard to wrap ones mind around.
But, it might have been easier to call them civil unions with all the rights of marriage and then just wait a generation or two until everyone forgets that anyone cared and then they would just call it marriage anyway.
That's really the only argument I can think against it. Why make some people who (wrongly) feel like they are being forced to change their definition of marriage. It would happen naturally if we had civil unions, everyone that wanted to, would call them marriages anyway. And eventually everyone would call them marriages forgetting this silliness.
YesYNot says
Sounds right.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
YesYNot says
A total fallacy.
I also don't think children should be able to marry their parents. That doesn't mean I'm against children or parents.
Get real.
Follow
Befriend (8)
1 threads
792 comments
Danville, CA
Premium
Cloud says
It was settled by a corrupt judge, here in California.
Yes, you're correct. Once you give into it, perversion never stops. Today it's gay marriage. Tomorrow, they'll want to lower the age of consent. The day after that, they'll want to marry animals for tax reasons. It's Rome all over again.
Oh, but you're anti gay! Fuck it. I'm the one who's sane, not them. They don't get to redefine reality and spit in the face of God. No one does. I don't care how much money you have or what you paid for your house or who you know or who you design clothes for. It doesn't mean a damn thing!
Just because they control one of our two national political parties doesn't mean we should pander to them but that's essentially what we're doing.
Here again, I'm comforted by hearing Dr. Marquette's voice in the back of my head from all those years ago. He said gays are self destructive by their very nature. When they come out of the woodwork, the party gets shit hammered. He wasn't in California and of course it's different here but anywhere else, the rule still applies.
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,098 comments
rootvg says
This makes no sense. For one thing, who is the traditional values crowd? Ask a moderate liberal what traditional values means, and they might cite things like fairness, diversity and tolerance, along with family, community and the other values that everyone agrees on.
It's only a fairly small fraction of those who embrace traditional values who have that much of an issue with this, and most of them are over 40 years of age.
This is going to come down to two factions. Guess which one is way bigger than the other.
Faction 1) Either says who cares, this is a non issue, or they are slightly homophobic like many of us, but still don't really care and say leave it up to the states.
Faction 2) Is so opposed to same sex marriage that they are perceived as being too hung up on an issue that is just a distraction. These people want to have the federal government impose a law that no state should be allowed to allow same sex marriage.
Who is it that you think gets burned politically by this ?
Follow
Befriend (8)
1 threads
792 comments
Danville, CA
Premium
marcus, the only person I know who says it doesn't make sense is you. That's because of where you live.
You've fooled yourself into thinking California is the default and it most certainly is not. Yes, there are 55 Electoral votes here but there are 160+ in the south and that doesn't include Ohio which has a tendency to vote conservative when there's a wedge issue question (perversion, baby killing, unions) on the ballot there. It galvanizes the old people and there are a TON of those in Ohio. They run the place. They own it.
Which college did you graduate from? Did you know that Ohio (more than likely the state that will determine whether or not Obama gets a second term) ranks at the top for percentage of non college educated whites? Those people vote in VERY HIGH numbers there, large enough numbers to say they'll determine where Ohio's Electoral College votes go.
You're boxed in. You just don't know it.
Follow
Befriend (2)
8 threads
755 comments
33 male
Fort Mill, SC
rootvg says
Says the guys who really hasn't looked at the electoral map.
Obama is a lock for 166 electoral votes on the coasts. CA(55), NY(29), VT(3), NH(4), MA(11), RI(4), CT(7), NJ(14), DE(3), MD(10), DC(3), ME(4), OR(7), WA(12).
He is also a lock for 20 electoral votes in IL, and 4 in HI. Thats 190.
He is running over 15 points ahead in NM(5) & MN(10, Reagan didn't even carry in '84.) Thats 205.
He is 10 points ahead in IA(6), and 8 points ahead in VA(13), PA(20) and NV(6). Thats 250.
He would just need to win FL(29) to win. Or AZ(9) and CO(11). Or WI & MI. Or a combination of any two of the other swing states.
Basically just win Florida, or any combination of two swing states. Michigan(16) should be a lock for Obama because he bailed out the auto industry (and the state frankly), and is the only reason Romney got the nomination.
I just don't see how Romney sweeps every swing state except for one. Frankly I don't think Romney is even winning Florida.
The math above is the reality. Its why the gambling sites have Obama as the prohibitive favorite.
Follow
Befriend (8)
1 threads
792 comments
Danville, CA
Premium
David, you understand the math but not the politics. You're making the same mistake a friend of mine in Ohio made. Romney will either win or lose all of them, just as Obama won them all in one stroke. That's our political culture.
Yes, the math says it can split like that. It NEVER does.
If Obama wins and ends up facing a Republican House and Senate (possibly a Republican Senate super majority), they WILL impeach his ass. The Tea Party will make them do it...and both parties know it and it can't be allowed and it won't be.
The race will be over at 8PM Eastern time. Trust me.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
153 comments
leoj707 says
I think you should give birth control more credit. I believe the consequences of unplanned pregnancies were a form of birth control in the old world, pre BOTH birth control and entitlement welfare.
Back in those days, the burden fell on an immediate community to carry the weight of a mother and child unable to self sustain. Hence, promiscuity was looked down upon through history with all the associated baggage. Men responsible for pregnancy were hounded down to take care of their offspring (shotgun marriages)so that the responsibility for the mistake was suck on those who made it. Obviously this ended up in marriages of convenience that were horrible for some women. However, it has the social benefit that women (and families) were much more discerning about who was suitable material to engage in procreation / marriage material.
Birth control removed the primary barrier by removing the birth from the equation, while entitlements made the mistake of allowing a lout who won't take care of his own be a survivable error, or even an acceptable lifestyle for many.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,652 comments
rootvg says
You are really delusional.
(I'm ready for the United States of California line.)
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
389 comments
They call prostitution the 'oldest profession' for a reason. Sex has been recreation more than procreation for at least a few thousand years. I fooled around a lot in college, but love my wife, and am wholly committed to her and my 2 boys. This notion that fooling around destroys marriage and/or procreation is simply untrue.
We are at 7 BILLION people on this planet. We should be handing out contraceptives for free to anyone who would take it. It's very likely that having this many people on earth will lead to our demise.
Follow
Befriend
2,826 comments
Monterey, CA
Cloud says
I don't know. Doesn't Fox News get the highest ratings, so my guess, following your logic, would be the Republicans. How much do I win?
Follow
Befriend (2)
8 threads
755 comments
33 male
Fort Mill, SC
rootvg says
So you are saying the Obama losses every other state except those that he is basically a lock to win? Even those that he carried by 16 (Michigan) & 13 (Wisconsin) points in '08? You have a state like NC, which has increased in population significantly since last election, nearly all in the Charlotte & Research Triangle areas, that he carried in 2008 anyway? He is going to lose every single swing state? He won Colorado by eight points - and Colorado is much more like California than Kansas - I haven't seen a poll that has it close except Rasmussen and Purple Strategies - two well known Right wing polling agencies.
Ohio isn't what it was in the 1960s. It isn't the heartbeat of America. It is a dying state. And I grew up and went to undergrad in rural Ohio. All of the large cities are strongly Democrat except Cincinnati, which is really just northern Kentucky. There are few voters in rural Ohio anymore. Most of the rural counties have falling populations.
If you look at the electoral map, you will see it too. There is no room for error anywhere on it for Romney. UT/WY/ID, the deep south, and Texas are the only states that are red no matter what. Right wing nutjobs in UT/ID/WY (Ted Kaczynski/Ruby Ridge types), racist rednecks in the deep south, and Texas. That is the Republican base. Add in a spattering of low population states in the midwest too. Nothing bad to say about those folks except they are mostly poor, uninformed, and easily manipulated with social issues.
Meanwhile, in the rest of the country, where the population is more highly educated, more colorful, more informed, and wealthier, Obama is leading.
Follow
Befriend (12)
140 threads
1,355 comments
Emeryville, CA
David1---pesky facts! They run counter to what I want to believe, and so I dismiss them! :)
Follow
Befriend
235 comments
david1 says
So charitable AND mathematical!
Does that mean welfare queens, illegal aliens, greedy unions, OWS bridge bombing terrorists, and anti-Semites make up the Democrat base? I think Ted Kaczynski would fit right in with the OWS losers. Especially the jerks who got arrested trying to blow up a bridge in Cleveland a few weeks ago.
Anyway, there is alot of time between now and November. Most incumbents who won reelection were much farther ahead in the polls right now. Heck, Bush Sr was enjoying nearly 90% approval rate a year before he lost to Clinton.
Follow
Befriend
235 comments
CL says
Utter B.S..
So tired of reading the revisionist history pushed by Libs. LBJ was a huge racist and his motives were very cynical. The Democrats were the party of slavery, segregation and Jim Crow. Deal with it.
"These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us, since they’ve got something now they never had before: the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this — we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference?"
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300432/party-civil-rights-kevin-d-williamson
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
socal2 says
They were not OWS, they were anarchists. Also, they were trying to blow-up an Obama campaign office in addition to the bridge. Not something that would be done by the Democrat's base.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
socal2 says
Right, damn those revisionist historians Johnson did not actually sign the Civil Rights Act of 1964 then a year later sign the Voting Rights Act of 1965! It was a... a... a... time traveling George W Bush! Yeah! because any real historian knows that the Republicans were the ones pushing for desegregation and civil rights in the 60s.
We know this because the "Southern strategy" was actually a strategy for Republicans to help improve civil rights for blacks in the south. It most certainly was not a strategy to get southern Democrats to start voting Republican by exploiting racism, as it has been portrayed by the liberal media.
Follow
Befriend
235 comments
leoj707 says
Uh huh. No connection at all. Just imagine if a Tea Party member had this type of connection. I doubt you would dismiss it.
http://news.yahoo.com/ows-tactics-turn-violent-attempted-cleveland-bridge-bombing-210700652.html
http://wizbangblog.com/2012/05/06/bridge-bombers-name-appears-on-occupy-cleveland-bldg-lease-occupiers-mad-at-fbi-instead/
IRT to bombing democrat headquarters. Obama started his political career at the Pentagon Bomber's house (Bill Ayers). Left wing nuts will bomb ANYTHING.
Follow
Befriend
235 comments
leoj707 says
Who said he didn't sign the bills? All I am saying that LBJ was a big racist (have you read any of his transcripts) and he also had cynical motives.
Also pushing back against the revisionist Lib propaganda that Republicans were (are) racists and were against desegregation. It still amazes me how Democrats have been able to get a clean break from their deplorable racist past.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6946
Follow
Befriend (2)
15 threads
430 comments
Reston, VA
wthrfrk80 says
Why do conservatives always draw some parallel between gay sex or gay marriage and bestiality, incest, or the like?
More to the point, why did you do it?
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
socal2 says
The same could be said about right-wing nuts, but I don't think either are voting Democrat or Republican.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
socal2 says
Congratulations socal2 your logical falicy is:
tu quoque
Fact: The racist south were Democrats
Fact: A Democrat president signed the civil rights acts
Fact: The racist south started voting Republican
Sure LBJ may have been a racist, along with a lot of Democrats, but after he signed those acts all the big racists registered Republican.
Kind of like this:
Fact: A Republican president freed the salves in the south
Fact: The racist south voted Democrat for generations
Lincoln also had "cynical motives" and made many racist comments.
socal2 says
No so amazing. It happened because most of the Democrats with a deplorable racist past became Republicans in the 60s. It should not be such a surprise to you.