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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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...
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...
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:
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.
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...
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:
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?).
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.
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...
EPT
