PDA

View Full Version : Republicans=Hawks/Democrats=Doves?



Pullinteeth
04-12-2013, 03:39 PM
Found this interesting....

While the common perception is that Republicans are all about war and Democrats a peace lovin hippies, The doomsday clock moved 18 minutes closer toward midnight (net) while Democrats were in the Oval Office and 13 minues AWAY from midnight (net) while Republicans were in the Oval Office... Not saying that the Oval Office is the end all-be all but...it is interesting...

Note-the only times there was a change in the Party contolling the White House were when it went from a Democrat to a Republican and the net was 1 minute closer to midnight and the incoming party holds the office longer, I gave all three to the Republicans.

Timeline of the Doomsday Clock
Year Mins Left Time Change Presidential Political Party
1947 7 11:53pm — The initial setting of the Doomsday Clock.
1949 3 11:57pm +4 Democrat.
1953 2 11:58pm +1 Democrat/Republican
1960 7 11:53pm −5 Republican
1963 12 11:48pm −5 Democrat
1968 7 11:53pm +5 Democrat
1969 10 11:50pm −3 Democrat/Republican
1972 12 11:48pm −2 Republican
1974 9 11:51pm +3 Republican
1980 7 11:53pm +2 Democrat
1981 4 11:56pm +3 Democrat/Republican
1984 3 11:57pm +1 Republican
1988 6 11:54pm −3 Republican
1990 10 11:50pm −4 Republican
1991 17 11:43pm −7 Republican
1995 14 11:46pm +3 Democrat
1998 9 11:51pm +5 Democrat
2002 7 11:53pm +2 Republican
2007 5 11:55pm +2 Republican
2010 6 11:54pm −1 Democrat
2012 5 11:55pm +1 Democrat

sandsjames
04-12-2013, 03:49 PM
Found this interesting....

While the common perception is that Republicans are all about war and Democrats a peace lovin hippies, The doomsday clock moved 18 minutes closer toward midnight (net) while Democrats were in the Oval Office and 13 minues AWAY from midnight (net) while Republicans were in the Oval Office... Not saying that the Oval Office is the end all-be all but...it is interesting...



What is this doomsday clock you speak of?

Pullinteeth
04-12-2013, 04:06 PM
What is this doomsday clock you speak of?

Started as a countdown to nuclear armageddon now includes all sorts of possible end of the world stuff-like imaginary global warming etc...

http://www.thebulletin.org/content/doomsday-clock/overview

Banned
04-27-2013, 02:14 PM
This is an incredibly tragic thing. But perhaps one of the most successful propaganda victories in the history of the world. We haven't just destroyed the anti-war movement... we have made an anti-war movement impossible. Just the very act of protesting a war in America is treason against god and country. Even the few actual liberal democrats left are generally afraid to say anything in opposition.

MACHINE666
04-28-2013, 08:35 PM
Republicans = dumb-asses.

Democrats = dumb-asses.


Do not let the titles confuse you; there is no difference.

Pullinteeth
05-01-2013, 02:27 AM
This is an incredibly tragic thing. But perhaps one of the most successful propaganda victories in the history of the world. We haven't just destroyed the anti-war movement... we have made an anti-war movement impossible. Just the very act of protesting a war in America is treason against god and country. Even the few actual liberal democrats left are generally afraid to say anything in opposition.

What in the holy hell does that have to do with the topic at hand?

imported_WILDJOKER5
05-01-2013, 12:52 PM
Republicans = dumb-asses.

Democrats = dumb-asses.


Do not let the titles confuse you; there is no difference.

If I could give you rep I would.

imported_WILDJOKER5
05-01-2013, 01:02 PM
Found this interesting....

While the common perception is that Republicans are all about war and Democrats a peace lovin hippies, The doomsday clock moved 18 minutes closer toward midnight (net) while Democrats were in the Oval Office and 13 minues AWAY from midnight (net) while Republicans were in the Oval Office... Not saying that the Oval Office is the end all-be all but...it is interesting...

Note-the only times there was a change in the Party contolling the White House were when it went from a Democrat to a Republican and the net was 1 minute closer to midnight and the incoming party holds the office longer, I gave all three to the Republicans.

Timeline of the Doomsday Clock
Year Mins Left Time Change Presidential Political Party
1947 7 11:53pm — The initial setting of the Doomsday Clock.
1949 3 11:57pm +4 Democrat.
1953 2 11:58pm +1 Democrat/Republican
1960 7 11:53pm −5 Republican
1963 12 11:48pm −5 Democrat
1968 7 11:53pm +5 Democrat
1969 10 11:50pm −3 Democrat/Republican
1972 12 11:48pm −2 Republican
1974 9 11:51pm +3 Republican
1980 7 11:53pm +2 Democrat
1981 4 11:56pm +3 Democrat/Republican
1984 3 11:57pm +1 Republican
1988 6 11:54pm −3 Republican
1990 10 11:50pm −4 Republican
1991 17 11:43pm −7 Republican
1995 14 11:46pm +3 Democrat
1998 9 11:51pm +5 Democrat
2002 7 11:53pm +2 Republican
2007 5 11:55pm +2 Republican
2010 6 11:54pm −1 Democrat
2012 5 11:55pm +1 Democrat

Maybe because its based on the emotions and tensions of other countries towards the US? Those that wish to nuke us think twice with the GOP in office while when a dem is in office, we appear to be "weak". Since 9/11, terrorist attempts and plots and "success" has only increased since Obama took office. Maybe thats why Obama doesnt want to call the attacks terrorism cause then he will keep looking weak to the rest of the world.

Banned
05-01-2013, 04:01 PM
What in the holy hell does that have to do with the topic at hand?

Exactly what I said. This is one of the greatest propaganda victories in the history of the world - opposing our Christian Jihads overseas isn't even considered a legitimate cause on the Left anymore.

imported_WILDJOKER5
05-01-2013, 04:08 PM
Exactly what I said. This is one of the greatest propaganda victories in the history of the world - opposing our Christian Jihads overseas isn't even considered a legitimate cause on the Left anymore.

Since they voted in mass to go to "war" with both Iraq and Afgahn, I would say it was never on list of causes to stand against. It could just be me, but it seems like they just gave you a bunch of lip service.

Banned
05-01-2013, 04:17 PM
Since they voted in mass to go to "war" with both Iraq and Afgahn, I would say it was never on list of causes to stand against. It could just be me, but it seems like they just gave you a bunch of lip service.

Well, its not a project that happened overnight - we're talking many decades of hard work and propaganda against the American public. And frankly - us Americans are fat greedy bastards... its not difficult to make us not care about other people... because we barely do to begin with.

sandsjames
05-01-2013, 04:25 PM
Well, its not a project that happened overnight - we're talking many decades of hard work and propaganda against the American public. And frankly - us Americans are fat greedy bastards... its not difficult to make us not care about other people... because we barely do to begin with.

I'm sure you commented yesterday about how people who constantly bitch about the military should just get out. If only you'd follow your own advice when constantly bitching about the U.S.

Not saying you should leave, just curious as to why you stay.

imported_WILDJOKER5
05-01-2013, 04:29 PM
Well, its not a project that happened overnight - we're talking many decades of hard work and propaganda against the American public. And frankly - us Americans are fat greedy bastards... its not difficult to make us not care about other people... because we barely do to begin with.

So when was the left against wars? Gulf war 1? Veitnam? Granada? Korea? WWI? WWII?

imported_WILDJOKER5
05-01-2013, 04:34 PM
I'm sure you commented yesterday about how people who constantly bitch about the military should just get out. If only you'd follow your own advice when constantly bitching about the U.S.

Not saying you should leave, just curious as to why you stay.

Maybe the same reasons why the boston bombers stayed even though they hated us and tried to kill so many, Welfare and other freebies.

Banned
05-01-2013, 06:07 PM
So when was the left against wars? Gulf war 1? Veitnam? Granada? Korea? WWI? WWII?

Substantial anti-war movement in the 30s. A fairly large one in Vietnam - seems like the numbers dwindled to almost nothing after that.

Even in GWOT - there was an anti-war movement... a tiny one, but it existed nonetheless - a decade long smear campaign painting them as "terrorist sympathizers" basically eliminated any inkling of influence they might have had on either political party.


I'm sure you commented yesterday about how people who constantly bitch about the military should just get out. If only you'd follow your own advice when constantly bitching about the U.S.

Not saying you should leave, just curious as to why you stay.

Apples and oranges. The nation moves forward by people working to change it - not just taking an attitude of submission.

imported_WILDJOKER5
05-01-2013, 06:13 PM
Substantial anti-war movement in the 30s. A fairly large one in Vietnam - seems like the numbers dwindled to almost nothing after that.

Even in GWOT - there was an anti-war movement... a tiny one, but it existed nonetheless - a decade long smear campaign painting them as "terrorist sympathizers" basically eliminated any inkling of influence they might have had on either political party.Oh, I meant the politicians that are liberal. I know there are always liberal civilians that like to think those that represent them actually believe the same thing, but honestly, nothing more than lip service from those in congress who claim to be liberal and for the people. But that is about norm for both parties for whom ever they claim to represent.

Banned
05-01-2013, 11:38 PM
Oh, I meant the politicians that are liberal. I know there are always liberal civilians that like to think those that represent them actually believe the same thing, but honestly, nothing more than lip service from those in congress who claim to be liberal and for the people. But that is about norm for both parties for whom ever they claim to represent.

Yes - that is the unfortunate reality of things, isn't it?

Pullinteeth
05-02-2013, 02:11 AM
Exactly what I said. This is one of the greatest propaganda victories in the history of the world - opposing our Christian Jihads overseas isn't even considered a legitimate cause on the Left anymore.

Anymore? This from the same person that said the Democrats of the 40s-60s aren't the same as the Dems of today? So what you are saying is that they were douchebags and still are douchebags?

Banned
05-02-2013, 03:52 AM
Anymore? This from the same person that said the Democrats of the 40s-60s aren't the same as the Dems of today?

I thought everybody learned this by 6th grade... the parties' viewpoints on civil liberties pretty much reversed in the late 50s/early 60s.

The "Radical Republicans" of old were actually freedom fighters who opposed the Confederacy and white supremacy.


So what you are saying is that they were douchebags and still are douchebags?

You lost me somewhere.

imported_WILDJOKER5
05-02-2013, 11:51 AM
I thought everybody learned this by 6th grade... the parties' viewpoints on civil liberties pretty much reversed in the late 50s/early 60s.

The "Radical Republicans" of old were actually freedom fighters who opposed the Confederacy and white supremacy.Yeah, you really didnt learn anything did you? Just after the GOP gets the CRA passed in congress, they just magically switched sides. LOL. I cant believe so many people swallowed the BS propaganda, and not only that, believe it happened in the 60s. Yes, some people that were dems switched sides, I give you that, but not because of civil rights view points and certainly not the majority in the 60s.

sandsjames
05-02-2013, 01:33 PM
Yeah, you really didnt learn anything did you? Just after the GOP gets the CRA passed in congress, they just magically switched sides. LOL. I cant believe so many people swallowed the BS propaganda, and not only that, believe it happened in the 60s. Yes, some people that were dems switched sides, I give you that, but not because of civil rights view points and certainly not the majority in the 60s.

They had to have switched. It's not possible that the GOP ever did anything to support civil liberties.

Banned
05-02-2013, 04:47 PM
They had to have switched. It's not possible that the GOP ever did anything to support civil liberties.

You realize this sentence is an oxymoron, and doesn't even make sense? Right? You're so desperate to be witty, you come off as rambling and nonsensical.

Banned
05-02-2013, 04:47 PM
Yeah, you really didnt learn anything did you? Just after the GOP gets the CRA passed in congress, they just magically switched sides. LOL. I cant believe so many people swallowed the BS propaganda, and not only that, believe it happened in the 60s. Yes, some people that were dems switched sides, I give you that, but not because of civil rights view points and certainly not the majority in the 60s.

Its a numbers game. After the civil war ended, all the Confederate sympathizers - the white racist conservatives - were a critical voting block. Shortly after Lincoln's assassination the Republicans attempted to disenfranchize all former Confederate citizens. Which made sense, they (correctly) predicted that once these racists started voting again, all progress made for racial equality would be lost. The Republicans also attempted to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1868 - but it was vetoed by President Johnson.

The Democrats on the other hand, so the opportunity for power - that by appeasing the white racist conservatives of the south - they could have a virtual monopoly on these states.

Johnson (the second one) was a pretty critical element in changing the Democratic stance on civil rights.

As for the Republicans - what went wrong? How did a group of freedom fighters turn into a bunch of racist pricks? Again - demographics. Just like the Democrats seized upon the southern white racist conservatives in the 1860s - the Republicans were seduced by all the possible votes from... southern white racist conservatives!

History is very strange, isn't it?

imported_WILDJOKER5
05-02-2013, 05:16 PM
Its a numbers game. After the civil war ended, all the Confederate sympathizers - the white racist conservatives - were a critical voting block. Shortly after Lincoln's assassination the Republicans attempted to disenfranchize all former Confederate citizens. Which made sense, they (correctly) predicted that once these racists started voting again, all progress made for racial equality would be lost. The Republicans also attempted to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1868 - but it was vetoed by President Johnson.

The Democrats on the other hand, so the opportunity for power - that by appeasing the white racist conservatives of the south - they could have a virtual monopoly on these states.

Johnson (the second one) was a pretty critical element in changing the Democratic stance on civil rights.

As for the Republicans - what went wrong? How did a group of freedom fighters turn into a bunch of racist pricks? Again - demographics. Just like the Democrats seized upon the southern white racist conservatives in the 1860s - the Republicans were seduced by all the possible votes from... southern white racist conservatives!

History is very strange, isn't it?

Especially when you rewrite it.

JD2780
05-02-2013, 06:03 PM
You realize this sentence is an oxymoron, and doesn't even make sense? Right? You're so desperate to be witty, you come off as rambling and nonsensical.

Hey pot, this is kettle. You're black.

Banned
05-02-2013, 06:13 PM
Especially when you rewrite it.

Do you deny any of the historical events I just listed?


Hey pot, this is kettle. You're black.

Why do you have to make everything about race? :D

JD2780
05-02-2013, 07:00 PM
Wasnt race. Kettle and pot are the same race, just differing nationalities.

sandsjames
05-02-2013, 07:14 PM
You realize this sentence is an oxymoron, and doesn't even make sense? Right? You're so desperate to be witty, you come off as rambling and nonsensical.

Which is it? Is it an oxymoron or does it not make sense? It can't be both. You're so desperate to sound intelligent (no comma needed here) you come off as arrogant and moronic.

sandsjames
05-02-2013, 07:14 PM
Wasnt race. Kettle and pot are the same race, just differing nationalities.

No chanting USA. The pot and kettle will be offended.

Banned
05-02-2013, 07:37 PM
Wasnt race. Kettle and pot are the same race, just differing nationalities.


Which is it? Is it an oxymoron or does it not make sense? It can't be both. You're so desperate to sound intelligent (no comma needed here) you come off as arrogant and moronic.

Christ I can't believe I'm explaining this.

So my statement in a nutshell - at one time the Republicans were the "good guys" when it came to civil rights, and the Democrats were the "bad guys". Now the roles are reversed, so the Democrats are the "good guys", and the Republicans are the "bad guys".

Then you chime in "They had to have switched. It's not possible that the GOP ever did anything to support civil liberties. "

Oxymoron. You're sarcastically pretending to agree with my statement tha the GOP at one point supported civil liberties, and then saying "It's not possible that the GOP ever did anything to support civil liberties".

Now do you understand?

JD2780
05-03-2013, 02:06 AM
How are republicans against civil rights now?

JD2780
05-03-2013, 02:07 AM
No chanting USA. The pot and kettle will be offended.

Canada and Mexico so basically Americans. They'll both end up here anyhow.

Banned
05-03-2013, 03:41 AM
How are republicans against civil rights now?

Does this question really merit a response?

JD2780
05-03-2013, 10:19 AM
Does this question really merit a response?

Yes it does. I don't see them stopping voters, segregating schools, stopping religious beliefs. So what civil rights are at they against?

imported_WILDJOKER5
05-03-2013, 11:59 AM
Do you deny any of the historical events I just listed?

Yes. LBJ didnt sign the CRA because he wanted to change the views on civil rights for the dems, he clearly expressed it was for the votes. I agree, both sides always are looking for ways to get more votes. GOP is looking for ways to get more of the 95% of democratic black votes. The Dems and looking to try and shame more whites to vote for them. The fact is, the racist from the dems didnt just switch sides because of CRA, and they sure as hell didnt move over after nixon istituted AA with quotas for private businesses. Something happened with Regean, since he got just about every state to vote for him on his second election, but it wasnt about race.

Banned
05-03-2013, 03:01 PM
Yes it does. I don't see them stopping voters, segregating schools, stopping religious beliefs. So what civil rights are at they against?

I do see them resisting same sex marriage, reproductive rights... and even women in the military.


Yes. LBJ didnt sign the CRA because he wanted to change the views on civil rights for the dems, he clearly expressed it was for the votes. I agree, both sides always are looking for ways to get more votes. GOP is looking for ways to get more of the 95% of democratic black votes. The Dems and looking to try and shame more whites to vote for them. The fact is, the racist from the dems didnt just switch sides because of CRA, and they sure as hell didnt move over after nixon istituted AA with quotas for private businesses. Something happened with Regean, since he got just about every state to vote for him on his second election, but it wasnt about race.

Yes you're right - regardless of his own personal feelings on race - LBJ embracing civil rights was absolutely the right move, strategically. As the old white people start dying off, the GOP is going to be increasingly marginalized as they lose their base. Racial minorities and younger, more open minded white voters - are becoming a game changer in American politics.

I agree - Nixon probably would have been considered a GREAT president if he hadn't cheated. And what makes it all the more sad is cheating was unnecessary, he would have won the election anyways.

sandsjames
05-03-2013, 03:05 PM
Christ I can't believe I'm explaining this.

So my statement in a nutshell - at one time the Republicans were the "good guys" when it came to civil rights, and the Democrats were the "bad guys". Now the roles are reversed, so the Democrats are the "good guys", and the Republicans are the "bad guys".

Then you chime in "They had to have switched. It's not possible that the GOP ever did anything to support civil liberties. "

Oxymoron. You're sarcastically pretending to agree with my statement tha the GOP at one point supported civil liberties, and then saying "It's not possible that the GOP ever did anything to support civil liberties".

Now do you understand?

Do you understand the meaning of the word "oxymoron"?

Banned
05-03-2013, 03:13 PM
Do you understand the meaning of the word "oxymoron"?

Still not comprehending how your post contradicted itself?

imported_WILDJOKER5
05-03-2013, 05:24 PM
I do see them resisting same sex marriage, reproductive rights... and even women in the military.
SSM, yes, the GOP is in the wrong, but it is also not a civil right.

Reproductive rights? LOL, that one is sad that you claim someone denying tax payer funds to go to people to kill a baby as a right.

Women in the military? So when is the Selective service starting for all women?


Yes you're right - regardless of his own personal feelings on race - LBJ embracing civil rights was absolutely the right move, strategically. As the old white people start dying off, the GOP is going to be increasingly marginalized as they lose their base. Racial minorities and younger, more open minded white voters - are becoming a game changer in American politics.You are right, but you still didnt show why you think the GOP is based off discrimination or how the old dems switched sides.


I agree - Nixon probably would have been considered a GREAT president if he hadn't cheated. And what makes it all the more sad is cheating was unnecessary, he would have won the election anyways.
I fully agree, then there wouldnt have been the idiot Ford in office.

Banned
05-03-2013, 06:41 PM
SSM, yes, the GOP is in the wrong, but it is also not a civil right.

Why? Simply because you do not recognize it as a right?


Reproductive rights? LOL, that one is sad that you claim someone denying tax payer funds to go to people to kill a baby as a right.

That argument has less to do with civil rights - and more to do with practicality. It is far cheaper for society to terminate a pregnancy than to be stuck with an unwanted child that will probably be a drain on taxpayer funds for the rest of his life.


Women in the military? So when is the Selective service starting for all women?

Hopefully in the near future. If women are to have the same rights as men, it logically follows that they share the same responsibilities.


You are right, but you still didnt show why you think the GOP is based off discrimination or how the old dems switched sides.

The GOP currently caters to the "angry white guys" of the South, who often have extremely archaic views towards racial minorities and women.

You're right that the "old dems" didn't just disappear upon the reversal... they were simply marginalized.

Every party has an extremist element... the problem with the Republicans is that the extremists now have the helm of the ship.


I fully agree, then there wouldnt have been the idiot Ford in office.

Yup. Ford's austerity measures were a disaster for the economy.

Pullinteeth
05-05-2013, 02:47 PM
I thought everybody learned this by 6th grade... the parties' viewpoints on civil liberties pretty much reversed in the late 50s/early 60s.

The "Radical Republicans" of old were actually freedom fighters who opposed the Confederacy and white supremacy.

You lost me somewhere.

It isn'[t hard to lose you.... If that is what you learned by 6th grade, it isn't surprising that you are a Democrat. I'm sure you haven't ever given it any real thought but.... If you did, it MIGHT occur to you that the Parties didn't REALLY switch sided. Democrats just took a different tack to keep the "undesirables" in their place AND get them to vote for their own subjucation at the same time... How? Throw money at them so they have no motivation to invade the Democrat's lilly white party... Sure they have a few tokens you know the "house" ones...but all in all, Democrats have done a pretty darn good job of keeping the unwashed masses subjucated.

The Republicans haven't changed all that much...they still believe that everyone should be treated equally (with some exceptions of course-just like some Democrats don't REALLY hate minorities). the only really difference is that the Democrats have finally convinced the unwashed masses that they deserve to be where they are and should be paid to stay poor...

Banned
05-06-2013, 11:52 PM
It isn'[t hard to lose you.... If that is what you learned by 6th grade, it isn't surprising that you are a Democrat. I'm sure you haven't ever given it any real thought but.... If you did, it MIGHT occur to you that the Parties didn't REALLY switch sided. Democrats just took a different tack to keep the "undesirables" in their place AND get them to vote for their own subjucation at the same time... How? Throw money at them so they have no motivation to invade the Democrat's lilly white party... Sure they have a few tokens you know the "house" ones...but all in all, Democrats have done a pretty darn good job of keeping the unwashed masses subjucated.

The Republicans haven't changed all that much...they still believe that everyone should be treated equally (with some exceptions of course-just like some Democrats don't REALLY hate minorities). the only really difference is that the Democrats have finally convinced the unwashed masses that they deserve to be where they are and should be paid to stay poor...

Oh jesus, not the "welfare is slavery" nonsense.

imported_WILDJOKER5
05-10-2013, 05:10 PM
Why? Simply because you do not recognize it as a right?The only "right" about marriage is to be preformed in a religious or ceremonial sense. Bonding 2 people to each other for life. Getting the government out of the business of marriage is the only way to say it is a right, and both sides are doing this wrong. The dems want to legalize SSM so they will get more revenue, the GOP wants to ban in because they feel they are morally superior. The libertarians say the government has no business in this part of adults lives what so ever.


That argument has less to do with civil rights - and more to do with practicality. It is far cheaper for society to terminate a pregnancy than to be stuck with an unwanted child that will probably be a drain on taxpayer funds for the rest of his life.Its cheaper to kill the mentally handicap and elderly and people on death row, but I have yet to see a progressive want to kill off people AFTER a fair trial right away. Hasan is STILL waiting in jail for a trial, while his mentor is dead along with his son without a trial. Why do libs refuse to encourage anyone from taking responsibility for their choices?


Hopefully in the near future. If women are to have the same rights as men, it logically follows that they share the same responsibilities.So that women in combat thing was just for show right? And you will wait till the GOP introduces the SS for women bill so you can say they are trying to "control women" and kill them off in combat right. Why didnt the dems do the hard part and make women start taking the responsibility already?


The GOP currently caters to the "angry white guys" of the South, who often have extremely archaic views towards racial minorities and women.No they dont and no the "angry white guys" dont think like that. You need to show proof if you want to make these acusations.


You're right that the "old dems" didn't just disappear upon the reversal... they were simply marginalized.

Every party has an extremist element... the problem with the Republicans is that the extremists now have the helm of the ship..
You honestly believe the left isnt ran by over zealous nut jobs? The Dems have one as POTUS for pete sake.

imported_WILDJOKER5
05-10-2013, 05:22 PM
Oh jesus, not the "welfare is slavery" nonsense.

Right, cause there are so many people coming out of poverty and off food stamps now a days right? Oh, that right, nope. Even when Obama says the economy is picking up, there are still more and more people joining food stamps and falling below poverty. That might be because of Obamacare and private and public businesses cutting hours so they wont have to provide ever increasing health care costs to the employees that Obamacare is causing. Good thing there are some many "great ideas" from liberals that have to be made mandatory.

Banned
05-12-2013, 05:03 AM
The only "right" about marriage is to be preformed in a religious or ceremonial sense. Bonding 2 people to each other for life. Getting the government out of the business of marriage is the only way to say it is a right, and both sides are doing this wrong. The dems want to legalize SSM so they will get more revenue, the GOP wants to ban in because they feel they are morally superior. The libertarians say the government has no business in this part of adults lives what so ever.

Marriage is simply a legal contract. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no reason to give one religion preferential treatment over others. If two consenting adults want to enter a legal agreement with each other, who cares?


Its cheaper to kill the mentally handicap and elderly and people on death row, but I have yet to see a progressive want to kill off people AFTER a fair trial right away. Hasan is STILL waiting in jail for a trial, while his mentor is dead along with his son without a trial. Why do libs refuse to encourage anyone from taking responsibility for their choices?

Why is a fetus more important than a living, sentient, person?


So that women in combat thing was just for show right? And you will wait till the GOP introduces the SS for women bill so you can say they are trying to "control women" and kill them off in combat right. Why didnt the dems do the hard part and make women start taking the responsibility already?

...what?


No they dont and no the "angry white guys" dont think like that. You need to show proof if you want to make these acusations.

Santorum, Perry, Paul (both of them), etc - have said enough foolish and crazy things, you already have more than enough proof.



You honestly believe the left isnt ran by over zealous nut jobs? The Dems have one as POTUS for pete sake.

Obama, on his best day, a wish-washy centrist with no backbone to stand up to the Right. We'd actually be better off with a zealous leftist as president.

Banned
05-12-2013, 05:11 AM
Right, cause there are so many people coming out of poverty and off food stamps now a days right? Oh, that right, nope. Even when Obama says the economy is picking up, there are still more and more people joining food stamps and falling below poverty. That might be because of Obamacare and private and public businesses cutting hours so they wont have to provide ever increasing health care costs to the employees that Obamacare is causing. Good thing there are some many "great ideas" from liberals that have to be made mandatory.

Right because letting them starve is so much better. Gotta love how the GOP will fight to the bitter end to defend a fetus... but the second that fetus pops out of the womb suddenly they don't give a shit if he gets to eat today or not.

TJMAC77SP
05-13-2013, 11:05 AM
Marriage is simply a legal contract. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no reason to give one religion preferential treatment over others. If two consenting adults want to enter a legal agreement with each other, who cares?




Which religion is getting preferential treatment regarding same-sex marriage?

TJMAC77SP
05-13-2013, 11:07 AM
Right because letting them starve is so much better. Gotta love how the GOP will fight to the bitter end to defend a fetus... but the second that fetus pops out of the womb suddenly they don't give a shit if he gets to eat today or not.

Aside from the hyperbole there is a point in what you say. I don't think the apathy is the sole domain of the GOP though.

imported_WILDJOKER5
05-13-2013, 12:02 PM
Marriage is simply a legal contract. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no reason to give one religion preferential treatment over others. If two consenting adults want to enter a legal agreement with each other, who cares?I am not saying that Joe. But the government isnt the only one that can create a contract.


Why is a fetus more important than a living, sentient, person?Now you are moving the goal posts. A woman being pregnant isnt saying the baby is more important, it just has the right to life as much as the mother. You also want to try and say the baby isnt sentient, but how do you measure that? Living? The baby has a heart beat after just 2 weeks.


...what?Exactly. Carry the measure to the end. Making women in the military eligible for combat should have also included their mandatory compliance with selective service requirement men have to do. You guys are just waiting for the GOP to introduce that part so you can start critisizing them for being mean and "war on women" BS.


Santorum, Perry, Paul (both of them), etc - have said enough foolish and crazy things, you already have more than enough proof.
Santorum is from the north. And not a single one of them won the primary. But you still didnt show proof of why you think they are what you said. Especially the Pauls.


Obama, on his best day, a wish-washy centrist with no backbone to stand up to the Right. We'd actually be better off with a zealous leftist as president.
Yeah, no backbone I agree, but he hasnt once put in an executive order that was anywhere near centrist.

Banned
05-13-2013, 12:46 PM
I am not saying that Joe. But the government isnt the only one that can create a contract.

A legally binding contract yes. Simply being approved by the tribal shaman or witch doctor isn't enough to be legal.


Now you are moving the goal posts. A woman being pregnant isnt saying the baby is more important, it just has the right to life as much as the mother. You also want to try and say the baby isnt sentient, but how do you measure that? Living? The baby has a heart beat after just 2 weeks.

Lot's of things have a heart beat. And its definitely an extremist and absurd position to say the fetus is "equal" to that of the mother.


Exactly. Carry the measure to the end. Making women in the military eligible for combat should have also included their mandatory compliance with selective service requirement men have to do. You guys are just waiting for the GOP to introduce that part so you can start critisizing them for being mean and "war on women" BS.

I like how you somehow twist my support of women in the selective service into some foolish conspiracy against the GOP.


Santorum is from the north. And not a single one of them won the primary. But you still didnt show proof of why you think they are what you said. Especially the Pauls.

What they say speaks for itself.


Yeah, no backbone I agree, but he hasnt once put in an executive order that was anywhere near centrist.

You're right. Most of his executive orders have been right-wing.

Banned
05-13-2013, 12:46 PM
I am not saying that Joe. But the government isnt the only one that can create a contract.

A legally binding contract yes. Simply being approved by the tribal shaman or witch doctor isn't enough to be legal.


Now you are moving the goal posts. A woman being pregnant isnt saying the baby is more important, it just has the right to life as much as the mother. You also want to try and say the baby isnt sentient, but how do you measure that? Living? The baby has a heart beat after just 2 weeks.

Lot's of things have a heart beat. And its definitely an extremist and absurd position to say the fetus is "equal" to that of the mother.


Exactly. Carry the measure to the end. Making women in the military eligible for combat should have also included their mandatory compliance with selective service requirement men have to do. You guys are just waiting for the GOP to introduce that part so you can start critisizing them for being mean and "war on women" BS.

I like how you somehow twist my support of women in the selective service into some foolish conspiracy against the GOP.


Santorum is from the north. And not a single one of them won the primary. But you still didnt show proof of why you think they are what you said. Especially the Pauls.

What they say speaks for itself.


Yeah, no backbone I agree, but he hasnt once put in an executive order that was anywhere near centrist.

You're right. Most of his executive orders have been right-wing.

imported_WILDJOKER5
05-13-2013, 01:19 PM
A legally binding contract yes. Simply being approved by the tribal shaman or witch doctor isn't enough to be legal.Nope, not even close. I made a legal binding contract with my ex with no more than a notary. Now the government would be the ones that can enforce said contract, but in the case of marriage, that only comes at divorce. You need the governments permission just to be legally married now.


Lot's of things have a heart beat. And its definitely an extremist and absurd position to say the fetus is "equal" to that of the mother.Why is it absurd? Cause its younger? Weaker? Ignorant? What makes it less equal than the mother?

And yes, lots of things have a heart beat, but they dont have human DNA different than that of everybody else on earth.


I like how you somehow twist my support of women in the selective service into some foolish conspiracy against the GOP.I dont. But to make the "equallity" real, why did they not get the "negative" along with the positive? The only ones that called for women to be included in selective service are the GOP, and do you really not expect them to be hammered by libs when the GOP pushes that bill?


What they say speaks for itself.Then show it.


You're right. Most of his executive orders have been right-wing.
Not even close. They are big government progressive.