A World Gone Mad: Rant Here!

[walterIsTheMan]

You are entitled to this opinion. It just seems that at least two/thirds of the country agree with mine. You do believe in Democracy, right? Until the ACLU tears down all the remaining walls standing in the way of secularism by way of the courts, we must follow the rule of law; not try to read new ideas into it, as liberal judges often do.

How many people support or do not support something isn't an answer though. Betelgeuze asked what the reason's were. In the end, there is no reason, it's just another justification for legalized discrimination.

And to answer another Q posed by Walter, I think: yes I do know the difference between Libertarians & Democrats. Democrats are more liberal, and it was now-a-day liberal Senator Byrd who served as a "Cleagal" (SP), i.e., a recruiter for the Klan. IMHO, this makes him a hypocrite too.

I didn't say Libertarians and Democrats, I said liberals and Democrats. Senator Byrd is by no means liberal today. He is still a social conservative and is a moderate at best on non-social issues.

[Ancient 1]

How many people support or do not support something isn't an answer though. Betelgeuze asked what the reason's were. In the end, there is no reason, it's just another justification for legalized discrimination.

I'm saying that it's not discrimination if 2/3rds of the country do not believe it to be so. I'm pretty sure that ...in the beginning God created Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve. Say what you will, homosexuality is NOT the norm, while heterosexuality promotes family, if not always family values, via the ability to procreate. ON a related note: I don't believe in hate crimes either. A crime is a crime. Sort out the reasons and details during trial and exact the appropriate punishment.

I didn't say Libertarians and Democrats, I said liberals and Democrats. Senator Byrd is by no means liberal today. He is still a social conservative and is a moderate at best on non-social issues.

I think you have him confused with Lieberman, but in any case,they all feed from the same trough when it comes to taking money from the far left. That makes most Dems also "liberals." Some moreso than others, but... I would just say for the record that most of my sources come via Lexis-Nexis. There is hardly any public document that can't be found at this site.

[Ancient 1]

Actually, he didn't turn this nation around at all. He may have made the depression more livable, but he certainly didn't turn it around. World War II and the need for military goods turned it around.

My books on Economics indicate this to be true. Do these scholars have it all wrong? I think history shows that cranking up the "War Machine" has always contributed to the economy. Sad? Maybe, but true.

[walterIsTheMan]

I'm saying that it's not discrimination if 2/3rds of the country do not believe it to be so.

ROFL don't tell me you honestly believe that? So back when 2/3 of the country thought slavery was alright you're saying it was? When 2/3 of Germany thought discrimination against Jews was alright that it was? Just because a large group of people believe something is right or wrong does not make it so.

I'm pretty sure that ...in the beginning God created Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve.

Well I hate to rain on your parade, but *whispers* Genesis isn't real, it's just a story. Don't try to use the Old Testament to back up what you believe, because you will only dig a deeper hole than the one you're in with all the nasty things that are in there. Like for example, the Old Testament says gays should be put to death. Yet earlier you said you didn't have a problem with gays. So if you felt the Old Testament was good reference material, then you'd be a hypocrite, and that would make suspect everything you've said thus far . So for your own sake stay away from trying to use religion .

Say what you will, homosexuality is NOT the norm,

So we should always go with what the norm is? Typical conservative thinking . Freedom has nothing to do with normality. People have a right to be who and what they are as long as it doesn't hurt others.

while heterosexuality promotes family, if not always family values, via the ability to procreate.

Gay families can adopt, and lesbian couples can get a sperm donor. Plus I should point out that given the rapid rate of overpopulation, people not procreating as much as they used to isn't necessarily a bad thing.

ON a related note: I don't believe in hate crimes either. A crime is a crime. Sort out the reasons and details during trial and exact the appropriate punishment.

Conservatives whine about liberals making a big deal over PC, yet this is a typical case of their own hypocrisy. Liberals are calling them what they are: hate crimes. People hurting others because they hate what/who they are.

I think you have him confused with Lieberman, but in any case,they all feed from the same trough when it comes to taking money from the far left. That makes most Dems also "liberals." Some moreso than others, but... I would just say for the record that most of my sources come via Lexis-Nexis. There is hardly any public document that can't be found at this site.

I don't have him confused with Lieberman. I think you're not entirely understanding of the difference between a liberal and a Democrat. Just like there's a difference between a conservative and a Republican. There used to be liberal republicans but we got kicked out of that party for doing nice things like supporting federal relief programs during the depression and supporting womens rights and abolishing segregation. Granted the conservatives got kicked out of the Democratic party for doing not so nice things, like opposing the end of segregation, but I say good riddens. Byrd is just one of those conservatives that has been hanging on. The DNC won't denounce his social conservatism because the Democrats need every vote they can get, especially considering he's in a strongly conservative state.

[Betelgeuze]

You are entitled to this opinion. It just seems that at least two/thirds of the country agree with mine. You do believe in Democracy, right?

Yes i believe in democracy, but i also believe that the opinion of the majority should not infringe upon the rights of a minority.

Ancient 1, if the inabillity to procreate is such an important reason why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, then how about infertile couples? Should they also not be allowed to marry?

Give me one good reason why homosexuals should not have the same rights as heterosexuals.

Well I hate to rain on your parade, but *whispers* Genesis isn't real, it's just a story. Don't try to use the Old Testament to back up what you believe, because you will only dig a deeper hole than the one you're in with all the nasty things that are in there.

Well said.

[Ancient 1]

ROFL don't tell me you honestly believe that? So back when 2/3 of the country thought slavery was alright you're saying it was? When 2/3 of Germany thought discrimination against Jews was alright that it was? Just because a large group of people believe something is right or wrong does not make it so.

I think this is going to extremes to make a point, but if that's your best argument....I suppose you are in favor of reparations for the ancestors of slaves? This is a case of where a bad law was abolished by the patry of Lincoln, and we know which party that was, right?

Well I hate to rain on your parade, but *whispers* Genesis isn't real, it's just a story. Don't try to use the Old Testament to back up what you believe, because you will only dig a deeper hole than the one you're in with all the nasty things that are in there. Like for example, the Old Testament says gays should be put to death. Yet earlier you said you didn't have a problem with gays. So if you felt the Old Testament was good reference material, then you'd be a hypocrite, and that would make suspect everything you've said thus far . So for your own sake stay away from trying to use religion .

I never said Genesis was real. But none of us would be here without the 2 sexes. That was my point.

So we should always go with what the norm is? Typical conservative thinking . Freedom has nothing to do with normality. People have a right to be who and what they are as long as it doesn't hurt others.

I agree with your last statement, but you still have to obey the laws that are on the books until you can get a majority and change them.

Gay families can adopt, and lesbian couples can get a sperm donor. Plus I should point out that given the rapid rate of overpopulation, people not procreating as much as they used to isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Ah, I saw this one coming. The adoption part is okay with me. There are entirely too many unwanted, mistreated, and abandoned children in the world. So I guess gays owe the scientific community a lot, or else they would have to perform "unspeakable acts" to procreate.

Conservatives whine about liberals making a big deal over PC, yet this is a typical case of their own hypocrisy. Liberals are calling them what they are: hate crimes. People hurting others because they hate what/who they are.

What these perpetrators do, whether in the name of hate, or whatever, is still a crime in most cases. They should be punished accordingly without the need for new legislation. A crime is a crime.

I don't have him confused with Lieberman. I think you're not entirely understanding of the difference between a liberal and a Democrat. Just like there's a difference between a conservative and a Republican. There used to be liberal republicans but we got kicked out of that party for doing nice things like supporting federal relief programs during the depression and supporting womens rights and abolishing segregation. Granted the conservatives got kicked out of the Democratic party for doing not so nice things, like opposing the end of segregation, but I say good riddens. Byrd is just one of those conservatives that has been hanging on. The DNC won't denounce his social conservatism because the Democrats need every vote they can get, especially considering he's in a strongly conservative state.

I like Leiberman for the most part. I just didn't want you insulting him by getting him mixed up with "The King of Pork." Byrd is not a social conservative by far. He has more "earmarks" and other spending amendments, and his name on more structures than any other living politician. The Klan must be proud.

Other Notes: I got the Crusades thingy wrong in one of my other replies. I found this quote that would clear up my forgotten history: We must all recall that The Crusades were begun and started by Islam, when under Harum they burnt the church of the Holy Sepelcur to the ground with all worshipers inside. The Church of the Holy Sepelcur where Jesus is said to have been buried until the Resurrection was the most Holy Church of Christendom at the time and is hallowed to this day. The Mosque upon the Temple Mount is the Shrine to this murderer war monger, Harum.

If anyone thought Ebonics was a good idea, you'll love the new idea of Math Reform. It gives partial credit for wrong answers as long as the student has the right formula. The fact that theese student are using calculators makes it even more rediculous! This is NOT how you close the education gap.

[Exiled Master]

We really need to watch Mind of Mencia for this. I see political correctness as a form of decadence, treating an issue too gingerly because of a lack of balls (get Stephen Colbert into this too). An variant of this rust on society is the 'Oprah diesease', replacing objectivity with subjectivity in the recent terrorist trial. They held him as a victim, not the victimizer.

[walterIsTheMan]

I think this is going to extremes to make a point, but if that's your best argument....I suppose you are in favor of reparations for the ancestors of slaves?

I wasn't going to extremes, but yes I was making a point. One I hope you've gotten: just because the majority believes something does not make them right.

And what does reparations for slaves have to do with it? This is a typical conservative tactic - bring up something completely off-topic to attempt to prove a liberal wrong. The topic of discussion for this debate point was how a majority's beliefs on a certain issue affect the morality of that issue. You made the point that because a majority believes laws against homosexual rights (ie, not letting them marry) is not discrimination, then it's not. My counterpoint was that the majority is not always morally correct and I sited several historical examples.

This is a case of where a bad law was abolished by the patry of Lincoln, and we know which party that was, right?

Again, you're still not getting it. Let me make it a bit bigger so you understand:
THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POLITICAL PARTY AND SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY. REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT = PARTIES. CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL = PHILOSOPHIES.
Lincoln was a social liberal. Yes he was a Republican, but that's irrelevant. We were discussing social issues and therefore it is social philsophy that matters.

I never said Genesis was real. But none of us would be here without the 2 sexes. That was my point.

Yes and your point was invalid. There are plenty of lesbians who have children from sperm donations that would have otherwise stayed stored indefinitely. So there are plenty of people who wouldn't be here had it not been for homosexuality. Not to mention all the adopted children that while they may have been here, without a family they would be living poor lives. But with a homosexual family they have a life, albeit one for which they are discriminated against.

I agree with your last statement, but you still have to obey the laws that are on the books until you can get a majority and change them.

Unless those laws are unconstitutional, and then they can be changed by the courts. In an earlier post you said it was the judicial branch's job to interpret the law. That is correct, however you and many other conservatives seem to have forgotten what that means. To interpret the law is to judge it as constitutional or unconstitutional. These "activist" judges the conservatives whine about are simply doing their job as outlined in the constitution. They have every right in checks and balances to overturn unconstitutional laws.

Ah, I saw this one coming. The adoption part is okay with me. There are entirely too many unwanted, mistreated, and abandoned children in the world. So I guess gays owe the scientific community a lot, or else they would have to perform "unspeakable acts" to procreate.

Ok, you've got me - I've got no idea what you're talking about. The last sentence here doesn't seem to make any sense. Yes gays do owe the scientific community, as do we all. Your point?

What these perpetrators do, whether in the name of hate, or whatever, is still a crime in most cases. They should be punished accordingly without the need for new legislation. A crime is a crime.

It's post like this that continue to make you look less credible. ALL crime names and sentences come from new legislation, or from existing precedent. Why? Because they aren't all listed in the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't have a little appendix in the back listing all the crimes possible, what they should be called, and what should be the punishment. And you're still just making it about words, just like those political correctionists you claim to loathe. Do you think rape should be called a crime? How about terrorism? Murder? Torture? No. Yes they are all crimes, but they are called by their names. Hate crime is exactly what it is.

I like Leiberman for the most part. I just didn't want you insulting him by getting him mixed up with "The King of Pork." Byrd is not a social conservative by far. He has more "earmarks" and other spending amendments, and his name on more structures than any other living politician. The Klan must be proud.

Umm, yes he is a social conservative. You just don't want an ***hole like him to have something in common with you. I don't blame you for that though. Look, I really hate to be mean, but please start checking some of these things before you say them. Reading something online, whether its from LexisNexus, a conservative site, or a liberal site, won't matter if you don't understand what concepts are, especially considering the fact that every online website has an agenda so there's spin to everything.

PS - Idk when you're going to take it, but Basic Government (for me it was way back in 9th grade, but it seems to vary from district to district) will really help to clear up some things like differences between philosophies and parties. And if you have a good teacher the class is a piece of cake .

[Ancient 1]

I wasn't going to extremes, but yes I was making a point. One I hope you've gotten: just because the majority believes something does not make them right.

But it does make the law, except when liberal judges defy it.

And what does reparations for slaves have to do with it? This is a typical conservative tactic - bring up something completely off-topic to attempt to prove a liberal wrong. The topic of discussion for this debate point was how a majority's beliefs on a certain issue affect the morality of that issue. You made the point that because a majority believes laws against homosexual rights (ie, not letting them marry) is not discrimination, then it's not. My counterpoint was that the majority is not always morally correct and I sited several historical examples.

I just asked if your were for it, (the slave thingy), because most people who speak the things you espouse fall into that category too. Am I wrong? I never said the majority was against gays having rights. Marriage needs to be protected as it stands, because it is a thing recognized in every state. If state laws are allowed to vary, what happens if gays get married in one stare where it's legal, and then they move to a state where their marriage is not recognized. I'm not against the term "civil union," but there should be a distinction between the 2, especially if it's not going to be recognized under a federal "umbrella."

Again, you're still not getting it. Let me make it a bit bigger so you understand:
THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POLITICAL PARTY AND SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY. REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT = PARTIES. CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL = PHILOSOPHIES.
Lincoln was a social liberal. Yes he was a Republican, but that's irrelevant. We were discussing social issues and therefore it is social philsophy that matters.

This isnt anything I don't know. That said, you have to agree for the most part that these social philosophies tend to split down the party lines. Example: Yesterday 34 senators voted against making english the national language here in the US: 32 of them were Democrats, (to include all the ones thought to be vying for the democratic presidential nomination), 1 (liberal), Independent, and 1 Republican.

Yes and your point was invalid. There are plenty of lesbians who have children from sperm donations that would have otherwise stayed stored indefinitely. So there are plenty of people who wouldn't be here had it not been for homosexuality. Not to mention all the adopted children that while they may have been here, without a family they would be living poor lives. But with a homosexual family they have a life, albeit one for which they are discriminated against.

That's a funny spin, to say that children wouldn't have homes if not for gays, but it's a fact. One I never argued against. I'm sure you can cite a poll for all those discrimination cases, though.

Unless those laws are unconstitutional, and then they can be changed by the courts. In an earlier post you said it was the judicial branch's job to interpret the law. That is correct, however you and many other conservatives seem to have forgotten what that means. To interpret the law is to judge it as constitutional or unconstitutional. These "activist" judges the conservatives whine about are simply doing their job as outlined in the constitution. They have every right in checks and balances to overturn unconstitutional laws.

It's mainly the 9th circuit court of appeals doing most of this overturning of the people's wishes, as expressed in the ballot box. They are routinely overturned by the supreme court.

Ok, you've got me - I've got no idea what you're talking about. The last sentence here doesn't seem to make any sense. Yes gays do owe the scientific community, as do we all. Your point?

The 'unspeakable act' I refer to is a heterosexual liaison. Without modern science or adoption capabilities, gays could not otherwise be parents unless they "took one for the team."

It's post like this that continue to make you look less credible. ALL crime names and sentences come from new legislation, or from existing precedent. Why? Because they aren't all listed in the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't have a little appendix in the back listing all the crimes possible, what they should be called, and what should be the punishment. And you're still just making it about words, just like those political correctionists you claim to loathe. Do you think rape should be called a crime? How about terrorism? Murder? Torture? No. Yes they are all crimes, but they are called by their names. Hate crime is exactly what it is.

Only less credible in your opinion. Rape is a crime. So is murder. Terrorism is an act of war because it's perpetrated against a government. Murder often results from this, but it's been a mistake to treat it as a crime, unless it would be a war crime. In the cases of rape & murder, there are laws on the books designed to deter these crimes, no matter why it was perpetrated. IF it can be determined in court that it was done strictly out of hate, then give the perp the maximum sentence the law allows. There's no need to write more legislation, but since it has been done, and it is the law in some, if not most states, the point is moot.

Umm, yes he is a social conservative. You just don't want an ***hole like him to have something in common with you. I don't blame you for that though. Look, I really hate to be mean, but please start checking some of these things before you say them. Reading something online, whether its from LexisNexus, a conservative site, or a liberal site, won't matter if you don't understand what concepts are, especially considering the fact that every online website has an agenda so there's spin to everything.

Think what you want about him, the documents deny your opinion. I surely don't see any "link" to me. Lexis-Nexis is just a political & legal document provider, along with newspaper articles. Many of the left-wing bomb throwers wish it didn't exist, as it is time and time again used to disprove some of their more outrageous claims. It does not spin anything. If a congressman wrote & filed it, it can be found here, along with many other documents. It cost little to join, but is well worth the investment if you want to know what politcal minds really think when the aren't out spewing their "talking points" or performing political spin.

PS - Idk when you're going to take it, but Basic Government (for me it was way back in 9th grade, but it seems to vary from district to district) will really help to clear up some things like differences between philosophies and parties. And if you have a good teacher the class is a piece of cake .

Asked and answered; somewhere above.

More new unbelievable crap: With the deaths of 3 women in Florida in the past week due to alligator attacks, a female ex marine opened her door to find an alligator trying to kill her dog. She got a gun and shot it 3 times. For her effort she was cited for hunting without a license.

[Ancient 1]

We really need to watch Mind of Mencia for this. I see political correctness as a form of decadence, treating an issue too gingerly because of a lack of balls (get Stephen Colbert into this too). An variant of this rust on society is the 'Oprah diesease', replacing objectivity with subjectivity in the recent terrorist trial. They held him as a victim, not the victimizer.

Yea, it's a shame when a terrorist admits to his crime, and we're too busy looking for the reason why, instead of just giving the bast*rd what he deserves. It is now my fear that other terrorists will take hostages in the future trying to barter his release. The world would be safer if he were executed.

On a political note, it strikes me funny that the party against the death penalty has no trouble killing millions of unborn babies each year. Just a thought...while on the other hand another party wants to protect the rights of the unborn, namely the right to exist, while it has no trouble killing those who have had their chance at life and blew it and are locked up for life or on death row.

[Ancient 1]

As for our national language dilemma: There isn't one. It's already on the books that to earn citzenship one must have a rudimentary knowledge of the constitution/history and speak english. The senate wasted a bunch of time this past week grand standing for their constituents. As for bilingual signs: How about writing one is spanish that says "NO TRESSPASSING" and stick it down at the border?

[Betelgeuze]

On a political note, it strikes me funny that the party against the death penalty has no trouble killing millions of unborn babies each year.

There is a huge difference between killing a sentient individual, and an embryo or foetus. A foetus does not yet have a personality, and in the early stages of pregnancy, it doesn't even have a fully developed brain. By implementing the death penalty you are killing a person, an individual. A foetus and especially an embryo is not a person. Abortion is not murder, implementing the death penalty is.

[rarocks24]

There is a huge difference between killing a sentient individual, and an embryo or foetus. A foetus does not yet have a personality, and in the early stages of pregnancy, it doesn't even have a fully developed brain. By implementing the death penalty you are killing a person, an individual. A foetus and especially an embryo is not a person. Abortion is not murder, implementing the death penalty is.

Actually by the time a woman knows she's pregnant, the so-called fetus has a brain, it's own heart, it's own lungs. To deny life is to murder it. As for claiming it doesn't have a personality, you know what, a newborn infant two days out of the womb doesn't have a ****ing personality. I'll call it abortion and drown it, and don't be surprised when I'm arrested for infanticide. I'd rethink your statement before coming and making such claims. If a woman doesn't want to get pregant, then she needs to get the guy to use protection.

What's worse, is that liberals like you like to villainize us for our belief that slaughtering defenseless, unborn babies is disgusting. When a terrorist attacks a building, the media is immediately, oh why, what is the reason this happened. When someone blows up an abortion clinic, it's "those horrible, vile, cruel people. Give 'em the death penalty, throw the book!"

I absolutely deplore the act of abortion. I find it worse than barbarians slaughtering others for their gods. Why, cuz there doing it out of religious beliefs, abortion is done merely because it's convenient for the mother. Honestly, I'm leaving this debate.

[Exiled Master]

There is a huge difference between killing a sentient individual, and an embryo or foetus. A foetus does not yet have a personality, and in the early stages of pregnancy, it doesn't even have a fully developed brain. By implementing the death penalty you are killing a person, an individual. A foetus and especially an embryo is not a person. Abortion is not murder, implementing the death penalty is.

I call Arcturus Winrock and Hunter Ravenwood to the stand. (seriously, follow the link, but they are known to swear).
In the abovementioned terrorist case, you really have to humilitate him. Break his spirit and make death his chosen release, not to a paradise as the one he seeks as a suicide bomber, but as a backdoor, escaping from his hell on Earth. This would hopefully take his martyr status from him and deny him the value of being a bartering chip in future hostage situations. Or go really sneaky

Spoiler:

Release him into the hands of his terrorist comrades in a hostage exchange and when he is back with them, preferably near leadership, blow him up with and implanted explosive, excused as the product of a medical emergency.

[Betelgeuze]

Actually by the time a woman knows she's pregnant, the so-called fetus has a brain, it's own heart, it's own lungs. To deny life is to murder it.

An embryo does not yet have a brain, a women usually finds out that she is pregnant about 5 weeks after conception. At this stage an enbryo does not yet have a brain, it does have a notochord which is not the same thing as a brain. While it is true that most major organs have develop or have begun developing at the end of week 8, The brain is not fully developed.

As for claiming it doesn't have a personality, you know what, a newborn infant two days out of the womb doesn't have a ****ing personality. I'll call it abortion and drown it, and don't be surprised when I'm arrested for infanticide.

After a baby is born it is no longer solely dependend on the mother, as long as it is still in the womb it is. If a women decides that she does not want to have it in her body, then she has ever right to get rid of it. You can't force a women to gestate it.

If a woman doesn't want to get pregant, then she needs to get the guy to use protection.

That's a very naive thing to say. No type of birth control is 100% effective. And if a women is raped, she doesn't really have a say in the use of anti-conceptive.

I absolutely deplore the act of abortion. I find it worse than barbarians slaughtering others for their gods. Why, cuz there doing it out of religious beliefs, abortion is done merely because it's convenient for the mother. Honestly, I'm leaving this debate.

So killing someone out of religious conviction is somehow less deplorable then killing someone for other reasons? Really, the fact that killing people for some nonexistent entity upsets you less than abortion is disturbing. And abortions do not always happen because the mother finds it convenient, often there are medical reasons.