Obama was only a champion of gay rights. He moved that ball forward. Everything else was so so.

Trump was far better. He put all Americans first. Created growth not seen in years and it is still growing for now. Biden will fuck this up too, like everything else he has done.

Biden kicking ass / taking names? on what planet?

Putin invaded under weak presidents Obama and Biden. Not Trump. Face it Biden and Obama are weak and Trump was / is a leader.

RICO will never be used against churches. Kavanaugh's appointment means more and more power handed to churches so long as they are Christian. We are heading to a theocracy, and it'll get worse. Kavanaugh doesn't believe in the separation of church and state, at least keeping the church out of the state and believes in the privilege of the church. Gay rights will go out the door. Give them time to replace one more justice on the court, and it may even become a crime. Kavanaugh believes that neutrality between faith and non-faith matters is in fact hostility against the faith.

"I referred to the modern nazi who supports them"

Fair enough.

"It's not just a belief, it's a desire to exterminate, alienate and persecute an ethnic group. "
Agreed. That desire should not be considered an acceptable point of view. But there's a big gap between saying expressing a desire and carrying out an action.

"This implies that you think being 'nicer to Hitler' (i.e. not solved it with violence) would have gotten rid of them yet you contradict this later on."
No, I don't believe that. Hitler was in power, he had an army and he was already committing genocide. At that point, violence is your only recourse to stop the atrocities.

But yes, ultimately, if someone had been able to take Hitler aside BEFORE all the horrors of WW2 and been able to convince him to lay off the genocide, wouldn't that have been a better solution?

There are absolutely times when violence is the best course of action, but it ALWAYS represents a failure to resolve differences.

"I'm just saying if a nazi happens to get punched, on balance, it's probably ok."

I'm certainly not going to shed any tears over it and being completely honest, part of me relishes it. But intellectually, I know it's a) not a sustainable solution and b) it's a juvenile response.

"It's a bit like trying to 'defeat' religion. If you stamped out any sign of all religions in the world, all the imagery and documents and let's say memories too. Before long, religions would form because the human brain is drawn to those ideologies"

Completely agree. Put enough humans together and they form tribes and ascribe bad things to "the others". What saves us is the ability to learn from past mistakes as a civilisation, and even then we're REALLY slow learners.

But we have made progress.
Going from right to left, I would bet that even most Nazis think women should be able to vote; the vast majority of conservatives view racism as abhorrent (at least, consciously) and "Middle America" has mostly come around to gay rights.

"Defeated" might be the wrong word here. I want Nazism to become as laughable a philosophy as flat earthers. Espousing it should be met with the same response as someone who claims thunder is the gods playing football.

" TL;DR sorry for the wall of text, ignore me"

Don't apologise... it's an interesting discussion.

And Fox and Trump supporters still don't care... he could admit himself to having directly talked with Putin himself and worked on undermining our democracy, and they would never care, because their hatred of Hillary and the supposed left she represents (she's far from the left IMHO) is so great, they'd excuse anything to avoid her, and to ensure that he won and could appoint his supreme court justice. Anything to win the supreme court so they can overturn the gay rights, and they hope eventually, Roe v Wade... at the very least limit it.

The bigger shock in this case is the fact Don Jr didn't come forward ages ago. He himself called the very idea that anyone in the campaign would collude sickening, then when they got wind the story would break, they denied stuff... then admitted a bit of it... then admitted to more that they previously denied... then released more details... You'd think that after the very first Russia story broke out, or at least after the whole Michael Flynn story broke, they'd have come forward with this, and been honest... instead they hide it... and then deny it... then admit to it... and now try to minimize it... had they been honest at the start, it probably wouldn't have blown up as big. Now it looks like they do have something to hide...

1. You don't speak for all trans/POC/gays etc, so you can only describe your personal experience. There are a number of documented trans people who agree with Peterson and don't want the state strong arming people in to mouthing the words...

2. Peterson does not promote transphobia, he resists being forced to speak certain words. They are not synonymous. If the fuckwits yelling their heads off spent the time to listen, they'd understand that.

3. Peterson was fine with the idiots at the event chucking a trantrum because it showed them up to be the intolerant idiots, not him. He was calm and reasonable, and if they had listened to him then put questions to him, they may have advanced whatever cause they claim to represent. Instead they came across as a pack of morons. /shrug

4. You talk about drawing lines around things, lines that should not be crossed, but without people daring to propose going outside those lines, gay rights would not be a thing... You see? It takes a brave person to step outside the lines and propose something that may be offensive to some. Same with women rights, transgender folk etc.

5. You have the right to be offended. You do not have the right to not be offended.

6. Mobs strongarming people in to silence has far more to do with Nazi ideology than resisting being forced to speak certain words. It's okay to punch Nazi's right?? \= )

Well, I fully support the Black Lives Movement. Peaceful, and sometimes agitated, marching for justice. Gay Rights. That explosive moment at Stonewall in Greenwich Village, when the gay men fought back and said NO MORE.

Do I want a single woman who is in danger of being physically assaulted to "fight back?" A single gay man? A single black person? No, honey bunny, I absolutely do not. I think that is the height of idiocy for a single individual to fight back against one, two, three men. Especially when they are armed and have proven that they are capable of using that weapon in anger, fear, adrenaline.

Keep yourself safe, deescalate the situation if you can, submit to rape [edit] IF you think the man/men will kill you if you do fight back -- fight back if it is safe to fight back. (Interesting stat -- something like 90% of assaults against women are by single unarmed attackers. No gun? No knife? Try to avoid, try to deescalate, and if that doesn't work, fight back and yell and make yourself as difficult a target as possible.)

I took a self defense class years ago, geared towards women protecting themselves from violence by men. Not because I was afraid, but because of the psychological skills that we were taught about setting boundaries, taking charge, making choices -- skills needed in every day life that can also be applied to rare events of possible violence.

It was called Powerful Choices. Choices, my friend. Choices.

I must say, it is shocking to me that so many people live in a zero sum world. A black and white world. Where there is only one way to respond despite the actual circumstances. That this moment has to be used to fight larger battles or you are a failure.

I am a big fan of using your noggin to be safe. A fan of demonstrations (I prefer peaceful.) A fan of changing the laws, the procedures, the culture. A fan of acting strategically for the long run.

So you have me all wrong, my friend. All wrong.

6 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Okay, Libertarians stand for:

End to the endless wars: This is much more important than any social policies they might hate. Those programs will fail if we cannot control this bullshit, and then what? Austerity.

Gay rights: (Liberal view.) Not just marriage, but all gay rights. Get the government out of the marriage / contracts etc. and give full rights to people who are different.

Abortion: (Small government, get out of a woman's right to choose. Liberal/conservative point of view.)

Gun rights: Let the States limit gun rights. What works for California might not work in New York. Not my style, but less than conservatives want, more than liberals want. Honestly we have a shit policy out there now. With terrorism building, getting rid of all handguns is seeming ominous, as they will have access to guns despite bans. They have that support in droves, unlike the average criminal would. However, conservatives want ASSAULT rifles for everyone, which is stupid and dangerous. The paradigm has changed. Liberals taking guns from average people (who are most often responsible) and yet not preventing assault rifles from terrorists hands.

Libertarians won't solve the problem but at least their view that states, not an open-access ordered by the Federal Government, would put more restrictions than most conservatives would, and still offer handguns since times have changed.

War on drugs: Failure, stop punishing people, limit laws that predominantly punish minorities, and reduce prison population.

Where the fuck have liberals gone that they no longer support a party that supports their positions so much? Oh social programs...would suffer. Get over it. Programs will suffer from every party. And conservatives shouldn't complain either. For fuck sake people, change with the times. Stop viewing this party as the party of 1920....

This is why we are it the predicament we are in today.

If people keep voting for someone who does not share their values just to stop someone who is a bit worse from getting elected this cycle will continue forever. "Spoilers" and "lesser of two evils" are tactics that keep people voting against their best interests.

If you vote for Hillary or Trump just because you think the other is worse, you are voting for a local maximum, and will be stuck with the rigged two party system forever.

Voting your conscience and losing to Trump is far better!!! Eventually a third party can form and whittle away at the two sided party. They can change their positions to stay in power or die off. Either way it gives us the ability to choose what topics being addressed, unlike the current system where year after year we are pitted against each other on the same topics which those in control have little interest in. Wallmart, Comcast et all have little interest in abortion gun control, or gay rights.

BREAK the fucking system. Do not vote for her to prevent Trump. It insures the continuation of the current system. Your voice will forever be inconsequential.

"Voting for the lesser of two evils only paves the way for the greater."

Fair point.

Also, I'm not really talking about conservative views in the sense of fiscal conservatives or libertarians. I don't necessarily agree with those positions, but they are genuinely a "difference of opinion" as outlined in the video.

I just don't agree with the general position that social conservatives are entitled to their opinion on gay rights, climate change, etc. any more than the democrats were entitled to their opinion on slavery.

Sometimes you're just on the wrong side of history.

Warning, this is long. It's a general reply to bob, but really it's a rant about the reality of this country, origins, issue, and where we are headed... Like they say in Horace and Pete, at this point we just might deserve a president like Trump (especially because we are stupid enough to vote for HIM, and for so many Senators AND Congressmen like him or even far worse)...

Reply to bob at the top...


I hate to tell you, but "SHALL", according to the times in which the founding fathers wrote this IS indeed the utmost highest form of that period meaning that you "HAVE TO" do something.

Go ahead and let your own party change what grammar and vocabulary meant from that period--or simply not have enough brains to know what it really means (though most of us know by now their assistants have let them know what it means, they just refuse to believe reality and instead insert their own collective psychotic delusion).

Typically when it says SHALL (BTW, NOT doing that job should be getting them in HUGE amounts of trouble as well), they should be doing everything they can TO nominate a new judge into the open position in their next open session (not a session one year away, so Trump or Hillary has to do it).

If they want to complain about the nominee they CAN, just while they are under scrutiny to go up for the vote. But, they simply are NOT supposed to do nothing and furthermore say they WON'T do anything...

I'll have to look up what the penalty is for not doing this, but it could be a full "boot" from their job. Simply what has been referred to by Republicans in the past as Impeachment. But, then the Senate has to start that (I'm not sure if anyone else can; hence, this is why I said I'd try to see if there is anything else that can be done)

I believe they can also do it at the state level... BUT ALL of this requires for our government officials to do their fucking jobs! PLUS, the citizens that voted them in to give a shit!
----------


We REALLY, REALLY, do not deserve a country like this...it is BARELY alive and well. We are just a few presidential terms away (plus senators and congressmen) before we grind to a complete halt.

Then we can finally watch everything implode on CNN and FOX while REAL extremists take over and then the real fun starts. True extremists taking control with minimal bloodshed and shouting matches, civil war with outcomes that grant us either the NEO-United States (the U.S.A. V:2.0, which might be good), to the Neo-Confederacy (since that is what it all amounts to on the FAR right's spectrum). OR we simply just dissolve and become something entirely new.

Hey, bob did you know that your party used to be JUST like the Democrats of Lincoln's age. The Republican's were more like the Democrat's of our age. Weird right. THAT conservative party died out with Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose party; then all of the citizens decided that they simply liked the name "Republican" more (since they'd always voted for that name, right...it'd be weird to change it). That is where the Republican's became a FAR different party than they had been (though they still had a few more GREAT leaders before their schism drove them all, sadly, into madness ). The "Democrat's", they thought slavery was just peachy at first, and now they vote for gay-rights. NEITHER party remembers it's roots and the citizens of the United States have had their idiotic teachers and parents tell them all sorts of stories about how great either party WAS, but never telling them what they are like NOW. We all need to vote for our president, nowadays, without even LOOKING at their part's affiliation. It doesn't do any of us any good. Because none of them have ANY real lineage or links to the old presidents of these United States--they're full of shit.

Just remember, Republicans and their party were formed basically to try and abolish slavery--now they are more likely to put it back into action; a complete reversal of their direction, progressive and liberal!

Democrats tried to keep things the same as it was and to even expand slavery--now they want to allow marijuana to be legal, allow gays to have rights, and essentially pick up many progressive and liberal causes... They too have utterly reversed the direction they were at and taking during Abraham Lincoln's time. Conservative on many topics and wanting to expand the states' rights and abilities. Now they are the ones that would abolish slavery and even have Lincoln on their ticket if he ran...

Our parties in these United States are abysmal, a joke, a farce, and shouldn't even be used... The Founding Fathers would be dismayed over so many issues it wouldn't be even funny. They would more than likely throw OUT the Constitution and start a new draft, simply due to the amount of changes we've made in the WRONG direction and the fact that they weren't able to see the future far enough ahead to imagine gigantic empires made only of Business (with a mere handful of people, not hundreds, thousands, and many more like it was in their times) and how News would become so powerful it is essentially as powerful as the president of the United States--and if watched by enough people it is even FAR more powerful than him/her (like in Russia; The Internet being the ONE thing the Founding Fathers would pat our country on the back over and it's what can restore balance to the people who watch or only can gain information from these entities; a new type of "University" where anything can be shared; truth and facts obtained at every man's fingertips nearly instantly at any point on this planet; it IS the world's greatest WONDER ever made).

Lastly, they would absolutely abhor our parties and how they are used--internally and externally (how our politicians...how all the issues interconnect together; all politicians that receive outside money, they would likely want to have them all impeached, same with those that USE the media; they would HATE parties--but they know they'll always exist, you just have to get rid of the things that LET parties abuse we the people and also the government, and those things are: money and media...).


/length

@RedSky
Does he really glorify it any more than we already glorify drinking or smoking (smoking to a lesser extent). Advertising still tells us that it's not really a party unless you're getting hammered, depending on what you're drinking you are hipper, sexier, or just plain more fun. I see most glorification of pot as just a response to the over the top demonization of pot, so just decriminalize it already and eventually it will all reach equilibrium.
@VoodooV
Like he said, it's the corporate interests that will make the difference. They might pay lip service to social conservative causes like abortion, gay rights, etc but the only thing they really care about is the bottom line.
Gay marriage was a total non issue to them, but big pharma, law enforcement, the military industrial complex, tobacco, the prison industrial complex, and many others have a vested interest in keeping pot illegal. They will spend millions or even billions to keep the status quo. Once people saw gay marriage as an issue of civil rights it got a huge boost, but the legalization of marijuana is still seen by many as just a cause for stoners, pot heads and junkies, so nobody is really going to care.

I disagree with the "we all need Jesus" bit. Other than that, unremarkable stuff of the type many non-religious (and some religious) voices have been saying since the gay rights movement broke the shell. Only notable for that fact that it's coming out of this particular vitriolic preacher.

I actually thought she was asking a valid question (albeit in her own gruff manner) and he gave an interesting answer, thus showing off two different but reasonable approaches to pushing for gay rights.

I also felt that Gaybo (the host, not Kenny ) acted as a good moderator while the conversation was being had.

I'd consider myself a longtime fan of Kenny's, but I learned a few things about him - not all of which I agree with - through the discussion.

Also, knickers. Sorry, it's hard to be too serious after listening to Kenny.

This is going to blow your mind but this is in the '80s channel, a place where videos from the 80's go. Hope you dont hear about the '70s channel, or vintage, that would really rock your world.

Must a video have a topical issue now?

Gay rights and equality are both quite topical and you dont find too many videos of mainstream popular entertainers from the 1980s, who are also gay, talking about being a gay popular entertainer while a popularly elected government was curtailing gay rights.

If you prefer cat videos, fails or standup, theres plenty of that being posted, this is for people who might be interested in something different.