• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 15:01
CEST 21:01
KST 04:01
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL20] Ro24 Preview Pt2: Take-Off6[ASL20] Ro24 Preview Pt1: Runway132v2 & SC: Evo Complete: Weekend Double Feature4Team Liquid Map Contest #21 - Presented by Monster Energy9uThermal's 2v2 Tour: $15,000 Main Event18
Community News
Weekly Cups (Aug 18-24): herO dethrones MaxPax2Maestros of The Game—$20k event w/ live finals in Paris30Weekly Cups (Aug 11-17): MaxPax triples again!13Weekly Cups (Aug 4-10): MaxPax wins a triple6SC2's Safe House 2 - October 18 & 195
StarCraft 2
General
Geoff 'iNcontroL' Robinson has passed away Weekly Cups (Aug 18-24): herO dethrones MaxPax What mix of new and old maps do you want in the next 1v1 ladder pool? (SC2) : 2v2 & SC: Evo Complete: Weekend Double Feature The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings
Tourneys
Maestros of The Game—$20k event w/ live finals in Paris RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Monday Nights Weeklies Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2)
Strategy
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 488 What Goes Around Mutation # 487 Think Fast Mutation # 486 Watch the Skies Mutation # 485 Death from Below
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Flash On His 2010 "God" Form, Mind Games, vs JD [ASL20] Ro24 Preview Pt2: Take-Off BW General Discussion No Rain in ASL20?
Tourneys
[ASL20] Ro24 Group D [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [ASL20] Ro24 Group B [ASL20] Ro24 Group C
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Fighting Spirit mining rates [G] Mineral Boosting Muta micro map competition
Other Games
General Games
General RTS Discussion Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Dawn of War IV Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine The year 2050 European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 Formula 1 Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
High temperatures on bridge(s) Gtx660 graphics card replacement Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment"
TL Community
The Automated Ban List TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale
Blogs
Evil Gacha Games and the…
ffswowsucks
Breaking the Meta: Non-Stand…
TrAiDoS
INDEPENDIENTE LA CTM
XenOsky
[Girl blog} My fema…
artosisisthebest
Sharpening the Filtration…
frozenclaw
ASL S20 English Commentary…
namkraft
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 3935 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1106

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 10093 Next
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.

In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!

NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious.
Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands21722 Posts
June 11 2014 21:18 GMT
#22101
On June 12 2014 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 12 2014 06:00 Gorsameth wrote:
On June 12 2014 05:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
No wonder America is the laughing stock of the world and it's political priorities:


My google skills fail me a little. What was it a hearing about in the first place?



Religious freedom and separation of church and state. Yeah seriously...(LOL ninja'd) religious freedom and separation of church and state. Basically Gomer was upset that a rev. would be opposed to creationism being taught in public school as science.

He was insinuating he isn't 'Christian' (enough?) because he doesn't believe the same absolute non-sense Gomer does.

He basically told the guy he and people like him are all going to hell and that's a 'Christian fact' If he doesn't agree that's why he and his friends are going to hell.

Fucking totally batshit insane. The guy belongs in asylum not in Congress....

Yeah i got the insane part from the video :p
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
coverpunch
Profile Joined December 2011
United States2093 Posts
June 11 2014 21:37 GMT
#22102
On June 12 2014 05:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
No wonder America is the laughing stock of the world and it's political priorities:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyzW5YmS2Yw

Because we still don't know the difference between its and it's?

IMO it was totally worth having the debate to question the exemptions given to religious groups and whether the government is encroaching on the freedom of belief when it forces people to abide by policies that may offend or violate their beliefs. This is currently a fundamental point of difference between the two parties, where Republicans are skeptical of a growing government and favor individual cooperation through social organizations and communities, while Democrats see such groups (especially Christianity) as a root cause of the outrages in the status quo and thus worth being pushed down and away from public life by a government seeking to end those outrages. In regards to Christianity, both sides insist the Bill of Rights protects something different - Republicans say the Bill of Rights should protect Christianity from having expressions of its faith taken away while Democrats say the Bill of Rights should protect other minority religions and groups from expressions of Christian beliefs.

Your video nitpicks a fairly stupid line of questioning while ignoring the essence and themes of the debate.
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
June 11 2014 21:43 GMT
#22103
On June 12 2014 06:37 coverpunch wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 12 2014 05:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
No wonder America is the laughing stock of the world and it's political priorities:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyzW5YmS2Yw

Because we still don't know the difference between its and it's?

IMO it was totally worth having the debate to question the exemptions given to religious groups and whether the government is encroaching on the freedom of belief when it forces people to abide by policies that may offend or violate their beliefs. This is currently a fundamental point of difference between the two parties, where Republicans are skeptical of a growing government and favor individual cooperation through social organizations and communities, while Democrats see such groups (especially Christianity) as a root cause of the outrages in the status quo and thus worth being pushed down and away from public life by a government seeking to end those outrages. In regards to Christianity, both sides insist the Bill of Rights protects something different - Republicans say the Bill of Rights should protect Christianity from having expressions of its faith taken away while Democrats say the Bill of Rights should protect other minority religions and groups from expressions of Christian beliefs.

Your video nitpicks a fairly stupid line of questioning while ignoring the essence and themes of the debate.

How dare you point out his bigotry!

I see nothing wrong with the subject of the hearing. It is entirely proper for such issues to be investigated and debated.
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18830 Posts
June 11 2014 21:48 GMT
#22104
On June 12 2014 06:37 coverpunch wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 12 2014 05:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
No wonder America is the laughing stock of the world and it's political priorities:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyzW5YmS2Yw

Because we still don't know the difference between its and it's?

IMO it was totally worth having the debate to question the exemptions given to religious groups and whether the government is encroaching on the freedom of belief when it forces people to abide by policies that may offend or violate their beliefs. This is currently a fundamental point of difference between the two parties, where Republicans are skeptical of a growing government and favor individual cooperation through social organizations and communities, while Democrats see such groups (especially Christianity) as a root cause of the outrages in the status quo and thus worth being pushed down and away from public life by a government seeking to end those outrages. In regards to Christianity, both sides insist the Bill of Rights protects something different - Republicans say the Bill of Rights should protect Christianity from having expressions of its faith taken away while Democrats say the Bill of Rights should protect other minority religions and groups from expressions of Christian beliefs.

Your video nitpicks a fairly stupid line of questioning while ignoring the essence and themes of the debate.

The religious right's impulse to legislate morality a la DOMA and anti-abortion access laws throws your claim, that conservatives harbor a "fundamental" opposition to governmental influence as a motivator for social change, into the garbage. Try again.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
Nyxisto
Profile Joined August 2010
Germany6287 Posts
June 11 2014 21:50 GMT
#22105
Well from a foreigners perspective it certainly does look like individual freedom doesn't matter very much to Republicans when it comes to what you do in your bedroom. Individual freedom doesn't mean very much when you can't express your opinion or sexual orientation without getting ridiculed by everyone around you.
oneofthem
Profile Blog Joined November 2005
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
June 11 2014 21:57 GMT
#22106
On June 12 2014 01:33 aksfjh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 11 2014 19:39 IgnE wrote:
On June 11 2014 18:07 mcc wrote:
On June 11 2014 13:51 hunts wrote:
On June 11 2014 12:32 IgnE wrote:
On June 11 2014 12:15 RCMDVA wrote:
On June 11 2014 11:40 Nyxisto wrote:
Can someone briefly sum up who the tea party guy is and why he won?


David Brat teaches at Randolph Macon College, which is a small but well respected school within the district.

He's the economics chair, and teaches 3rd World Econ & developing economies.

He won because Cantor was an inside the beltway guy.

And nobody can name 1 thing that he did for the district (bringing home the bacon so to speak).

So his seniority was worthless.


The funny thing is at the 11th hour, either last night or this morning... the Democrats named the chair of the Honors program at Randolph Macon as the Democrat candidate for this district.

So the faculty lounge @ RMC might be an interesting place for the next 6 months.



Also in the back pocket of the banks, and valiant defender of capitalism.
  • Brat is the BB&T Ethics Program Director, serving 2010-2020. The program arose from a $500,000 grant, given by the charitable arm of the Fortune 500 financial services and banking firm BB&T, awarded to Randolph-Macon College for the study of the moral foundations of capitalism and the establishment of a related ethics program.


How dare he defend capitalism! Such an evil, terrible, awful man! Defending capitalism, the nerve! Doesn't he understand how much better off we would be if obama just told everyone what profession to do, and how much they will get paid?

Really, how are people actually using "capitalist" "capitalism" or "defender of capitalism" as an insult or a bad thing? Does that mean that everyone who is against capitalism or for socialism should be called a communist?

It is meant as an insult, because people like him are trying to make capitalism into ideology with its own perverted ethical backing. Capitalism is a tool, ethics has to do with capitalism as it does with a hammer. People consider, rightly, unregulated capitalism as an evil thing, thus call people trying to make capitalism into a religion evil. The last inference is unwarranted exaggeratrion, but understandable.


The man has idolatrous images of Reagan up on his website and wrote a paper called "An Analysis of the Moral Foundations in Ayn Rand" as recently as 2010.

Everyone knows that the only reason banks hire "ethics program directors" are so that they can 1) say they care enough about ethics to have a program for it, even though it doesn't actually change any of the the organization's practices and 2) provide rationalizations for their behavior.

You're knee-jerking a little hard. Banks have this strange habit of throwing money against a wall and seeing what sticks. It's hard not to find somebody even mildly intelligible that doesn't have some ties to a (big) bank.

At this point, a fair criticism of the guy is that he believes in ethical economics. As if some ethical/religious/political foundations are the reasons for economic prosperity or despair, as opposed to specific economic policies. He espouses some BS about the economic field being ideological instead of scientific (when all of science is basically like that), but then does economic research that smells a lot like the same stuff creationist scholars do.
this guy seems like a pretty big wingnut though. at least a bad caricature of a rightwing randoid.
We have fed the heart on fantasies, the heart's grown brutal from the fare, more substance in our enmities than in our love
coverpunch
Profile Joined December 2011
United States2093 Posts
June 11 2014 22:17 GMT
#22107
On June 12 2014 06:48 farvacola wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 12 2014 06:37 coverpunch wrote:
On June 12 2014 05:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
No wonder America is the laughing stock of the world and it's political priorities:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyzW5YmS2Yw

Because we still don't know the difference between its and it's?

IMO it was totally worth having the debate to question the exemptions given to religious groups and whether the government is encroaching on the freedom of belief when it forces people to abide by policies that may offend or violate their beliefs. This is currently a fundamental point of difference between the two parties, where Republicans are skeptical of a growing government and favor individual cooperation through social organizations and communities, while Democrats see such groups (especially Christianity) as a root cause of the outrages in the status quo and thus worth being pushed down and away from public life by a government seeking to end those outrages. In regards to Christianity, both sides insist the Bill of Rights protects something different - Republicans say the Bill of Rights should protect Christianity from having expressions of its faith taken away while Democrats say the Bill of Rights should protect other minority religions and groups from expressions of Christian beliefs.

Your video nitpicks a fairly stupid line of questioning while ignoring the essence and themes of the debate.

The religious right's impulse to legislate morality a la DOMA and anti-abortion access laws throws your claim, that conservatives harbor a "fundamental" opposition to governmental influence as a motivator for social change, into the garbage. Try again.

Yes, of course, we should all listen to your prejudices, not the content of an actual debate on the issue.
Severedevil
Profile Blog Joined April 2009
United States4839 Posts
June 11 2014 22:22 GMT
#22108
On June 12 2014 07:17 coverpunch wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 12 2014 06:48 farvacola wrote:
On June 12 2014 06:37 coverpunch wrote:
On June 12 2014 05:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
No wonder America is the laughing stock of the world and it's political priorities:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyzW5YmS2Yw

Because we still don't know the difference between its and it's?

IMO it was totally worth having the debate to question the exemptions given to religious groups and whether the government is encroaching on the freedom of belief when it forces people to abide by policies that may offend or violate their beliefs. This is currently a fundamental point of difference between the two parties, where Republicans are skeptical of a growing government and favor individual cooperation through social organizations and communities, while Democrats see such groups (especially Christianity) as a root cause of the outrages in the status quo and thus worth being pushed down and away from public life by a government seeking to end those outrages. In regards to Christianity, both sides insist the Bill of Rights protects something different - Republicans say the Bill of Rights should protect Christianity from having expressions of its faith taken away while Democrats say the Bill of Rights should protect other minority religions and groups from expressions of Christian beliefs.

Your video nitpicks a fairly stupid line of questioning while ignoring the essence and themes of the debate.

The religious right's impulse to legislate morality a la DOMA and anti-abortion access laws throws your claim, that conservatives harbor a "fundamental" opposition to governmental influence as a motivator for social change, into the garbage. Try again.

Yes, of course, we should all listen to your prejudices, not the content of an actual debate on the issue.

What prejudices? What is untrue in his assertion?
My strategy is to fork people.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23258 Posts
June 11 2014 22:25 GMT
#22109
On June 12 2014 07:17 coverpunch wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 12 2014 06:48 farvacola wrote:
On June 12 2014 06:37 coverpunch wrote:
On June 12 2014 05:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
No wonder America is the laughing stock of the world and it's political priorities:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyzW5YmS2Yw

Because we still don't know the difference between its and it's?

IMO it was totally worth having the debate to question the exemptions given to religious groups and whether the government is encroaching on the freedom of belief when it forces people to abide by policies that may offend or violate their beliefs. This is currently a fundamental point of difference between the two parties, where Republicans are skeptical of a growing government and favor individual cooperation through social organizations and communities, while Democrats see such groups (especially Christianity) as a root cause of the outrages in the status quo and thus worth being pushed down and away from public life by a government seeking to end those outrages. In regards to Christianity, both sides insist the Bill of Rights protects something different - Republicans say the Bill of Rights should protect Christianity from having expressions of its faith taken away while Democrats say the Bill of Rights should protect other minority religions and groups from expressions of Christian beliefs.

Your video nitpicks a fairly stupid line of questioning while ignoring the essence and themes of the debate.

The religious right's impulse to legislate morality a la DOMA and anti-abortion access laws throws your claim, that conservatives harbor a "fundamental" opposition to governmental influence as a motivator for social change, into the garbage. Try again.

Yes, of course, we should all listen to your prejudices, not the content of an actual debate on the issue.



Claiming that his beliefs aren't 'Christian' enough isn't a 'debate' or 'issue' it's a bad joke...

That video is an example of a certifiably insane person accusing someone of not being insane also and condemning him to hell for it.

Conservatives who want to pretend like what he said has any place in the House are just feeding the crazy... People who say stuff like that should be committed not confirmed.

To try and pretend that Creationism and Science stand on equal footing would be laughable if there weren't so many people who bought that junk.

Given the entire party isn't as certifiable as he is, that segment of the party is gaining control not losing it when it comes to the National party (Cantor didn't believe the only way to heaven was Christ [He actually doesn't even believe in Hell, you can imagine how Gomert felt about that...).
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
coverpunch
Profile Joined December 2011
United States2093 Posts
June 11 2014 22:28 GMT
#22110
On June 12 2014 06:50 Nyxisto wrote:
Well from a foreigners perspective it certainly does look like individual freedom doesn't matter very much to Republicans when it comes to what you do in your bedroom. Individual freedom doesn't mean very much when you can't express your opinion or sexual orientation without getting ridiculed by everyone around you.

Actually, you have that completely opposite, individual freedom means everything when nobody's beliefs are above ridicule and criticism. Individual freedom doesn't mean much when one particular group's beliefs are so sacred that the government is allowed to arrest and punish those who criticize or ridicule them. Note that both the freedom of expression and criticism are not unlimited. But we are constantly debating where the lines are and whether people are going too far, and that's fine.
Nyxisto
Profile Joined August 2010
Germany6287 Posts
June 11 2014 22:29 GMT
#22111
On June 12 2014 07:17 coverpunch wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 12 2014 06:48 farvacola wrote:
On June 12 2014 06:37 coverpunch wrote:
On June 12 2014 05:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
No wonder America is the laughing stock of the world and it's political priorities:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyzW5YmS2Yw

Because we still don't know the difference between its and it's?

IMO it was totally worth having the debate to question the exemptions given to religious groups and whether the government is encroaching on the freedom of belief when it forces people to abide by policies that may offend or violate their beliefs. This is currently a fundamental point of difference between the two parties, where Republicans are skeptical of a growing government and favor individual cooperation through social organizations and communities, while Democrats see such groups (especially Christianity) as a root cause of the outrages in the status quo and thus worth being pushed down and away from public life by a government seeking to end those outrages. In regards to Christianity, both sides insist the Bill of Rights protects something different - Republicans say the Bill of Rights should protect Christianity from having expressions of its faith taken away while Democrats say the Bill of Rights should protect other minority religions and groups from expressions of Christian beliefs.

Your video nitpicks a fairly stupid line of questioning while ignoring the essence and themes of the debate.

The religious right's impulse to legislate morality a la DOMA and anti-abortion access laws throws your claim, that conservatives harbor a "fundamental" opposition to governmental influence as a motivator for social change, into the garbage. Try again.

Yes, of course, we should all listen to your prejudices, not the content of an actual debate on the issue.


But that also was my point. How is denying people the institution of marriage not a HUGE governmental intervention?
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
June 11 2014 22:30 GMT
#22112
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate has approved a bill making it easier for veterans who've endured long wait times for VA medical care to receive treatment from local doctors instead. The measure closely resembles a bill approved Tuesday in the House. Lawmakers say they are optimistic a compromise version can soon be sent to President Barack Obama for his signature.

The Senate bill, approved 93-3, would authorize about $35 billion over three years to pay for the outside care, hire hundreds of doctors and nurses and lease 26 new health facilities in 17 states and Puerto Rico.

The Veterans Affairs Department released an audit this week showing that more than 57,000 veterans have had to wait at least three months for initial appointments. Some vets who asked for appointments never got them.


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
coverpunch
Profile Joined December 2011
United States2093 Posts
June 11 2014 22:32 GMT
#22113
On June 12 2014 07:22 Severedevil wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 12 2014 07:17 coverpunch wrote:
On June 12 2014 06:48 farvacola wrote:
On June 12 2014 06:37 coverpunch wrote:
On June 12 2014 05:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
No wonder America is the laughing stock of the world and it's political priorities:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyzW5YmS2Yw

Because we still don't know the difference between its and it's?

IMO it was totally worth having the debate to question the exemptions given to religious groups and whether the government is encroaching on the freedom of belief when it forces people to abide by policies that may offend or violate their beliefs. This is currently a fundamental point of difference between the two parties, where Republicans are skeptical of a growing government and favor individual cooperation through social organizations and communities, while Democrats see such groups (especially Christianity) as a root cause of the outrages in the status quo and thus worth being pushed down and away from public life by a government seeking to end those outrages. In regards to Christianity, both sides insist the Bill of Rights protects something different - Republicans say the Bill of Rights should protect Christianity from having expressions of its faith taken away while Democrats say the Bill of Rights should protect other minority religions and groups from expressions of Christian beliefs.

Your video nitpicks a fairly stupid line of questioning while ignoring the essence and themes of the debate.

The religious right's impulse to legislate morality a la DOMA and anti-abortion access laws throws your claim, that conservatives harbor a "fundamental" opposition to governmental influence as a motivator for social change, into the garbage. Try again.

Yes, of course, we should all listen to your prejudices, not the content of an actual debate on the issue.

What prejudices? What is untrue in his assertion?

There's nothing true or untrue about his assertion because it's all opinion, he lists no facts. But the debate goes on for 70 minutes and nobody ever mentions DOMA or abortion as laws that should or should not be enacted. Those have nothing to do with the actual debate that was held.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23258 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-06-11 22:37:38
June 11 2014 22:36 GMT
#22114
On June 12 2014 07:28 coverpunch wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 12 2014 06:50 Nyxisto wrote:
Well from a foreigners perspective it certainly does look like individual freedom doesn't matter very much to Republicans when it comes to what you do in your bedroom. Individual freedom doesn't mean very much when you can't express your opinion or sexual orientation without getting ridiculed by everyone around you.

Actually, you have that completely opposite, individual freedom means everything when nobody's beliefs are above ridicule and criticism. Individual freedom doesn't mean much when one particular group's beliefs are so sacred that the government is allowed to arrest and punish those who criticize or ridicule them. Note that both the freedom of expression and criticism are not unlimited. But we are constantly debating where the lines are and whether people are going too far, and that's fine.



I think the point he was getting at was Republicans supported criminalizing anal/oral/interracial sex, they supported mandating that the government demand a vaginal probe before any abortion, they support stopping and searching innocent black children in their neighborhoods, they supported an individual insurance mandate, they support restricting which firearms people should purchase, I could go on....

The point is that only fools and zealots still believe the Republican party (representatives) gives a rat's ass about personal freedom. They just use the phrase rhetorically to push their agendas...
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
coverpunch
Profile Joined December 2011
United States2093 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-06-11 22:42:39
June 11 2014 22:40 GMT
#22115
On June 12 2014 07:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 12 2014 07:28 coverpunch wrote:
On June 12 2014 06:50 Nyxisto wrote:
Well from a foreigners perspective it certainly does look like individual freedom doesn't matter very much to Republicans when it comes to what you do in your bedroom. Individual freedom doesn't mean very much when you can't express your opinion or sexual orientation without getting ridiculed by everyone around you.

Actually, you have that completely opposite, individual freedom means everything when nobody's beliefs are above ridicule and criticism. Individual freedom doesn't mean much when one particular group's beliefs are so sacred that the government is allowed to arrest and punish those who criticize or ridicule them. Note that both the freedom of expression and criticism are not unlimited. But we are constantly debating where the lines are and whether people are going too far, and that's fine.



I think the point he was getting at was Republicans supported criminalizing anal/oral/interracial sex, they supported mandating that the government demand a vaginal probe before any abortion, they support stopping and searching innocent black children in their neighborhoods, they supported an individual insurance mandate, they support restricting which firearms people should purchase, I could go on....

The point is that only fools and zealots still believe the Republican party gives a rat's ass about personal freedom. They just use the phrase rhetorically to push their agendas...

Actually, it was Democrats who proposed and enacted most anti-miscegenation laws:

At least three proposed constitutional amendments intended to bar interracial marriage in the United States have been introduced in Congress.[19]

In 1871, Representative Andrew King (Democrat of Missouri) was the first politician in Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to make interracial marriage illegal nationwide. King proposed this amendment because he predicted (correctly, as the case of Loving v. Virginia later demonstrated) that the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868 to give equal civil rights to the emancipated ex-slaves (the Freedmen) as part of the process of Reconstruction, would render laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional.

In December 1912 and January 1913, Representative Seaborn Roddenbery (Democrat of Georgia) again introduced a proposal in the United States House of Representatives to insert a prohibition of miscegenation into the US Constitution and thus create a nationwide ban on interracial marriage. According to the wording of the proposed amendment, "Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians... within the United States... is forever prohibited." Roddenbery's proposal was more severe because it defined the racial boundary between whites and "persons of color" by applying the one-drop rule. In his proposed amendment, anyone with "any trace of African or Negro blood" was banned from marrying a white spouse.

Don't mistake "Southern" for "Republican", because that wasn't true until after the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. We've come a long way from this:

[image loading]
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18830 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-06-11 22:57:27
June 11 2014 22:52 GMT
#22116
On June 12 2014 07:32 coverpunch wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 12 2014 07:22 Severedevil wrote:
On June 12 2014 07:17 coverpunch wrote:
On June 12 2014 06:48 farvacola wrote:
On June 12 2014 06:37 coverpunch wrote:
On June 12 2014 05:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
No wonder America is the laughing stock of the world and it's political priorities:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyzW5YmS2Yw

Because we still don't know the difference between its and it's?

IMO it was totally worth having the debate to question the exemptions given to religious groups and whether the government is encroaching on the freedom of belief when it forces people to abide by policies that may offend or violate their beliefs. This is currently a fundamental point of difference between the two parties, where Republicans are skeptical of a growing government and favor individual cooperation through social organizations and communities, while Democrats see such groups (especially Christianity) as a root cause of the outrages in the status quo and thus worth being pushed down and away from public life by a government seeking to end those outrages. In regards to Christianity, both sides insist the Bill of Rights protects something different - Republicans say the Bill of Rights should protect Christianity from having expressions of its faith taken away while Democrats say the Bill of Rights should protect other minority religions and groups from expressions of Christian beliefs.

Your video nitpicks a fairly stupid line of questioning while ignoring the essence and themes of the debate.

The religious right's impulse to legislate morality a la DOMA and anti-abortion access laws throws your claim, that conservatives harbor a "fundamental" opposition to governmental influence as a motivator for social change, into the garbage. Try again.

Yes, of course, we should all listen to your prejudices, not the content of an actual debate on the issue.

What prejudices? What is untrue in his assertion?

There's nothing true or untrue about his assertion because it's all opinion, he lists no facts. But the debate goes on for 70 minutes and nobody ever mentions DOMA or abortion as laws that should or should not be enacted. Those have nothing to do with the actual debate that was held.

Since you clearly seem to be having some trouble keeping up with the conversation, let me reiterate my point. You, using the aforementioned video as an introduction, wrote up a paragraph in which you attempt to delineate a key difference between conservatives and liberals. In this paragraph, you said,
This is currently a fundamental point of difference between the two parties, where Republicans are skeptical of a growing government and favor individual cooperation through social organizations and communities, while Democrats see such groups (especially Christianity) as a root cause of the outrages in the status quo and thus worth being pushed down and away from public life by a government seeking to end those outrages.
Alright, now that we've clearly highlighted the portion of your comment with which I took issue, let's look at the language you used and how it totally invalidates your point. While it is clear that you are speaking in reference to religious tolerance and how it is we ought to go about legislating or not legislating such a thing, the use of the word "fundamental" changes the valence of your comment. A "fundamental" difference between the two sides of the aisle, by virtue of what the word means, requires that this difference spill out onto topics other than religious tolerance, for if this difference were only to be applied to the topic at hand, it would no longer be "fundamental" at all. With this in mind, it only makes sense that we consider other topics of political interest and attempt to apply your supposedly "fundamental" difference and see if it holds any water. This is why I mentioned DOMA and the bevy of anti-abortion access laws on the books of Red states throughout the union; these attempts at legislating a particular brand of morality clearly fly in the face of your imagined Republican skepticism where the propriety of government influence is concerned. The social organizations and communities that make up Republican interest groups are the ones most fervently pushing state policies that actively remove power from individuals and the neighborhoods in which they live when it comes to formulating and enforcing social mores, further drawing your supposedly "fundamental" difference into question.

When all is said and done, the difference between fact and opinion is simply not important past the notion that you are factually wrong to suggest that Republicans maintain any sort of "fundamental" opposition when it comes to the place of government in influencing social standards. Their opposition is clearly a la carte.

Edit: Your attempt at playing ahistoric word games with obviously fluid political labels only further speaks to the idea that you are as partisan as they come. Saying that Democrats used to be pro-slavery is only meaningful alongside an acknowledgement of the fact that "Democrat" and "Republican" used to mean very different things.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23258 Posts
June 11 2014 22:56 GMT
#22117
On June 12 2014 07:40 coverpunch wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 12 2014 07:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
On June 12 2014 07:28 coverpunch wrote:
On June 12 2014 06:50 Nyxisto wrote:
Well from a foreigners perspective it certainly does look like individual freedom doesn't matter very much to Republicans when it comes to what you do in your bedroom. Individual freedom doesn't mean very much when you can't express your opinion or sexual orientation without getting ridiculed by everyone around you.

Actually, you have that completely opposite, individual freedom means everything when nobody's beliefs are above ridicule and criticism. Individual freedom doesn't mean much when one particular group's beliefs are so sacred that the government is allowed to arrest and punish those who criticize or ridicule them. Note that both the freedom of expression and criticism are not unlimited. But we are constantly debating where the lines are and whether people are going too far, and that's fine.



I think the point he was getting at was Republicans supported criminalizing anal/oral/interracial sex, they supported mandating that the government demand a vaginal probe before any abortion, they support stopping and searching innocent black children in their neighborhoods, they supported an individual insurance mandate, they support restricting which firearms people should purchase, I could go on....

The point is that only fools and zealots still believe the Republican party gives a rat's ass about personal freedom. They just use the phrase rhetorically to push their agendas...

Actually, it was Democrats who proposed and enacted most anti-miscegenation laws:

Show nested quote +
At least three proposed constitutional amendments intended to bar interracial marriage in the United States have been introduced in Congress.[19]

In 1871, Representative Andrew King (Democrat of Missouri) was the first politician in Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to make interracial marriage illegal nationwide. King proposed this amendment because he predicted (correctly, as the case of Loving v. Virginia later demonstrated) that the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868 to give equal civil rights to the emancipated ex-slaves (the Freedmen) as part of the process of Reconstruction, would render laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional.

In December 1912 and January 1913, Representative Seaborn Roddenbery (Democrat of Georgia) again introduced a proposal in the United States House of Representatives to insert a prohibition of miscegenation into the US Constitution and thus create a nationwide ban on interracial marriage. According to the wording of the proposed amendment, "Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians... within the United States... is forever prohibited." Roddenbery's proposal was more severe because it defined the racial boundary between whites and "persons of color" by applying the one-drop rule. In his proposed amendment, anyone with "any trace of African or Negro blood" was banned from marrying a white spouse.

Don't mistake "Southern" for "Republican", because that wasn't true until after the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. We've come a long way from this:

[image loading]


Well you didn't address the one's not specific to the South?

But as for those, don't pretend like we don't all know those 'Dixiecrats' primarily vote Republican now. There is no question that the labels switched but the constituency's spirit is similar.

I'm not suggesting Democrats didn't push the same garbage just that Republicans supported them too in most of the more recent instances.

The point is that showing Dems do it too doesn't change that Republicans parade that they support personal freedom until it comes to things they don't like (Cannabis anyone?).
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
mcc
Profile Joined October 2010
Czech Republic4646 Posts
June 11 2014 23:05 GMT
#22118
On June 12 2014 06:37 coverpunch wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 12 2014 05:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
No wonder America is the laughing stock of the world and it's political priorities:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyzW5YmS2Yw

Because we still don't know the difference between its and it's?

IMO it was totally worth having the debate to question the exemptions given to religious groups and whether the government is encroaching on the freedom of belief when it forces people to abide by policies that may offend or violate their beliefs. This is currently a fundamental point of difference between the two parties, where Republicans are skeptical of a growing government and favor individual cooperation through social organizations and communities, while Democrats see such groups (especially Christianity) as a root cause of the outrages in the status quo and thus worth being pushed down and away from public life by a government seeking to end those outrages. In regards to Christianity, both sides insist the Bill of Rights protects something different - Republicans say the Bill of Rights should protect Christianity from having expressions of its faith taken away while Democrats say the Bill of Rights should protect other minority religions and groups from expressions of Christian beliefs.

Your video nitpicks a fairly stupid line of questioning while ignoring the essence and themes of the debate.

Criticizing others for voicing "opinions and not facts" while writing completely ideological (and false) paragraph is kind of ironical. The same goes for criticizing nitpicking while questioning a typo.
coverpunch
Profile Joined December 2011
United States2093 Posts
June 11 2014 23:06 GMT
#22119
On June 12 2014 08:05 mcc wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 12 2014 06:37 coverpunch wrote:
On June 12 2014 05:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
No wonder America is the laughing stock of the world and it's political priorities:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyzW5YmS2Yw

Because we still don't know the difference between its and it's?

IMO it was totally worth having the debate to question the exemptions given to religious groups and whether the government is encroaching on the freedom of belief when it forces people to abide by policies that may offend or violate their beliefs. This is currently a fundamental point of difference between the two parties, where Republicans are skeptical of a growing government and favor individual cooperation through social organizations and communities, while Democrats see such groups (especially Christianity) as a root cause of the outrages in the status quo and thus worth being pushed down and away from public life by a government seeking to end those outrages. In regards to Christianity, both sides insist the Bill of Rights protects something different - Republicans say the Bill of Rights should protect Christianity from having expressions of its faith taken away while Democrats say the Bill of Rights should protect other minority religions and groups from expressions of Christian beliefs.

Your video nitpicks a fairly stupid line of questioning while ignoring the essence and themes of the debate.

Criticizing others for voicing "opinions and not facts" while writing completely ideological (and false) paragraph is kind of ironical. The same goes for criticizing nitpicking while questioning a typo.

Uh, yeah, it is ironical. Almost like I tried to do it...
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
June 11 2014 23:15 GMT
#22120
Please don't use irony or satire without clear labels; given the craziness of much politics, it's hard to tell them apart from actual beliefs.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
Prev 1 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
RotterdaM Event
15:00
Rotti's All Random Finals
RotterdaM1375
IndyStarCraft 257
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
RotterdaM 1375
Reynor 280
IndyStarCraft 257
mouzHeroMarine 222
Hui .114
BRAT_OK 105
ProTech103
UpATreeSC 95
MindelVK 29
StarCraft: Brood War
Mini 493
Larva 383
Dewaltoss 136
firebathero 121
Aegong 45
scan(afreeca) 30
HiyA 12
IntoTheRainbow 10
Beast 2
Dota 2
XaKoH 373
Pyrionflax101
Counter-Strike
fl0m1666
Stewie2K243
kRYSTAL_73
PGG 16
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu189
Other Games
Grubby2125
FrodaN1414
C9.Mang0159
KnowMe130
Trikslyr67
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 20 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• StrangeGG 51
• LUISG 8
• Kozan
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• Migwel
• intothetv
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• 80smullet 14
• Pr0nogo 5
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• masondota22114
• WagamamaTV792
League of Legends
• Jankos1503
• TFBlade937
Counter-Strike
• imaqtpie852
Other Games
• Shiphtur164
Upcoming Events
Replay Cast
4h 59m
Afreeca Starleague
14h 59m
Rush vs TBD
TBD vs Mong
WardiTV Summer Champion…
15h 59m
Cure vs Classic
ByuN vs TBD
herO vs TBD
TBD vs NightMare
TBD vs MaxPax
OSC
16h 59m
PiGosaur Monday
1d 4h
Afreeca Starleague
1d 14h
herO vs TBD
Royal vs Barracks
Replay Cast
2 days
The PondCast
2 days
WardiTV Summer Champion…
2 days
Replay Cast
3 days
[ Show More ]
LiuLi Cup
3 days
MaxPax vs TriGGeR
ByuN vs herO
Cure vs Rogue
Classic vs HeRoMaRinE
Cosmonarchy
3 days
OyAji vs Sziky
Sziky vs WolFix
WolFix vs OyAji
BSL Team Wars
3 days
Team Hawk vs Team Dewalt
BSL Team Wars
3 days
Team Hawk vs Team Bonyth
SC Evo League
4 days
TaeJa vs Cure
Rogue vs threepoint
ByuN vs Creator
MaNa vs Classic
Maestros of the Game
4 days
[BSL 2025] Weekly
4 days
SC Evo League
5 days
Maestros of the Game
5 days
BSL Team Wars
5 days
Team Bonyth vs Team Sziky
BSL Team Wars
5 days
Team Dewalt vs Team Sziky
Monday Night Weeklies
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSLAN 3
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
HCC Europe

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
BSL 20 Team Wars
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 3
BSL 21 Qualifiers
ASL Season 20
CSL Season 18: Qualifier 1
Acropolis #4 - TS1
SEL Season 2 Championship
WardiTV Summer 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025

Upcoming

CSL Season 18: Qualifier 2
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
LASL Season 20
BSL Season 21
BSL 21 Team A
Chzzk MurlocKing SC1 vs SC2 Cup #2
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
EC S1
Sisters' Call Cup
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
MESA Nomadic Masters Fall
CS Asia Championships 2025
Roobet Cup 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.