When Mitt Romney becomes president.... *FLUX THREAD!*

[Jason]

Wow, there are bona fide racists on this board.  Pretty sickening.

Where? Name them.

[Jason]

IDK, if you think about it like that it becomes 'How dare he enfranchise me and enhance my civil rights, he doesn't mean it!' and well, where does that get you? The '64 Civil Rights Act was 'Kennedy's Act' rather than a massive sea change on the part of the Legislature/LBJ/whoever wrt to African-American rights and I don't think anyone worth listening to has said it wasn't welcome because 'they didn't mean it'.


And, of course, Obama's a raging queer anyway so the point is moot - cheers for the information, GreatUrduPoet. You f***ing nutter.

I would have respected his position on gay marriage if he actually ran on it in 2008, but no. Now it's just a calculated attempt to gain votes in an election year when his campaign and presidency have proven a catastrophic failure...much like his illustrious predecessor.

[hypehat]

Not what I'm saying - does the act of repealing DADT or putting the gay marriage debate on the table somehow become worthless if only done for votes? Does it somehow not become a big step in LGBT rights? Is every gay solider just shaking their head and going 'well, he doesn't mean it, so I guess nothing's changed'?


Eagerly waiting for Fishmonk's response, btw. The unalienable human right to be racist to people.... Jesus.

[Jason]

Not what I'm saying - does the act of repealing DADT or putting the gay marriage debate on the table somehow become worthless if only done for votes? Does it somehow not become a big step in LGBT rights? Is every gay solider just shaking their head and going 'well, he doesn't mean it, so I guess nothing's changed'?


Eagerly waiting for Fishmonk's response, btw. The unalienable human right to be racist to people.... Jesus.

I wouldn't say it's worthless but I would definitely say it's calculated and disingenuous. Don't Ask, Don't Tell never should have been an issue to begin with...it never should have been passed. But we have the Clinton regime to thank for that, or did the liberal community forget that little detail?

Keep in mind, you're talking to someone who was for gay marriage long before it was the issue it is nowadays. Government should either recognize all marriages and civil unions or none at all; frankly, I'd prefer if they recognized none because marriage and civil unions are private or religious contracts between individuals and should remain as such.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I really don't see how  important it is to what extent a politician is disingenuous or politically motivated IF the do something good/usefull/helpful to society/mankind. I mean, what does it matter? No a single damn progressive step we've taken as a life form has been out of pure love for one another. I mean, we all do things for all variety of reasons. The least important is generally what we scream and yell the loudest about..... GWB was a disingenuous bastard and he got all kinds of people killed due to it. If Obama goes home and goes on cussing tirades about gays BUT comes out in favor of gay marriage: what do I care?

And does anyone realize just how easy it is to yell and scream and cry about how nothing is a right or an entitlement from the safety of a computer screen in a country where you're free and clear to bitch and moan about things that people fought and died for, while at the same time taking full advantage of the very things you're bitching and screaming against? I mean, c'mon! Seriously!!!!!!

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Not what I'm saying - does the act of repealing DADT or putting the gay marriage debate on the table somehow become worthless if only done for votes? Does it somehow not become a big step in LGBT rights? Is every gay solider just shaking their head and going 'well, he doesn't mean it, so I guess nothing's changed'?


Eagerly waiting for Fishmonk's response, btw. The unalienable human right to be racist to people.... Jesus.

I wouldn't say it's worthless but I would definitely say it's calculated and disingenuous. Don't Ask, Don't Tell never should have been an issue to begin with...it never should have been passed. But we have the Clinton regime to thank for that, or did the liberal community forget that little detail?

Keep in mind, you're talking to someone who was for gay marriage long before it was the issue it is nowadays. Government should either recognize all marriages and civil unions or none at all; frankly, I'd prefer if they recognized none because marriage and civil unions are private or religious contracts between individuals and should remain as such.

[/color]

Can't argue with this however!

[Jason]

Not what I'm saying - does the act of repealing DADT or putting the gay marriage debate on the table somehow become worthless if only done for votes? Does it somehow not become a big step in LGBT rights? Is every gay solider just shaking their head and going 'well, he doesn't mean it, so I guess nothing's changed'?


Eagerly waiting for Fishmonk's response, btw. The unalienable human right to be racist to people.... Jesus.

I wouldn't say it's worthless but I would definitely say it's calculated and disingenuous. Don't Ask, Don't Tell never should have been an issue to begin with...it never should have been passed. But we have the Clinton regime to thank for that, or did the liberal community forget that little detail?

Keep in mind, you're talking to someone who was for gay marriage long before it was the issue it is nowadays. Government should either recognize all marriages and civil unions or none at all; frankly, I'd prefer if they recognized none because marriage and civil unions are private or religious contracts between individuals and should remain as such.

[/color]

Can't argue with this however!

My problem is that people want the government to take a stand on everything. Why do we need permission from the government to marry whomever we wish, regardless of sexual orientation or even the amount of people involved? We don't need MORE government in the bedroom. We don't need LESS government in the bedroom. We need ZERO government in the bedroom. What consenting adults do voluntarily is THEIR OWN BUSINESS. I don't care if you're straight, gay, up, down, left or right...no one should be prohibited by any governmental body from associating with whom they wish and marrying whom they wish. This goes far beyond civil rights...this is just common fucking sense. Or at least it should be.

[SBonilla]

Not what I'm saying - does the act of repealing DADT or putting the gay marriage debate on the table somehow become worthless if only done for votes? Does it somehow not become a big step in LGBT rights? Is every gay solider just shaking their head and going 'well, he doesn't mean it, so I guess nothing's changed'?


Eagerly waiting for Fishmonk's response, btw. The unalienable human right to be racist to people.... Jesus.

I wouldn't say it's worthless but I would definitely say it's calculated and disingenuous. Don't Ask, Don't Tell never should have been an issue to begin with...it never should have been passed. But we have the Clinton regime to thank for that, or did the liberal community forget that little detail?

Keep in mind, you're talking to someone who was for gay marriage long before it was the issue it is nowadays. Government should either recognize all marriages and civil unions or none at all; frankly, I'd prefer if they recognized none because marriage and civil unions are private or religious contracts between individuals and should remain as such.

[/color]

Can't argue with this however!

My problem is that people want the government to take a stand on everything. Why do we need permission from the government to marry whomever we wish, regardless of sexual orientation or even the amount of people involved? We don't need MORE government in the bedroom. We don't need LESS government in the bedroom. We need ZERO government in the bedroom. What consenting adults do voluntarily is THEIR OWN BUSINESS. I don't care if you're straight, gay, up, down, left or right...no one should be prohibited by any governmental body from associating with whom they wish and marrying whom they wish. This goes far beyond civil rights...this is just common f***ing sense. Or at least it should be.

We need permission from our government. You want your 13 yo daughter marrying Jerry Lee Lewis? You want her marrying her first cousin? You want her marrying some guy she meets on Omegle who wants into this country?

[Jason]

Not what I'm saying - does the act of repealing DADT or putting the gay marriage debate on the table somehow become worthless if only done for votes? Does it somehow not become a big step in LGBT rights? Is every gay solider just shaking their head and going 'well, he doesn't mean it, so I guess nothing's changed'?


Eagerly waiting for Fishmonk's response, btw. The unalienable human right to be racist to people.... Jesus.

I wouldn't say it's worthless but I would definitely say it's calculated and disingenuous. Don't Ask, Don't Tell never should have been an issue to begin with...it never should have been passed. But we have the Clinton regime to thank for that, or did the liberal community forget that little detail?

Keep in mind, you're talking to someone who was for gay marriage long before it was the issue it is nowadays. Government should either recognize all marriages and civil unions or none at all; frankly, I'd prefer if they recognized none because marriage and civil unions are private or religious contracts between individuals and should remain as such.

[/color]

Can't argue with this however!

My problem is that people want the government to take a stand on everything. Why do we need permission from the government to marry whomever we wish, regardless of sexual orientation or even the amount of people involved? We don't need MORE government in the bedroom. We don't need LESS government in the bedroom. We need ZERO government in the bedroom. What consenting adults do voluntarily is THEIR OWN BUSINESS. I don't care if you're straight, gay, up, down, left or right...no one should be prohibited by any governmental body from associating with whom they wish and marrying whom they wish. This goes far beyond civil rights...this is just common f***ing sense. Or at least it should be.

We need permission from our government. You want your 13 yo daughter marrying Jerry Lee Lewis? You want her marrying her first cousin? You want her marrying some guy she meets on Omegle who wants into this country?

If her parents approve of it that should be fine for the parties involved. I would hope that her parents have a bit more restraint when it comes to issues like this. Keep in mind, it's HER PARENTS' job to raise her, not the government's.

[SBonilla]

Not what I'm saying - does the act of repealing DADT or putting the gay marriage debate on the table somehow become worthless if only done for votes? Does it somehow not become a big step in LGBT rights? Is every gay solider just shaking their head and going 'well, he doesn't mean it, so I guess nothing's changed'?


Eagerly waiting for Fishmonk's response, btw. The unalienable human right to be racist to people.... Jesus.

I wouldn't say it's worthless but I would definitely say it's calculated and disingenuous. Don't Ask, Don't Tell never should have been an issue to begin with...it never should have been passed. But we have the Clinton regime to thank for that, or did the liberal community forget that little detail?

Keep in mind, you're talking to someone who was for gay marriage long before it was the issue it is nowadays. Government should either recognize all marriages and civil unions or none at all; frankly, I'd prefer if they recognized none because marriage and civil unions are private or religious contracts between individuals and should remain as such.

[/color]

Can't argue with this however!

My problem is that people want the government to take a stand on everything. Why do we need permission from the government to marry whomever we wish, regardless of sexual orientation or even the amount of people involved? We don't need MORE government in the bedroom. We don't need LESS government in the bedroom. We need ZERO government in the bedroom. What consenting adults do voluntarily is THEIR OWN BUSINESS. I don't care if you're straight, gay, up, down, left or right...no one should be prohibited by any governmental body from associating with whom they wish and marrying whom they wish. This goes far beyond civil rights...this is just common f***ing sense. Or at least it should be.

We need permission from our government. You want your 13 yo daughter marrying Jerry Lee Lewis? You want her marrying her first cousin? You want her marrying some guy she meets on Omegle who wants into this country?

If her parents approve of it that should be fine for the parties involved. I would hope that her parents have a bit more restraint when it comes to issues like this. Keep in mind, it's HER PARENTS' job to raise her, not the government's.

Restraint? Sounds like you might mean restraints. How else would those things be prevented?

[Jason]

Not what I'm saying - does the act of repealing DADT or putting the gay marriage debate on the table somehow become worthless if only done for votes? Does it somehow not become a big step in LGBT rights? Is every gay solider just shaking their head and going 'well, he doesn't mean it, so I guess nothing's changed'?


Eagerly waiting for Fishmonk's response, btw. The unalienable human right to be racist to people.... Jesus.

I wouldn't say it's worthless but I would definitely say it's calculated and disingenuous. Don't Ask, Don't Tell never should have been an issue to begin with...it never should have been passed. But we have the Clinton regime to thank for that, or did the liberal community forget that little detail?

Keep in mind, you're talking to someone who was for gay marriage long before it was the issue it is nowadays. Government should either recognize all marriages and civil unions or none at all; frankly, I'd prefer if they recognized none because marriage and civil unions are private or religious contracts between individuals and should remain as such.

[/color]

Can't argue with this however!

My problem is that people want the government to take a stand on everything. Why do we need permission from the government to marry whomever we wish, regardless of sexual orientation or even the amount of people involved? We don't need MORE government in the bedroom. We don't need LESS government in the bedroom. We need ZERO government in the bedroom. What consenting adults do voluntarily is THEIR OWN BUSINESS. I don't care if you're straight, gay, up, down, left or right...no one should be prohibited by any governmental body from associating with whom they wish and marrying whom they wish. This goes far beyond civil rights...this is just common f***ing sense. Or at least it should be.

We need permission from our government. You want your 13 yo daughter marrying Jerry Lee Lewis? You want her marrying her first cousin? You want her marrying some guy she meets on Omegle who wants into this country?

If her parents approve of it that should be fine for the parties involved. I would hope that her parents have a bit more restraint when it comes to issues like this. Keep in mind, it's HER PARENTS' job to raise her, not the government's.

Restraint? Sounds like you might mean restraints. How else would those things be prevented?

I would think that responsible parents wouldn't just allow a 13 year old to marry someone. The only way to possibly control this to the extent you seem to be pushing for is to have a complete police state with a government employee living in every house...hey, since we're throwing away the Bill of Rights, let's get rid of the 3rd Amendment while we're at it.

[Dunderhead]

Eagerly waiting for Fishmonk's response, btw. The unalienable human right to be racist to people.... Jesus.

I'm tempted not to respond because of the smugness you're showing here. You've shut down the debate before it even began, so what's the point?

Anyway, it actually is your right to be racist. As I stressed in my previous post, though it's a point wasted on some people apparently, is that you can use your rights however you so choose. It does not matter if you're using your rights in a racist way, like I said that's immaterial to the debate, you have a right to be racist in the same way you have a right to be gay. You don't want people to control you, you don't have a right to control other people. You don't like their opinions, you think they're morally terrible people? Tough, they have their rights just as you have yours.

And don't you dare call me a racist hypehat, I've been around here for a good long while, you know me and know that I'm an ok guy. I won't be posting anymore if you act like a dick about this.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I just curious, BTW just WHO some of us are talking about when they go on and on about this person thinks they're entitled to this that, health care, food, (Jeez, I'm quoting Mitt Romney here) etc etc.... Are we talking about the dirt poor? Are we talking about those who sit around not attempting to do a damn thing and who expect welfare and food stamps to keep coming? If so, these people are NOT the majority. We should be thankful that we are not in their situation (extreme poverty doesn't just happen. There are heartbreaking reasons usually for such a state: reasons that no one really cares to know about) and have a little humility. Who complains that GWB can get DUI after DUI and f*** up left and right, be an alcoholic and a failure at everything he's ever attempted yet still reap the rewards that his daddy and his daddy's daddy worked for? I mean does anyone feel that  GWB shouldn't be entitled to a fine mean and 1 billion thread count sheets when he didn't do a damn thing to earn any of it? .... Of course not, so maybe we shouldn't bitch about poor people feeling that they are entitled........ to not starve to death. BTW, we're not even talking about THEM are we? We're talking about people who were not born into money or power and who work hard yet can't keep up with the rising cost of everything and have to choose between eating and paying their ever increasing rent.... In the meantime, these people's paychecks are being raped through taxes. They are PAYING INTO THE SYSTEM, is it really fair to use the word entitlement in reference to their need to have access to health care? Really? They think they're entitled to it? Really?

I think we need to stop using the right-wing (marketing team arrived-at) catchphrase for starters....

[SBonilla]

Not what I'm saying - does the act of repealing DADT or putting the gay marriage debate on the table somehow become worthless if only done for votes? Does it somehow not become a big step in LGBT rights? Is every gay solider just shaking their head and going 'well, he doesn't mean it, so I guess nothing's changed'?


Eagerly waiting for Fishmonk's response, btw. The unalienable human right to be racist to people.... Jesus.

I wouldn't say it's worthless but I would definitely say it's calculated and disingenuous. Don't Ask, Don't Tell never should have been an issue to begin with...it never should have been passed. But we have the Clinton regime to thank for that, or did the liberal community forget that little detail?

Keep in mind, you're talking to someone who was for gay marriage long before it was the issue it is nowadays. Government should either recognize all marriages and civil unions or none at all; frankly, I'd prefer if they recognized none because marriage and civil unions are private or religious contracts between individuals and should remain as such.

[/color]

Can't argue with this however!

My problem is that people want the government to take a stand on everything. Why do we need permission from the government to marry whomever we wish, regardless of sexual orientation or even the amount of people involved? We don't need MORE government in the bedroom. We don't need LESS government in the bedroom. We need ZERO government in the bedroom. What consenting adults do voluntarily is THEIR OWN BUSINESS. I don't care if you're straight, gay, up, down, left or right...no one should be prohibited by any governmental body from associating with whom they wish and marrying whom they wish. This goes far beyond civil rights...this is just common f***ing sense. Or at least it should be.

We need permission from our government. You want your 13 yo daughter marrying Jerry Lee Lewis? You want her marrying her first cousin? You want her marrying some guy she meets on Omegle who wants into this country?

If her parents approve of it that should be fine for the parties involved. I would hope that her parents have a bit more restraint when it comes to issues like this. Keep in mind, it's HER PARENTS' job to raise her, not the government's.

Restraint? Sounds like you might mean restraints. How else would those things be prevented?

I would think that responsible parents wouldn't just allow a 13 year old to marry someone. The only way to possibly control this to the extent you seem to be pushing for is to have a complete police state with a government employee living in every house...hey, since we're throwing away the Bill of Rights, let's get rid of the 3rd Amendment while we're at it.

I offered a few questions; no push involved. Anyway, we have many protections in place as it is and we are nowhere near a police state. I'm not throwing out the baby, OK?

[Jason]

Until your parents deem you ready to make your own decisions, then the parents have the final say. Once you're "legal", all bets are off. You make your own decisions.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Yes, and wouldn't it be a legal issue far before a church date is set regarding a 13 year old marrying some 46 year old pedo?

And don't most couplings have to get around/past or approved of by parental units well before wedding bells are even ringing off in the far distance?

[SBonilla]

Until your parents deem you ready to make your own decisions, then the parents have the final say. Once you're "legal", all bets are off. You make your own decisions.

I didn't mean that. I wasn't clear. Sorry. I meant, when our society tries to solve issues and problems, you could say that sometimes we try to throw out the bathwater, without throwing out the baby. In this case the baby is the 3rd ammendment. That's probably still oblique. It's the best I can do; I'm over caffeinated.

[Cabinessenceking]

LULZ

looks like no Beach Boys in the White House for another 4 years, unless Obama invites them ofc..... 

[Jason]

Yes, and wouldn't it be a legal issue far before a church date is set regarding a 13 year old marrying some 46 year old pedo?

And don't most couplings have to get around/past or approved of by parental units well before wedding bells are even ringing off in the far distance?

It currently is a legal issue, yes.

[Jason]

LULZ

looks like no Beach Boys in the White House for another 4 years, unless Obama invites them ofc..... 

What makes you think Obama wouldn't, necessarily? Unless you're one of those types who think black people only listen to hip-hop and R&B! RACIST! 

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I'd certainly tune in for an NWA reunion at The White House with Obama filling in for Eazy-E!

Just keep Bubba from waltzing on in on sax!

[SBonilla]

I'd certainly tune in for an NWA reunion at The White House with Obama filling in for Eazy-E!

Just keep Bubba from waltzing on in on sax!

Nah, leave him in.  And, behind the band on the Tribute Screen, put up Nixon & Truman tickling the ivories. Let it all hang out! It's all gansta.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Dick Cheney can play the defibrillator!

[Jason]

And Bush 2.0 can play the fool.

[hypehat]

Eagerly waiting for Fishmonk's response, btw. The unalienable human right to be racist to people.... Jesus.

I'm tempted not to respond because of the smugness you're showing here. You've shut down the debate before it even began, so what's the point?

Anyway, it actually is your right to be racist. As I stressed in my previous post, though it's a point wasted on some people apparently, is that you can use your rights however you so choose. It does not matter if you're using your rights in a racist way, like I said that's immaterial to the debate, you have a right to be racist in the same way you have a right to be gay. You don't want people to control you, you don't have a right to control other people. You don't like their opinions, you think they're morally terrible people? Tough, they have their rights just as you have yours.

And don't you dare call me a racist hypehat, I've been around here for a good long while, you know me and know that I'm an ok guy. I won't be posting anymore if you act like a dick about this.

If you're referring to the 'it takes a certain type of person' part in my initial response, that wasn't meant to label you as a racist. Honestly. I'm sorry if I caused offence with that. I posted in a hurry and your post did floor me somewhat as yeah, you are a decent poster and smart dude.

It's more of a difference of opinion we have, in that I'm not so devoted as you or TRBB in viewing these things purely as a issue of  Rights and from a theoretical point of view when we're talking about, if not very recent history such as the Civil Rights Movement, issues that affect me indirectly or directly such as gaining equality for other minorities, the problems you guys have with a welfare state, etc. We come at these things very differently, maybe it's my British perspective (I had a very nasty injury lately that I'm sure glad I had my NHS for, but that would make Ayn Rand cry), maybe it's the fact I'm a soft old hippy at heart and went to a politicised Uni. Who knows.

I just cannot find the theoretical disconnect to say 'you are within your rights to abuse other people's human rights' in me. I am not that sort of person, and that's what I meant by that. I cannot look at this sort of thing and say 'well, they're totally within their rights to force them to drink out of different fountains' or whatever on a theoretical level.

Again, I'm sorry if I caused offence. As a good man once said to me, 'there needs to be no beef'. Peace?