LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Forum for posts that are not hockey-related.

Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby DelPen on Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:27 pm

Am I the only one to see Michael Bloomberg = Dr. Raymond Cocteau?
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 ExPatriatePen on Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:53 pm

ExPatriatePen
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,691
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:57 pm
Location: Source, Destination, Protocol, Port, size, sequence number, check sum... Yep, that about covers it.

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby tifosi77 on Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:58 am

It's interesting, isn't it?

You can take a random sample of statements from myriad GOP legislators and come up with a cornucopia of absurdity from a huge cross-section of the party. Embark on the same exercise with Democrats and you get multiple examples from repeat offenders. The basic takeaway is that while the general level of 'crazy' one can find in each party is fairly equal and predictable, the amount of said crazy is distributed in a........ let's call it "less than equal fashion".

To wit: Republicans try to win over the young Latino vote on a platform that can be reduced to its essence as, "Elect me so I can deport your grandparents". When that is not successful at attracting support in the Latino community, the only clear and legitimate explanation for that is messaging.... has to be. The policy is sound - I mean, we're talking about Republicans.... they only have sound policies, right? They fall all over one and other to cast themselves as 'the grown ups in the room', the only responsible stewards of government So obviously they're just not clearly communicating the obviousness of their policy to everyone.

I would assert that the GOP, circa 2013, is communicating its policies and objectives with perfect clarity..... and that's undeniably their problem.

DelPen wrote:Am I the only one to see Michael Bloomberg = Dr. Raymond Cocteau?

If I find three seashells in my bathroom, you're doomed. And just because I admit to liking bad fast food doesn't mean I'd be cool with every restaurant being Taco Bell.

Never mind the whole sex-without-actually-touching-someone thing.
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 Kaizer on Sun Mar 31, 2013 3:02 am

thats what i was saying last night. its not that the GOP has one bad egg and theyre virtuous for saying he's wrong. its that theyre only doing it for votes, in the most transparent and desperate way ive seen yet. the only thing theyve perceived that theyve done wrong is that they didnt win. yes we can say both sides do that and i totally agree, but damn, this is assuming a hell of a lot to think anyone is buying the republican change of heart on immigration. nobody is buying it. maybe if they'd stretched it out over a few years it could have been something, but to come right out the day after the election and basically say: "we totally lost the hispanic vote, so we need to MAKE THEM trust us somehow" is brass knuckles to the face of anyone with a brain.

the party jumping on this dude doesnt say **** about one stray animal, they see it as a sacrifice to make the whole look better by disowning this guy for an idiotic remark. i dont hold them accountable for what one guy said, i think the whole situation is boned because they see this as an opportunity to smash some old guard congressman in the name of reforming ideas theyve been championing with the highest flagpole they have. if anyone buys it, simply put, theyre **** stupid.
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 ExPatriatePen on Sun Mar 31, 2013 8:48 am

Let's play "who said that":

""I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."

Spoiler:
it wasn't some low level congressman from the backwoods of Oklahoma or Missouri


Spoiler:
Only the number two, in the Democratic party, Joe Biden


" the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama - a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,' "

Spoiler:
Again, Only the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid


Considering these types of comments come from both sides I find the arrogance, self-righteousness and superiority of partisans on both sides is disturbing.

Do you know what ALL these people have in common? They're all white males who were born before 1960.

As a member of *that* group I'm embarrased and ashamed. But that's the group who doesn't 'get it'.

Now you could make the argument that the GOP has more of those individuals as representatives, and that would be a true statement, but that's changing too.
ExPatriatePen
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,691
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:57 pm
Location: Source, Destination, Protocol, Port, size, sequence number, check sum... Yep, that about covers it.

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Kaizer on Sun Mar 31, 2013 11:18 am

Kaizer wrote:thats what i was saying last night. its not that the GOP has one bad egg and theyre virtuous for saying he's wrong. its that theyre only doing it for votes, in the most transparent and desperate way ive seen yet. the only thing theyve perceived that theyve done wrong is that they didnt win. yes we can say both sides do that and i totally agree, but damn, this is assuming a hell of a lot to think anyone is buying the republican change of heart on immigration. nobody is buying it. maybe if they'd stretched it out over a few years it could have been something, but to come right out the day after the election and basically say: "we totally lost the hispanic vote, so we need to MAKE THEM trust us somehow" is brass knuckles to the face of anyone with a brain.

the party jumping on this dude doesnt say **** about one stray animal, they see it as a sacrifice to make the whole look better by disowning this guy for an idiotic remark. i dont hold them accountable for what one guy said, i think the whole situation is boned because they see this as an opportunity to smash some old guard congressman in the name of reforming ideas theyve been championing with the highest flagpole they have. if anyone buys it, simply put, theyre **** stupid.


now that i read this sober, i can barely understand what i was thinking. good god.
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 bh on Sun Mar 31, 2013 11:32 am

Kaizer wrote:
Kaizer wrote:thats what i was saying last night. its not that the GOP has one bad egg and theyre virtuous for saying he's wrong. its that theyre only doing it for votes, in the most transparent and desperate way ive seen yet. the only thing theyve perceived that theyve done wrong is that they didnt win. yes we can say both sides do that and i totally agree, but damn, this is assuming a hell of a lot to think anyone is buying the republican change of heart on immigration. nobody is buying it. maybe if they'd stretched it out over a few years it could have been something, but to come right out the day after the election and basically say: "we totally lost the hispanic vote, so we need to MAKE THEM trust us somehow" is brass knuckles to the face of anyone with a brain.

the party jumping on this dude doesnt say **** about one stray animal, they see it as a sacrifice to make the whole look better by disowning this guy for an idiotic remark. i dont hold them accountable for what one guy said, i think the whole situation is boned because they see this as an opportunity to smash some old guard congressman in the name of reforming ideas theyve been championing with the highest flagpole they have. if anyone buys it, simply put, theyre **** stupid.


now that i read this sober, i can barely understand what i was thinking. good god.

It's actually not bad. Not bad at all.
bh
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 4,605
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 12:48 am

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby tifosi77 on Mon Apr 01, 2013 10:54 am

ExPatriatePen wrote:Let's play "who said that":

""I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."

Spoiler:
it wasn't some low level congressman from the backwoods of Oklahoma or Missouri


Spoiler:
Only the number two, in the Democratic party, Joe Biden


" the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama - a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,' "

Spoiler:
Again, Only the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid


Considering these types of comments come from both sides I find the arrogance, self-righteousness and superiority of partisans on both sides is disturbing.

Do you know what ALL these people have in common? They're all white males who were born before 1960.

As a member of *that* group I'm embarrased and ashamed. But that's the group who doesn't 'get it'.

Now you could make the argument that the GOP has more of those individuals as representatives, and that would be a true statement, but that's changing too.

When I referenced 'repeat offenders' in my post, I have to admit it was baiting...... I wanted to see if anyone could retort by not citing Biden.
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 DelPen on Mon Apr 01, 2013 12:41 pm

I like Dr. Ben Carson, he's a great role model and I agree with at least what I am hearing right now on his political views. But think before you make a statement that lumps gay marriage in with NAMBLA and bestiality.

:face:

I understand what he's trying to say but this is not they way to make your point. And besides, when single parent households, no stigma to kids out of wedlock and easy divorces became common place in society, marriage as we know it was dead. And I think 99% of Americans will agree NAMBLA is vile and I would think somewhere close to that would think the same about bestiality.
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 Hockeynut! on Mon Apr 01, 2013 12:51 pm

It really makes me depressed when anyone equates gay marriage with pedophilia or beastiality. How can something between two consenting adults be compared to an act involving a child or an animal?

And for the "God defined marriage as one man and one woman" crowd, what about Abraham, David, Moses, Solomon, etc?
Hockeynut!
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 5,056
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:55 am

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby shafnutz05 on Mon Apr 01, 2013 12:52 pm

DelPen wrote:And I think 99% of Americans 100% of Americans not named "canaan" will agree NAMBLA is vile


fyp
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 PensFanInDC on Mon Apr 01, 2013 12:58 pm

Hockeynut! wrote:It really makes me depressed when anyone equates gay marriage with pedophilia or beastiality. How can something between two consenting adults be compared to an act involving a child or an animal?

And for the "God defined marriage as one man and one woman" crowd, what about Abraham, David, Moses, Solomon, etc?


From my reading I can't find a hardcore definition of marriage in the Bible. That being said, God never told anyone to take more than one wife. This is just another example of people talking with their foot in their mouth.
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 tifosi77 on Mon Apr 01, 2013 1:43 pm

DelPen wrote:But think before you make a statement that lumps gay marriage in with NAMBLA and bestiality.

:face:

I think that's just a typical manifestation of what many still believe about homosexuality; that it's aberrant behavior, nothing more. You see, behavior can be modified. It's a choice.

It's 'sexual orientation', not 'sexual preference'.

PensFanInDC wrote:From my reading I can't find a hardcore definition of marriage in the Bible. That being said, God never told anyone to take more than one wife.

It's not stated in the bible that Big G expressly told anyone to take more than one wife, as in "Lo, for ye shall go forth and bag many brides". However, there are myriad examples of polygyny amongst the cast of biblical characters as Hockeynut references. Abraham had three wives, Moses had two wives. Shoot, David had nearly twenty wives..... and don't even get me started on Solomon.

There is also at least one reference to plural marriage in the Deuteronomic code.
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 DelPen on Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:22 pm

So North Korea is rattling their sabres and making threats. So a response to that is to appoint as the new ambassador to Japan, someone who would have to deal with this threat if it ever becomes reality, Caroline Kennedy.

:face:
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 BigMcK on Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:51 pm

A few years back, my employer rolled out a corporate mandated training of Inclusion: A Manager's Guide. In the classroom with 15 - 16 other managers, one of the new managers became very vocal when the topic of why at a corporate level we spend money to dedicate a month of awareness to an ethnicity or lifestyle other than our own. The trainer tried to explain that to attract top talent, you have to be willing to include people into the group that may be different than the group. One of the more tenured managers made a comment that, as a Catholic, he will not spend any time of his day to talk to employees about the gay and lesbian lifestyle based on his beliefs. Mr. Newbie, without waiting for the trainer to respond, says, "Yeah, first you want us to talk about the gays; are we now expected to celebrate Pedophile Month?!?".

A woman at my table takes great offense to this exchange, gets up and storms out of the room. We are then given a 15 minute break so that the room has a chance to gather our thoughts and come back calm. I am standing in the hallway on my phone getting messages and overhear the angry woman on her phone filing a sexual harassment complaint with our HR Hotline team because others are comparing being a lesbian to being a child molester and the trainer won't stop them. We all go back to the meeting room except for the angry woman who has since left. An hour later, the trainer is called out of the meeting and when she returns is visibly angry. She says the training session is now canceled and we are free to leave.

A couple weeks later, news filters in that Mr. Newbie was fired, the tenured manager given a warning, the trainer re-assigned to training new IT technology and the angry woman was out on a stress claim.

I just kinda naturally assumed that my employer hired me to work with my co-workers? So much drama over an assumption.
BigMcK
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 2,502
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:23 pm
Location: Drawing 1 line in the sand, followed by another, and another, and another. TIC TAC TOE

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby columbia on Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:54 pm

Mr. Newbie was not very bright, it seems.
columbia
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 51,888
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:13 am
Location: دعنا نذهب طيور البطريق

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby PensFanInDC on Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:56 pm

tifosi77 wrote:
PensFanInDC wrote:From my reading I can't find a hardcore definition of marriage in the Bible. That being said, God never told anyone to take more than one wife.

It's not stated in the bible that Big G expressly told anyone to take more than one wife, as in "Lo, for ye shall go forth and bag many brides". However, there are myriad examples of polygyny amongst the cast of biblical characters as Hockeynut references. Abraham had three wives, Moses had two wives. Shoot, David had nearly twenty wives..... and don't even get me started on Solomon.

There is also at least one reference to plural marriage in the Deuteronomic code.


Okay. The world is and was filled with people who believe in Him but don't listen to Him all the time. It doesn't mean that God condones every one of His follower's actions.
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 canaan on Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:57 pm

shafnutz05 wrote:
DelPen wrote:And I think 99% of Americans 100% of Americans not named "canaan" will agree NAMBLA is vile


fyp

i dont get it.
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 pittsoccer33 on Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:58 pm

do you work at Dunder Mifflin?
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 BigMcK on Mon Apr 01, 2013 3:39 pm

Mr. Newbie was not at all versed in corporate handling of sensitive topics. Show up, participate with only cotton ball answers or observations, and get out alive.

(I was wise enough to turn my cardboard name plate over when the tension ramped up so that those that didn't know who I was, wouldn't. Had no desire to be named as a witness to this career-ending train wreck.)

pittsoccer33 wrote:do you work at Dunder Mifflin?


Nope. Similar situation?
BigMcK
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 2,502
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:23 pm
Location: Drawing 1 line in the sand, followed by another, and another, and another. TIC TAC TOE

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby tifosi77 on Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:15 pm

PensFanInDC wrote:Okay. The world is and was filled with people who believe in Him but don't listen to Him all the time. It doesn't mean that God condones every one of His follower's actions.

Okay, I'm confused. The bible is the word of Big G as revealed to his prophets, right? And part of that revelation is a rule that if you have two wives, and you really don't like one of them, but she gave you your first born male child, you can't arbitrarily say that the first born from the cool wife is your actual first born when setting up the inheritance.

There may be no express definition of marriage in the bible, but there are lots of examples that illustrate that plural marriage was fairly common back in the day. Which means that the definition of marriage.................... wait for it............... can change!

:wink:
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 Shyster on Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:34 pm

tifosi77 wrote:There may be no express definition of marriage in the bible, but there are lots of examples that illustrate that plural marriage was fairly common back in the day. Which means that the definition of marriage.................... wait for it............... can change!

If you are a practitioner of Islam, plural marriage is still perfectly acceptable today. There are plenty of examples of plural marriage all over the world, even in places that do not follow the Abrahamic religions. Most of them are polygamous, but there are rarer examples of cultures that feature polyandrous marriages. I am not aware of any culture that featured polygamous or polyandrous marriages, however, where it was considered acceptable or typical for the same-sex spouses to be having sex with each other.
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 tifosi77 on Mon Apr 01, 2013 5:38 pm

So you've never heard of the Romans? Or the Chinese Zhou Dynasty?
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 Shyster on Mon Apr 01, 2013 6:20 pm

Looking at the same Wikipedia page, I note that the reference to the Zhou Dynasty is for only a single couple, and that comes from a story in a book that was written darn near a thousand years later. It could very well be apocryphal. It also doesn’t say that the two men involved were recognized as being legally married. The reference to Rome mentions that several emperors (including Nero) married men, but it also says that same-sex marriages had no legal standing in Roman law. Plus, using Nero as an example of what was acceptable moral behavior would be like going to the Adult Video News Awards (i.e., the Oscars for the porn industry) and pointing to the attendees as exemplars of American society.
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 MWB on Mon Apr 01, 2013 9:26 pm

Acceptable ages and marriage have also changed quite a bit over the years. That and the whole dowry system.
MWB
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 15,748
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

PreviousNext

Return to NHR

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


e-mail