Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

Run_to_da_hills · 07-09-2012 9:55pm

joseph brand wrote: »

Hey! You leave Romney Ryan outta this!

All politics are the same.

I had to laugh at this one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkOluULXTGw

joseph brand · 07-09-2012 9:55pm

Republican Rep. Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland believes that federal student loans could possibly lead to...the Holocaust?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyeBrwoHfB8

King Mob · 07-09-2012 10:12pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

No worse than the dishonesty and dirty lies we get from politicians.

It's worse than even the most underhanded stuff you imagine that "they" are using.
So why do you use it?

Gumbi · 08-09-2012 1:30am

King Mob wrote: »

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

No worse than the dishonesty and dirty lies we get from politicians.

It's worse than even the most underhanded stuff you imagine that "they" are using.
So why do you use it?

It's worse by definition - the very fact that politicians ARE underhanded demonstrates it's superiority to propaganda.

Corkfeen · 08-09-2012 2:06am

Good to see that he finally admitted that he's posting propaganda. :pac:

Hotblack Desiato · 08-09-2012 3:56am

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

One in particular worrying possibility would be the Federal Government’s proposed health insurance will mean mandatory vaccinations/immunizations.

Good. This is an area where the free riders benefit from what everyone else does, while simultaneously endangering those who do the right thing.

robindch · 08-09-2012 9:39am

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

One in particular worrying possibility would be the Federal Government’s proposed health insurance will mean mandatory vaccinations/immunizations. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) says that for anyone who refuses to keep up-to-date vaccinations, under the new health reform, you will not be able to obtain any health care you may need until immunizations are current.

Well, if they're mandatory, then you can't refuse. That's what the word "mandatory" means.

Otherwise, well, do you write for The Onion?

http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-help-us-destroy-jesus-and-start-a-new-age-of,29478/

The Onion wrote:

Obama: 'Help Us Destroy Jesus And Start A New Age Of Liberal Darkness'

CHARLOTTE, NC—With the savage roar of the heathen Democratic horde rising all around him, President Barack Obama delivered an incendiary speech to close his party’s national convention Thursday night, commanding the ultraprogressive minions in attendance to help him “destroy Jesus and usher in a new age of liberal darkness that shall reign o’er the earth for a thousand years.”

The thunderous 45-minute address—during which the president argued for a second term so that he could “finally kill Jesus once and for all, as well as all those who worship him”—was well received by the frenzied, wild-eyed audience, whose piercing chants of “Four more years!” and “Slaughter the believers!” echoed throughout the Time Warner Cable Arena.

“My fellow Americans and godless infidels, I command you to join me as we cast an endless pall of far-left evil across the hills and valleys of our nation!” Obama bellowed from the stage, as thousands in attendance moaned in compliance and gyrated their hips and groins in a lascivious dance. “Together, as a barbarian people forged by the wicked flames of irreligiosity and united by visions of a liberal dystopia, we will rise up as one to scorch the earth with boundless amorality.”

“The streets shall run red with the blood of forced sodomy, performed daily upon every American man, woman, and child!” the commander-in-chief shouted, froth forming around his mouth as the crowd threw hundreds of aborted fetuses onto the stage. “Die, Christians, die!”

Slamming his fists on the lectern until his hands began to bleed, Obama proceeded to lay out a “three-point plan of sin and lechery” for his second term. If reelected, the president said, he would begin by banning organized religion entirely—starting with Christianity—and burning all churches to the ground, preferably “with their wretched, Jesus-loving congregants still huddled inside like rats.”

As members of the audience violently tugged at their genitals and howled like sex-starved, atheist wolves, Obama stated that his administration would then seek to make free, taxpayer-funded abortions legal at any stage of pregnancy, even up to one full year after birth, in order to supply his newly created “federal stem-cell harvesting plants” with raw materials.

In addition, the cackling president vowed to “end traditional marriage as we know it” by passing legislation that would allow only homosexuals to raise children, a longtime Democratic policy goal.

“A glorious new age of sinister, unconstrained liberalism is dawning! Oh, dear Satan, I can feel it coursing through my veins at this very moment!” shrieked Obama, ripping off his shirt to reveal an ornate tattoo of a pentagram, with a different homosexual act positioned at each of the star’s five points. “Agnosticism, contempt for human life, and radical sexual experimentation shall rule the day! Any good, virtuous, family-values-oriented Christian Americans who seek to topple our magnificent liberal kingdom of eternal darkness will be powerless to stop us! We will crush them!”

Added Obama, “Thank you, may Satan reward you all, and may God tremble in fear at the United States of America!”

The president was then handed an unbaptized, orphaned newborn baby drenched in the blood of 666 slaughtered Christians, which he handed over to its new, gleefully squealing homosexual parents.

lynski · 08-09-2012 11:00am

ok, for a moment leaving aside that on this forum most people believe most religious beliefs are total codswollop, can someone please tell me when mormons became electable? I am having a really big problem getting my head around how someone who is a mormon can be elected dog-catcher nevermind anything else.
I know most beliefs are totally risible, but the LDS beliefs are nuts, a layer of extra crunchy nuttiness untop of standard christian nuts and they are a recognised cult too. How can someone who is a former bishop of a a cult and only stepped aside from his 'ministry' for his political career be considered in anyway sane enough to run anything?
What am i missing here?

Gbear · 08-09-2012 11:12am

Surely as soon as Obama and Romney are seen side by side in a debate people will see what a lying, hypocritical flip-flopper Romney is?

It's going to be the cringe comedy hit of the autumn.

I mean, Obama is going to have plenty to defend himself on and having to dance around saying he made mistakes (because if a politician does that the droolers all assume that that means he's completely incompetent) but Romney has absolutely nothing. No leg to stand on.

It works in the Republican convention because it's a circle jerk and nobody tests him. As soon as he gets attacked I think he'll just crumble.

08-09-2012 1:36pm

Pretty sure even as it is now that someone without up-to-date vaccinations will get "punished" if it comes to light. I've got philosophical and economic reasons for not liking government involvement in healthcare but in America my main problem with what they've done is that it doesn't go far enough. In the last 3 years I've very, very rarely heard an any way logical argument against "Obamacare" from a politician, it's all half-truths and scaremongering.

Galvasean · 08-09-2012 2:01pm

Gbear wrote: »

Surely as soon as Obama and Romney are seen side by side in a debate people will see what a lying, hypocritical flip-flopper Romney is?

It's going to be the cringe comedy hit of the autumn.

I mean, Obama is going to have plenty to defend himself on and having to dance around saying he made mistakes (because if a politician does that the droolers all assume that that means he's completely incompetent) but Romney has absolutely nothing. No leg to stand on.

It works in the Republican convention because it's a circle jerk and nobody tests him. As soon as he gets attacked I think he'll just crumble.

I'd imagine Romney will have to go out on the all out offensive and do a lot of topic changing when asked tricky questions. I mean, he's been exposed as a total liar in relation to many things. There's no way Obama and co. aren't going to open the skeleton closet.

sponsoredwalk · 08-09-2012 2:39pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlI4aQH3tVM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barton_%28author%29

ShooterSF · 08-09-2012 3:14pm

jank wrote: »

The answer is right there in black and white. It may not be to your satisfaction but it is an answer. Legitimacy is all subjective in this case. By all means dissagree with him, I know I do but not sure what the use is banging on the drum.

I hold myself to a certain level of expectation to question my beliefs, research them and see that they can be backed up with evidence around us. I read up arguments for and against and weigh up the strength of those arguments, as such if asked my opinion on gay marriage I could give it and then list off arguments to show WHY I hold that belief. I could even list the poor ones against I have met so far. And I'm a common joe soap, this guy is running for possibly the most powerful position in shaping the societies of the free world and he seemingly doesn't hold himself to the same expectations. No one should vote based on baseless opinion or emotion and they definitely shouldn't run for President on them. This "every belief is equal" thing has creeped into society and it's crap. It has stopped us demanding reason behind belief, especially when the belief is against such a basic human right as equality.

jank · 08-09-2012 3:32pm

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

How about a reason rather than an opinion?

He gave his reason.... but as I said that reason may not be acceptable to you or other people. Do you want him to provide a mathematical proof? He is representing the views of his constituency which as you rightly put should be his priority.

jank · 08-09-2012 3:38pm

Galvasean wrote: »

Despite your protests the stock answer, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" still does not explain why gay couples should have less rights than gay ones, particularly in relation to the rights cited specifically by the vet in the video.

You answered your own question there I am afraid. He believes what he believes (I actually don't believe that he believes that as I think he is playing to his base) but no amount of "please explain what you mean" wont change any of that. Anyway who gives a ****, you live in ireland, I live in Australia. It is not going to change anything.

Galvasean wrote: »

Grand so. We should never talk about anything ever again. In the spirit of leading by example, you go first.

Ah yes, take something I say, run a mile, collect some nice hay and start building..

swampgas · 08-09-2012 3:50pm

jank wrote: »

He gave his reason.... but as I said that reason may not be acceptable to you or other people. Do you want him to provide a mathematical proof? He is representing the views of his constituency which as you rightly put should be his priority.

Actually, he didn't give a reason, he dodged the question. When an American politician says "I believe X" it's code for "This is my religiously held belief, which is not open to question".

It would be more honest of Romney to say "I hold this position because of my faith", and allow people to put the question whether religion is a valid reason to deny gay people equal rights.

But just repeating "I believe" is a massive cop out.

Imagine he had said that he "believes" in economic policy X and then refused to say why, and simply repeated that he "believes" in it, would that be good enough for you?

jank · 08-09-2012 3:54pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

I hold myself to a certain level of expectation to question my beliefs, research them and see that they can be backed up with evidence around us. I read up arguments for and against and weigh up the strength of those arguments, as such if asked my opinion on gay marriage I could give it and then list off arguments to show WHY I hold that belief. I could even list the poor ones against I have met so far. And I'm a common joe soap, this guy is running for possibly the most powerful position in shaping the societies of the free world and he seemingly doesn't hold himself to the same expectations. No one should vote based on baseless opinion or emotion and they definitely shouldn't run for President on them. This "every belief is equal" thing has creeped into society and it's crap. It has stopped us demanding reason behind belief, especially when the belief is against such a basic human right as equality.

Stopped us? You are sadly mistaken. We have never begun in the first place to ask for reason in the relation in sound policy and legislation. The words "reason", "rights" and "equality" are all subjective at their core sense and have been used as political fodder by ALL sides. Look where you are posting the above. Do you seriously think you are going to get a balanced well thought out discussion with the word "fruitcake" in the title thread? Do the posts and the terms of reference of this entire thread have "reason" as its motive? No, the whole purpose of this thread is to mock and in turn feel superior. A very human reaction all the same but not very "reasonable".

MagicMarker · 08-09-2012 4:02pm

swampgas wrote: »

Actually, he didn't give a reason, he dodged the question. When an American politician says "I believe X" it's code for "This is my religiously held belief, which is not open to question".

It would be more honest of Romney to say "I hold this position because of my faith", and allow people to put the question whether religion is a valid reason to deny gay people equal rights.

But just repeating "I believe" is a massive cop out.

Imagine he had said that he "believes" in economic policy X and then refused to say why, and simply repeated that he "believes" in it, would that be good enough for you?

Unfortunately you're wasting your time as jank's views on gay marriage are equally as retarded as Romney's.

ShooterSF · 08-09-2012 4:03pm

jank wrote: »

Stopped us? You are sadly mistaken. We have never begun in the first place to ask for reason in the relation in sound policy and legislation. The words "reason", "rights" and "equality" are all subjective at their core sense and have been used as political fodder by ALL sides. Look where you are posting the above. Do you seriously think you are going to get a balanced well thought out discussion with the word "fruitcake" in the title thread? Do the posts and the terms of reference of this entire thread have "reason" as its motive? No, the whole purpose of this thread is to mock and in turn feel superior. A very human reaction all the same but not very "reasonable".

Can you stick to the point being made for 3 seconds without shifting the goal posts no? I'm not looking to discuss the thread title nor the merits of mocking people who do stupid things (well I could do both happily but there's a more pressing issue).

Do you think it's a positive thing for people to vote based on opinions they can provide no arguments for holding or not? This is the point being made.

jank · 08-09-2012 4:09pm

swampgas wrote: »

Imagine he had said that he "believes" in economic policy X and then refused to say why, and simply repeated that he "believes" in it, would that be good enough for you?

People vote for all kinds of stupid economic policies, not least in Ireland. Remember we voted for Bertie's FF 3 times to put him into government in the belief that a government supported property boom and massive expenditure in the public sector was sustainable. Charlie McCrevey was shipped off to Europe because he wanted to put some brakes on government handouts and expenditure which led to bad local elections for FF. The Unions and the left screamed blue murder about the share of the "pie" being unfairly distributed. Well we couldn't have that now, money for everyone..... roll on 8 years and we are still paying for the mess. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

jank · 08-09-2012 4:12pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

Unfortunately you're wasting your time as jank's views on gay marriage are equally as retarded as Romney's.

I would at least appreciate a little bit of decorum here and if you actually spent a few minutes reading my comments on this very thread which I clearly state that I don't agree with Romney, you will understand that I have no issue with Gay marriage, but hey insults are easy and says more about the person posting them than the one receiving it.

jank · 08-09-2012 4:19pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

Do you think it's a positive thing for people to vote based on opinions they can provide no arguments for holding or not? This is the point being made.

You are asking that we vote for people who are experts in an almost unfathomable amount of topics and subjects. Unfortunately we vote for humans not some robot or an entirely "logical" and "rational" being.

To prove this, tell me who you voted for in the last GE and I can easily find that this person holds an opinion or has done something that can be easily disputed by "experts" as not best practice. Its the nature of the world, Romney's answer is merely an example of this. I am actually astonished at the level of nativity on this matter by people who are meant to be worldly.

magicbastarder · 08-09-2012 4:21pm

Gbear wrote: »

Surely as soon as Obama and Romney are seen side by side in a debate people will see what a lying, hypocritical flip-flopper Romney is?

the winner in these debates are not decided by a panel of number crunchers who tot up the credibility of figures being quoted though; they're won on a range of things, including the personality of the speaker. don't think the debates will be conclusive; this election is unusual in that the percentage of swing voters is much lower than usual. so it will not be won by convincing the swing voters to vote, it will be won by getting the voters who have decided who their candidate is up and out to cast those votes.

MagicMarker · 08-09-2012 4:53pm

jank wrote: »

you will understand that I have no issue with Gay marriage

If you say so. I'll just go ahead and pretend to believe you in the same way I pretend to believe you when you say you are not a christian.

swampgas · 08-09-2012 8:10pm

jank wrote: »

People vote for all kinds of stupid economic policies, not least in Ireland. [...] People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

That may well be the case, but at least the people proposing those policies were prepared to give reasons why those policies were good. There was (and still is) plenty of room for debate on those policies, because the rationale behind them was open for debate.

We may have had lousy debates, and the rationales proposed may have been crazy, but at least we can review and see where me can improve things.

On the other hand, if a proposed economic policy was "set taxes and public spending in this particular way but don't ask why" then we're never going to get anywhere.

Anyhow, the point I'm trying to make is pretty obvious - simply saying "I believe X" without giving reasons is dishonest. Romney wants to take a religious position but not actually acknowledge that that is what he's doing.

jank · 09-09-2012 2:11am

swampgas wrote: »

That may well be the case, but at least the people proposing those policies were prepared to give reasons why those policies were good. There was (and still is) plenty of room for debate on those policies, because the rationale behind them was open for debate.

Your kidding right. What was the reason we got from FF to vote for them in 2007? The never ending money tree where we can all be rich from selling an buying houses from each other? The great Irish Ponzi scheme?:)

swampgas wrote: »

We may have had lousy debates, and the rationales proposed may have been crazy, but at least we can review and see where me can improve things.

On the other hand, if a proposed economic policy was "set taxes and public spending in this particular way but don't ask why" then we're never going to get anywhere.

Anyhow, the point I'm trying to make is pretty obvious - simply saying "I believe X" without giving reasons is dishonest. Romney wants to take a religious position but not actually acknowledge that that is what he's doing.

So essentially you are agreeing with me but you hold someone else whom you don't agree with to a higher standard? Why is that?
Who did you vote for in the last GE?

ShooterSF · 09-09-2012 2:58am

jank wrote: »

You are asking that we vote for people who are experts in an almost unfathomable amount of topics and subjects. Unfortunately we vote for humans not some robot or an entirely "logical" and "rational" being.

To prove this, tell me who you voted for in the last GE and I can easily find that this person holds an opinion or has done something that can be easily disputed by "experts" as not best practice. Its the nature of the world, Romney's answer is merely an example of this. I am actually astonished at the level of nativity on this matter by people who are meant to be worldly.

They have a better chance of being experts than I have as they can hire a team of advisors to become experts in these areas. Even expert is more than Im asking, just that they look to experts when making decisions. I, whose full time job is not trying to run a society, have had time to inform myself on a range of issues that Romney should have been able to too.
Secondly (and importantly) society should be built on some basic human rights as default, equality one of them, so if Mr. Romney hasn't had time to research gay marriage he should default to the above with the clause that when he finds time to better his knowledge he will make his own informed opinion. To start out with no research and hold a default position of discrimination is surely mind boggling (unless he admits his belief is coloured by religion).

As for who I voted for, with a heavy heart I voted Fine Gael due to economic issues that I felt labour couldn't have forced through. Not that they've succeeded. I'd have preferred to vote for Labour's social policies and as for the particular member of Fine Gael I can't remember as I vote with the whip system in place and only write off nutty individuals or one's concerned with local issues above national important ones.

To be honest though I'm not happy to lower my expectation of politicians just because they so often falter so that point is rather moot.

jank · 09-09-2012 4:18am

ShooterSF wrote: »

They have a better chance of being experts than I have as they can hire a team of advisors to become experts in these areas. Even expert is more than Im asking, just that they look to experts when making decisions. I, whose full time job is not trying to run a society, have had time to inform myself on a range of issues that Romney should have been able to too.

We have plenty of appointed experts and quangos in Ireland. Anytime the issue of politically appointed experts are mentioned in Ireland the left come out with the same tired mantra of wasted money and large salaries. Cant win really. They want perfect government full of experts but unwilling to pay for it. Even at the nothing is gauranteed. Look at the department of finance, they are meant to be the cream of the crop of the Irish public sector but were woefully prepared for any economic crisis that befell Ireland. Also, I don't think the president is trying to run a society, we are talking about the USA here not communist China or Cuba.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Secondly (and importantly) society should be built on some basic human rights as default, equality one of them, so if Mr. Romney hasn't had time to research gay marriage he should default to the above with the clause that when he finds time to better his knowledge he will make his own informed opinion. To start out with no research and hold a default position of discrimination is surely mind boggling (unless he admits his belief is coloured by religion).

As I said equality is subjective. The European Courts of Human rights for example doesn't recognise Gay Marriage as a "right". Neither does the Supreme court of the United states. If two of the most progressive legal systems in the world doesn't recongise it what does that say? Should I take your word for it over these Judges who would be "experts" in the legal system? Some people say that everyone has a right to a job, house, car etc. The word right is as I said brandished about without any thought of what it actually means. Usually as a political football and to make a moot point.

ShooterSF wrote: »

As for who I voted for, with a heavy heart I voted Fine Gael due to economic issues that I felt labour couldn't have forced through. Not that they've succeeded. I'd have preferred to vote for Labour's social policies and as for the particular member of Fine Gael I can't remember as I vote with the whip system in place and only write off nutty individuals or one's concerned with local issues above national important ones.

So you cant remember who you vote for yet expect GOP voters to hold their candidate to a higher authority?

The presidental process is similar to a whip system, just with more money, ticker tape and jazz. The GOP nomanie is generally conservative, anti-abortion, supposed to be fiscally conservative, religious, strong on defense, nationalistic, caters to the wealthy, for low taxes, usually against big government. Most of the GOP voters couldn't give a damm if there was a chimp running for the white house. If most of the boxes above are ticked they will tick the same box come polling day.
Before anyone gets high and mighty, it is the EXACT same for the democrats.

ShooterSF wrote: »

To be honest though I'm not happy to lower my expectation of politicians just because they so often falter so that point is rather moot.

Agreed.

swampgas · 09-09-2012 9:52am

jank wrote: »

Your kidding right. What was the reason we got from FF to vote for them in 2007? The never ending money tree where we can all be rich from selling an buying houses from each other? The great Irish Ponzi scheme?:)

I don't really get what your point is here. Are you saying that politicians shouldn't bother to give reasons why they think their policies are worthy of support? That seems to be what you are driving at anyway.

jank · 09-09-2012 10:59am

swampgas wrote: »

I don't really get what your point is here. Are you saying that politicians shouldn't bother to give reasons why they think their policies are worthy of support? That seems to be what you are driving at anyway.

They can give what ever reason they want, just like Romney gave his reason for being anti gay marriage. All I same saying is that because one reason is a belief which may stem from a religious dogma and the other reason is based on economic journals doesn't automatically mean that the latter is superior. It may well might be but its not guaranteed. As for the economics themselves well did you ever hear of the term, "economists have predicted 7 out of the last 3 recessions". People will disagree regardless, its in our nature.

swampgas · 09-09-2012 11:17am

jank wrote: »

They can give what ever reason they want, just like Romney gave his reason for being anti gay marriage. All I same saying is that because one reason is a belief which may stem from a religious dogma and the other reason is based on economic journals doesn't automatically mean that the latter is superior. It may well might be but its not guaranteed. As for the economics themselves well did you ever hear of the term, "economists have predicted 7 out of the last 3 recessions". People will disagree regardless, its in our nature.

Except Romney didn't say that he was against gay marriage because of his religious beliefs, he just said that he "believed" that marriage is between a man and a woman. He didn't back that belief up with anything at all - not with some sort of rational argument, nor with religious doctrine. That's not really acceptable when debating public policy.

Now, you and I both know that religion is the likely cause of his opposition to gay marriage, so why doesn't he just say so? Is he embarrassed to admit that his religion is anti-gay?

jank · 10-09-2012 7:16am

swampgas wrote: »

Except Romney didn't say that he was against gay marriage because of his religious beliefs, he just said that he "believed" that marriage is between a man and a woman. He didn't back that belief up with anything at all - not with some sort of rational argument, nor with religious doctrine. That's not really acceptable when debating public policy.

Again, as I have previously stated numerous times you are holding these guys up to a higher standard than you would otherwise. It may not be acceptable to YOU, but it is acceptable for millions of others. Politicans make all kinds of statements that are not deemed rational by some. Bertie was a socalist remember? Labour keep spouting crap that makes no sense on a daily basis. The new thing now is gender quota's.

swampgas wrote: »

Now, you and I both know that religion is the likely cause of his opposition to gay marriage, so why doesn't he just say so? Is he embarrassed to admit that his religion is anti-gay?

Well that is one black and white view on it, however does that mean the European Courts of Human Rights are ruled by religous dogma as they rejected the gay marriage as a right argument? Religion is a very convieniant scape goat for some, I see it all the time here but when you scratch away at the surface there are always other factors at play. You dont need religion to hate, plenty of examples in history.

ShooterSF · 10-09-2012 2:50pm

jank wrote: »

We have plenty of appointed experts and quangos in Ireland. Anytime the issue of politically appointed experts are mentioned in Ireland the left come out with the same tired mantra of wasted money and large salaries. Cant win really. They want perfect government full of experts but unwilling to pay for it. Even at the nothing is gauranteed. Look at the department of finance, they are meant to be the cream of the crop of the Irish public sector but were woefully prepared for any economic crisis that befell Ireland. Also, I don't think the president is trying to run a society, we are talking about the USA here not communist China or Cuba.

And people unwilling to pay for good government are idiots too. Way off point though, again. And the president of the USA definitely shapes the society.

As I said equality is subjective. The European Courts of Human rights for example doesn't recognise Gay Marriage as a "right". Neither does the Supreme court of the United states. If two of the most progressive legal systems in the world doesn't recongise it what does that say? Should I take your word for it over these Judges who would be "experts" in the legal system? Some people say that everyone has a right to a job, house, car etc. The word right is as I said brandished about without any thought of what it actually means. Usually as a political football and to make a moot point.

So you're saying that two people in love can get protections from the state unless they happen to be the same gender might actually be equality? In what way is it subjective? Equality means equal treatment. Our application of it is subjective but that doesn't mean equality itself is. Then you start listing rights we can't and don't provide to anyone. Like wtf? Do you see any state law which gives the right to everyone but gingers to own a car? Because that way the comparison would make sense and also where I'd have a problem with it.

So you cant remember who you vote for yet expect GOP voters to hold their candidate to a higher authority? The presidental process is similar to a whip system, just with more money, ticker tape and jazz. The GOP nomanie is generally conservative, anti-abortion, supposed to be fiscally conservative, religious, strong on defense, nationalistic, caters to the wealthy, for low taxes, usually against big government. Most of the GOP voters couldn't give a damm if there was a chimp running for the white house. If most of the boxes above are ticked they will tick the same box come polling day.
Before anyone gets high and mighty, it is the EXACT same for the democrats.

You seem to be mixing up what people should do to get voted for and what we're discussing, what people should do because it's the best thing for the development of our species. I'm not suggesting Romney or any politician would get more votes by researching their views and amending them where applicable. I'm suggesting it because otherwise it makes him an asshole of a human being, something we should all strive not to be. Especially people who want to involve themselves in the running of a state.

oldrnwisr · 10-09-2012 6:27pm

jank wrote: »

As I said equality is subjective. The European Courts of Human rights for example doesn't recognise Gay Marriage as a "right". Neither does the Supreme court of the United states. If two of the most progressive legal systems in the world doesn't recongise it what does that say? Should I take your word for it over these Judges who would be "experts" in the legal system? Some people say that everyone has a right to a job, house, car etc. The word right is as I said brandished about without any thought of what it actually means. Usually as a political football and to make a moot point.

What are you trying to get at here jank? The ECHR ruling is completely irrelevant to the actual debate on gay marriage. The reason that the French couple who took the case got the wrong answer is because they asked the wrong question.

The court ruling found:

"The European Convention on Human Rights does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage"

Well of course not. There is no right to marry. Marriage is something which has been adopted and administrated by the state and is for the state to grant to whomever it pleases. However, the state must do so in such a way that it is coherent with its other constitutional obligations. That's the problem. It's not about the right to marry, it's about the right to be treated equally and that is something which is enshrined in both the US and Irish constitutions.

14th Amendment

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Article 40.1

"All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.
This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function."

The point of the matter is that if we are going to have a debate about denying people their constitutional right to equality before the law then there must be a rational reason for doing so, accessible to people of all backgrounds. Obama gets it, but Romney doesn't seem to, thinking that his religion should protect him against having to back up his argument.

joseph brand · 11-09-2012 8:17pm

jank wrote: »

Stopped us? You are sadly mistaken. We have never begun in the first place to ask for reason in the relation in sound policy and legislation. The words "reason", "rights" and "equality" are all subjective at their core sense and have been used as political fodder by ALL sides. Look where you are posting the above. Do you seriously think you are going to get a balanced well thought out discussion with the word "fruitcake" in the title thread? Do the posts and the terms of reference of this entire thread have "reason" as its motive? No, the whole purpose of this thread is to mock and in turn feel superior. A very human reaction all the same but not very "reasonable".

Would you prefer 'meatheads' or 'Repubtards'? Romney signed up to the mormon cult for a billion years service. He pays 10% of his wages. How much will that work out to over a billion years? That's a question I'd ask him. No point in putting serious, reasonable, grown-up questions to a former moron bishop in magic underpants.

joseph brand · 11-09-2012 8:32pm

Dinosaurs Lived With Man? So Says Allen Quist, GOP Candidate.

"...Allen Quist, a 67-year-old soybean farmer and onetime anti-sodomy crusader who believes that humans and dinosaurs may have coexisted in Southeast Asia as late as the 11th century. Quist's platform and ideology bears a close resemblance to another Minnesota conservative with a huge family and a love-hate relationship with modern science—Rep. Michele Bachmann. That's no coincidence. Beginning in the late 1990s, the duo worked together to take down Minnesota's state curriculum standards, which they considered a gateway to a totalitarian society built on moral relativism. He helped make her rise possible; now he wants to join her in Washington...".* Is Democrat Tim Walz in trouble? The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G61x68TG548

He also believes that there is scientific evidence for dragons. Not making it up!

If Monty Python started a political party, as a joke, it wouldn't be as mentally deranged as the GOP.

decimatio · 12-09-2012 2:26am

jank wrote: »

They can give what ever reason they want, just like Romney gave his reason for being anti gay marriage. All I same saying is that because one reason is a belief which may stem from a religious dogma and the other reason is based on economic journals doesn't automatically mean that the latter is superior.

What?

Someone thinking something because of some bronze age unverifiable nonsense thought up by illiterate goat herders 2000+ years ago isn't inferior to academic research peer reviewed by the best thinkers in the field? I can't even begin to fathom what kind of brain damage would be required to agree with that.

Its inferior in every way imaginable.

I'm reminded of the everlasting argument in the public sphere where some talk show or news reporter will pit the opinion of a renowned evolutionary biologist against some Christian apologist with a Phd in theology on Evolution and act like their views have equal weight. Or recently where I witnessed a talkshow where a virologist was pitted against a faith healer and a homeopodist.

Some eejit from the backarse of Mayo who claims to have 'the cure' is not equal to someone with an actual medical qualification.

The economist, doctor, or even the evolutionary biologist could possibly be wrong but to suggest their views aren't superior on those issues is insanity.

jank · 12-09-2012 5:27am

joseph brand wrote: »

Would you prefer 'meatheads' or 'Repubtards'? Romney signed up to the mormon cult for a billion years service. He pays 10% of his wages. How much will that work out to over a billion years? That's a question I'd ask him. No point in putting serious, reasonable, grown-up questions to a former moron bishop in magic underpants.

Thanks for proving the point in a better way than I could have expressed.

jank · 12-09-2012 5:49am

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The point of the matter is that if we are going to have a debate about denying people their constitutional right to equality before the law then there must be a rational reason for doing so, accessible to people of all backgrounds. Obama gets it, but Romney doesn't seem to, thinking that his religion should protect him against having to back up his argument.

Obama has also changed his mind on this topic three times...

jank · 12-09-2012 5:54am

decimatio wrote: »

What?

The economist, doctor, or even the evolutionary biologist could possibly be wrong but to suggest their views aren't superior on those issues is insanity.

They could be wrong but they are automaticly ALWAYS right when pitted up against someone who has beliefs that have religious overtones... Hmmm. Sure!

That is the fallacy of looking at the cover of the book or the author and then automaticly agreeing or dissagreeing with it even though one doesnt read the pages.

Run_to_da_hills · 12-09-2012 9:20am

"a physician running for the Illinois State Senate sums up ObamaCare in one sentence " " So, let me get this straight. This is a long sentence....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdnY8r7_fLw

robindch · 12-09-2012 9:46am

^^^ Let me add another class of nutter to our Republican presidential fruitcakes - in this case, physicians who oppose healthcare!

doctoremma · 12-09-2012 10:32am

jank wrote: »

They could be wrong but they are automaticly ALWAYS right when pitted up against someone who has beliefs that have religious overtones... Hmmm. Sure!

I would hesitate at declaring their views automatically right but have no such problems declaring their views automatically more valid.

joseph brand · 12-09-2012 10:32am

‘I Didn’t Know You Had Families’ Mitt Romney Told Group Of Gay Parents

Who knew? Gay men and women actually have parents, siblings, children and extended family. Who wants to tell Romney that the Earth is round (it's not a perfect sphere but let's keep it simple) and that losing your home (tent cities) is a mild setback?

“It was like talking to a robot. No expression, no feeling,” recalls David Wilson, one of the plaintiffs in the case who met with Romney that day. “People were sharing touching stories, stories where you’d expect recognition in the other person’s face that they at least hear what you’re saying — that there’s empathy. He didn’t even shake his head. He was completely blank.”

Occasionally Romney would say something.

“I didn’t know you had families,” remarked Romney to the group, according to Wilson.
The offhanded remark underscored that Romney, the governor of the first state prepared to grant same-sex marriage, hadn’t taken the time to look at what the landmark case was really about. By this point the plaintiff’s stories had been widely covered by national media — in particular, Julie Goodridge’s heartrending tale of how her then-partner, Hillary, was denied hospital visitation following the precarious birth of daughter Annie. It was the ignorance of these facts — and Romney’s inaccurate, insensitive answer to her parting question, that pushed Julie Goodridge to her breaking point.

“I looked him in the eye as we were leaving,” recalls Goodridge. “And I said, ‘Governor Romney, tell me — what would you suggest I say to my 8 year-old daughter about why her mommy and her ma can’t get married because you, the governor of her state, are going to block our marriage?’”

His response, according to Goodridge: “I don’t really care what you tell your adopted daughter. Why don’t you just tell her the same thing you’ve been telling her the last eight years.”

:eek:

What was that argument put forward by the religious concerning morals? :rolleyes:

joseph brand · 12-09-2012 10:43am

jank wrote: »

They could be wrong but they are automaticly ALWAYS right when pitted up against someone who has beliefs that have religious overtones... Hmmm. Sure!

That is the fallacy of looking at the cover of the book or the author and then automaticly agreeing or dissagreeing with it even though one doesnt read the pages.

If you're talking about theists and their holy books, then you're bang on the money.

The sheer amount of catholics here in Ireland, who haven't read a single page of the bible, but they 'know' it's all true.

The irony is, according to Penn Jillette, that if they did read it, their eyes would be opened. I don't think it would have a 100% success rate, but assuming they were reasonable, ethical and critical thinkers it would enlighten them to what their masters know.

Question: Why would reading the Bible make you an atheist?

Penn Jillette: I think because what we get told about the Bible is a lot of picking and choosing, when you see, you know, Lot's daughter gang raped and beaten, and the Lord being okay with that; when you actually read about Abraham being willing to kill his son, when you actually read that; when you read the insanity of the talking snake; when you read the hostility towards homosexuals, towards women, the celebration of slavery; when you read in context, that "thou shalt not kill" means only in your own tribe—I mean, there's no hint that it means humanity in general; that there's no sense of a shared humanity, it's all tribal; when you see a God that is jealous and insecure; when you see that there's contradictions that show that it was clearly written hundreds of years after the supposed fact and full of contradictions. I think that anybody... you know, it's like reading The Constitution of the United States of America. It's been... it's in English. You know, you don't need someone to hold your hand. Just pick it up and read it. Just read what the First Amendment says and then read what the Bible says. Going back to the source material is always the best.

decimatio · 12-09-2012 3:12pm

jank wrote: »

They could be wrong but they are automaticly ALWAYS right when pitted up against someone who has beliefs that have religious overtones... Hmmm. Sure!

Who said that ? Not I. I specifically talked about inferior and superior.

The theory of relativity (gravity) might be wrong and it could well be shown to be wrong tomorrow. But that doesn't mean it isn't superior to someone who thinks there are invisible ropes holding everyone down.

sponsoredwalk · 12-09-2012 3:30pm

decimatio wrote: »

Who said that ? Not I. I specifically talked about inferior and superior.

The theory of relativity (gravity) might be wrong and it could well be shown to be wrong tomorrow. But that doesn't mean it isn't superior to someone who thinks there are invisible ropes holding everyone down.

Where is this superiority complex coming from, & why does it sound eerily similar to this shining city on a hill rhetoric pumping out of both conventions?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jpv5rzlTm4

Memnoch · 13-09-2012 12:37pm

jank wrote: »

They could be wrong but they are automaticly ALWAYS right when pitted up against someone who has beliefs that have religious overtones... Hmmm. Sure!

That is the fallacy of looking at the cover of the book or the author and then automaticly agreeing or dissagreeing with it even though one doesnt read the pages.

Reason, logic, testable theories, empirical evidence, in short, the scientific method has produced... lightbulbs, phones, cars, planes, medicine, space shuttles, tvs, fridges...

Relgious belief has produced... oh yes, turning water into wine and all that other good stuff.

So yes... when someone approaches a problem with logic and the scientific method their answer or 'belief,' is always going to be SUPERIOR to someone who approaches the same problem with... 'That guy with the beard told me that he spoke to the sky fairy and he was told how to interpret this really old book that's been rewritten countless times.'

joseph brand · 13-09-2012 9:20pm

joseph brand · 14-09-2012 6:47pm

If you want to laugh at Pat Robertson giving advice on adopting foreign children or a US Judge warning that Obama is about to give US sovereignty over to the UN, these guys are funny. (btw they feature in a podcast called 'The Best of The Left)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0l6f4Be5pM

Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

Comments