Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The GET IN MAH BELLY! Lounge > D.C.

View Poll Results: How do you view yourself politically?
I am usually both fiscally and socially conservative. 20 36.36%
I am usually fiscally conservative but socially liberal. 31 56.36%
I am usually both fiscally and socially liberal. 4 7.27%
I am usually fiscally liberal but socially conservative. 0 0%
Voters: 55. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-11-2014, 10:36 AM  
Rams Fan Rams Fan is offline
We Are Saint Louis
 
Rams Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Casino cash: $1007723
Out of curiosity, how do you view yourself politically?

Poll forthcoming.
Posts: 11,310
Rams Fan is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Rams Fan is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Rams Fan is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Rams Fan is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Rams Fan is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Rams Fan is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Rams Fan is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Rams Fan is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Rams Fan is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Rams Fan is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Rams Fan is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2014, 07:22 PM   #61
listopencil listopencil is offline
sic semper tyrannis
 
listopencil's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Partibus Infidelium
Casino cash: $1128882
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonefishin53 View Post
Religious texts have defined marriage for thousands of years, making it a religious institution. If the State has the power to edit religious texts to define marriage, who can stop the state from editing religious texts to define God as the State. I'm not a religionist, but I consider State control over the definition of words in religious texts to be anti-liberal tyranny. I don't care if someone wants to enter a legally binding agreement with their pet rock, it's not marriage. Marriage is defined in religious texts.
Legal texts have defined marriage for thousands of years, making it a government institution. If the Church has the power to edit laws to define marriage, who can stop the Church from editing legal texts to define God as the State? I'm not a lawyer, but I consider Church control over the definitions of words in legal texts to be anti-libertarian theocracy. I don't care if someone wants to make a religion out of worshipping a rock, it's not the law. Law is defined in legal texts.
__________________
"As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind I'd still be in prison."


Posts: 27,814
listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2014, 07:24 PM   #62
listopencil listopencil is offline
sic semper tyrannis
 
listopencil's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Partibus Infidelium
Casino cash: $1128882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aries Walker View Post
Good thing we have separation of church and state in this country.

In fact, this is a pretty good illustration of why we have separation of church and state in this country.
Amen.
__________________
"As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind I'd still be in prison."


Posts: 27,814
listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2014, 03:59 PM   #63
alpha_omega alpha_omega is online now
MVP
 
alpha_omega's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Liberty
Casino cash: $156350
Gaz
Posts: 6,492
alpha_omega Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.alpha_omega Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.alpha_omega Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.alpha_omega Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.alpha_omega Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.alpha_omega Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.alpha_omega Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.alpha_omega Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.alpha_omega Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.alpha_omega Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.alpha_omega Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2014, 04:04 PM   #64
gonefishin53 gonefishin53 is offline
Starter
 

Join Date: Dec 2010
Casino cash: $6064
Quote:
Originally Posted by listopencil View Post
Legal texts have defined marriage for thousands of years, making it a government institution. If the Church has the power to edit laws to define marriage, who can stop the Church from editing legal texts to define God as the State? I'm not a lawyer, but I consider Church control over the definitions of words in legal texts to be anti-libertarian theocracy. I don't care if someone wants to make a religion out of worshipping a rock, it's not the law. Law is defined in legal texts.
1 U.S. Code § 7 - The Definition of "Marriage" and "Spouse"
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Can. 1055 §1 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children, has, between the baptised, been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.

I'm no legal scholar, but a quick google search turned up these two legal definitions of marriage. If the FedGov uses it's policing power, via federal courts, to impose a definition of marriage not established by federal law on states, religious institutions, private businesses and the people, that would seem to be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment protection of the free exercise of religion. And I'm pretty sure the Bill of Rights, including the 1st Amendment, was enacted to protect the states and the people from FedGov actions like denying free exercise of religion.
Posts: 149
gonefishin53 is the dumbass Milkman is always talking aboutgonefishin53 is the dumbass Milkman is always talking aboutgonefishin53 is the dumbass Milkman is always talking aboutgonefishin53 is the dumbass Milkman is always talking aboutgonefishin53 is the dumbass Milkman is always talking aboutgonefishin53 is the dumbass Milkman is always talking aboutgonefishin53 is the dumbass Milkman is always talking aboutgonefishin53 is the dumbass Milkman is always talking aboutgonefishin53 is the dumbass Milkman is always talking aboutgonefishin53 is the dumbass Milkman is always talking aboutgonefishin53 is the dumbass Milkman is always talking about
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2014, 04:54 PM   #65
cosmo20002 cosmo20002 is offline
Debunking your bullshit
 
cosmo20002's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: KC area
Casino cash: $119976
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonefishin53 View Post
1 U.S. Code § 7 - The Definition of "Marriage" and "Spouse"
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Can. 1055 §1 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children, has, between the baptised, been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.

I'm no legal scholar, but a quick google search turned up these two legal definitions of marriage. If the FedGov uses it's policing power, via federal courts, to impose a definition of marriage not established by federal law on states, religious institutions, private businesses and the people, that would seem to be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment protection of the free exercise of religion. And I'm pretty sure the Bill of Rights, including the 1st Amendment, was enacted to protect the states and the people from FedGov actions like denying free exercise of religion.
Whatever Can 1055 is, the government has no ability to change it. You said the govt is, or is going to, 'edit religious texts.' Well, they haven't and I don't know how they would. What you're saying just makes no sense.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris616 View Post
As long as Jesus Christ was the president of the US and approved of it Yes.
Posts: 17,087
cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2014, 12:53 AM   #66
listopencil listopencil is offline
sic semper tyrannis
 
listopencil's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Partibus Infidelium
Casino cash: $1128882
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonefishin53 View Post
1 U.S. Code § 7 - The Definition of "Marriage" and "Spouse"
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Can. 1055 §1 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children, has, between the baptised, been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.

I'm no legal scholar, but a quick google search turned up these two legal definitions of marriage. If the FedGov uses it's policing power, via federal courts, to impose a definition of marriage not established by federal law on states, religious institutions, private businesses and the people, that would seem to be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment protection of the free exercise of religion. And I'm pretty sure the Bill of Rights, including the 1st Amendment, was enacted to protect the states and the people from FedGov actions like denying free exercise of religion.
Are you quoting from the Defense Of Marriage Act? It was overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.
__________________
"As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind I'd still be in prison."


Posts: 27,814
listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2014, 12:55 AM   #67
listopencil listopencil is offline
sic semper tyrannis
 
listopencil's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Partibus Infidelium
Casino cash: $1128882
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmo20002 View Post
Whatever Can 1055 is, the government has no ability to change it. You said the govt is, or is going to, 'edit religious texts.' Well, they haven't and I don't know how they would. What you're saying just makes no sense.
That second paragraph appears to be a quote from the canon of the Catholic Church. I agree with you. What he has posted doesn't seem to make sense.
__________________
"As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind I'd still be in prison."


Posts: 27,814
listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2014, 01:43 AM   #68
Taco John Taco John is online now
12on Paul
 
Taco John's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2001
Casino cash: $10100013
Haha... This is funny because liberal spenders don't admit that they're liberal spenders. They consider themselves economic conservatives rationalizing that their ideal is to spend rich people's money, not their own.
__________________
Ehyeh asher ehyeh.
Posts: 50,645
Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2014, 07:27 AM   #69
cosmo20002 cosmo20002 is offline
Debunking your bullshit
 
cosmo20002's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: KC area
Casino cash: $119976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco John View Post
Haha... This is funny because liberal spenders don't admit that they're liberal spenders. They consider themselves economic conservatives rationalizing that their ideal is to spend rich people's money, not their own.
What's even funnier is that conservative spenders don't admit they are liberal spenders. An easy starting point to look at is about 1981.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris616 View Post
As long as Jesus Christ was the president of the US and approved of it Yes.
Posts: 17,087
cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2014, 09:05 AM   #70
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $472389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco John View Post
Haha... This is funny because liberal spenders don't admit that they're liberal spenders. They consider themselves economic conservatives rationalizing that their ideal is to spend rich people's money, not their own.
Yeah, or to put it another way:

Economic conservative/Social liberal #1: I want reduced spending on social programs, decreased tax rates for economic growth, and pot legalization.

Economic conservative/Social liberal #2: I want increased spending on social programs, increased tax rates to pay for it, and pot legalization.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,584
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2014, 09:36 AM   #71
Mr. Flopnuts Mr. Flopnuts is offline
The People's Mod
 
Mr. Flopnuts's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The Capital
Casino cash: $113764595
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco View Post
Usually fiscally conservative and socially liberal, but I firmly believe that abortion is nothing but legally acceptable murder.
I'll tell you a secret. I do too. I'm a pro choice guy. Hey, it's your vagina. Do what you want with it. Just don't get butt hurt when I call you a murderer.
Posts: 44,055
Mr. Flopnuts is obviously part of the inner Circle.Mr. Flopnuts is obviously part of the inner Circle.Mr. Flopnuts is obviously part of the inner Circle.Mr. Flopnuts is obviously part of the inner Circle.Mr. Flopnuts is obviously part of the inner Circle.Mr. Flopnuts is obviously part of the inner Circle.Mr. Flopnuts is obviously part of the inner Circle.Mr. Flopnuts is obviously part of the inner Circle.Mr. Flopnuts is obviously part of the inner Circle.Mr. Flopnuts is obviously part of the inner Circle.Mr. Flopnuts is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2014, 09:48 AM   #72
Mr. Flopnuts Mr. Flopnuts is offline
The People's Mod
 
Mr. Flopnuts's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The Capital
Casino cash: $113764595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco John View Post
Haha... This is funny because liberal spenders don't admit that they're liberal spenders. They consider themselves economic conservatives rationalizing that their ideal is to spend rich people's money, not their own.
If me thinking the top 1% should pay 40% of the debt since they own 40% of the wealth makes me fiscally liberal then so be it. Law, legislation, and tax code have been very beneficial to them. They should pay their fair share. As should everyone else according to their personal wealth.
Posts: 44,055
Mr. Flopnuts is obviously part of the inner Circle.Mr. Flopnuts is obviously part of the inner Circle.Mr. Flopnuts is obviously part of the inner Circle.Mr. Flopnuts is obviously part of the inner Circle.Mr. Flopnuts is obviously part of the inner Circle.Mr. Flopnuts is obviously part of the inner Circle.Mr. Flopnuts is obviously part of the inner Circle.Mr. Flopnuts is obviously part of the inner Circle.Mr. Flopnuts is obviously part of the inner Circle.Mr. Flopnuts is obviously part of the inner Circle.Mr. Flopnuts is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2014, 10:01 AM   #73
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $472389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts View Post
If me thinking the top 1% should pay 40% of the debt since they own 40% of the wealth makes me fiscally liberal then so be it. Law, legislation, and tax code have been very beneficial to them. They should pay their fair share. As should everyone else according to their personal wealth.
Those things have been very beneficial to the other 99% too.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,584
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2014, 02:36 PM   #74
blaise blaise is offline
MVP
 

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plano, TX
Casino cash: $9329758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco John View Post
Haha... This is funny because liberal spenders don't admit that they're liberal spenders. They consider themselves economic conservatives rationalizing that their ideal is to spend rich people's money, not their own.
Like Loneiguana. He views spending other people's money as some sort of noble cause, as if it costs him a dime.
Posts: 19,964
blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2014, 02:39 PM   #75
blaise blaise is offline
MVP
 

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plano, TX
Casino cash: $9329758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts View Post
If me thinking the top 1% should pay 40% of the debt since they own 40% of the wealth makes me fiscally liberal then so be it. Law, legislation, and tax code have been very beneficial to them. They should pay their fair share. As should everyone else according to their personal wealth.
Couldn't an argument be made that anyone with luxuries has more than they need and should therefore pay their fair share to the impoverished?
It's a relative idea, isn't it? I mean, does anyone actually need a second home, boat or jet skis?
Posts: 19,964
blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.