Rhetoric vs. fact and action

[donttread]

IMO, we will never solve our problems here in America until the people assume their responsibility to judge parties and politicians not on what the claim to believe in or what they say they'll do. But rather judge them based upon facts and actions

Judged in this way there is very little difference between the Bush and Obama years. Both made war, bailed out the mega rich, spied on us and took due process rights from us. Both continued to federalize key services such as education ( Bush) and healthcare ( Obama). Each set debt and spending records pretty much every year of their term.
Both threaten us with "shattering the world economy" every time we don't want to do what they want to do with OUR money. I could go on but you get the point.
For those who wish to debate please use facts and actions instead of party platform and blame the other guy for my actions bullshit

[Kurmugeon]

There is much truth in this OP.

I would add, that another form of "Party Platform" is using the race-card to deflect any and all criticism.

It really is possible to be opposed to Obama, not because of his race, but because of his statements, actions and outcomes.

-

[Refugee]

Can't argue with that. Some call it the NWO but that sounds a bit conspiracy based, so we'll use the term statist?

[Peter1469]

The establishment of both parties have the same goal: ever increasing power in the federal government.

[donttread]

The establishment of both parties have the same goal: ever increasing power in the federal government.

Agreed but can we really still call them "two parties"?

[Peter1469]

Agreed but can we really still call them "two parties"?

They really are not.

[Kurmugeon]

Agreed but can we really still call them "two parties"?

Yes. They have common goals, like preserving their own power and privilege, expanding government, and protecting the wealthy at the expense of the "Was-Middle-Class".

But there are significant differences too.

The Democrats practice racial hyper awareness, racial prejudgement, racial preference, and racial pandering.

Some Republicans have gotten into the Democrats act, but most prefer to at least aim for race-blindness.

Currently this is the single largest difference between the two parties.

But there are others;

Republicans get many of their values from Religious upbringing and education, Democrats largely do not.

Republicans tend to attempt to preserve the status-quo, even when it is dysfunctional, and has been for years. They don't like change, any change.

The Republicans are more tolerant, the Democrats are more vindictive. The TEA Patriots could never exist as a sub-group within the Democratic Party.

The Republicans tend to respect the LAW, the Democrats pick and choose to sneer at many LAWs, while twisting the purpose of others.

Democrats tend to give great fanfare to "Diversity", all the while using it for a means of exclusion. Republicans tend to unconsciously practice inclusion, even when it would be wiser to pursue exclusion.

Democrats tend to rebel against Traditions, regardless of their value. Republicans tend to observe Traditions, even when they have lost their purpose or meaning.

Today's Democrats make a fanfare of defending people's Rights, while violating them. Republicans seem timid to even acknowledge that we have guaranteed Constitutional rights, much less defend them.

These are just a few examples.


IMHO, there ARE significant differences between the parties.

-

[donttread]

Yes. They have common goals, like preserving their own power and privilege, expanding government, and protecting the wealthy at the expense of the "Was-Middle-Class".

But there are significant differences too.

The Democrats practice racial hyper awareness, racial prejudgement, racial preference, and racial pandering.

Some Republicans have gotten into the Democrats act, but most prefer to at least aim for race-blindness.

Currently this is the single largest difference between the two parties.

But there are others;

Republicans get many of their values from Religious upbringing and education, Democrats largely do not.

Republicans tend to attempt to preserve the status-quo, even when it is dysfunctional, and has been for years. They don't like change, any change.

The Republicans are more tolerant, the Democrats are more vindictive. The TEA Patriots could never exist as a sub-group within the Democratic Party.

The Republicans tend to respect the LAW, the Democrats pick and choose to sneer at many LAWs, while twisting the purpose of others.

Democrats tend to give great fanfare to "Diversity", all the while using it for a means of exclusion. Republicans tend to unconsciously practice inclusion, even when it would be wiser to pursue exclusion.

Democrats tend to rebel against Traditions, regardless of their value. Republicans tend to observe Traditions, even when they have lost their purpose or meaning.

Today's Democrats make a fanfare of defending people's Rights, while violating them. Republicans seem timid to even acknowledge that we have guaranteed Constitutional rights, much less defend them.

These are just a few examples.


IMHO, there ARE significant differences between the parties.

-

Those seem mostly related to rhetoric and platform. Where are the differences in actual action or "accomplishment"?

[Peter1469]

Right, the dems and gop pander to different groups, but the results of their policies tend to do the same think. Grow government and screw the middle class.

[Kurmugeon]

Those seem mostly related to rhetoric and platform. Where are the differences in actual action or "accomplishment"?

I can back up every statement I made with specific example of actions and outcomes, on both sides.

But right now, I have to go to work.

[Chris]

Face it, the only thing that motivates most politicians is getting elected to power. They will say and do anything for to keep if not gain more power. And we all know power is corrupting.

[donttread]

Face it, the only thing that motivates most politicians is getting elected to power. They will say and do anything for to keep if not gain more power. And we all know power is corrupting.


We are literally governed by addicts and wonder why it fails so miserably

[Peter1469]

We are literally governed by addicts and wonder why it fails so miserably


We are governed by us. Say a magic spell and make government "poof" go away; we will soon be back in the same boat- governed by us.

[donttread]

We are governed by us. Say a magic spell and make government "poof" go away; we will soon be back in the same boat- governed by us.

Those people in power aren't anything like "us". Those days are gone and need to be re-established. How many of our "leaders" ever wondered where next month's rent was going to come from? How many of them have ever even rented the place they lived in?

[Mac-7]

We are governed by us. Say a magic spell and make government "poof" go away; we will soon be back in the same boat- governed by us.


48% vote for the democrats want to enact policies that hurt America, while 47% vote for repubs who want smaller government, and the rest vote for some 3rd party guy with no chance to win.

and you blame all our problems on the 47%?

[Peter1469]

48% vote for the democrats who want to enact policies that hurt America, while 47% vote for repubs who want smaller government, and the rest vote for some 3rd party guy with no chance to win.

and you blame all our problems on the 47%?

I blame our problems on us.

And don't piss on my leg and tell me it is raining. The GOP hasn't run of a smaller government is decades.

[Chris]

We are literally governed by addicts and wonder why it fails so miserably

Exactly. Addicted to wealth, addicted to power.

[Chris]

We are governed by us. Say a magic spell and make government "poof" go away; we will soon be back in the same boat- governed by us.


It's belief in magic what gave us government. Reality is it doesn't work.

[Mac-7]

I blame our problems on us.

And don't piss on my leg and tell me it is raining. The GOP hasn't run of a smaller government is decades.

Probably because idealists piss on their own leg by running away from the GOP rather than hanging in there and fighting for what they believe.

[Peter1469]

It's belief in magic what gave us government. Reality is it doesn't work.

How odd. Government naturally occurs.

[Peter1469]

Probably because idealists piss on their own leg by running away from the GOP rather than hanging in there and fighting for what they believe.

Run away? It looks to me like the GOP ran away from me. I am a rock. It moved hard left and statist. Are you with them?

[Captain Obvious]

Probably because idealists piss on their own leg by running away from the GOP rather than hanging in there and fighting for what they believe.

The GOP abandoned fiscal conservatives for social conservatism far too much.

[Mac-7]

Run away? It looks to me like the GOP ran away from me. I am a rock. It moved hard left and statist. Are you with them?

I agree that the GOP is drifting left.

and part of the reason is people like you who just sit in the sidelines and cry in your craft beer.

[PolWatch]

I can make my own moral decisions...I don't need a politician to tell me how to live my life. I would appreciate a little help with the economy thingy...but it doesn't look like anyone is too interested in that subject...except for the tax payers.

[Mac-7]

The GOP abandoned fiscal conservatives for social conservatism far too much.

The fact is that anything-goes libertarians care more about perverted sex than fiscal conservatism.

[Captain Obvious]

The fact is that anything-goes libertarians care more about perverted sex than fiscal conservatism.

Point made, thanks.

[PolWatch]

yeap...that is exactly what I look for in a candidate...perversions...would you ask your fav candidates to fill out a score card for us?

[Mac-7]

Point made, thanks.

No point that helps you.

the GOP contains fiscal and moral conservatism but libertines walk away unless they can have their way on the socialist issues.

[Chris]

I can make my own moral decisions...I don't need a politician to tell me how to live my life. I would appreciate a little help with the economy thingy...but it doesn't look like anyone is too interested in that subject...except for the tax payers.

Best approach for the economy thingy is the same for the moral thingie, hands off.

[donttread]

The GOP abandoned fiscal conservatives for social conservatism far too much.

Right and they are no less big government than the dems.

[donttread]

The fact is that anything-goes libertarians care more about perverted sex than fiscal conservatism.

WTF Batman?

[Refugee]

I think America is now at the stage where the UK was at maybe twenty years ago. You’re suddenly discovering that whoever you vote for, nothing changes. The Democrats (UK Labour) see things as they should be and when reminded they’re not you become a RWNJ. The Republicans (UK Conservatives) tell you things are indeed bleak, but when they get in power, it just carries on as usual. That’s because both parties are progressive in that they have the same agenda carried out in different ways.

I think we all agree that Obama is subsidising the large corporations and that the rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer. Who still thinks that if/when the Republicans get power this will change? Progressivism is about Stateism, large controlling governents, with ‘experts’ and ‘Czars’ leading populations. If you look to Europe, you’ll see exactly where it’s all heading – a monstrous bureacracy that regulates every aspect of your daily lives; from what you should eat to how many hours you’re legally allowed to work.

My favourite, but that changes with new regulations and dictates:
“The proposed new regulations says stylists must wear ‘non-slip soles’ and are also banned from doing too many haircuts in one day to prevent ‘emotional collapses’. Hairdressers are also told to have regular ‘social dialogue’ to encourage ‘mental wellbeing’ in the workplace.”

For this minefield of bureacracy, the UK pays the EU 50m GBP ($ U.S. 80m a day!).

Read what a country’s businesses under progressivism looks like. Unless stopped, this is what America will be like in twenty years time.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/the-bizarre-eu-laws-strangling-britain-s-businesses-161751355.html (https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/the-bizarre-eu-laws-strangling-britain-s-businesses-161751355.html)

“And it’s still coming. According to House of Commons research, the government estimates that half of all UK legislation with a “significant economic impact” originates from the EU.
To keep up-to-date, Business for Britain reckons business people need to spend nearly an hour each Monday catching up on all the new European legislation brought in the previous week – or pay other people to do so.”

[Chris]

I think America is now at the stage where the UK was at maybe twenty years ago. You’re suddenly discovering that whoever you vote for, nothing changes. The Democrats (UK Labour) see things as they should be and when reminded they’re not you become a RWNJ. The Republicans (UK Conservatives) tell you things are indeed bleak, but when they get in power, it just carries on as usual. That’s because both parties are progressive in that they have the same agenda carried out in different ways.

I think we all agree that Obama is subsidising the large corporations and that the rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer. Who still thinks that if/when the Republicans get power this will change? Progressivism is about Stateism, large controlling governents, with ‘experts’ and ‘Czars’ leading populations. If you look to Europe, you’ll see exactly where it’s all heading – a monstrous bureacracy that regulates every aspect of your daily lives; from what you should eat to how many hours you’re legally allowed to work.

My favourite, but that changes with new regulations and dictates:
“The proposed new regulations says stylists must wear ‘non-slip soles’ and are also banned from doing too many haircuts in one day to prevent ‘emotional collapses’. Hairdressers are also told to have regular ‘social dialogue’ to encourage ‘mental wellbeing’ in the workplace.”

For this minefield of bureacracy, the UK pays the EU 50m GBP ($ U.S. 80m a day!).

Read what a country’s businesses under progressivism looks like. Unless stopped, this is what America will be like in twenty years time.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/the-bizarre-eu-laws-strangling-britain-s-businesses-161751355.html (https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/the-bizarre-eu-laws-strangling-britain-s-businesses-161751355.html)

“And it’s still coming. According to House of Commons research, the government estimates that half of all UK legislation with a “significant economic impact” originates from the EU.
To keep up-to-date, Business for Britain reckons business people need to spend nearly an hour each Monday catching up on all the new European legislation brought in the previous week – or pay other people to do so.”


And you all's not in 20 years finding a way out of this whoever you vote for, nothing changes conundrum instills a great deal of hope!

[Chris]

The fact is that anything-goes libertarians care more about perverted sex than fiscal conservatism.

What hole did you pull that nonsense out of? Same mistake Russell Kirk made confusing libertines and libertarians. Forever to be repeated.

[Mac-7]

What hole did you pull that nonsense out of? Same mistake Russell Kirk made confusing libertines and libertarians. Forever to be repeated.

Libertarians never tire of telling us its the social issues that turn them off about the GOP.

[del]

48% vote for the democrats want to enact policies that hurt America, while 47% vote for repubs who want smaller government, and the rest vote for some 3rd party guy with no chance to win.

and you blame all our problems on the 47%?

republicans want smaller government like kim kardashian wants to be left alone.

i can't believe that after 8 years of bush some people still think the gop wants small govt.

that's some funny shit right there

thanks for the laughs

[Chris]

Libertarians never tire of telling us its the social issues that turn them off about the GOP.

I would say libertarians share most social values with conservatives. The difference lies in this: Social cons want to coerce morality, libertarians believe to be moral you must be free to choose.

[Mac-7]

republicans want smaller government like kim kardashian wants to be left alone.

i can't believe that after 8 years of bush some people still think the gop wants small govt.

that's some funny $#@! right there

thanks for the laughs

I am the GOP and I assure you I want smaller government.

[Mac-7]

I would say libertarians share most social values with conservatives. The difference lies in this: Social cons want to coerce morality, libertarians believe to be moral you must be free to choose.

Free to choose within reason.

But social ex-cons want an America where anything goes.

[del]

I am the GOP and I assure you I want smaller government.

if you're the gop, i suggest you get rid of that asshat, rance shortbus

he's not helping

[Captain Obvious]

I am the GOP

... and I want to know everything that goes on in every bedroom in the nation.

Yes, you are the GOP - and the reason true conservatives are abandoning it en masse.

[Mac-7]

if you're the gop, i suggest you get rid of that asshat, rance shortbus

he's not helping

Is there anything specific you don't like about him?

[Chris]

Free to choose within reason.

But social ex-cons want an America where anything goes.

Whose reasoning? So, no, people must be absolutely free to choose if they're going to be moral. Command theories of morality don't cut it. You end up "moral" for the wrong reasons.

[Mac-7]

Whose reasoning? .

The people's reasoning.

The collective wisdom of 4,000 years that has served society well.

certainly not a mere handful of unelected lib judges.

[Mac-7]

... and I want to know everything that goes on in every bedroom in the nation.



You are about 20 years out of date.

its been at least that long since homosexuals told the lie that all they wanted was to be free to do disgusting things in the privacy of their bedroom.

[Chris]

The people's reasoning.

The collective wisdom of 4,000 years that has served society well.

certainly not a mere handful of unelected lib judges.


Good, now you're agreeing with me, let the people, in society, decide, not a few judges, lib or con, or a few legislators, lib or con.

[donttread]

You are about 20 years out of date.

its been at least that long since homosexuals told the lie that all they wanted was to be free to do disgusting things in the privacy of their bedroom.

Me I just want to get SOMETHING going on in my own bedroom!

[Mac-7]

Good, now you're agreeing with me, let the people, in society, decide, not a few judges, lib or con, or a few legislators, lib or con.

Some decisions must be made by society that apply to all.

the age of consent for children, abortion and gay marriage are some of those issues.

you want the smallest possible group to decide - unelected federal judges who speak for no one except themselves - and I want the people to make the decision.

[Chris]

Some decisions must be made by society that apply to all.

the age of consent for children, abortion and gay marriage are some of issues.

you want the smallest possible group to decide - unelected federal judges who speak for no one except themselves - and I want the people to make the decision.


Nice try at reversing where we started this disagreement. If you go back in this thread you will see I was the one arguing all along that society needs to decide this and any social issue, not government. It was you argued government should decide. Now you're arguing what I've been arguing and trying to tell me I'm arguing what you've been arguing.

Fail.

[Mac-7]

Nice try at reversing where we started this disagreement. If you go back in this thread you will see I was the one arguing all along that society needs to decide this and any social issue, not government. It was you argued government should decide. Now you're arguing what I've been arguing and trying to tell me I'm arguing what you've been arguing.

Fail.

I really don't follow you.

We do have a government that passes laws which all of us have to follow.

That's reality.

The age of consent is a political decision.

Unelected liberal judges can't (or at least shouldn't) revoke those laws and allow individual children of any age to act as adults.

[Chris]

I really don't follow you.

We do have a government that passes laws which all of us have to follow.

That's reality.

The age of consent is a political decision.

Unelected liberal judges can't (or at least shouldn't) revoke those laws and allow individual children of any age to act as adults.


OK, so now you've flipflopped again back to arguing a few in government should decide social issues and not the people.


Where do people get this weird idea that they are right simply because they call what they say reality? Your legal positivism is a theory of law, not a reality.

[Mac-7]

OK, so now you've flipflopped again back to arguing a few in government should decide social issues and not the people.

Its not a few in government.

its the American people making their wishes known through direct ballots on voter referendums on gay marriage for instance where traditional marriage almost always wins.

only to be overturned by an autocratic unelected judge.

[Chris]

Its not a few in government.

its the American people making their wishes known through direct ballots on voter referendums on gay marriage for instance where traditional marriage almost always wins.

only to be overturned by an autocratic unelected judge.

Millions of Americans, 100s in government making laws. That's a few.

Can you show me where the Constitution grants government the power to meddle in social issues like marriage? You cannot. Why? The people long ago agreed to limit government.

[del]

Some decisions must be made by society that apply to all.

the age of consent for children, abortion and gay marriage are some of those issues.

you want the smallest possible group to decide - unelected federal judges who speak for no one except themselves - and I want the people to make the decision.

can you read?

[Mac-7]

Millions of Americans, 100s in government making laws. That's a few.

Can you show me where the Constitution grants government the power to meddle in social issues like marriage? You cannot. Why? The people long ago agreed to limit government.

Government does meddle as you call it.

But others would call laws against armed robbery necessary rather than meddling.

[Chris]

Government does meddle as you call it.

But others would call laws against armed robbery necessary rather than meddling.


Most societies in most cultures would condemn murder and theft and fraud as morally wrong. Those are no longer social issues, if they ever were. Social issues are those for which society has not reached moral conclusions. It is those government has no business meddling in.

[Chris]

can you read?

Mac's got an agenda.

[Mac-7]

Most societies in most cultures would condemn murder and theft and fraud as morally wrong. Those are no longer social issues, if they ever were. Social issues are those for which society has not reached moral conclusions. It is those government has no business meddling in.

Most people in America when given a chance to vote condemn homosexuality as morally wrong and socially undesirable.

[Chris]

Most people in America when given a chance to vote condemn homosexuality as morally wrong and socially undesirable.

Incorrect. Polls show a strong trend toward acceptance.

[Mac-7]

Incorrect. Polls show a strong trend toward acceptance.

The laws against gay marriage were almost all passed by a majority of the voters.

[Captain Obvious]

Incorrect. Polls show a strong trend toward acceptance.

Agreed.

And studies suggested that acceptance toward homosexuality was more widespread for a while now and that peer pressure caused many to keep their acceptance hidden.

Once a few started admitting that they really don't have a problem with gays the acceptance ratings snowballed.

...ahem, no pun... intended

[Mac-7]

Agreed.

And studies suggested that acceptance toward homosexuality was more widespread for a while now and that peer pressure caused many to keep their acceptance hidden.

Once a few started admitting that they really don't have a problem with gays the acceptance ratings snowballed.

...ahem, no pun... intended

The laws being overturned by the unelected judges were passed by real people not lib biased opinion polls.

[Chris]

The laws against gay marriage were almost all passed by a majority of the voters.

Morality isn't determined by popular vote.

[Captain Obvious]

Morality isn't determined by popular vote.

Yes, but he's grasping at straws.

Have pity.

[Mac-7]

Morality isn't determined by popular vote.

Morality is deflected by the popular vote.

but if the m-word bothers you just call it acceptable standards of conduct.

[PolWatch]

Laws passed by a few are ok if they agree with Mac...otherwise, they are bad, bad, bad. If you are old enough to pick a partner, don't you think you should be the one to decide who that partner should be? Or perhaps you think that government should be in charge of matchmaking...you can only marry the person that your local politicians tell you to marry. Sorry if you want to marry person #1, you have to marry person #2.

[Chris]

Morality is deflected by the popular vote.

but if the m-word bothers you just call it acceptable standards of conduct.


Interesting choice of words, "deflected."


Why are you against morality?

[Mac-7]

Laws passed by a few are ok if they agree with Mac...otherwise, they are bad, bad, bad. If you are old enough to pick a partner, don't you think you should be the one to decide who that partner should be? Or perhaps you think that government should be in charge of matchmaking...you can only marry the person that your local politicians tell you to marry. Sorry if you want to marry person #1, you have to marry person #2.

These are laws passed by a majority of the people.

libs could not win except by the unelected autocratic judges.

[Mac-7]

Interesting choice of words, "deflected."


Why are you against morality?

Typo.

the correct word was "reflected."

[Captain Obvious]

These are laws passed by a majority of the people.

libs could not win except by the unelected autocratic judges.

Do you have a string that gets pulled and then you blurt out one of three phrases randomly?

[del]

Do you have a string that gets pulled and then you blurt out one of three phrases randomly?

dude, it's the 21st century

he's got a touch pad

[Mac-7]

Do you have a string that gets pulled and then you blurt out one of three phrases randomly?

you're speechless except for the childish personal insults.

[Captain Obvious]

dude, it's the 21st century

he's got a touch pad

Yeah, but the rhetoric is circa Seattle grunge

[donttread]

Morality isn't determined by popular vote.

How did this become another gay marriage discussion?

[Chris]

How did this become another gay marriage discussion?

Mac has an agenda to push.

[Mac-7]

Mac has an agenda to push.

No less than you or the libs on this board who want to legalized homosexual perversion.

[Chris]

No less than you or the libs on this board who want to legalized homosexual perversion.

Point was, mac, your agenda on gays was not the topic.

Also, you once again wholly mistake libertarians if you think we want to "legalize" anything. Remember, I've been arguing throughout this thread generally that government has no business meddling in social issues. Even on a legal level it doesn't--do you forget I asked you where the Constitution grants government such power?

[Mac-7]

Point was, mac, your agenda on gays was not the topic.



I didn't introduce social issues to this topic.

one of your lib buddies, Captain Obvious, did that in post #22.

[Chris]

The GOP abandoned fiscal conservatives for social conservatism far too much.


I didn't introduce social issues to this topic.

one of your lib buddies, Captain Obvious, did that in post #22.


That concerned general political philosophy in the division of modern conservatives. You're the one trying to change the topic to gay marriage.

[Mac-7]

That concerned general political philosophy in the division of modern conservatives. You're the one trying to change the topic to gay marriage.

I'll bet even you have scolded the repubs for not abandoning the socials issues.

How many times have you accused them of "pandering" to social conservatives?

more than once I suspect.

[Mac-7]

Mac has an agenda to push.

The bottom line for you and the self described libertarians on this board is that you talk a lot about fiscal conservatism but in the end will give all that up for gay marriage and the other social issue.

Social issues are what you care most about and will never cooperate with repubs as long as they don't share your views on gay marriage.

[Chris]

The bottom line for you and the self described libertarians on this board is that you talk a lot about fiscal conservatism but in the end will give all that up for gay marriage and the other social issue.

Social issues are what you care most about and will never cooperate with repubs as long as they don't share your views on gay marriage.


Can you tell me more about what libertarians like me think, mac? I do enjoy your unimaginative strawmen.

[Captain Obvious]

Can you tell me more about what libertarians like me think, mac? I do enjoy your unimaginative strawmen.

In fairness you do the exact same thing.

I'm pointing this out constructively in hopes that you identify and recognize it the next time you do.

[Mac-7]

Can you tell me more about what libertarians like me think, mac? I do enjoy your unimaginative strawmen.

I have already told you what I think you think.

btw: have you ever scolded the repubs over the social issues?

i bet you have.

[PolWatch]

Social issues serve as a bellwether for people concerned about excessive government control. If a political party is willing to interfere in personal, private areas of individuals' lives, I think it is a good indication of their attitude toward all government involvement/control. Personally, I like to make my own decisions rather than have big brother telling me what to do all the time.

Bellwether:
In politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics), the term is more often applied in the passive sense to describe a geographic region where political tendencies match in microcosm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrocosm_and_microcosm) those of a wider area, such that the result of an election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election) in the former region might predict the eventual result in the latter. from Wiki

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Mac-7 http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=796691#post796691)
The bottom line for you and the self described libertarians on this board is that you talk a lot about fiscal conservatism but in the end will give all that up for gay marriage and the other social issue.

Social issues are what you care most about and will never cooperate with repubs as long as they don't share your views on gay marriage.


Can you tell me more about what libertarians like me think, mac? I do enjoy your unimaginative strawmen.

I personally voted in California in favor of the homosexual community having civil unions. That gave them the rights contained in heterosexual marriage. When we voted pro or con to put into the constitution, marriage is between a man and woman, I voted for that. We did not change civil unions. I did not want homosexuals to not get equal treatment.

But the bastards.

They came after the legal term marriage. Some of them predicted to me they planned to change the entire country so when you said wife, it might be a man or a woman. This confuses marriages. It deny's children the sanctity and comfort of a male parent with the female parent. It looks like the USA is totally confused.

I saw during my life many changes. I like the technology changes. I see no need for homosexuals to steal the term marriage and pretend they are just regular. Why don't they admit they are not normal?

I am thinking how cheap marriage has become where a divorce is actually expected. This ties courts up in knots due to children. The major issue in divorce is children. Some fathers don't want the daily duty of child care but a lot of us love our kids and loved caring for them. I had two divorces. Both were very hard on me. It cost me a lot in my first divorce and for several years it felt like two lawyers were in charge of my life. My kids suffered for it. I did my best to not speak ill of either ex wife. I did not want the children to get a grudge caused by my acts. I felt it was more important that my kids felt good about two parents. Some parents get so pissed off they forget the kids also suffer.

/rant

[Mac-7]

I personally voted in California in favor of the homosexual community having civil unions. That gave them the rights contained in heterosexual marriage. When we voted pro or con to put into the constitution, marriage is between a man and woman, I voted for that. We did not change civil unions. I did not want homosexuals to not get equal treatment.

But the bastards.

They came after the legal term marriage. Some of them predicted to me they planned to change the entire country so when you said wife, it might be a man or a woman. This confuses marriages. It deny's children the sanctity and comfort of a male parent with the female parent. It looks like the USA is totally confused.

I saw during my life many changes. I like the technology changes. I see no need for homosexuals to steal the term marriage and pretend they are just regular. Why don't they admit they are not normal?

I am thinking how cheap marriage has become where a divorce is actually expected. This ties courts up in knots due to children. The major issue in divorce is children. Some fathers don't want the daily duty of child care but a lot of us love our kids and loved caring for them. I had two divorces. Both were very hard on me. It cost me a lot in my first divorce and for several years it felt like two lawyers were in charge of my life. My kids suffered for it. I did my best to not speak ill of either ex wife. I did not want the children to get a grudge caused by my acts. I felt it was more important that my kids felt good about two parents. Some parents get so pissed off they forget the kids also suffer.

/rant


I'm thinking about the next lib assault on society when they get bored with gay marriage.

probably legalizing sex with animals or dropping the age of consent for children so that homosexuals can legally frolic in bed with little boys.

[Captain Obvious]

probably legalizing sex with animals or dropping the age of consent for children so that homosexuals can legally frolic in bed with little boys.

Now that's something the Catholic Church would probably support.

:biglaugh:

[PolWatch]

Now that's something the Catholic Church would probably support.

:biglaugh:

hope you have a helmet & flack jacket on...the in-coming is gonna hurt...

[Captain Obvious]

hope you have a helmet & flack jacket on...the in-coming is gonna hurt...

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/9c/9c415d899fc1d04bac9ae5a3439f44fca4221983a19d7d0dbc df8879e9fd2d69.jpg

[Chris]

I have already told you what I think you think.

btw: have you ever scolded the repubs over the social issues?

i bet you have.


Scold? :)

[Mac-7]

Now that's something the Catholic Church would probably support.

:biglaugh:

Actually it's the non Catholic North American Man Boy Love Association - homosexuals - who are pushing the idea.

[PolWatch]

gee, never heard of that organization...you seem to be well informed on the subject.

[Mac-7]

gee, never heard of that organization...you seem to be well informed on the subject.

Its called know your enemy.

which may explain why you claim no knowledge of them.

[Chris]

Its called know your enemy.

which may explain why you claim no knowledge of them.

Best way to know your enemy is to ask him what he thinks rather than tell him what you think he thinks.

[Mac-7]

Best way to know your enemy is to ask him what he thinks rather than tell him what you think he thinks.

If PolWatch has never heard of NAMBLA as he claims then he is in over his head on this board.

[Chris]

If PolWatch has never heard of NAMBLA as he claims then he is in over his head on this board.

Polwatch is a she. Now if you got that wrong, I guarantee you got the rest wrong.

[Chris]

In fairness you do the exact same thing.

I'm pointing this out constructively in hopes that you identify and recognize it the next time you do.


Yea, nice strawman there, cap. :D Vague hand waving accusations generally are.

[PolWatch]

Polwatch is a she. Now if you got that wrong, I guarantee you got the rest wrong.

and I thought my avatar was such a good disguise!

[Mac-7]

Polwatch is a she.

I have never heard IT say what IT is.

And even then who knows if IT is telling the truth.

[PolWatch]

that's Cousin ITT to you

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608029883238253028&pid=15.1&P=0

[Mac-7]

that's Cousin ITT to you

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608029883238253028&pid=15.1&P=0


If you want to call yourself a female you don't need my permission.

this is the era of anything goes.

[Chris]

and I thought my avatar was such a good disguise!

Now if your avatar was Jane Hathaway...

[Chris]

I have never heard IT say what IT is.

And even then who knows if IT is telling the truth.

Like you? Polwatch has a great sense of humor, but you're asking for IT, and she's just the to give IT to you. :slap:

[Captain Obvious]

Yea, nice strawman there, cap. :D Vague hand waving accusations generally are.

I figured it was futile to point that out to you, oh well.

[Mac-7]

Like you? Polwatch has a great sense of humor, but you're asking for IT, and she's just the to give IT to you. :slap:


Thanks.

i wont say you didn't warn me but I think I'm safe.

because I haven't done anything him or her.

[Chris]

I figured it was futile to point that out to you, oh well.

You didn't point out anything, cap, as per usual, you made a vague general accusation. Tell you what, point out my next strawman, where I, like mac, despite being corrected several times, continue to insist I know better than you what you think. Thanks in advance.

[Captain Obvious]

You didn't point out anything, cap, as per usual, you made a vague general accusation. Tell you what, point out my next strawman, where I, like mac, despite being corrected several times, continue to insist I know better than you what you think. Thanks in advance.

I do every time you pull those stunts.

:biglaugh:

Forget it then.

[Mac-7]

You didn't point out anything, cap, as per usual, you made a vague general accusation. Tell you what, point out my next strawman, where I, like mac, despite being corrected several times, continue to insist I know better than you what you think. Thanks in advance.

Mac?


What did I do except think for myself instead of agreeing with you?

[Chris]

Mac?


What did I do except think for myself instead of agreeing with you?


You tell me what I think and keep doing it after I correct you. Don't worry, it gets to be fun to see what you'll make up next.

[Captain Obvious]

Mac?


What did I do except think for myself instead of agreeing with you?

You'll see this if you already haven't.

Chris will tell you what you said, how you think and what you're arguing regardless of what you actually said, think or argued - or didn't.

He likes creating his own little world where he's in control. That's why he sticks to definitions and theories and will avoid real time, applications and practices like the fucking plague.

You'll get used to it, everyone does.

[Mac-7]

You tell me what I think and keep doing it after I correct you. Don't worry, it gets to be fun to see what you'll make up next.

We have not exchanged posts since page 8 or 9 so I think you are imagining things.

[Captain Obvious]

We have not exchanged posts since page 8 or 9 so I think you are imagining things.

Most of his dialogue is fiction, this is par for the coarse.

[Chris]

I do every time you pull those stunts.

:biglaugh:

Forget it then.



Send us a postcard from

http://i.snag.gy/oHzim.jpg

[Chris]

We have not exchanged posts since page 8 or 9 so I think you are imagining things.

There you go. You can name the page you told me what I think. But I'm imagining it?

Send us a postcard from where cappy is.

[Mac-7]

There you go. You can name the page you told me what I think. But I'm imagining it?

Send us a postcard from where cappy is.

i did tell you what I think you think.

but you claim I keep repeating it and I haven't.

[Chris]

You two sure do like to argue about arguing.

Boring.