Originally posted by Narug

Originally posted by DeserttFoxx

How can you be pro life and for the death penaltity?

How can you actually be against gay marriage and then say you have tolrance?

 

I keep seeing this being hammered and hammered in off topic but I'm finally fed up with it.  I'm going to answer it because they both are used in double standards that paint such a side as descriminating.  One being towards women and one towards sexual orientation.  This such discrimination is false.

Pro life and pro death penalty are both attempts at preserving life as they both prevent further victims who never had the choice to live but were suddenly silenced.

One thought of being against gay marriage is trying to preserve a traditional family.  With all the trouble with youth these days I'm not sure why falling back on something that used to work would be seen as bad.  Civil unions were offered as compromise and show the side at least recoginizing something towards this group.  That shows some tolerance.

Yes this is my opinion but somehow I expect this to be taken as voice for all on such a side.

And I am pro-choice, against the death penalty. For gay marriage, not just civil unions, in fact, if you're gay, and can demonstrate to me that you love each other and want to make a lifetime commitment, I'll marry you to one another, provided it's legal in your state.

I also understand and respect people who feel differently than me on the issues. I think that's fairly tolerant.

Originally posted by DeserttFoxx

While i have no interest in argueing the pro life and pro death thing, as i am quite certain nobody would agree with my views on that subject,, gay marriage is however a different story.

You saying that it preserves tradition makes it seem as though all heterosexual couple are faithful.  The problem with civil unions are, it is not the same, they dont have all the same legal rights as a husband and wife who are concidered legally married.

Your arguement is posed as if, if you say gay marriage is legal then more people will just choose to be gay. There is nothing to prove that a child brought up with two moms or two dads is worst off then a child brought up with a mom or a dad, or more likely in this day and age, a mom and a dad who live in seperate houses, since the divorce rate is so high. Gay Marriage is legal in a lot of other countries, one of them being canada, and as far as i know, no one has bursted out in sudden homosexualaity.

 You cant show some tolorance on this issue, it is blatant bigotry inducted into law. And all it does today, is it makes it alright to hate gay people for being gay. They are used as punchlines to jokes today the same way blacks were used back in the 60s. They overtly attacked just for being who they are, and it is often overlooked.

I am all for condoning family, and the family unit, but it is time to adjust our view of the family unit in this day and age.Gays exist, Lesbiens exist, and Heterosexuals exist, What does it say to kids growing up with gay parents when society says they dont condone their relationship? Too me it tells kids that they arent  living in a  functional household regardless of how much love is aparent, And it is just not true. Orientation plays no role in the structure of the family unit, and there is no way you can argue that it does.

See folks.  This is the problem that's common to this side.  They add in things you don't say.  I thought my talk of youth would've shown my true purpose there.

Okay.  If you can show as much tragedy with youth in the past that happened in the present with disasters like school shootings, rising teen pregnancies, and lack of discipline then you can probably hand yourself the keys to this debate.  Stick to your 60's and pre-60's timeline since you set the surf up.  For now I'm not moving.

Not all changes err...adjustments are beneficial towards children and the interests of children should be the most important in the family structure.  Not what change in policy we can make.

As for hate against sexual orientation I sure can't see it in public.  I've lived in Louisiana and now Texas in which the South is the very home of racism.

The other issues can be reversed on you as well.  Especially the faithful part as not all are immune.

Originally posted by Fishermage

I also understand and respect people who feel differently than me on the issues. I think that's fairly tolerant.

As can I but I don't expect many in the thread to believe that.  It's I just keep seeing thread titles like this to lure in the Republican side and sometimes there has to be a stand against that.  Enough can really get to be enough at times.

Edited for grammar

Originally posted by keltic1701

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by keltic1701

Originally posted by DeserttFoxx

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by DeserttFoxx

Originally posted by c4ligul4

Desertfox its impossible to argue with this kid. He's stubborn as a mule and will keep quoting you and writing a lot of words with no substance until you give up.

 

Yes, i know, I will argue the points on the republican party with anyone, but fishermage is just a troll. He has made it a point to engage in these personal attacks on my posts.  He usually quotes me 3 or 4 times refuting my points by calling me childish, immature telling me i dont know how to argue, and the new one, inchoherant. Never has he actually countered any of my arguements.

 

Ive determined that this guy has no poltical insight of his own, and any substance he can add to a discussion is immediatly appearent.

 

It was no surprise that he would make no effort to actual disprove the statements i made, carrying on the back and forth with him alone serves no purpose and i have no intention of continueing with him.

 

What points have you made? When you say something coherent, I will gladly refute them. When you actually MAKE an argument, I'll counter it. When you resort to namecalling, well then, here we are again. It seems this is where you always end up.

 

I called youa troll once, after you quoted my 3 times telling me i didnt know what i was talking about, read, learn grow and all of that.

 

But, thats it, thanks.

C4ligu14 is right DessertFoxx. He and those like him are stuck in their ideology and no amount of reason, shouting, insulting or jumpin' up and down is going to change their universe. You would get better and more immediate results if you just beat your head against the wall. Don't waste your breath, ruin your vocal cords shouting or trying to get the attention of those who are deaf, dumb and blind.

Then why are you, he and C4ligu14 the ones who find you have to resort to namecalling and personal attacks?

Oh don't be such a GD crybaby Fisher! If you can't handle peoples strong opinions then you have no business posting on this or any other forum. Stop being such a damn pansy! I've seen you get just as dirty with name calling as anyone else. You're no better than me or anyone else. You and your high road tactic is as lame as most of your arguments. Take some advice, go find your wife/girlfriend, go out have a drink or have a nice dinner and consider doing something a bit more constructive with your free time than being a pain in the arse on this forum!

I'm not crying, I can certainly handle it; in fact, as always, I am amused by your ineptitude which requires calling your opponents names. I never call people names. I may call a person's ARGUMENT something, but I NEVER attack the person making the argument.

I'm not being a pain in the arse, I am serving my fellow human beings by educating them and sharing information and ideas. I am also enjoying good internet conversation where I can find it. That is far more than you are doing.

Do let me know however, whenever you want to actually discuss an issue the way adults do.

Originally posted by Narug

Originally posted by DeserttFoxx

While i have no interest in argueing the pro life and pro death thing, as i am quite certain nobody would agree with my views on that subject,, gay marriage is however a different story.

You saying that it preserves tradition makes it seem as though all heterosexual couple are faithful.  The problem with civil unions are, it is not the same, they dont have all the same legal rights as a husband and wife who are concidered legally married.

Your arguement is posed as if, if you say gay marriage is legal then more people will just choose to be gay. There is nothing to prove that a child brought up with two moms or two dads is worst off then a child brought up with a mom or a dad, or more likely in this day and age, a mom and a dad who live in seperate houses, since the divorce rate is so high. Gay Marriage is legal in a lot of other countries, one of them being canada, and as far as i know, no one has bursted out in sudden homosexualaity.

 You cant show some tolorance on this issue, it is blatant bigotry inducted into law. And all it does today, is it makes it alright to hate gay people for being gay. They are used as punchlines to jokes today the same way blacks were used back in the 60s. They overtly attacked just for being who they are, and it is often overlooked.

I am all for condoning family, and the family unit, but it is time to adjust our view of the family unit in this day and age.Gays exist, Lesbiens exist, and Heterosexuals exist, What does it say to kids growing up with gay parents when society says they dont condone their relationship? Too me it tells kids that they arent  living in a  functional household regardless of how much love is aparent, And it is just not true. Orientation plays no role in the structure of the family unit, and there is no way you can argue that it does.

See folks.  This is the problem that's common to this side.  They add in things you don't say.  I thought my talk of youth would've shown my true purpose there.

Okay.  If you can show as much tragedy with youth in the past that happened in the present with disasters like school shootings, rising teen pregnancies, and lack of discipline then you can probably hand yourself the keys to this debate.  Stick to your 60's and pre-60's timeline since you set the surf up.  For now I'm not moving.

Not all changes err...adjustments are beneficial towards children and the interests of children should be the most important in the family structure.  Not what change in policy we can make.

As for hate against sexual orientation I sure can't see it in public.  I've lived in Louisiana and now Texas in which the South is the very home of racism.

The other issues can be reversed on you as well.  Especially the faithful part as not all are immune.

But the things i added in where exactly what you were inplying correct? When you spoke about youths, i thought that was your position, please clairfy it.

I dont understand what you are getting at with comparing the tradgedy of youths today with youths of yesterday. My point with the 60s comment is that gay bashing is as openly acceptable today as racism towards blacks where in the 60s, any other correlation you derived from that was not my intent.

And i agree with you, not all changes are benificial for youths today, but i assure you, abastance only, and no child left behind is damaging young people today far more then gay marriage. And that is both family structure and policy. I mean if parents are too stupid or unwilling to teach their kids that condoms arent a supreme evil, then  the schools should but they dont. teen pregancys are rampant, but even more rampant are teens being diagnosed with HIV among other STDs.

I dont live in texas, so i cant refute your claims on not seeing the gaybashing, but it should speak volumes that same sex marriage is stilll not legal in that state.Hatred towards gays is not as blatent as burning a cross but it is still there.

I dont know what you mean by the faithful immune comment you will have to explain.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by keltic1701

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by keltic1701

Originally posted by DeserttFoxx

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by DeserttFoxx

Originally posted by c4ligul4

Desertfox its impossible to argue with this kid. He's stubborn as a mule and will keep quoting you and writing a lot of words with no substance until you give up.

 

Yes, i know, I will argue the points on the republican party with anyone, but fishermage is just a troll. He has made it a point to engage in these personal attacks on my posts.  He usually quotes me 3 or 4 times refuting my points by calling me childish, immature telling me i dont know how to argue, and the new one, inchoherant. Never has he actually countered any of my arguements.

 

Ive determined that this guy has no poltical insight of his own, and any substance he can add to a discussion is immediatly appearent.

 

It was no surprise that he would make no effort to actual disprove the statements i made, carrying on the back and forth with him alone serves no purpose and i have no intention of continueing with him.

 

What points have you made? When you say something coherent, I will gladly refute them. When you actually MAKE an argument, I'll counter it. When you resort to namecalling, well then, here we are again. It seems this is where you always end up.

 

I called youa troll once, after you quoted my 3 times telling me i didnt know what i was talking about, read, learn grow and all of that.

 

But, thats it, thanks.

C4ligu14 is right DessertFoxx. He and those like him are stuck in their ideology and no amount of reason, shouting, insulting or jumpin' up and down is going to change their universe. You would get better and more immediate results if you just beat your head against the wall. Don't waste your breath, ruin your vocal cords shouting or trying to get the attention of those who are deaf, dumb and blind.

Then why are you, he and C4ligu14 the ones who find you have to resort to namecalling and personal attacks?

Oh don't be such a GD crybaby Fisher! If you can't handle peoples strong opinions then you have no business posting on this or any other forum. Stop being such a damn pansy! I've seen you get just as dirty with name calling as anyone else. You're no better than me or anyone else. You and your high road tactic is as lame as most of your arguments. Take some advice, go find your wife/girlfriend, go out have a drink or have a nice dinner and consider doing something a bit more constructive with your free time than being a pain in the arse on this forum!

I'm not crying, I can certainly handle it; in fact, as always, I am amused by your ineptitude which requires calling your opponents names. I never call people names. I may call a person's ARGUMENT something, but I NEVER attack the person making the argument.

I'm not being a pain in the arse, I am serving my fellow human beings by educating them and sharing information and ideas. I am also enjoying good internet conversation where I can find it. That is far more than you are doing.

Do let me know however, whenever you want to actually discuss an issue the way adults do.

Blah...blah...blah....

You're wasting your time as well as mine. You don't  "educate" anyone. You preach. You don't "discuss". You regurgitate. You think more highly of yourself than others think of you. I have better, more productive and less stressful things to do.

Originally posted by keltic1701

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by keltic1701

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by keltic1701

Originally posted by DeserttFoxx

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by DeserttFoxx

Originally posted by c4ligul4

Desertfox its impossible to argue with this kid. He's stubborn as a mule and will keep quoting you and writing a lot of words with no substance until you give up.

 

Yes, i know, I will argue the points on the republican party with anyone, but fishermage is just a troll. He has made it a point to engage in these personal attacks on my posts.  He usually quotes me 3 or 4 times refuting my points by calling me childish, immature telling me i dont know how to argue, and the new one, inchoherant. Never has he actually countered any of my arguements.

 

Ive determined that this guy has no poltical insight of his own, and any substance he can add to a discussion is immediatly appearent.

 

It was no surprise that he would make no effort to actual disprove the statements i made, carrying on the back and forth with him alone serves no purpose and i have no intention of continueing with him.

 

What points have you made? When you say something coherent, I will gladly refute them. When you actually MAKE an argument, I'll counter it. When you resort to namecalling, well then, here we are again. It seems this is where you always end up.

 

I called youa troll once, after you quoted my 3 times telling me i didnt know what i was talking about, read, learn grow and all of that.

 

But, thats it, thanks.

C4ligu14 is right DessertFoxx. He and those like him are stuck in their ideology and no amount of reason, shouting, insulting or jumpin' up and down is going to change their universe. You would get better and more immediate results if you just beat your head against the wall. Don't waste your breath, ruin your vocal cords shouting or trying to get the attention of those who are deaf, dumb and blind.

Then why are you, he and C4ligu14 the ones who find you have to resort to namecalling and personal attacks?

Oh don't be such a GD crybaby Fisher! If you can't handle peoples strong opinions then you have no business posting on this or any other forum. Stop being such a damn pansy! I've seen you get just as dirty with name calling as anyone else. You're no better than me or anyone else. You and your high road tactic is as lame as most of your arguments. Take some advice, go find your wife/girlfriend, go out have a drink or have a nice dinner and consider doing something a bit more constructive with your free time than being a pain in the arse on this forum!

I'm not crying, I can certainly handle it; in fact, as always, I am amused by your ineptitude which requires calling your opponents names. I never call people names. I may call a person's ARGUMENT something, but I NEVER attack the person making the argument.

I'm not being a pain in the arse, I am serving my fellow human beings by educating them and sharing information and ideas. I am also enjoying good internet conversation where I can find it. That is far more than you are doing.

Do let me know however, whenever you want to actually discuss an issue the way adults do.

Blah...blah...blah....

You're wasting your time as well as mine. You don't  "educate" anyone. You preach. You don't "discuss". You regurgitate. You think more highly of yourself than others think of you. I have better things to do.

 

So you say, yet you keep responding, and in your weakly combative manner as well. I never waste my time. But again, do let me know if and whenyou are ever ready to discuss something the way adults do. I don't believe adults say blah...blah...blah...in response to people.

"He said that he would launch military strikes into Pakistan," McCain said of Obama. "Now, you don't do that. You don't say that out loud."

LOLOLLOLLOLLOLLLOLLOOLLLLLOOLLLOLLOOLL

I like the idea of the spending freeze. Infact, I like the idea of making that idea permanent. Imagine it, a federal government who only finances the necessity; thats trillions of dollars. We can pay off the debt in only a couple of years, then afterwords decrease taxes to below 10%. Leave all the rest of the stuff the fed handles to the state. Thats how the constitution and the United States was designed. More power to states, let them make the state how they want it. Let the state be more socialist, and if you don't like it move to a different state. After all we aren't a communal mind, sometimes I don't wanna put money up so the fed can give it to wild-life researchers or bailing out corporations.

Originally posted by Thrakk

"He said that he would launch military strikes into Pakistan," McCain said of Obama. "Now, you don't do that. You don't say that out loud."

 

LOLOLLOLLOLLOLLLOLLOOLLLLLOOLLLOLLOOLL

The point is, that was extremely clumsy diplomacy coming from a guy who claims he is going to usher in a new, better kind of diplomacy. Attacking our allies is not particularly skillful. way of making friends and influencing nations.

The skillful way to do that is, through a back channel you let them know that you are bombing an area, you do it, let them denounce it, then either deny it or apologize. that's the smarter way to handle such things, rather than outright saying on television that you would violate the sovereign territory of an ally.

It was an immature, noobish thing to say, an Hillary rightly called him on it when he said it.

---

Originally posted by CleffyII
I like the idea of the spending freeze. Infact, I like the idea of making that idea permanent. Imagine it, a federal government who only finances the necessity; thats trillions of dollars. We can pay off the debt in only a couple of years, then afterwords decrease taxes to below 10%. Leave all the rest of the stuff the fed handles to the state. Thats how the constitution and the United States was designed. More power to states, let them make the state how they want it. Let the state be more socialist, and if you don't like it move to a different state. After all we aren't a communal mind, sometimes I don't wanna put money up so the fed can give it to wild-life researchers or bailing out corporations.

---

Arrest that man! Hes making us see rationality in states-rights!

I think the idea is noble but the way McCain make it sounds is that we'd only spend money on war (research, defense), and veterans (whom mccain is). Why are veterans more important then education or healthcare?

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Thrakk

"He said that he would launch military strikes into Pakistan," McCain said of Obama. "Now, you don't do that. You don't say that out loud."

 

LOLOLLOLLOLLOLLLOLLOOLLLLLOOLLLOLLOOLL

 

The point is, that was extremely clumsy diplomacy coming from a guy who claims he is going to usher in a new, better kind of diplomacy. Attacking our allies is not particularly skillful. way of making friends and influencing nations.

The skillful way to do that is, through a back channel you let them know that you are bombing an area, you do it, let them denounce it, then either deny it or apologize. that's the smarter way to handle such things, rather than outright saying on television that you would violate the sovereign territory of an ally.

It was an immature, noobish thing to say, an Hillary rightly called him on it when he said it.

yeah the more diplomatic thing would to be hide the truth lol

he didnt say attack the allies... he said attack al qaeda if they are in pakistan DUH

Originally posted by Midnitte

 

---

Originally posted by CleffyII
I like the idea of the spending freeze. Infact, I like the idea of making that idea permanent. Imagine it, a federal government who only finances the necessity; thats trillions of dollars. We can pay off the debt in only a couple of years, then afterwords decrease taxes to below 10%. Leave all the rest of the stuff the fed handles to the state. Thats how the constitution and the United States was designed. More power to states, let them make the state how they want it. Let the state be more socialist, and if you don't like it move to a different state. After all we aren't a communal mind, sometimes I don't wanna put money up so the fed can give it to wild-life researchers or bailing out corporations.

---

 

Arrest that man! Hes making us see rationality in states-rights!

I think the idea is noble but the way McCain make it sounds is that we'd only spend money on war (research, defense), and veterans (whom mccain is). Why are veterans more important then education or healthcare?

Veterans vote... Kids dont.

Veteran translates into soldier whcih further translates into support our troops.

Originally posted by Thrakk

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Thrakk

"He said that he would launch military strikes into Pakistan," McCain said of Obama. "Now, you don't do that. You don't say that out loud."

 

LOLOLLOLLOLLOLLLOLLOOLLLLLOOLLLOLLOOLL

 

The point is, that was extremely clumsy diplomacy coming from a guy who claims he is going to usher in a new, better kind of diplomacy. Attacking our allies is not particularly skillful. way of making friends and influencing nations.

The skillful way to do that is, through a back channel you let them know that you are bombing an area, you do it, let them denounce it, then either deny it or apologize. that's the smarter way to handle such things, rather than outright saying on television that you would violate the sovereign territory of an ally.

It was an immature, noobish thing to say, an Hillary rightly called him on it when he said it.

 

yeah the more diplomatic thing would to be hide the truth lol

he didnt say attack the allies... he said attack al qaeda if they are in pakistan DUH

I know that, but it would involve violating their territory. VERY bad diplomacy, Sometimes good diplomacy requires doing things with some subtlety. I didn't say hide the truth, I said inform them quietly. That's what back channel means. Obama doesn't understand that, because he is simply uneducated in history or diplomacy.

Originally posted by Midnitte

 

---

Originally posted by CleffyII
I like the idea of the spending freeze. Infact, I like the idea of making that idea permanent. Imagine it, a federal government who only finances the necessity; thats trillions of dollars. We can pay off the debt in only a couple of years, then afterwords decrease taxes to below 10%. Leave all the rest of the stuff the fed handles to the state. Thats how the constitution and the United States was designed. More power to states, let them make the state how they want it. Let the state be more socialist, and if you don't like it move to a different state. After all we aren't a communal mind, sometimes I don't wanna put money up so the fed can give it to wild-life researchers or bailing out corporations.

---

 

Arrest that man! Hes making us see rationality in states-rights!

I think the idea is noble but the way McCain make it sounds is that we'd only spend money on war (research, defense), and veterans (whom mccain is). Why are veterans more important then education or healthcare?

It's not really about what is more important -- it's what is authorized by our constitution. The military is. There is no authorization for education or health care in the constitution. Only by stretching the "necessary and proper clause," the "interstate commerce clause" and the "promote the general welfare" line (not even a clause really) well beyond the enumerated powers of our federal  government -- which the constitution explicitly prohibits -- did we ever get this miasma of social spending.

Now of course neither McCain or Obama even give a damn about anything like the Constitution; but that's a good general reason why the federal government shouldn't be involved in education or healthcare.

Now personally, aside from the constitution argument; I feel it speaks to self ownership. The government eventually takes over what it pays for and takes care of -- and education is the human mind, and health care is the human body.

If we want control of our own minds and bodies it is best if we do not give them up to the government. Everything we give to the government is a loss of liberty for ourselves.

yeah, McCain is sore because he didnt mention it first.

Obama said nothing about disrupting relationships with pakistan. you incorrectly inferred this. He said that if Bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan than he will have to disrupt relationships by moving soliders in... and I dont blame him.

Originally posted by Thrakk

yeah, McCain is sore because he didnt mention it first.

Obama said nothing about disrupting relationships with pakistan. you incorrectly inferred this. He said that if Bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan than he will have to disrupt relationships by moving soliders in... and I dont blame him.

You mean, Hillary Clinton incorrectly inferred this. In this case, Senator McCain and I agree with her, and not with you on this matter.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Thrakk

yeah, McCain is sore because he didnt mention it first.

Obama said nothing about disrupting relationships with pakistan. you incorrectly inferred this. He said that if Bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan than he will have to disrupt relationships by moving soliders in... and I dont blame him.

 

You mean, Hillary Clinton incorrectly inferred this. In this case, Senator McCain and I agree with her, and not with you on this matter.

senator mccain thinks terrorists should have table talk before we mess with them?

Originally posted by Fishermage 

 Obama doesn't understand that, because he is simply uneducated in history or diplomacy.

While this may be true, he certainly is more educated than the President that we have right now.  You know, that guy the Republicans have voted for twice in the last 8 years.

And the VP nominee Mrs. Sarah Palin isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, at least Biden and Obama are intellectuals. Honestly, can you imagine her being the President of the Senate? I can't. Well I couldn't imagine penguin-man Dick Cheney being it either but that's a whole other story.

Originally posted by Thrakk

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Thrakk

yeah, McCain is sore because he didnt mention it first.

Obama said nothing about disrupting relationships with pakistan. you incorrectly inferred this. He said that if Bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan than he will have to disrupt relationships by moving soliders in... and I dont blame him.

 

You mean, Hillary Clinton incorrectly inferred this. In this case, Senator McCain and I agree with her, and not with you on this matter.

senator mccain thinks terrorists should have table talk before we mess with them?

Not sure what you are talking about.