LGP Political Discussion Thread

Forum for posts that are not hockey-related.

Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Kaizer on Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:32 pm

shafnutz05 wrote:
Gaucho wrote:
shafnutz05 wrote:
redwill wrote:But people are still gonna complain. I live in rural Kansas in a county which is 94% white, yet the extremely white people here still rail against what is happening to the whites of this area. It's kind of comical.


Apartheid proved that a minority can oppress a majority :pop:


Except the minority in numbers was the majority in power, which is all that matters.


Spoiler:
Image


he's got all the bases covered, being half white and all.
Kaizer
AHL Hall of Famer
AHL Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 9,543
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:02 am
Location: Crazy Town

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby redwill on Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:44 pm

GaryRissling wrote:I'm troubled by the consequences of our policies.


All policies have consequences. We'll deal with them as they arise. If necessary, we'll put a boot in the ass of folks who try us. AMIRITE???

CAN I GET AN AMEN???

IMO, there are folks who are gonna hate us no matter what we do. We could hand out gourmet food, whimsical kites, happy hugs, oh-so-cute puppies, kittens, and colorful butterflies to some folks and they'd find a way to hate us. Why not just rain death down upon them and achieve the same result?
redwill
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 7,342
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 4:04 pm
Location: Wichita, KS

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby shafnutz05 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:45 pm

redwill wrote:IMO, there are folks who are gonna hate us no matter what we do.


While I may not agree with your overarching point, I agree strongly with this one.
shafnutz05
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 60,559
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:10 pm
Location: Amish Country

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby slappybrown on Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:51 pm

redwill wrote:
GaryRissling wrote:I'm troubled by the consequences of our policies.


All policies have consequences. We'll deal with them as they arise. If necessary, we'll put a boot in the ass of folks who try us. AMIRITE???

CAN I GET AN AMEN???

IMO, there are folks who are gonna hate us no matter what we do. We could hand out gourmet food, whimsical kites, happy hugs, oh-so-cute puppies, kittens, and colorful butterflies to some folks and they'd find a way to hate us. Why not just rain death down upon them and achieve the same result?

What specifically would make a kite whimsical? Also, I would like 1 whimsical kite, please.
slappybrown
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 20,279
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:08 am
Location: its like bologna with olives in it

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby redwill on Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:52 pm

shafnutz05 wrote:While I may not agree with your overarching point, I agree strongly with this one.


You would. You just like the idea of an overarching point. Admit it.
redwill
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 7,342
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 4:04 pm
Location: Wichita, KS

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby redwill on Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:55 pm

slappybrown wrote:What specifically would make a kite whimsical? Also, I would like 1 whimsical kite, please.


Talk to USAID. They've got loads of them 'round the back.
redwill
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 7,342
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 4:04 pm
Location: Wichita, KS

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby GaryRissling on Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:11 pm

redwill wrote:
GaryRissling wrote:I'm troubled by the consequences of our policies.


All policies have consequences. We'll deal with them as they arise. If necessary, we'll put a boot in the ass of folks who try us. AMIRITE???

CAN I GET AN AMEN???

IMO, there are folks who are gonna hate us no matter what we do. We could hand out gourmet food, whimsical kites, happy hugs, oh-so-cute puppies, kittens, and colorful butterflies to some folks and they'd find a way to hate us. Why not just rain death down upon them and achieve the same result?


I'm curious. Why do some of you feel that people will hate us regardless of what we do? Do you think they'll hate us if, say, we stopped trying to influence their governments, supporting tyrannical regimes, starving them, and drone bombing them? Not that we've tried that since WWII.

I think you actually mean they'll hate us regardless of what we do *to them*. Bear in mind, I am going to assume everyone has at least a working knowledge of our Middle East foreign policy at least from FDR and Saudi Arabia deciding how to divide it up after WWII through today.
GaryRissling
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 1,635
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby DelPen on Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:14 pm

GaryRissling wrote:
redwill wrote:
GaryRissling wrote:I'm troubled by the consequences of our policies.


All policies have consequences. We'll deal with them as they arise. If necessary, we'll put a boot in the ass of folks who try us. AMIRITE???

CAN I GET AN AMEN???

IMO, there are folks who are gonna hate us no matter what we do. We could hand out gourmet food, whimsical kites, happy hugs, oh-so-cute puppies, kittens, and colorful butterflies to some folks and they'd find a way to hate us. Why not just rain death down upon them and achieve the same result?


I'm curious. Why do some of you feel that people will hate us regardless of what we do? Do you think they'll hate us if, say, we stopped trying to influence their governments, supporting tyrannical regimes, starving them, and drone bombing them? Not that we've tried that since WWII.

I think you actually mean they'll hate us regardless of what we do *to them*. Bear in mind, I am going to assume everyone has at least a working knowledge of our Middle East foreign policy at least from FDR and Saudi Arabia deciding how to divide it up after WWII through today.


When their life gets no better they will look to others to blame because surely their authoritarian leadership isn't the real reason their people are stuck in the stone age.
DelPen
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 36,388
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:27 am
Location: Lake Wylie, SC

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby redwill on Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:14 pm

I'm bored now. Cheers.
redwill
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 7,342
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 4:04 pm
Location: Wichita, KS

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby PensFanInDC on Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:18 pm

Back to the important issue...

Image
PensFanInDC
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 27,916
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:28 pm
Location: Fredneck

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby GaryRissling on Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:19 pm

DelPen wrote:
GaryRissling wrote:
redwill wrote:
GaryRissling wrote:I'm troubled by the consequences of our policies.


All policies have consequences. We'll deal with them as they arise. If necessary, we'll put a boot in the ass of folks who try us. AMIRITE???

CAN I GET AN AMEN???

IMO, there are folks who are gonna hate us no matter what we do. We could hand out gourmet food, whimsical kites, happy hugs, oh-so-cute puppies, kittens, and colorful butterflies to some folks and they'd find a way to hate us. Why not just rain death down upon them and achieve the same result?


I'm curious. Why do some of you feel that people will hate us regardless of what we do? Do you think they'll hate us if, say, we stopped trying to influence their governments, supporting tyrannical regimes, starving them, and drone bombing them? Not that we've tried that since WWII.

I think you actually mean they'll hate us regardless of what we do *to them*. Bear in mind, I am going to assume everyone has at least a working knowledge of our Middle East foreign policy at least from FDR and Saudi Arabia deciding how to divide it up after WWII through today.


When their life gets no better they will look to others to blame because surely their authoritarian leadership isn't the real reason their people are stuck in the stone age.


You mean the authoritarian leaders we support? Saudi Royal Fam, Mubarak (and I think Morsi is going to be Mubarak 2.0), Saddam (yep, we supported him in the 80's then starved millions in 90's to remove him), Yemen, Bahrain, the Shah, etc, etc, etc.
GaryRissling
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 1,635
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby MRandall25 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:20 pm

The amount of circlejerking over profile pictures was even more unbearable than usual yesterday.

@PFIDC's picture
Last edited by MRandall25 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MRandall25
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 19,693
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:11 pm
Location: BOBROVSKY!!!

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby PensFanInDC on Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:20 pm

MRandall25 wrote:The amount of circlejerking over profile pictures was even more unbearable than usual yesterday.


The bacon one made me lol
PensFanInDC
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 27,916
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:28 pm
Location: Fredneck

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby columbia on Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:21 pm

That's some shad-level FB complaining.
columbia
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 51,889
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:13 am
Location: دعنا نذهب طيور البطريق

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby MRandall25 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:22 pm

Proud of it :lol:
MRandall25
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 19,693
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:11 pm
Location: BOBROVSKY!!!

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Shyster on Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:27 pm

pittsoccer33 wrote:
MRandall25 wrote:Would this whole "gay marriage" thing be an issue if the government had used a term other than "marriage" to define the union between 2 people? I think most people (at least those who oppose same-sex unions) see the term "marriage" as religious in connotation. Marriage to them is something sacred, done in a religious context. Using "gay marriage" is a threat, in a way, to their definition of religious marriage between a man and a woman as laid out in the Bible. "How dare two people of the same sex try to infringe on our religious institution," they may think.

Perhaps if the government moved away from the term "marriage", maybe those who oppose "gay marriage" would lessen their stance? If the various parties were arguing over "same-sex unions" as opposed to "same-sex marriage", would we even be worrying about this issue now?


Yes I think that would eliminate 95+% of the opposition.


I concur. I think a lot of the opposition to gay marriage comes from people (including myself) who believe that the word marriage refers—and has throughout recorded history referred—to a heterosexual relationship. Thus, there cannot be gay marriage without changing the fundamental societal definition of marriage. Chief Justice Roberts raised this point yesterday in an exchange with Mr. Olson:

If you tell—if you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, this is my friend, but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend. And that’s it seems to me what the—what supporters of Proposition 8 are saying here. You’re—all you’re interested in is the label and you insist on changing the definition of the label.
Shyster
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,754
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:32 pm
Location: Here and there

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Pucks_and_Pols on Wed Mar 27, 2013 3:07 pm

Same-sex marriage and equality is forthcoming and inevitable. Nothing this supreme court does or says is going to change that. They can delay things in the short term, and I mildly suspect they will, but they will be on the wrong side of history if they do.
Pucks_and_Pols
Junior 'A'
Junior 'A'
 
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:47 am

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby obhave on Wed Mar 27, 2013 3:55 pm

I personally don't want the definition of marriage to be changed. I understand the point that shyster and many make, that marriage by definition is between a man and a woman. Fine, whatever. I'm not asking the government to change the definition, to forces churches to marry me, to do any of that. All I'm asking for is to have the same rights as any heterosexual couple if I decide that I want to marry a woman. I'm not someone who even feels the need to get married later in life. This matters to me because if I wanted to, I wouldn't be allowed. If I wanted the benefits of being a married couple, I wouldn't be afforded them.

I didn't change my profile picture because I think it is silly. We must do more then one superficial act to support and conduct any change.
obhave
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 2,918
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby pittsoccer33 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 3:59 pm

obhave wrote: If I wanted the benefits of being a married couple, I wouldn't be afforded them.
.


Neither will single people (of both orientations). The laws (over 1,000 of them) will continue to discriminate against the unwed.
pittsoccer33
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,756
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:06 pm

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby canaan on Wed Mar 27, 2013 4:03 pm

Shyster wrote:
pittsoccer33 wrote:
MRandall25 wrote:Would this whole "gay marriage" thing be an issue if the government had used a term other than "marriage" to define the union between 2 people? I think most people (at least those who oppose same-sex unions) see the term "marriage" as religious in connotation. Marriage to them is something sacred, done in a religious context. Using "gay marriage" is a threat, in a way, to their definition of religious marriage between a man and a woman as laid out in the Bible. "How dare two people of the same sex try to infringe on our religious institution," they may think.

Perhaps if the government moved away from the term "marriage", maybe those who oppose "gay marriage" would lessen their stance? If the various parties were arguing over "same-sex unions" as opposed to "same-sex marriage", would we even be worrying about this issue now?


Yes I think that would eliminate 95+% of the opposition.


I concur. I think a lot of the opposition to gay marriage comes from people (including myself) who believe that the word marriage refers—and has throughout recorded history referred—to a heterosexual relationship. Thus, there cannot be gay marriage without changing the fundamental societal definition of marriage. Chief Justice Roberts raised this point yesterday in an exchange with Mr. Olson:

If you tell—if you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, this is my friend, but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend. And that’s it seems to me what the—what supporters of Proposition 8 are saying here. You’re—all you’re interested in is the label and you insist on changing the definition of the label.

marriage should be defined as such: is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws. The religious connotation should be clarified as holy matrimony, giving it a religious affiliation. The religious folk should be satisfied that their commitment, ordained by their religious affiliate, for a spiritual connection. The non-religious should be satisfied with their legally binding commitment ordained by a legal affiliate. There should be NO rights difference between the two, including but not limited to the ability of those individuals to procure marriage benefits afforded to those in the current state, as well as the ability to adopt and raise children.

my two cents.
canaan
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 39,699
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 11:13 am
Location: Nevin Shapiro A&M

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby shafnutz05 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 4:04 pm

^^What he said
shafnutz05
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 60,559
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:10 pm
Location: Amish Country

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby slappybrown on Wed Mar 27, 2013 4:10 pm

Shyster wrote:
pittsoccer33 wrote:
MRandall25 wrote:Would this whole "gay marriage" thing be an issue if the government had used a term other than "marriage" to define the union between 2 people? I think most people (at least those who oppose same-sex unions) see the term "marriage" as religious in connotation. Marriage to them is something sacred, done in a religious context. Using "gay marriage" is a threat, in a way, to their definition of religious marriage between a man and a woman as laid out in the Bible. "How dare two people of the same sex try to infringe on our religious institution," they may think.

Perhaps if the government moved away from the term "marriage", maybe those who oppose "gay marriage" would lessen their stance? If the various parties were arguing over "same-sex unions" as opposed to "same-sex marriage", would we even be worrying about this issue now?


Yes I think that would eliminate 95+% of the opposition.


I concur. I think a lot of the opposition to gay marriage comes from people (including myself) who believe that the word marriage refers—and has throughout recorded history referred—to a heterosexual relationship. Thus, there cannot be gay marriage without changing the fundamental societal definition of marriage. Chief Justice Roberts raised this point yesterday in an exchange with Mr. Olson:

If you tell—if you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, this is my friend, but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend. And that’s it seems to me what the—what supporters of Proposition 8 are saying here. You’re—all you’re interested in is the label and you insist on changing the definition of the label.


So, on one hand, homosexuals wish to call their union the same thing that heterosexuals call it.

On the other, semantics. And not only semantics, but a meaning that is the very product of centuries of discrimination wherein homosexuality in and of itself was punishable with death, stoning, exclusion, oppression, etc., and so very obviously, there could be no "marriage." Fundamental right v. a dictionary -- WHO YA GOT?
slappybrown
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 20,279
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:08 am
Location: its like bologna with olives in it

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby MRandall25 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 4:14 pm

I mean, I'm pretty positive that 95% of the argument against same-sex unions is semantics.

It shouldn't be, but here we are.

Note that I'm not saying there are actually arguments against it (because in hindsight, that's what it appears). I'm merely saying we really shouldn't be having this argument, if not for semantics.
MRandall25
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 19,693
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:11 pm
Location: BOBROVSKY!!!

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby tifosi77 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 4:17 pm

Shyster wrote:I concur. I think a lot of the opposition to gay marriage comes from people (including myself) who believe that the word marriage refers—and has throughout recorded history referred—to a heterosexual relationship. Thus, there cannot be gay marriage without changing the fundamental societal definition of marriage. Chief Justice Roberts raised this point yesterday in an exchange with Mr. Olson:

If you tell—if you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, this is my friend, but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend. And that’s it seems to me what the—what supporters of Proposition 8 are saying here. You’re—all you’re interested in is the label and you insist on changing the definition of the label.

One, I challenge the assertion that "there cannot be gay marriage without changing the fundamental societal definition of marriage" simply because CJ Roberts raised a point.

Second, I thought Roberts was particularly silly in that exchange. No one is forcing people to go out and get gay married, which is how that analogy would track to the matter of same-sex marriage. The line of reasoning was effectively neutered by Olsen: "You could have said in the Loving case, what — you can’t get married, but you can have an interracial union. Everyone would know that that was wrong, that the — marriage has a status, recognition, support…”

Altho I did appreciate Robert's comment to Olsen at the outset of his remarks: "I think it's only fair to treat you the same." Indeed.

Since Reynolds in 1878, the Supreme Court has held that marriage is a fundamental right over a dozen times. The label matters. At issue is how this 'radical' redefinition of the label will adversely impact married people and the very concept of marriage. If one thinks the importance and significance of marriage will come unhinged simply because two dudes or two chicks can tie the knot, then I question if marriage really had any significance to that person in the first place. And I would suggest perhaps not going down the path of arguing 'societal definition' of marriage, because that's not static. For example, it is considered gauche today to go out and marry a 13 year old. Or to accept a debtor's daughter as payment. It has changed over time, and it is changing now.

When people see my wedding ring (not my 'civil union band of metal'), I like knowing that there is a connotation about me as a man. About what I value, what I believe. I like communicating the pride I take in my relationship with my spouse to the world. None of that is diminished because Adam and Steve got hitched.
tifosi77
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 14,085
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby columbia on Wed Mar 27, 2013 4:21 pm

At a certain point (which long ago passed), it's just becomes trying to rationalize bigotry.
Please return to the time period from whence you came and let the world get on with modernity.
columbia
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 51,889
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:13 am
Location: دعنا نذهب طيور البطريق

PreviousNext

Return to NHR

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


e-mail