PDA

View Full Version : Elections What makes you a Democrat?


CoMoChief
09-28-2012, 05:55 PM
For you liberals out there...what do you think it means to be a democrat and/or why do you vote democrat?

cosmo20002
09-28-2012, 06:08 PM
For you liberals out there...what do you think it means to be a democrat and/or why do you vote democrat?

50% because I agree with typical Democrat policies, 50% because Rs are freaking nuts--ideologues, religious nuts, anti-science, etc.

CoMoChief
09-28-2012, 06:40 PM
50% because I agree with typical Democrat policies, 50% because Rs are freaking nuts--ideologues, religious nuts, anti-science, etc.

such as?

Dick Bull
09-28-2012, 06:41 PM
This is funny. It's been done before so let me tell you how this goes. First you ask the question. Second you try to use what you describe as your super enlightened intellect to explain to us how we're wrong and convert us. Third you realize that you don't have a super enlightened intellect and then call us names. Fourth, you get mad and start calling names and insulting(and with your clown shoes over dramatic explosions of late probably say you're going to whip someone's ass), and then finally we laugh at you

cosmo20002
09-28-2012, 06:53 PM
50% because I agree with typical Democrat policies, 50% because Rs are freaking nuts--ideologues, religious nuts, anti-science, etc.

such as?


ROFL that you didn't even question the second part of what I said.

Ds try to be guided by reality, not strict adherence to ideology, they accept science and don't attempt to make the Bible into the Consitution.

SNR
09-28-2012, 07:14 PM
Ds try to be guided by realityI'm sure they do LMAO

Mr. Kotter
09-28-2012, 07:30 PM
I'm a Reagan Republican, who became independent during the 90s and early 21st century....but is increasingly feeling that the GOP doesn't give one rat's ass about anyone who is not in the top 2%. Simply put, at this point in our history...why do folks vote Democrat?

It's the ONLY counter-balance to a GOP elitist plutocracy in which the middle and working classes will be utterly destroyed.

A Salt Weapon
09-28-2012, 07:34 PM
Ds try to be guided by reality,

That's priceless, most sarcastic post on the internet. Laughing my ass off, Great job.
Posted via Mobile Device

Dave Lane
09-28-2012, 07:43 PM
I'm a Reagan Republican, who became independent during the 90s and early 21st century....but is increasingly feeling that the GOP doesn't give one rat's ass about anyone who is not in the top 2%. Simply put, at this point in our history...why do folks vote Democrat?

It's the ONLY counter-balance to a GOP elitist plutocracy in which the middle and working classes will be utterly destroyed.

Add Cosmos bible thumping sentiments and you have my response.

I know the inner workings of the Rs and trust me they are a one issue party. Lower taxes for the ultra rich. The rest is fluff and window dressing to get enough "voters" to get what they really want.

I've seen the machine and trust me its eye opening.

I wish there was a party strictly for the middle class, that didn't have crazy religious leanings and represented the $40k-250k voters. The rich have their party the progressives increasingly have the poor and intellectuals and the middle class gets squeezed.

Dave Lane
09-28-2012, 07:50 PM
I'm still a registered republican and met with Reagan and was on his National Committee for re-election. I found out way more than I bargained for with that deal. Plus some personal experience as a small business man at the time cured me for life. Sad thing is Reagan would have to run as a Democrat now. He's far to liberal for todays republicans.

ClevelandBronco
09-28-2012, 07:51 PM
...the progressives increasingly have the poor and intellectuals...

In other words, the people who don't do a fucking thing.

Dave Lane
09-28-2012, 07:52 PM
In other words, the people who don't do a ****ing thing.

Hang on to that buzz word. Its good for another few weeks.

Mr. Kotter
09-28-2012, 07:57 PM
Add Cosmos bible thumping sentiments and you have my response.

I know the inner workings of the Rs and trust me they are a one issue party. Lower taxes for the ultra rich. The rest is fluff and window dressing to get enough "voters" to get what they really want.

I've seen the machine and trust me its eye opening.

I wish there was a party strictly for the middle class, that didn't have crazy religious leanings and represented the $40k-250k voters. The rich have their party the progressives increasingly have the poor and intellectuals and the middle class gets squeezed.

When an election unites Dave and I...we've had our differences over the years---it should be an eye-opening experience for the Dittoheads on this site.

If the GOP refuses to recognize the trend Dave speaks of...they will become the 21st Century version of the 19th Century Whigs. Or the 21st Century version of the 20th Century Dixiecrats. Yeah....I said it, the Tea Party lunatic fringe extreme, could relegate the GOP to the trash-heap of political party history, and a NEW second party could emerge--unless they figure things out, soon.

I don't expect that to happen; because, frankly, most of the GOP understand how ridiculous this scenario is--despite thieir pandering to the Ron Paul crowd and the top 2% types. However, if you wish to sell your soul for the top 2%...they deserve what they get.


I'm still a registered republican and met with Reagan and was on his National Committee for re-election. I found out way more than I bargained for with that deal. Plus some personal experience as a small business man at the time cured me for life. Sad thing is Reagan would have to run as a Democrat now. He's far to liberal for todays republicans.

I've said the same thing: in today's GOP...Reagan would be a Liberal. Wow.

cosmo20002
09-28-2012, 08:01 PM
That's priceless, most sarcastic post on the internet. Laughing my ass off, Great job.
Posted via Mobile Device

Aren't you the guy who wrote that a president has nothing to do with laws enacted while he is president?

ClevelandBronco
09-28-2012, 08:04 PM
Hang on to that buzz word. Its good for another few weeks.

I have no idea what you're saying.

Dick Bull
09-28-2012, 08:05 PM
In other words, the people who don't do a ****ing thing.

That's an enlightening view.

cosmo20002
09-28-2012, 08:06 PM
I'm sure they do LMAO

For example, when the economy is heading to depression, you do what needs to be done and not whine like a child about some new definition of socialism.

Brainiac
09-28-2012, 08:08 PM
I'm sure a lot of people around here think I'm a Republican because of my opposition to Obama and my unwavering support for Romney. But the fact is that I support Romney because he's not really a right-wing conservative, despite his claims during the primary that he is. He had to exaggerate his conservative credentials in order to win the Republican nomination, but in reality if he's elected I think we'll find that he's actually a pragmatist who isn't beholden to the tea party or any other nutjobs.

Some people condemn Romney because he wasn't 100% honest about his views during the primaries, but in my mind that's not an indictment of Romney, it's actually an indictment of the idiocy that has taken root in the Republican party. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats truly represent my views. Each party gets some things right. The problem is that each party gets some things horribly wrong.

cosmo20002
09-28-2012, 08:10 PM
I've said the same thing: in today's GOP...Reagan would be a Liberal. Wow.

Remember that 'conservative purity test' thing that was floated a couple years ago. Reagan would have failed and it wasn't even close.

Mr. Kotter
09-28-2012, 08:14 PM
Remember that 'conservative purity test' thing that was floated a couple years ago. Reagan would have failed and it wasn't even close.

Don't say that too loud or the 1980s-era-devotees (misguided ideologues) simply do not understand.

....Some people condemn Romney because he wasn't 100% honest about his views during the primaries, but in my mind that's not an indictment of Romney, it's actually an indictment of the idiocy that has taken root in the Republican party. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats truly represent my views. Each party gets some things right. The problem is that each party gets some things horribly wrong.


Romney is no pragmatist; he's a charlatan. There is a difference.

No matter how the plutocrats may argue otherwise.

Mr. Flopnuts
09-28-2012, 08:17 PM
I'm sure a lot of people around here think I'm a Republican because of my opposition to Obama and my unwavering support for Romney. But the fact is that I support Romney because he's not really a right-wing conservative, despite his claims during the primary that he is. He had to exaggerate his conservative credentials in order to win the Republican nomination, but in reality if he's elected I think we'll find that he's actually a pragmatist who isn't beholden to the tea party or any other nutjobs.

Some people condemn Romney because he wasn't 100% honest about his views during the primaries, but in my mind that's not an indictment of Romney, it's actually an indictment of the idiocy that has taken root in the Republican party. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats truly represent my views. Each party gets some things right. The problem is that each party gets some things horribly wrong.

Great post. I appreciate the insight into your views. I've been leaning more left these days but agree with you on all fronts here. The average Joe like all of us don't have anyone who's on our side. It's one extreme or the other apparently.

Dave Lane
09-28-2012, 08:18 PM
I'm sure a lot of people around here think I'm a Republican because of my opposition to Obama and my unwavering support for Romney. But the fact is that I support Romney because he's not really a right-wing conservative, despite his claims during the primary that he is. He had to exaggerate his conservative credentials in order to win the Republican nomination, but in reality if he's elected I think we'll find that he's actually a pragmatist who isn't beholden to the tea party or any other nutjobs.

Some people condemn Romney because he wasn't 100% honest about his views during the primaries, but in my mind that's not an indictment of Romney, it's actually an indictment of the idiocy that has taken root in the Republican party. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats truly represent my views. Each party gets some things right. The problem is that each party gets some things horribly wrong.

Good response and I understand and mostly agree. I just don't want to see education, science be destroyed and creationism gain a foothold by the Rs getting in power. I'm not scared of Romney but I am his constituents.

Dave Lane
09-28-2012, 08:19 PM
I predict if Romney wins he'll spend half his time fighting his own party.

Brainiac
09-28-2012, 08:28 PM
I just don't want to see education, science be destroyed and creationism gain a foothold by the Rs getting in power. I'm not scared of Romney but I am his constituents.
I completely agree. I think the teaching of creationism (excuse me, Intelligent Design) in SCIENCE class in public schools is just about the stupidest thing that this country can do. Let's confuse the hell out of students and give them all kinds of misinformation. Great idea!

Mr. Kotter
09-28-2012, 08:31 PM
I completely agree. I think the teaching of creationism (excuse me, Intelligent Design) in SCIENCE class in public schools is just about the stupidest thing that this country can do. Let's confuse the hell out of students and give them all kinds of misinformation. Great idea!

Ah, Hell...you went and done it now! The Dittoheads and "real Americans" are gonna hate on yo' silly azz, now.

Damn. Damn, damn, damn, damn.... :banghead:

Brainiac
09-28-2012, 08:35 PM
Ah, Hell...you went and done it now! The Dittoheads and "real Americans" are gonna hate on yo' silly azz, now.

Damn. Damn, damn, damn, damn.... :banghead:
Killer Clown should be along any minute to post a video of Kent Hovind telling us that evolution is a fairy tale and that Noah took itty bitty dinosaurs with him on the ark.

Killer Clown rejects Romney because he's not conservative enough. That's reason enough right there to vote for him.

cosmo20002
09-28-2012, 08:35 PM
Great post. I appreciate the insight into your views. I've been leaning more left these days but agree with you on all fronts here. The average Joe like all of us don't have anyone who's on our side. It's one extreme or the other apparently.

No. Obama is hardly extreme. Congressional Ds are not extreme.

cosmo20002
09-28-2012, 08:36 PM
I predict if Romney wins he'll spend half his time fighting his own party.

We see that now with Boehner.

Mr. Kotter
09-28-2012, 08:45 PM
...
Killer Clown rejects Romney because he's not conservative enough. That's reason enough right there to vote for him.

Killer Clown rejects Obama because he's not conservative enough. That's reason enough right there to vote for him.

True enough, and fair enough....heh. LMAO

SNR
09-28-2012, 09:13 PM
For example, when the economy is heading to depression, you do what needs to be done and not whine like a child about some new definition of socialism.

The Democrat Party is full of fucking shit and you know it.

Realistic my ass.

Dick Bull
09-28-2012, 09:17 PM
The Democrat Party is full of ****ing shit and you know it.

Realistic my ass.

You're a lampfucker

BucEyedPea
09-28-2012, 11:26 PM
For you liberals out there...what do you think it means to be a democrat and/or why do you vote democrat?

Handouts, free lunches and unicorns.

ThaVirus
09-28-2012, 11:42 PM
Some good information in this thread.

SNR
09-28-2012, 11:52 PM
You're a lampfucker

Ascribing rationality, evidence, and reason to the Democrat party just because the alternative is a xenophobic group of fear-mongers is like calling Matt Cassel a good QB because the alternative is Tyler Palko.

The fact is there are equal numbers of rational voters from both the Republican and Democrat parties. They're a small number, but they exist. Cosmo acts like the Democrat party is full of those thoughtful voters, and like the Republicans actually have none.

Cosmo's generally an alright guy and brings up good points. Reminds me of a not-as-smart version of orange. The problem occurs when we get into these kinds of "What are _______s" discussions. Then the Democrats are the party of "realism".

Democrats are just as evil and warped as the Republicans, dude. Go fuck your mother.

Dick Bull
09-29-2012, 12:04 AM
Ascribing rationality, evidence, and reason to the Democrat party just because the alternative is a xenophobic group of fear-mongers is like calling Matt Cassel a good QB because the alternative is Tyler Palko.

The fact is there are equal numbers of rational voters from both the Republican and Democrat parties. They're a small number, but they exist. Cosmo acts like the Democrat party is full of those thoughtful voters, and like the Republicans actually have none.

Cosmo's generally an alright guy and brings up good points. Reminds me of a not-as-smart version of orange. The problem occurs when we get into these kinds of "What are _______s" discussions. Then the Democrats are the party of "realism".

Democrats are just as evil and warped as the Republicans, dude. Go **** your mother.

Heh, lighten up. I call a guy a lampfucker and he gets all go fuck your mother.

It was pretty much a joke.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-29-2012, 12:09 AM
I completely agree. I think the teaching of creationism (excuse me, Intelligent Design) in SCIENCE class in public schools is just about the stupidest thing that this country can do. Let's confuse the hell out of students and give them all kinds of misinformation. Great idea!

We've been doing this since Evolution was introduced, boys no longer know they are boys but just dumb animals..feel free to walk the path of enlightenment you animal you. ;)

Dick Bull
09-29-2012, 12:10 AM
We've been doing this since Evolution was introduced, boys no longer know they are boys but just dumb animals..feel free to walk the path of enlightenment you animal you. ;)

Oh Lord evolution cat fight

KILLER_CLOWN
09-29-2012, 12:16 AM
Oh Lord evolution cat fight

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SO83KqNMTno?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

SNR
09-29-2012, 12:16 AM
Heh, lighten up. I call a guy a lampfucker and he gets all go fuck your mother.

It was pretty much a joke.

I DO NOT FUCK LAMPS

YOU TAKE IT BACK RIGHT NOW

BucEyedPea
09-29-2012, 12:18 AM
I'm sure a lot of people around here think I'm a Republican because of my opposition to Obama and my unwavering support for Romney. But the fact is that I support Romney because he's not really a right-wing conservative, despite his claims during the primary that he is.

I knew that about you. He actually ran to the left of Ted Kennedy in 1994 and governed Mass like Mario Cuomo governed NY.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-29-2012, 12:20 AM
I knew that about you. He actually ran to the left of Ted Kennedy in 1994 and governed Mass like Mario Cuomo governed NY.

He now wears it as a badge of honor.

BucEyedPea
09-29-2012, 12:20 AM
I predict if Romney wins he'll spend half his time fighting his own party.

Not if you look at Republicans under Bush. They all caved into the liberal agenda. It will happen this time too.

BucEyedPea
09-29-2012, 12:22 AM
He now wears it as a badge of honor.

He's just coming out of the closet....shining that badge.

We don't need no stinkin' badges tho'!

Dick Bull
09-29-2012, 12:26 AM
I DO NOT **** LAMPS

YOU TAKE IT BACK RIGHT NOW
LMAO

cosmo20002
09-29-2012, 12:36 AM
Ascribing rationality, evidence, and reason to the Democrat party just because the alternative is a xenophobic group of fear-mongers is like calling Matt Cassel a good QB because the alternative is Tyler Palko.

The fact is there are equal numbers of rational voters from both the Republican and Democrat parties. They're a small number, but they exist. Cosmo acts like the Democrat party is full of those thoughtful voters, and like the Republicans actually have none.


What I said was, "Ds try to be guided by reality, not strict adherence to ideology..."

If "reality" wasn't the prefect word, what I was going for was whatever you would call the opposite of an ideologue. Principles should guide people, not be rigid and inflexible in the face of issues and circumstances that might require a dose of practical reality. How many things now have the Rs simply labelled as "socialist" and therefore completely unacceptable? Small tax increases on the wealthy, stimulus programs, bailouts of major industries to help avoid a depression? Nope, can't do that--violates R principles. Hell, they were willing to sacrifice the US credit rating over paying bills already incurred--much of it run up while they were in control.

When asked at the R nominee debate if they would accept $1 in tax increase in exchange for $10 in spending cuts, they all said no. 10 to 1! No! There's no dealing with these people.

BCD
09-29-2012, 12:41 AM
50% because I agree with typical Democrat policies, 50% because Rs are freaking nuts--ideologues, religious nuts, anti-science, etc.

Educate yourself.

I lean Republican, but I'm Agnostic and I LOVE science.

I'm pro-life, but it has nothing to do with Faith.

It's because there are people that cannot have children and would love to adopt.

The far left and far right are equally miserable, Troglodytes.

cosmo20002
09-29-2012, 12:46 AM
Educate yourself.

I lean Republican, but I'm Agnostic and I LOVE science.

I'm pro-life, but it has nothing to do with Faith.

It's because there are people that cannot have children and would love to adopt.

The far left and far right are equally miserable, Troglodytes.

Its just that the "far right" makes up about half of the R party and the "far left" about 10% of the Ds.

BCD
09-29-2012, 12:47 AM
Its just that the "far right" makes up about half of the R party and the "far left" about 10% of the Ds.

LMAO

Okay

BCD
09-29-2012, 12:48 AM
Like I said, Educate yourself.

Dave Lane
09-29-2012, 01:07 AM
Like I said, Educate yourself.

Ditto my namesake ditto.

mnchiefsguy
09-29-2012, 01:22 AM
Its just that the "far right" makes up about half of the R party and the "far left" about 10% of the Ds.

Out of all of the stupid things you have posted in this forum, this just may be the dumbest.

CoMoChief
09-29-2012, 07:23 AM
I'm a Reagan Republican, who became independent during the 90s and early 21st century....but is increasingly feeling that the GOP doesn't give one rat's ass about anyone who is not in the top 2%. Simply put, at this point in our history...why do folks vote Democrat?

It's the ONLY counter-balance to a GOP elitist plutocracy in which the middle and working classes will be utterly destroyed.

For the most part I agree. Both parties don't give a **** about anyone that doesn't benefit them. But voting for a party just because they're a counterpart isn't going to change a damn thing in this country. It's a double edged sword....there's a major overhaul that needs to be done to our govt.

Democrats and Repubs both need to realize this.

Obama is no better than Bush...Bush is no better than Obama.

It's all rhetoric and bullshit speak.

Hoover
09-29-2012, 07:37 AM
What makes people Democrats?

1. A thirst for other people's money.
2. Belief in a larger, more intrusive government.
3. A. disbelief in charity and community.

Dave Lane
09-29-2012, 08:02 AM
What makes people Democrats?

1. A thirst for other people's money.
2. Belief in a larger, more intrusive government.
3. A. disbelief in charity and community.

Not sure if serious but hilarious either way...

CoMoChief
09-29-2012, 08:20 AM
Its just that the "far right" makes up about half of the R party and the "far left" about 10% of the Ds.

:LOL:


you need to stop with this whole left/right thing man...

A Salt Weapon
09-29-2012, 10:03 AM
What makes people Democrats?

1. A thirst for other people's money.
2. Belief in a larger, more intrusive government.
3. A. disbelief in charity and community.
4. A hatred for freedom
Posted via Mobile Device

Dick Bull
09-29-2012, 10:35 AM
What makes people Democrats?

1. A thirst for other people's money.
2. Belief in a larger, more intrusive government.
3. A. disbelief in charity and community.

I thirst for no ones money, I make my own and do just fine. I believe that the government has the responsibility to ensure equal opportunity, if that's intrusive to you, so be it. Your third statement is preposterous.
4. A hatred for freedom
Posted via Mobile Device

Like the freedoms for gays to marry or the freedom to have an abortion? Are those 2 freedoms we hate?

DaneMcCloud
09-29-2012, 10:38 AM
3. A. disbelief in charity and community.

Oh, you mean like "It takes a village to raise a child"?

LMAO

Some of you guys are freaking hilarious with the bullshit you spew.

Direckshun
09-29-2012, 10:38 AM
I think there are two answers to this question.

Psychologically, liberalism just lines more up with the way I think. Conservatives and political parties in general think more win/lose, right/wrong, in absolutes. Liberals tend to think more about pluralism, nuance, and probabilities. Studies have confirmed this generally, and it's been my personal experience. It just fits my style of thinking better.

Politically, I'm a supporter of capitalism and private-owned enterprise over government-owned industry. I believe a free market is the engine of a progressive society, and the invisible hand can not only drive forward the quality of life for everybody in that market, it can also empower a nation to the extraordinary extent that it can serve as a powerful guide for other nations attempting to do the same.

At the same time, I believe that there are in-built defects of capitalism -- it is a competition, after all. And you're going to have people who win, and people who don't win. People who thrive, people who get by, and people who struggle. It's impossible to have a capitalist system where you don't also have poverty, homelessness, unemployment, starvation... So I do believe in a safety net provided by those who are getting by to help out those who aren't. This does necessitate more collective action through the government, but that's why I also believe in separation of powers, checks and balances, and absolute government accountability and hate any organizations (including the White House itself) that resist any of these.

Capitalism in general is an inequality creator, which isn't inherently bad but inequality can have some poisonous defects, some of which I highlighted in the above paragraph. Inequality can, for instance, put people in extreme positions of power over others, and allow some entities to openly abuse others. In these instances I favor strong, reasonable, accountable regulation of these entities to protect the least of our brothers and sisters.

I could go on, but that's the baseline ideology that makes sense to me.

DaneMcCloud
09-29-2012, 10:39 AM
4. A hatred for freedom
Posted via Mobile Device

Every Democrat that I know (and they're all wealthy, BTW) hates being free and wish that the Republicans would enslave them.

True story.

A Salt Weapon
09-29-2012, 11:14 AM
Then why do democrats attack the 2nd amendment?, serious question here.
Posted via Mobile Device

ClevelandBronco
09-29-2012, 11:48 AM
3. A. disbelief in charity and community.

True. Personally, I think that they just don't give a shit about people and they'd rather have the government take care of it for them.

Bump
09-29-2012, 11:57 AM
This is funny. It's been done before so let me tell you how this goes. First you ask the question. Second you try to use what you describe as your super enlightened intellect to explain to us how we're wrong and convert us. Third you realize that you don't have a super enlightened intellect and then call us names. Fourth, you get mad and start calling names and insulting(and with your clown shoes over dramatic explosions of late probably say you're going to whip someone's ass), and then finally we laugh at you

actually that sounds a lot like conservatives. I love how every one of them treats Mitt's word as the gospel. LMAO

Seriously though, the R candidate could be Carrot Top and all of you would still vote for him.

LiveSteam
09-29-2012, 12:01 PM
http://roguejew.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/carrot-top-main.jpg


I would vote for carrot if given the chance

Brock
09-29-2012, 12:10 PM
What makes people Democrats?

1. A thirst for other people's money.
2. Belief in a larger, more intrusive government.
3. A. disbelief in charity and community.

Sure. LMAO You mean like Mitt Romney driving businesses into the ground and letting the government come in and bail it out, or when he sucked up billions of federal dollars for his Salt Lake Olympics? Idealogues are so stupid.

ThaVirus
09-29-2012, 12:23 PM
I think there are two answers to this question.

Psychologically, liberalism just lines more up with the way I think. Conservatives and political parties in general think more win/lose, right/wrong, in absolutes. Liberals tend to think more about pluralism, nuance, and probabilities. Studies have confirmed this generally, and it's been my personal experience. It just fits my style of thinking better.

Politically, I'm a supporter of capitalism and private-owned enterprise over government-owned industry. I believe a free market is the engine of a progressive society, and the invisible hand can not only drive forward the quality of life for everybody in that market, it can also empower a nation to the extraordinary extent that it can serve as a powerful guide for other nations attempting to do the same.

At the same time, I believe that there are in-built defects of capitalism -- it is a competition, after all. And you're going to have people who win, and people who don't win. People who thrive, people who get by, and people who struggle. It's impossible to have a capitalist system where you don't also have poverty, homelessness, unemployment, starvation... So I do believe in a safety net provided by those who are getting by to help out those who aren't. This does necessitate more collective action through the government, but that's why I also believe in separation of powers, checks and balances, and absolute government accountability and hate any organizations (including the White House itself) that resist any of these.

Capitalism in general is an inequality creator, which isn't inherently bad but inequality can have some poisonous defects, some of which I highlighted in the above paragraph. Inequality can, for instance, put people in extreme positions of power over others, and allow some entities to openly abuse others. In these instances I favor strong, reasonable, accountable regulation of these entities to protect the least of our brothers and sisters.

I could go on, but that's the baseline ideology that makes sense to me.

Good post here. I tend to fall in line with this type of thinking.

Shaid
09-29-2012, 12:49 PM
I vote both ways depending on the person/role but the reason I vote dem when I do is mainly because of economic policy. Repubs are usually more interested in big business, dems try to protect the little guy. That said, I also think we have too much in the way of social programs so I'd be up for some major reforms on that side as well. Too many from both party toe the company line a bit too much instead of trying to find the middle ground and that's what's messed up the country over the past 12 years. Work together dammit! :banghead::banghead::banghead:

LiveSteam
09-29-2012, 01:09 PM
dems try to protect the little guy. :

Yes, That just what I thought last summer when Obamas EPA Czar wannabees started crying & threatening me with a $2,500.00 ticket. Cause the sand & water we clean the masonry mixer out with was dangerous & could get into the ground water.
ITS FUCKING SAND & WATER! what ever EPA guy? We now build a lil stupid dirt berm around the mixer.


EDIT / Never seen OSHA out in force in new housing developments before the spring of 2011 either.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-29-2012, 01:43 PM
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1mC-VSqFd6M?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

KILLER_CLOWN
09-29-2012, 02:00 PM
Yes, That just what I thought last summer when Obamas EPA Czar wannabees started crying & threatening me with a $2,500.00 ticket. Cause the sand & water we clean the masonry mixer out with was dangerous & could get into the ground water.
ITS ****ING SAND & WATER! what ever EPA guy? We now build a lil stupid dirt berm around the mixer.


EDIT / Never seen OSHA out in force in new housing developments before the spring of 2011 either.

You complain about the govt saving the planet? tsk tsk

Sand and Water will kill us all, look at what happens when sand gets in our collective vag's

qabbaan
09-29-2012, 02:19 PM
A desire to make sure everyone knows you are more high minded and worldly than everyone else. Either that, or envy.

Hoover
09-29-2012, 02:30 PM
I thirst for no ones money, I make my own and do just fine. I believe that the government has the responsibility to ensure equal opportunity, if that's intrusive to you, so be it. Your third statement is preposterous.


Like the freedoms for gays to marry or the freedom to have an abortion? Are those 2 freedoms we hate?
The Democrat party may be about "equality" but I don't view it as being about equal opportunity, and surely not personal responsibility.

BigRedChief
09-29-2012, 02:57 PM
The Democrat party may be about "equality" but I don't view it as being about equal opportunity, and surely not personal responsibility."equal oppertunity" can mean many different things to many people.

I've been very vocal about that part of the party. Fuck the freeloaders. Help up, not hand out. You get a limited time on the government dime. You need to use that time well or you are on your own. There should be a minimum tax for every citizen.

I voted for Ronald Reagan twice and George H.. The Republicans lost me when that went all big brother/government and decided to allow the extreme parts of the party dictate policy. Just like they are losing more people today.

The party of individual liberty and freedom began advocating using the government to dictate morality to its citzens. You get pregnant, your body belongs to the government for 9 months. You want to get married, fine, as long as you are not gay. The drug war, putting people who are caught with a couple of joints in jail for years will stop drug abuse?

DaneMcCloud
09-29-2012, 03:14 PM
The Democrat party may be about "equality" but I don't view it as being about equal opportunity, and surely not personal responsibility.

LMAO

You are exactly what's wrong with this country.

Good job.

Baby Lee
09-29-2012, 03:25 PM
The party of individual liberty and freedom began advocating using the government to dictate morality to its citzens. . . You want to get married, fine, as long as you are not gay.

Whatever arguments there are regarding gay marriage, that denial of state recognition is an intrusion on personal lives isn't one.

Gay people can have marriage ceremonies and live the personal lives as a married couple as they wish.

The issue at hand is governmental recognition and the bestowal of peculiar rights and fiscal status. That's asking for MORE government intrusion, just in a 'good way,' a way that they desire.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-29-2012, 03:45 PM
You get pregnant, your body belongs to the government for 9 months. You want to get married, fine, as long as you are not gay.

Your body belongs to the govt? Just because you can't murder your child?
I don't get that part.

Govt should have NO involvement in your marriage..there it's equal.

blaise
09-29-2012, 04:03 PM
actually that sounds a lot like conservatives. I love how every one of them treats Mitt's word as the gospel. LMAO

Seriously though, the R candidate could be Carrot Top and all of you would still vote for him.

Your endorsement would generally be considered a bad thing by most people of that party.

NewChief
09-29-2012, 04:08 PM
When I actually voted Democrat and endorsed the party:

I felt like it was the party of inclusion. It was socially liberal, allowing for equal rights for all. I also felt like it attempted to balance out unfettered capitalism, looking out for the "little guy" in a system that favors corporate entities.

I never actually thought that it did any of those things, but I felt like it came closer to doing it than the other option. Now, I'm not sure that it doesn't do as much harm as goo.

Dick Bull
09-29-2012, 04:10 PM
Whatever arguments there are regarding gay marriage, that denial of state recognition is an intrusion on personal lives isn't one.

Gay people can have marriage ceremonies and live the personal lives as a married couple as they wish.

The issue at hand is governmental recognition and the bestowal of peculiar rights and fiscal status. That's asking for MORE government intrusion, just in a 'good way,' a way that they desire.

I don't see it that way. I see it as government providing benefits for some and denying benefits to others based on a religious value. That is discrimination.

Dick Bull
09-29-2012, 04:16 PM
When I actually voted Democrat and endorsed the party:

I felt like it was the party of inclusion. It was socially liberal, allowing for equal rights for all. I also felt like it attempted to balance out unfettered capitalism, looking out for the "little guy" in a system that favors corporate entities.

I never actually thought that it did any of those things, but I felt like it came closer to doing it than the other option. Now, I'm not sure that it doesn't do as much harm as goo.

I think extremists, as a rule, take things to far no matter what. Sure a beers good but too much will kill you.

How much harm does goo do?

Calcountry
09-29-2012, 04:20 PM
Your body belongs to the govt? Just because you can't murder your child?
I don't get that part.

Govt should have NO involvement in your marriage..there it's equal.Ask him how he feels about Obama care, and the logic is mind blowing.

The government is going to own where, when and how you eat soon, because, they need to keep their health bills down.

BigRedChief
09-29-2012, 04:27 PM
The issue at hand is governmental recognition and the bestowal of peculiar rights and fiscal status. That's asking for MORE government intrusion, just in a 'good way,' a way that they desire.What a bunch of BS. Just a bunch of words being twisted to try to conceal their bigotry.

They are not asking for special status or recognition. Just the same rights as heterosexuals. Equal rights. You know, that all men are created equal thingy.

Calcountry
09-29-2012, 06:21 PM
What a bunch of BS. Just a bunch of words being twisted to try to conceal their bigotry.

They are not asking for special status or recognition. Just the same rights as heterosexuals. Equal rights. You know, that all men are created equal thingy.By whom BRC?

Ugly Duck
09-29-2012, 07:36 PM
For you liberals out there...what do you think it means to be a democrat and/or why do you vote democrat?

Someone has to stop the Republicans from accelerating the Reagonomic redistribution of wealth upwards or the middle class will erode faster. Dems are the only game in town who can possibly counter Republican genuflection to the corporate elite. Might be too late.... "Citizens" United may have already sealed our fate.

Share of total wealth growth accruing to various wealth groups, 1983–2010

http://www.minnpost.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/article_detail/Screen%20Shot%202012-09-25%20at%203.57.43%20PM.png


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20102289-503544.html
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2011/09/06/table_wealth_divide_110906_2.jpg

Baby Lee
09-29-2012, 07:46 PM
What a bunch of BS. Just a bunch of words being twisted to try to conceal their bigotry.

They are not asking for special status or recognition. Just the same rights as heterosexuals. Equal rights. You know, that all men are created equal thingy.

We've been through this like a bajllion times already, but as usual you block your ears and yell neener-neener whenever simple concepts bounce off your lizard brain.

The government isn't disallowing anything that doesn't require government intrusion. They can live together, pledge loyalty and love, ask that others refer to them as married, call each other husband wife, spouse whatever.

Marriage licenses are government sticking it's nose in. Tax status is government intrusion. Full faith and credit is government sticking it's nose in.

I'm not even against gay marriage, it's just stultifying to refer to it as equal rights or standing against government intrusion. Using those terms suggest nothing more than that the user doesn't understand what they mean.

Psyko Tek
09-29-2012, 08:05 PM
I DO NOT FUCK LAMPS

YOU TAKE IT BACK RIGHT NOW

howq ;bout that time in 03 you were pretty drunk and it was a hot lamp

Psyko Tek
09-29-2012, 08:09 PM
as a young Psyko Tek , in 73, I would come home from a hard day of grade schooling, 3rd grade finger painting was a bitch
just wanting to watch Calamity Jane show me cartoons,
but what was on
Watergate hearings
you try to get me to trust any republican after that

DaneMcCloud
09-29-2012, 08:16 PM
It's just stultifying to refer to it as equal rights or standing against government intrusion. Using those terms suggest nothing more than that the user doesn't understand what they mean.

And I know a number of gay lawyers that would completely disagree.

But the REAL issue has nothing to do with government, etc. It has to do with the fact that nearly half of the country's population believes it's "wrong" because that's what their bible says.

Dick Bull
09-29-2012, 08:22 PM
We've been through this like a bajllion times already, but as usual you block your ears and yell neener-neener whenever simple concepts bounce off your lizard brain.

The government isn't disallowing anything that doesn't require government intrusion. They can live together, pledge loyalty and love, ask that others refer to them as married, call each other husband wife, spouse whatever.

Marriage licenses are government sticking it's nose in. Tax status is government intrusion. Full faith and credit is government sticking it's nose in.

I'm not even against gay marriage, it's just stultifying to refer to it as equal rights or standing against government intrusion. Using those terms suggest nothing more than that the user doesn't understand what they mean.

Marriage is a religious institution.
However, if a couple, consisting of man and a woman, has their tax rate, retirement, and any other legal benefits affected by marriage, then that should be extended to ány other couple, outside of the religious institution of marriage. The government should not look at marriage as a status, due to it's religious nature, but look at it as a union. The union should have the same status regardless of the gender of the 2 that are inclosed in that set. To do otherwise is discrimination based on gender.

Dick Bull
09-29-2012, 08:25 PM
as a young Psyko Tek , in 73, I would come home from a hard day of grade schooling, 3rd grade finger painting was a bitch
just wanting to watch Calamity Jane show me cartoons,
but what was on
Watergate hearings
you try to get me to trust any republican after that

I feel you. I don't know about 73 cause I was born in 74, but I know in the 80s, an hour of toons after school and saturday morning was all you got. Fucking with that is fucking with a grade schoolers emotions.

BigRedChief
09-29-2012, 09:17 PM
We've been through this like a bajllion times already, but as usual you block your ears and yell neener-neener whenever simple concepts bounce off your lizard brain.

The government isn't disallowing anything that doesn't require government intrusion. They can live together, pledge loyalty and love, ask that others refer to them as married, call each other husband wife, spouse whatever.

Marriage licenses are government sticking it's nose in. Tax status is government intrusion. Full faith and credit is government sticking it's nose in.

I'm not even against gay marriage, it's just stultifying to refer to it as equal rights or standing against government intrusion. Using those terms suggest nothing more than that the user doesn't understand what they mean.You are the dense one pal. Just because I'm not buying your BS that you are peddling. That doesn't make me stupid. It just highlighting that your position is hypocritical as hell.. ohhh I believe in individual liberty, keep the government out of our lives but, I still want to discriminate and impose my morals on another citizen.

DaneMcCloud
09-29-2012, 09:19 PM
You are the dense one pal. Your position is hypocritical as hell.. ohhh I believe in individual liberty, keep the government out of our lives but, I still want to discriminate and impose my morals on another citizen.

Exactly

BigRedChief
09-29-2012, 09:29 PM
ExactlyThis is really starting to piss me off. If you disagree with their position you are just too stupid to understand or you would agree with them already. And they get so aggressive, like thats going to help them get their beliefs affirmed.

If this is all you are wanting, go seek your affirmation of beliefs elsewhere. Fox news is on 24 hours a day. Rush is on the radio everyday. Red state has a large forum of people going yeah that's right.

DaneMcCloud
09-29-2012, 09:33 PM
This is really starting to piss me off. If you disagree with their position you are just too stupid to understand or you would agree with them already. And they get so aggressive, like thats going to help them get their beliefs affirmed.

If this is all you are wanting, go seek your affirmation of beliefs elsewhere. Fox news is on 24 hours a day. Rush is on the radio everyday. Red state has a large forum of people going yeah that's right.

This forum is one fucking big circle jerk between Pat, Mike Lyon and HonestDumbassFan.

They don't go to a bathhouse - they jerk each other off here all day long. It's quite comical.

A Salt Weapon
09-29-2012, 09:38 PM
Still wanting to know how come if liberals are the champions of freedom, how come democrats want to take away gun ownership.
Posted via Mobile Device

DaneMcCloud
09-29-2012, 09:42 PM
Still wanting to know how come if liberals are the champions of freedom, how come democrats want to take away gun ownership.
Posted via Mobile Device

In which city do you live?

BigRedChief
09-29-2012, 09:44 PM
Still wanting to know how come if liberals are the champions of freedom, how come democrats want to take away gun ownership.
Posted via Mobile Deviceuhhhh have you read anything I've posted on here? I'm a strong advocate of the 2nd amendment. The constitution is clear.

DaneMcCloud
09-29-2012, 09:48 PM
uhhhh have you read anything I've posted on here? I'm a strong advocate of the 2nd amendment. The constitution is clear.

So am I. But I also understand why people in the inner-cities and more urban areas would like more gun control.

If you live in South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Alaska, et al, gun control really isn't an issue. In urban areas, it's an issue.

Bump
09-29-2012, 09:49 PM
So am I. But I also understand why people in the inner-cities and more urban areas would like more gun control.

If you live in South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Alaska, et al, gun control really isn't an issue. In urban areas, it's an issue.

OMG I thought you were a total douche in the lounge. I just didn't know your political side before!

DaneMcCloud
09-29-2012, 09:51 PM
OMG I thought you were a total douche in the lounge. I just didn't know your political side before!

What is my "political side"?

Chocolate Hog
09-29-2012, 10:04 PM
You are the dense one pal. Just because I'm not buying your BS that you are peddling. That doesn't make me stupid. It just highlighting that your position is hypocritical as hell.. ohhh I believe in individual liberty, keep the government out of our lives but, I still want to discriminate and impose my morals on another citizen.

I agree somewhat. I don't think government has any business in marriage which is a religious institution IMO.

A lot of Libertarians disagree with banning abortion. I disagree with them on this issue. How can you support individual liberty but allow a fetus's to be taken?

DaneMcCloud
09-29-2012, 10:05 PM
I agree somewhat. I don't think government has any business in marriage which is a religious institution IMO.

If it were a religious institution only, I'd agree. But since there are government related privileges attached, especially related to taxation, I have to disagree.

A lot of Libertarians disagree with banning abortion. I disagree with them on this issue. How can you support individual liberty but allow a fetus's to be taken?

Rowe vs. Wade.

Chocolate Hog
09-29-2012, 10:08 PM
If it were a religious institution only, I'd agree. But since there are government related privileges attached, especially related to taxation, I have to disagree.



Rowe vs. Wade.

Then call it a civil union to allow those rights to everyone.

Roe V Wade never ruled when life begins.

Dick Bull
09-29-2012, 10:10 PM
Still wanting to know how come if liberals are the champions of freedom, how come democrats want to take away gun ownership.
Posted via Mobile Device

I am liberal on most issues but am a strong advocate of fire arms. The problem is in the desire to classify people in terms of black and white. Just because I fall into liberalism on most issues and would be considered extremly liberal by most, I don't fit neatly into your classification categories.

Dick Bull
09-29-2012, 10:11 PM
I agree somewhat. I don't think government has any business in marriage which is a religious institution IMO.

A lot of Libertarians disagree with banning abortion. I disagree with them on this issue. How can you support individual liberty but allow a fetus's to be taken?

A fetus is not a person until it is born.

Dick Bull
09-29-2012, 10:13 PM
In which city do you live?

He lives in alaska.

Chocolate Hog
09-29-2012, 10:14 PM
A fetus is not a person until it is born.

I don't agree with that. If you do an ultra sound after a certain amount of time you can clearly see the fetus has a heart beat. How is that not a person?

Another argument:
Why do states have laws where people can be charged with murder if they punch a mother in the stomach and the fetus dies?

DaneMcCloud
09-29-2012, 10:16 PM
Then call it a civil union to allow those rights to everyone.


A civil union isn't sufficient for the overwhelming majority of gays. If you're really interested in why, I'd suggest you spend some time in the gay community to learn their view.

They won't bite.

Chocolate Hog
09-29-2012, 10:20 PM
A civil union isn't sufficient for the overwhelming majority of gays. If you're really interested in why, I'd suggest you spend some time in the gay community to learn their view.

They won't bite.

You make it seem like I'm homophobic i'm not.

I'm against discrimination but this isn't a clear cut issue. Yes gays are being discriminated against when it comes to marriage however I don't believe the government should have to force churches to marry gays.

Take the word marriage out and give all of the same benefits to gay couples as straight couples. I highly doubt people will bitch that much since they will finally be able to visit their lover in the hospital etc.

suzzer99
09-29-2012, 10:24 PM
50% because I agree with typical Democrat policies, 50% because Rs are freaking nuts--ideologues, religious nuts, anti-science, etc.

+1

LiveSteam
09-29-2012, 10:29 PM
Someone has to stop the Republicans from accelerating the Reagonomic redistribution of wealth upwards or the middle class will erode faster. Dems are the only game in town who can possibly counter Republican genuflection to the corporate elite. Might be too late.... "Citizens" United may have already sealed our fate.

Share of total wealth growth accruing to various wealth groups, 1983–2010

http://www.minnpost.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/article_detail/Screen%20Shot%202012-09-25%20at%203.57.43%20PM.png


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20102289-503544.html
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2011/09/06/table_wealth_divide_110906_2.jpg

I have been hearing this stupid nonsense since David Lee Roth led a failed attempt to promote his Gay album 1984

Dick Bull
09-29-2012, 10:29 PM
A civil union isn't sufficient for the overwhelming majority of gays. If you're really interested in why, I'd suggest you spend some time in the gay community to learn their view.

They won't bite.

Here's my view. The concept of marriage is a religious institution. The govt benefits and rights associated with it are a legal issue. Nobody should be denied the government benefits associated with a union, which I believe marriage to be with a religious twist. Here's the stickler, if they want to be accepted by the church and have their marriage accepted by the church, then they must follow the churchs rules.

To me government dictating to religion is just as bad as religion dictating to government.

LiveSteam
09-29-2012, 10:30 PM
A civil union isn't sufficient for the overwhelming majority of gays. If you're really interested in why, I'd suggest you spend some time in the gay community to learn their view.

They won't bite.
Are you gay?

Dick Bull
09-29-2012, 10:34 PM
Are you gay?

What bearing does that have?

LiveSteam
09-29-2012, 10:38 PM
What bearing does that have?

Are you gay?

Dick Bull
09-29-2012, 10:42 PM
Are you gay?

No I'm not. However, judging by your questioning you are trying to use that as a basis to establish my credibility.

LiveSteam
09-29-2012, 10:43 PM
No I'm not. However, judging by your questioning you are trying to use that as a basis to establish my credibility.

yes thats it. credibility

Dick Bull
09-29-2012, 10:45 PM
yes thats it. credibility

Then please answer my previous question of what bearing that has in the discussion.

DaneMcCloud
09-29-2012, 10:45 PM
You make it seem like I'm homophobic i'm not.

I wasn't implying that at all. My apologies if that's the way you read it.

I'm against discrimination but this isn't a clear cut issue. Yes gays are being discriminated against when it comes to marriage however I don't believe the government should have to force churches to marry gays.

Well, I'm at a disadvantage here because in Los Angeles, I've never heard of a church turning away gays or gays that would like to marry. Everyone's accepted. At my daughter's preschool, there are four gay dad couples with six children (two sets of twins and two individuals). They're just dudes to me.

Take the word marriage out and give all of the same benefits to gay couples as straight couples. I highly doubt people will bitch that much since they will finally be able to visit their lover in the hospital etc.

I disagree because once again, it doesn't appear to be "equal". Look Dude, I learned a long time ago to respect gays and lesbians and their need for equal rights. It's not an argument that's worth having with a hetero that hasn't had the same "exposure", for lack of a better word.

For example, my wife and I (before marriage) lived in an apartment building in West Hollywood for nearly four years in which we were the only hetero couple. I had some of the coolest neighbors ever. And I totally get their POV and have their backs. They just want to be happy and being married will make a large segment of the gay & lesbian population happy.

Live and let live.

RubberSponge
09-29-2012, 10:50 PM
You make it seem like I'm homophobic i'm not.

I'm against discrimination but this isn't a clear cut issue. Yes gays are being discriminated against when it comes to marriage however I don't believe the government should have to force churches to marry gays.

Take the word marriage out and give all of the same benefits to gay couples as straight couples. I highly doubt people will bitch that much since they will finally be able to visit their lover in the hospital etc.

States issue marriage licenses. Not churches. Marriage is a state sanctioned event. Churches only perform a ceremony, for various reasons. It is not required to be legally married only in a church.

My point is this. Churches do not define who legally marries or not. The state does. Churches do not have a right to stranglehold marriage based on the use of the word. And anyone who believes they do. Is.A.Fucking.Idiot!

LiveSteam
09-29-2012, 10:50 PM
I wasn't implying that at all. My apologies if that's the way you read it.



Well, I'm at a disadvantage here because in Los Angeles, I've never heard of a church turning away gays or gays that would like to marry. Everyone's accepted. At my daughter's preschool, there are four gay dad couples with six children (two sets of twins and two individuals). They're just dudes to me.



I disagree because once again, it doesn't appear to be "equal". Look Dude, I learned a long time ago to respect gays and lesbians and their need for equal rights. It's not an argument that's worth having with a hetero that hasn't had the same "exposure", for lack of a better word.

For example, my wife and I (before marriage) lived in an apartment building in West Hollywood for nearly four years in which we were the only hetero couple. I had some of the coolest neighbors ever. And I totally get their POV and have their backs. They just want to be happy and being married will make a large segment of the gay & lesbian population happy.

Live and let live.

When you heard through the walls of your apartment, one of the men grunting from getting rammed in the ass.
How did that make you feel?
Did you turn the JVC up or did you turn the JVC down?

DaneMcCloud
09-29-2012, 10:51 PM
Are you gay?

What does that have to do with anything?

DaneMcCloud
09-29-2012, 10:52 PM
When you heard through the walls of your apartment, one of the men grunting from getting rammed in the ass.
How did that make you feel?
Did you turn the JVC up or did you turn the JVC down?

Um, I never heard that and if I had, I wouldn't have cared.

LiveSteam
09-29-2012, 10:52 PM
Um, I never heard that and if I had, I wouldn't have cared.

bought what I thought

DaneMcCloud
09-29-2012, 10:53 PM
bought what I thought

?

RubberSponge
09-29-2012, 10:54 PM
How ingnorant does one have to be to make an excuse for their discrimination based on the use of a word? Who gives a **** if they want to call it marriage or civil union. It is only a word.

Dick Bull
09-29-2012, 10:54 PM
When you heard through the walls of your apartment, one of the men grunting from getting rammed in the ass.
How did that make you feel?
Did you turn the JVC up or did you turn the JVC down?

You're a dumb motherfucker.

Chocolate Hog
09-29-2012, 10:55 PM
Welp this thread has been derailed. No pun intended.

Dick Bull
09-29-2012, 10:56 PM
How ingnorant does one have to be to make an excuse their discrimination based on the use of a word? Who gives a **** if they want to call it marriage or civil union. It is only a word.

Exactly. My argument is that there should be a civil union available to all.

Dick Bull
09-29-2012, 10:57 PM
Welp this thread has been derailed. No pun intended.

I'm enjoying the livesteam defense of his principles.

"The whole if you defend them you must be gay defense

DaneMcCloud
09-29-2012, 10:59 PM
I'm enjoying the livesteam defense of his principles.

"The whole if you defend them you must be gay defense

Is that what he's attempting to say? I couldn't decipher it. Too much hillbilly.

LiveSteam
09-29-2012, 11:04 PM
I'm enjoying the livesteam defense of his principles.

"The whole if you defend them you must be gay defense

Do you advocate male on male butt sex in bars,at work,preach it as ok to your friends away from CP?
Or are you just a male on male butt sex advocate here on CP?

DaneMcCloud
09-29-2012, 11:09 PM
Do you advocate male on male butt sex in bars,at work,preach it as ok to your friends away from CP?
Or are you just a male on male butt sex advocate here on CP?

And Midwesterners get upset when people on the coasts refer to them as intolerant rubes.

Dick Bull
09-29-2012, 11:10 PM
Do you advocate male on male butt sex in bars,at work,preach it as ok to your friends away from CP?
Or are you just a male on male butt sex advocate here on CP?

No sir.

I am an advocate of freedom of choice.

Homosexuality doesn't appeal to me, but what right do I have to judge others?

LiveSteam
09-29-2012, 11:12 PM
And Midwesterners get upset when people on the coasts refer to them as intolerant rubes.

Example A.

You live in SC a world class shit hole Mr McCloud. Why would any Midwesterner with any pride care what some self absorbed Hollywood wannabe has to say?

DaneMcCloud
09-29-2012, 11:13 PM
You live in SC a world class shit hole Mr McCloud. Why would any Midwesterner with any pride care what some self absorbed Hollywood wannabe has to say?

LMAO

You're funny, Dude. What other nuggets of knowledge can you provide this evening?

Dick Bull
09-29-2012, 11:14 PM
You live in SC a world class shit hole Mr McCloud. Why would any Midwesterner with any pride care what some self absorbed Hollywood wannabe has to say?

Tolerance, Motherfucker, do you speak it?

LiveSteam
09-29-2012, 11:15 PM
LMAO

You're funny, Dude. What other nuggets of knowledge can you provide this evening?

I got some killer lime green nuggets of Northern lights from Seattle Washington we can smoke up dude. Its killer Ganja

Dick Bull
09-29-2012, 11:15 PM
LMAO

You're funny, Dude. What other nuggets of knowledge can you provide this evening?

I wear it as a badge of honor that he attacks where you live then answer my questions.

DaneMcCloud
09-29-2012, 11:16 PM
I got some killer lime green nuggets of Northern lights from Seattle Washington we can smoke up dude. Its killer Ganja

Never been a smoker but thanks for the offer! I'm more of a beer and whiskey guy.

:thumb:

LiveSteam
09-29-2012, 11:16 PM
Tolerance, Motherfucker, do you speak it?

No I dont. Im very much about MY WAY OR THE HYW

Psyko Tek
09-29-2012, 11:17 PM
Still wanting to know how come if liberals are the champions of freedom, how come democrats want to take away gun ownership.
Posted via Mobile Device

jebus, nobody wants you fucking guns,
I would appreciate that you know how to use them wisely
but other than tthat get all the guns you want but buy american
do we still make guns in this country?

Psyko Tek
09-29-2012, 11:19 PM
Then call it a civil union to allow those rights to everyone.

Roe V Wade never ruled when life begins.

fuck that
every body deserves the chance to be miserable
marriage for every one or no one

Dick Bull
09-29-2012, 11:19 PM
No I dont. Im very much about MY WAY OR THE HYW

This isn't the United States of You. I think this says it best.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

DaneMcCloud
09-29-2012, 11:21 PM
No I dont. Im very much about MY WAY OR THE HYW

That may work where you live but it doesn't work in big cities where tolerance is expected, if not required.

I can tell you that I've had hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of renovations done to my home in the past nine years and if I had heard racia, gay or anti-Semitic slurs in my home from any crew member, that entire crew would have been fired immediately.

That shit doesn't fly in my house.

Psyko Tek
09-29-2012, 11:22 PM
No I'm not. However, judging by your questioning you are trying to use that as a basis to establish my credibility.

he may just be cruising you

LiveSteam
09-29-2012, 11:23 PM
he may just be cruising you

LMAO

Im just venting my frustrations with Husker football. Im pretty sure Botard is gay.
His Huskers played like lil girls for 2&1/2 quarters

Psyko Tek
09-29-2012, 11:28 PM
LMAO

Im just venting my frustrations with Husker football. Im pretty sure Botard is gay.
His Huskers played like lil girls for 2&1/2 quarters

pretty sure I do not like you
and am thinking you are a moron
this is sorta important, and how UNofL did really does not matter

LiveSteam
09-29-2012, 11:29 PM
pretty sure I do not like you
and am thinking you are a moron
this is sorta important, and how UNofL did really does not matter

Now thats gay

Dick Bull
09-29-2012, 11:30 PM
pretty sure I do not like you
and am thinking you are a moron
this is sorta important, and how UNofL did really does not matter

True that

Direckshun
09-30-2012, 01:27 AM
Damn.

I was hoping to get a lot more play on my answer in this thread.

I'm assuming it was too reasonable. :D

bandwagonjumper
09-30-2012, 03:45 AM
Do you advocate male on male butt sex in bars,at work,preach it as ok to your friends away from CP? Or are you just a male on male butt sex advocate here on CP?

I personally don't understand that some men like to orally or anally be penetrated but I work with two gays and my boss is gay too. As a somewhat Christian I believe God will decide what happens to them after death. I'm a liberal because God is liberal.

Baby Lee
09-30-2012, 04:00 AM
And I know a number of gay lawyers that would completely disagree.

But the REAL issue has nothing to do with government, etc. It has to do with the fact that nearly half of the country's population believes it's "wrong" because that's what their bible says.

JFC, now we're through the looking glass.

"I want government out of my life, so please have government do something about the beliefs of 1/2 the population."

cdcox
09-30-2012, 05:55 AM
Churches won't be compelled to marry gay couples, so that is not a valid reason to oppose gay marriage. Churches are pretty much free to discriminate against anyone they choose. There are churches today that will not marry non-members. There are churches that will refuse to commune non-celibate homosexuals. Churches have a lot of liberty in this regard.

BigRedChief
09-30-2012, 07:45 AM
I agree somewhat. I don't think government has any business in marriage which is a religious institution IMO.I would be against churchs/religions being forced to marry gays. Thats a separation of church issue. The constitution is clear on this issue.
A lot of Libertarians disagree with banning abortion. I disagree with them on this issue. How can you support individual liberty but allow a fetus's to be taken?It's not up to big brother/government to dictate morality to its citizens. We have no right as a society to own a women's body for 9 months, to dictate some citizens morals on what another citizen does with that body for 9 months. Her choice is between her and God, not the congress.

Gary
09-30-2012, 08:43 AM
What makes people Democrats?

1. A thirst for other people's money.
2. Belief in a larger, more intrusive government.
3. A. disbelief in charity and community.
4. A thirst that drives them to drink all the grape Koolaid in the house.
5. A mean streak that leads them to put the milk carton back in the fridge with only 1/2" left.
6. A sick sense of humor that makes them put the toilet paper on the dispenser bottom up rather than top down.

When you throw out political humor, you got to go all the way man!

Gary
09-30-2012, 08:46 AM
http://roguejew.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/carrot-top-main.jpg


I would vote for carrot if given the chance

We'll get to see the first ever 1st family pose off to see who has the best arms.

Dave Lane
09-30-2012, 10:18 PM
By whom BRC?

That would be the constitution / declaration of independence.

Ugly Duck
10-01-2012, 12:15 PM
I have been hearing this stupid nonsense since David Lee Roth led a failed attempt to promote his Gay album 1984

I don't get the "gay album" connection, but upward redistribution of wealth since the '80s is a fact.... seriously - check into it & you'll see....

Brainiac
10-01-2012, 08:39 PM
This is why you never vote a straight ticket. Even if the Democrats piss you off by passing Obamacare, you STILL never vote a straight ticket.

Link (http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/westboro-attendee-running-for-kansas-board-of-education-seat/)

Westboro attendee seeks seat on Kansas education board

BRAD COOPER
The Kansas City Star

Jack Wu isn't shy about his beliefs.

Topeka is evil. Harry Potter promotes witchcraft. Christmas trees are pagan idols. Cancer is a judgment from God. And the teaching of evolution should be rooted out of Kansas schools because it's a satanic lie.

He also believes that America's public schools are cultivating a culture of "liars, thieves, murderers and perverts."

Outside the mainstream? It doesn't matter to Wu, running for a seat on the Kansas Board of Education.

A northern California transplant, Wu is seeking to defeat first-term Democrat Carolyn Campbell of Topeka in an admittedly uphill battle for the 4th District seat on the state school board. Uphill because he only received $5 in contributions through July, the most recent reporting period.

But Campbell is taking her Republican opponent seriously.

"I want to make sure the folks that don't know Carolyn Campbell and her record will try to get to know me and understand who my opponent is and what he stands for," Campbell said.

The 4th District covers six northeast Kansas counties and takes in parts of Topeka and Lawrence. Campbell's district became a little more Republican this year when she picked up parts of Jefferson and Pottawatomie counties when election boundaries were redrawn to adjust for the census.

Teachers union officials also worry that voters who cast ballots along straight-party lines might be unaware of Wu's background.

Wu's campaign, small as it is, comes at a time when the state school board is expected to consider new science standards, raising the prospect of revisiting the evolution debate that consumed the board in 1999 and again in 2005 -- an issue about which Wu has strong views.

Yet the 29-year-old Wu says it's better to be loved by God and live in heaven than be loved by man and rot in hell.

"The truth matters more than the opinion of other men and women," said Wu, clutching his green cloth-bound King James Bible during a recent interview on the grounds of state Capitol about a block away from the Kansas Department of Education's offices.

"The Bible says if you're hated by other people for taking a stance that's not popular, it's like a sign you're chosen by God, almost," added Wu, who describes himself as a reality television fan who works as a self-employed computer programmer and designer of video games.

His last-minute decision to file for the seat in June is drawing attention because he also attends Topeka's Westboro Baptist Church, which has gained national notoriety for picketing military funerals with signs that read, "Thank God for dead soldiers," "God hates the USA" and "God hates pillowbiters."

Last year, the church, led by the Rev. Fred Phelps, won a Supreme Court case blocking a civil lawsuit seeking damages for intentionally inflicting emotional distress at a soldier's funeral in 2006. Wu said he has joined the congregation's pickets in California and Topeka, but to the best of his recollection hasn't participated in a protest at a military funeral.

Born in Taiwan and raised in a San Francisco suburb, Wu moved to Topeka in 2008 after learning about Westboro on an Internet message board.
Wu said he was drawn to the church's all-or-nothing message of obey God or else. Westboro stands apart, he said, because its congregation confronts issues of heaven, hell and eternal fate. He believes Westboro preaches the Bible accurately and hasn't watered down its message.

Church spokesman Jonathan Phelps, the son of the church's leader, said he didn't know much about Wu. He sees Wu at church most Sundays.

"It seems like he believes what he says," Phelps said. "I think he's a nice guy."
But Campbell, 70, said she thinks Wu is negatively focused, especially with comments he's posted on his Web site about public education "preparing its students to be liars, crooks, thieves, murderers, and perverts."

"That is very sad that anyone would go that route in their thoughts about the education system," she said. "I have a lot of respect for our educators. Anyone that decides to be a teacher starts out knowing that their income isn't going to be what it could be. That shows they are dedicated to our children."

And then there's the issue of evolution.

Kansas is one of 26 states working with the National Research Council to develop voluntary standards to be used by multiple states. The proposed standards direct teachers to engage students in research in evolution and natural selection. Evolution's pivotal place in life science is not diluted, and there is no mention of creationism.

If the proposed science standards came before the board today, the vote would likely be 7 to 3 in favor, political observers believe.

However, the standards won't be complete until after the Nov. 6 school board election, when five seats will be on the ballot, including the race pitting Wu against Campbell, who favors teaching evolution.

While Wu appears to bring little firepower to the race -- he lists no support from any prominent political groups -- he's not someone who should be overlooked, especially in a heavily Republican state, said Mark Desetti, lobbyist for the Kansas National Education Association.

"We take everybody seriously, especially in a state where there is one-party dominance like there is in Kansas," Desetti said.

Desetti cautioned that voters might be more focused on the presidential race and higher profile statehouse races, so it might be easy to overlook a state school board race and just vote along party lines.

"I honestly believe that if Kansans know this guy, if they know what he says, they would not vote for him," he said. "I've read his Web site. I've read his views. As a parent, I would find them quite disturbing that he could be setting education policy for the state of Kansas."

Wu said he is a graduate of what used to be called California State University-Hayward where he was involved in student government, and also ran for the Kansas House in 2010.

Wu is well aware of the attention his latest candidacy has attracted and expects people to scoff at his beliefs. But he said his candidacy is not about being part of the political mainstream.

"If you're mainstream, you're going to hell," he said.

HolyHandgernade
10-01-2012, 11:11 PM
To turn the phrase Reagan once uttered, "I didn't leave the Republican Party, it left me."

BucEyedPea
10-02-2012, 07:22 AM
Churches won't be compelled to marry gay couples, so that is not a valid reason to oppose gay marriage. Churches are pretty much free to discriminate against anyone they choose. There are churches today that will not marry non-members. There are churches that will refuse to commune non-celibate homosexuals. Churches have a lot of liberty in this regard.

Not in Canada. It's considered hate speech to preach an anti-gay stance.

patteeu
10-02-2012, 07:46 AM
We've been through this like a bajllion times already, but as usual you block your ears and yell neener-neener whenever simple concepts bounce off your lizard brain.

The government isn't disallowing anything that doesn't require government intrusion. They can live together, pledge loyalty and love, ask that others refer to them as married, call each other husband wife, spouse whatever.

Marriage licenses are government sticking it's nose in. Tax status is government intrusion. Full faith and credit is government sticking it's nose in.

I'm not even against gay marriage, it's just stultifying to refer to it as equal rights or standing against government intrusion. Using those terms suggest nothing more than that the user doesn't understand what they mean.

It's simply amazing that so many people don't understand this.

patteeu
10-02-2012, 07:47 AM
This is really starting to piss me off. If you disagree with their position you are just too stupid to understand or you would agree with them already. And they get so aggressive, like thats going to help them get their beliefs affirmed.

If this is all you are wanting, go seek your affirmation of beliefs elsewhere. Fox news is on 24 hours a day. Rush is on the radio everyday. Red state has a large forum of people going yeah that's right.

I'm sure it gets frustrating to get called out for not understanding things when you don't even understand that you don't understand them.

patteeu
10-02-2012, 07:55 AM
And Midwesterners get upset when people on the coasts refer to them as intolerant rubes.

Self-referential irony. Good show.

blaise
10-02-2012, 08:07 AM
Self-referential irony. Good show.

Maybe you didn't know, but LA is immune to racism and bigotry.

patteeu
10-02-2012, 08:09 AM
Maybe you didn't know, but LA is immune to racism and bigotry.

I hear that they're very tolerant of people except the people they won't tolerate.

blaise
10-02-2012, 08:13 AM
I hear that they're very tolerant of people except the people they won't tolerate.

They once had a tolerance riot after the Rodney King verdict to celebrate the city's freedom from racial conflict.

BigRedChief
10-02-2012, 06:31 PM
I'm sure it gets frustrating to get called out for not understanding things when you don't even understand that you don't understand them.again BS. only if you understood and wern't so stupid, you would think like us.

I understand perfectly that hypocrites have taken over the party of personal liberty, keep the government out of our lives. Advocating taking over a womens body for 9 months against her will and not allowing two people to marry based on their own moral beliefs.

That is pure hypocritical crap. History will judge these current crop of conservative christian hypocrites harshly.