Where's the love. I not hear to say that the Republican are morally superior in today's society.

I'm not implying that the Republicans are in the same groove as Lincoln. But still they freed the slaves , set up black Colleges and the the NAACP.

While the Democrats wiped their slaves, formed the KKK and hindered the civil rights for as long as possible. Democrats are despicable. They promote equal rights only if you view is the same as theirs. They have enslaved the poor for over 50 years, telling them keep voting for us and well keep giving you substandard living. That's not freedom that's enslavement.

All of this and the media of today hails the Democrat party as the greatest party of mankind. What blind sheep.



Even worse if you are a black republican. You are deemed an Uncle Tom by the left. That's the exact opposite of the original meaning.

By far the Republicans are the lessor of 2 evils. Both parties are corrupt beyond any sense of the measure.

Both are so far from the ideals founding fathers and the Constitution.

If men where to have a group where they asked for equal rights in areas they were not equal, it would be called misogyny, and immediately attacked for being anti female. Feminists are not asking for equality, they are asking for advantages. Feminists complain about being oppressed at the top end of the financial spectrum, but they have numerous advantages at the bottom end of the financial spectrum that they call equality. When huge numbers are in poverty (much more than those looking for executive positions), in numerous states women are able to get housing and food stamps, healthcare and welfare, all where men cannot in the same circumstance.

For me to support feminism, I would have to see them pushing for equality in all circumstances, not just "equal for me, fuck you for asking for more".

1) Countries can be ranked according to data, no doubt. However if the data in question is not easily verified and not even coherent (Which was stated in the first source you brought in) and is applied with changing methodologies to generate a ranking. I would tend to call it fishy and probably unusable.

2) Egalitarian -> Characterized by social equality and equal rights for all people. Or were you talking about another definition of egalitarians (I think there are some out there, .... )?
Feel free to elaborate why people who accept others as equal have a distaste in numbers( if you were referring to the most general definition of egalitarians).

√9) I asked 2 scientists and they told me that I should not argue with you any further because you are predicting reality better than others.

People are being killed on both sides of the border. More than 10:1 are not Israeli. Israel can democratically control their fighters. The other people are not so organized. People on both sides suffer while leaders try to score points. Mostly it is non-israeli people suffering though so it is hard to side with Israel on this one. The only solution as many experts have pointed out is a single state solution with people living as equals with equal rights. As long as you try to separate people we will have these outbursts of violence.

Sounds pretty disgusting what happened to him. At the same time, he seems pretty disgusting himself.

He's either a next level troll, or he thinks gays should be executed.

http://www.signorile.com/2009/09/steven-l-anderson-killing-gays-is-not.html
>> ^artician:

So, I went and looked up his other videos. Turns out he wasn't actually joking; the guy is a baptist pastor. Kinda ruins the fun for me, but that's not the important part.
The important part was that I guess the border patrol got sick of the guy, or something. They forced him to stop once and tazed and beat the hell out of him. What's more, the comments on facebook were largely along the lines of "you deserved it because you're a religious asshole", which just makes the problem so much worse when you have that whole "I don't agree with your philosophy, therefore you don't deserve equal rights" ignorance into it.
Here are some of the videos from his negative experience:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL411D86B36B802F1D&feature=pl
cp
Which I guess happened in 2009. Surprised I haven't heard of it before. So sick of this country...

So, I went and looked up his other videos. Turns out he wasn't actually joking; the guy is a baptist pastor. Kinda ruins the fun for me, but that's not the important part.

The important part was that I guess the border patrol got sick of the guy, or something. They forced him to stop once and tazed and beat the hell out of him. What's more, the comments on facebook were largely along the lines of "you deserved it because you're a religious asshole", which just makes the problem so much worse when you have that whole "I don't agree with your philosophy, therefore you don't deserve equal rights" ignorance into it.

Here are some of the videos from his negative experience:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL411D86B36B802F1D&feature=plcp

Which I guess happened in 2009. Surprised I haven't heard of it before. So sick of this country...

There is unrest in the forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas

The trouble with the maples
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade

There is trouble in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the maples scream 'Oppression!'
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
'The oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light'
Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe and saw

Imma print your comment and hang it next to my desk for a few days. Well done lad! Very balanced view indeed!

>> ^VoodooV:

yeah, where's the left wing fringe that wants to take away rights from people?
Left wing fringe = vegans, PETA fanatics who want to give equal rights to pets, and ultra hippies who really do want to live in a bona fide commune.
If I were to guess, The right wing thinks the left wing fringe are mustache twirling villians actively conspiring to bring down america from within. (you know, anyone who doesn't wear a US flag lapel pin) Which is fine, but you need to prove that shit instead of just put baseless accusations out.
calling someone a communist/socialist is a meaningless fear-mongering distraction. if you don't have proof, you've got nothing. And proof isn't "I heard it on fox news"
left wing fringe are stupid and fanatical, but they tend not to be violence-prone or take away rights.

yeah, where's the left wing fringe that wants to take away rights from people?

Left wing fringe = vegans, PETA fanatics who want to give equal rights to pets, and ultra hippies who really do want to live in a bona fide commune.

If I were to guess, The right wing thinks the left wing fringe are mustache twirling villians actively conspiring to bring down america from within. (you know, anyone who doesn't wear a US flag lapel pin) Which is fine, but you need to prove that shit instead of just put baseless accusations out.

calling someone a communist/socialist is a meaningless fear-mongering distraction. if you don't have proof, you've got nothing. And proof isn't "I heard it on fox news"

left wing fringe are stupid and fanatical, but they tend not to be violence-prone or take away rights.

An interesting discussion on both sides. I am in no way an Obama apologist [dft is not either], but I have to take exception to one statement.

@NobleOne: "I don't vote for the lesser evil."
Does that mean that you are okay with the Greater evil winning?

We already know that the GOP is using every dirty trick in the book; voter suppression, voter disenfranchisement, voter registration fraud, and downright voter fraud. If the election is even close they will take it to the United States Supreme Court (brought to you by Koch Ind.). The only way we can avoid this type of crap winning is if Obama wins by a very substantial margin.

If Obama wins--and you didn't vote for him--you can say, "I didn't vote for him--I stayed idealogically pure." What will you say--if Romney wins--as we watch him dismantle SS and Medicare, women are forced into back-alley, coathanger abortions, the disparity between rich and poor is more firmly entrenched and codified, the SCOTUS is even more packed with justices bought and payed for by big money, equal rights for LBGT and minorities are rescinded, and another war of distraction is waged?

A vote for Obama means that we may be able to force him into better positions and acts. Not voting means you are fine with the GOP stealing elections and running this country into the hell of a right-wing, Christianist theocracy.

Has he lost his fucking mind?

He has disapproved of America's wars in Korea (1950–1953), Vietnam (1964–1973), Afghanistan (2001–present), and Iraq (2003–2011), believing that the United States should not be overly militaristic or play the role of global policeman.[250][251] He considers himself "too individualistic to be either right-wing or left-wing",[252] describing himself in 1974 as "a political nothing" and "a moderate"[248] and in 1997 as a "libertarian".


He has endorsed same-sex marriage[254][257] and contributed to groups supporting the Equal Rights Amendment for women, which failed to receive ratification in 1982.[258] In 1992, Eastwood acknowledged to writer David Breskin that his political views represented a fusion of Milton Friedman and Noam Chomsky.[259]

MITT FUCKING ROMNEY????????????????????????????????????????????

Edit: I think he's genuinely going senile.

>> ^shinyblurry:

The parameters of marriage was determined by God at the beginning of His creation. We have turned away from God in these United States, and so we have turned away from the biblical standard, however, not as much as gay marriage proponents have stated. Even with the media saturation and the constant infiltration of gay special interest groups into the national discourse, we have these realities:
1. A gay marriage amendment has never passed at the ballot box. It has failed everywhere it has been tried, with the voters rejecting it 32 times since 1998.
2. Constitutional bans on gay marriage have been successful 100 percent of time at the ballot box, passing in 31 states, typically with wide margins. This includes liberal strongholds like California and Hawaii. 38 states ban it to some degree.
The people don't appear to want gay marriage, and they are strongly in favor of the biblical definition of marriage. If you don't want to accept the reality that God has defined marriage, then accept the reality that most people are not that hot for this, and they don't want to take the country in this direction.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If polygamy were legal, would it be a civil rights issue if he refused to bake one for a polygamous wedding? How about a cake for someone wanted to marry their dog, or their car? He believes marriage is between a man and a woman and refuses to make a cake for any other kind of wedding. This has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, it has to do with his moral opposition to the corruption of the institution of marriage.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Don't try that shit, it's discrimination, you know exactly why he was refusing to make a gay wedding cake that type of lying isn't going to help your argument. 2nd it's not a double-standard to hand someone their ass when they say something stupid. You do something counter to the way a society has been going you get shouted down in the public square. We're moving towards legalizing gay marriage and giving equal rights to all americans, you go counter to that you're gonna get yelled at.
Sorry but you're wrong, it isn't discrimination. They were still able to do business there if they wanted another kind of cake, and I'm sure they're still welcome to do so. The man doesn't want to make a gay wedding cake because he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, and that gay marriage is immoral.
Also filth posted on message boards? Is this your first day on the internet? I'm pretty sure Justin Beiber hasn't done anything to anyone on the internet and still he's talked about worse than Hitler. You're in hyperbole country mother fucker, deal with it.
Now you want to continue discriminating against people and not doing your job to make cakes or hand out birth control pills than yeah your life is gonna be made harder. Too bad because you're lives are already way too easy as it is. Complaining about christian discrimination, bitch there's children dying in Africa, shut the fuck up.
So discrimination against Christians is okay, because people talk trash all the time and children are dying in Africa? In other words, you just wave your hand and make excuses..proving that you don't really think discrimination is wrong, so long as its against people you disagree with. It's clear you want equal rights for everyone except Christians.
>> ^Yogi

So blacks weren't being discriminated against on the buses and water fountains, because, hey, they could still ride...just not in the front of the bus and hey, they could get a drink...just not at this particular water fountain.
Sounds like the sequel to separate but equal.


You know what is the main flaw in the argument of Christians who claim that they have the sole right to define what the institution of marriage represents and who is permitted to access it?
Simply this:
Christians don't own, didn't invent, and have no right to control marriage. They don't hold the patent on it. Not the idea of marriage, not the word of marriage, nothing. The concept of marriage belongs to the human race and predates Christianity by millenia and continents. Therefore, they have no special rights or privilege to impose their definition of it upon the rest of the nation.
But don't take my word for it. You have google at your finger tips.



As much as I want to applaud you for shifting to a "fact" based argument with elements of reasoning as opposed to your pure belief based system of thought, I'm greatly confused as to where your statistics are coming from. I'm also a little irked that you forced me to do all the googling by the way. There are mountains of evidence that on every front, from the popular vote to constitutional challenges, that gay marriage is gaining support, not losing it.

Here, let me google it for you.

Just a few rulings on the constitutional level:

November 2003: the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that barring gays and lesbians from marrying violates the state constitution. The Massachusetts Chief Justice concluded that to “deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage” to gay couples was unconstitutional because it denied “the dignity and equality of all individuals” and made them “second-class citizens.” Strong opposition followed the ruling.

August 4, 2010: Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8, the 2008 referendum that banned same-sex marriage in California, violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. "Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment," Vaughn wrote in his opinion. "Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents."

February 7, 2012: the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled 2–1 that Proposition 8, the 2008 referendum that banned same-sex marriage in state, is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In the ruling, the court said, the law "operates with no apparent purpose but to impose on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority's private disapproval of them and their relationships."

On the popular opinion front:

A June 6 CNN/ORC International poll showed that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage being legalized at 54%, while 42% are opposed.

A May 22 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 54% of Americans would support a law in their state making same-sex marriage legal, with 40% opposed.

A May 17-20 ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 53% believe same-sex marriage should be legal, with only 39% opposed, a low-water mark for opposition in any national poll so far.

A May 10 USA Today/Gallup Poll, taken one day after Barack Obama became the first sitting President to express support for same-sex marriage,[14] showed 51% of Americans agreed with the President's endorsement. A May 8 Gallup Poll showed plurality support for same-sex marriage nationwide, with 50% in favor and 48% opposed.

An April Pew Research Center poll showed support for same-sex marriage at 47%, while opposition fell to an all-time low of 43%.

A March 7-10 ABC News/Washington Post poll found 52% of adults thought it should be legal for same-sex couples to get married, while 42% disagreed and 5% were unsure.[18] A March survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found 52% of Americans supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 44% opposed.

A February 29 - March 3 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 49% of adults supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 40% opposed.

One last note on a slightly different topic: religious groups funding anti-gay legislation, most notoriously, the Prop. 8 campaign in California. If Christians are going to use their funds as a group, not individuals, why are they being given tax-free exemptions? Why should people, such as myself, who don't share their beliefs, subsidize their political ambitions?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

I don't want the government to curtail the ability of the religious to practice their faith but I don't think the first amendment was intended to give religions the overwhelming competitive advantage of tax-free money at the ballot box.

This could be solved two ways: no more organizational level contributions to political campaigns, i.e. the close to 200k the Mormon Church donated to support Prop. 8, OR remove tax-exempt status from religions.

By the way, it might seem impossible to conceive of a time when tax-exempt status for religion wasn't taken for granted but it's been a controversial issue from the inception of America. For example, even President Grant and Madison were against tax-exemption for religions.

My world view is not under scrutiny here today shiny. Nice attempt at dodging the topic again. I'm not the one that is arguing that my beliefs should be treated as fact. The burden of proof is on you, amigo.

Please try again. I can shoot your nonsense down faster than you can dream it up.

>> ^shinyblurry:

more blah blah blah blah

>> ^VoodooV:
none of which means a damn in the real world.
I refer you again to my earlier references to circular logic and how you fail to comprehend how it's a fallacy. Using a deity you can't prove exist as an authoritative source continues to get you nowhere.
>> ^shinyblurry:
blah blah blah blah
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If polygamy were legal, would it be a civil rights issue if he refused to bake one for a polygamous wedding? How about a cake for someone wanted to marry their dog, or their car? He believes marriage is between a man and a woman and refuses to make a cake for any other kind of wedding. This has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, it has to do with his moral opposition to the corruption of the institution of marriage.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Don't try that shit, it's discrimination, you know exactly why he was refusing to make a gay wedding cake that type of lying isn't going to help your argument. 2nd it's not a double-standard to hand someone their ass when they say something stupid. You do something counter to the way a society has been going you get shouted down in the public square. We're moving towards legalizing gay marriage and giving equal rights to all americans, you go counter to that you're gonna get yelled at.
Sorry but you're wrong, it isn't discrimination. They were still able to do business there if they wanted another kind of cake, and I'm sure they're still welcome to do so. The man doesn't want to make a gay wedding cake because he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, and that gay marriage is immoral.
Also filth posted on message boards? Is this your first day on the internet? I'm pretty sure Justin Beiber hasn't done anything to anyone on the internet and still he's talked about worse than Hitler. You're in hyperbole country mother fucker, deal with it.
Now you want to continue discriminating against people and not doing your job to make cakes or hand out birth control pills than yeah your life is gonna be made harder. Too bad because you're lives are already way too easy as it is. Complaining about christian discrimination, bitch there's children dying in Africa, shut the fuck up.
So discrimination against Christians is okay, because people talk trash all the time and children are dying in Africa? In other words, you just wave your hand and make excuses..proving that you don't really think discrimination is wrong, so long as its against people you disagree with. It's clear you want equal rights for everyone except Christians.
>> ^Yogi

So blacks weren't being discriminated against on the buses and water fountains, because, hey, they could still ride...just not in the front of the bus and hey, they could get a drink...just not at this particular water fountain.
Sounds like the sequel to separate but equal.

You know what is the main flaw in the argument of Christians who claim that they have the sole right to define what the institution of marriage represents and who is permitted to access it?
Simply this:
Christians don't own, didn't invent, and have no right to control marriage. They don't hold the patent on it. Not the idea of marriage, not the word of marriage, nothing. The concept of marriage belongs to the human race and predates Christianity by millenia and continents. Therefore, they have no special rights or privilege to impose their definition of it upon the rest of the nation.
But don't take my word for it. You have google at your finger tips.

none of which means a damn in the real world.

I refer you again to my earlier references to circular logic and how you fail to comprehend how it's a fallacy. Using a deity you can't prove exists as an authoritative source continues to get you nowhere. Your faith is not fact. If it was fact, then you wouldn't need faith. "god told me so" is not valid argument in grownup land

>> ^shinyblurry:

blah blah blah blah
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If polygamy were legal, would it be a civil rights issue if he refused to bake one for a polygamous wedding? How about a cake for someone wanted to marry their dog, or their car? He believes marriage is between a man and a woman and refuses to make a cake for any other kind of wedding. This has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, it has to do with his moral opposition to the corruption of the institution of marriage.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Don't try that shit, it's discrimination, you know exactly why he was refusing to make a gay wedding cake that type of lying isn't going to help your argument. 2nd it's not a double-standard to hand someone their ass when they say something stupid. You do something counter to the way a society has been going you get shouted down in the public square. We're moving towards legalizing gay marriage and giving equal rights to all americans, you go counter to that you're gonna get yelled at.
Sorry but you're wrong, it isn't discrimination. They were still able to do business there if they wanted another kind of cake, and I'm sure they're still welcome to do so. The man doesn't want to make a gay wedding cake because he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, and that gay marriage is immoral.
Also filth posted on message boards? Is this your first day on the internet? I'm pretty sure Justin Beiber hasn't done anything to anyone on the internet and still he's talked about worse than Hitler. You're in hyperbole country mother fucker, deal with it.
Now you want to continue discriminating against people and not doing your job to make cakes or hand out birth control pills than yeah your life is gonna be made harder. Too bad because you're lives are already way too easy as it is. Complaining about christian discrimination, bitch there's children dying in Africa, shut the fuck up.
So discrimination against Christians is okay, because people talk trash all the time and children are dying in Africa? In other words, you just wave your hand and make excuses..proving that you don't really think discrimination is wrong, so long as its against people you disagree with. It's clear you want equal rights for everyone except Christians.
>> ^Yogi

So blacks weren't being discriminated against on the buses and water fountains, because, hey, they could still ride...just not in the front of the bus and hey, they could get a drink...just not at this particular water fountain.
Sounds like the sequel to separate but equal.

You know what is the main flaw in the argument of Christians who claim that they have the sole right to define what the institution of marriage represents and who is permitted to access it?
Simply this:
Christians don't own, didn't invent, and have no right to control marriage. They don't hold the patent on it. Not the idea of marriage, not the word of marriage, nothing. The concept of marriage belongs to the human race and predates Christianity by millenia and continents. Therefore, they have no special rights or privilege to impose their definition of it upon the rest of the nation.
But don't take my word for it. You have google at your finger tips.

for fuck's sake you are such an idiot. We're referring to treating homosexuals with equal rights, not a flippin cake.

it's obviously past your bedtime shiny.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You said that biblical morality is infringing on peoples rights. I replied that no one has a right to be baked a wedding cake. No rights were violated at all.
>> ^VoodooV:
Are you deliberately being thick? No one is questioning this.
>> ^shinyblurry:
No one has a right to be baked a wedding cake.
>> ^VoodooV