Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 08-10-2010, 10:46 AM   #161 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467 View Post
Where am I saying it isn't protected? Please, show me how you get I am saying people somehow someway are having civil rights infringed upon. Because I went to great lengths to show compromise can be had, without the infringement of anyones rights.
Sorry for answering a question you posed to someone else, but I think the answer is pretty simple: One shouldn't have to leave Alabama and go to Mass. to partake in something that is constitutionally protected.

What if it's someone who, for whatever reason, can't go out of state...to do said thing that is constitutionally protected?

---------- Post added at 02:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:45 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
So Tea Party social issues...
It does say "Traditional family values encouraged" on the list....

But it also says something about intrusive governments. It's all very confusing.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 10:50 AM   #162 (permalink)
Who You Crappin?
 
Derwood's Avatar
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467 View Post
Where am I saying it isn't protected? Please, show me how you get I am saying people somehow someway are having civil rights infringed upon. Because I went to great lengths to show compromise can be had, without the infringement of anyones rights.
saying a gay couple can marry in town A but NOT in town B is the very definition of infringing upon someone's civil rights. They have every right (under Equal Protection) to marry in town B if they choose, regardless of what that town's majority wants

regardless, a party that claims to want the smallest government possible shouldn't be championing ANY social issues where the government is the arbiter of the issue
__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

Last edited by Derwood; 08-10-2010 at 10:53 AM..
Derwood is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 10:54 AM   #163 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood View Post
pan, I don't even know where to start. I found your entire post disgusting
Compromise and respect are pretty disgusting when you want only your will enforced.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 11:14 AM   #164 (permalink)
Who You Crappin?
 
Derwood's Avatar
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467 View Post
Compromise and respect are pretty disgusting when you want only your will enforced.

I see no compromise or respect in NOT allowing people to do something that you are allowed to do.

NONE
__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel
Derwood is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 11:46 AM   #165 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
Quote:
"compromise, education and respect"
A round of applause to pan for his posts here...from me anyway. The most reasoned, logical, and pragmatic in this entire thread by far.
powerclown is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 12:20 PM   #166 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood View Post
I see no compromise or respect in NOT allowing people to do something that you are allowed to do.

NONE
And where did I say someone was not "allowed"? WHERE? See you want no compromise because YOU want to thrust and impose your will onto others. And make claims and act all self righteous but you are as bull headed and small minded as the people who say "NO, Gay marriage, PERIOD."

So because neither side wants to compromise, both sides want to impose their will, you are no different than the people you say you hate and disgust you. You are one in the same, you just justify it with FALSE justifications so you can sleep at night and feed your ego... they do the same thing on the other side.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 12:29 PM   #167 (permalink)
Who You Crappin?
 
Derwood's Avatar
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467 View Post
And where did I say someone was not "allowed"? WHERE?
Quote:
I said a state or a community should have the right to decide if they want to issue the license for it.

Read more: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...#ixzz0wEkMnpgy
__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel
Derwood is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 12:30 PM   #168 (permalink)
Crazy, indeed
 
Location: the ether
People do understand that allowing gay marriage is different from mandating gay marriage, right?

That if a state allows gay marriage it doesn't force it on anyone, right?

I've yet to see an explanation over how allowing gay marriage is an imposition one's will over anyone.

Oh, and people understand that bans on gay marriage not only prevent that state to issue licenses, but also from recognizing those licenses from other states, right?
dippin is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 12:30 PM   #169 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood View Post
saying a gay couple can marry in town A but NOT in town B is the very definition of infringing upon someone's civil rights. They have every right (under Equal Protection) to marry in town B if they choose, regardless of what that town's majority wants

regardless, a party that claims to want the smallest government possible shouldn't be championing ANY social issues where the government is the arbiter of the issue
No saying they can't marry there BUT if they marry elsewhere their rights are still protected, the union is still recognized.

It's COMPROMISE, finding middle ground.

See but people must unfortunately rely on government as the arbiter of an issue and hence Right-Left and intrusive government because YOU and those opposite you refuse compromise, refuse to acknowledge that THE PEOPLE should have a voice in how they want their community to be. You both only want to dictate your will upon others.

And because of that our country is falling apart.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 12:37 PM   #170 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Should we compromise on the right to bear arms? Free speech? The freedom from cruel and unusual punishment? What else?

If gay marriage is deemed a right protected under the United States Constitution, Pan, tell me why the hell there should be compromises?

You would allow the public to hold sway over the constitutional rights of minority groups?

Let me be clear, Pan, upholding constitutionally protected rights is not "thrusting and imposing one's will onto others"; it's upholding a universal claim that everyone is entitled to.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 12:37 PM   #171 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Derwood in post 167 exactly what is your point?

Since all you did was quote and make not comments... just a nice little hit and run, huh?

I won't make any assumptions as to what point you are trying to make. I'll let you put forth your point and then I'll answer.

K? k.... smiles, smiles......
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 12:39 PM   #172 (permalink)
Who You Crappin?
 
Derwood's Avatar
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
but as soon as you say "if you want to do X, you have to travel to Y to do it", you're limiting rights.

this isn't tough to understand

---------- Post added at 04:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:38 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467 View Post
Derwood in post 167 exactly what is your point?

Since all you did was quote and make not comments... just a nice little hit and run, huh?

I won't make any assumptions as to what point you are trying to make. I'll let you put forth your point and then I'll answer.

K? k.... smiles, smiles......

you asked where you said something so I quoted you saying it
__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel
Derwood is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 12:52 PM   #173 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
Should we compromise on the right to bear arms? Free speech? The freedom from cruel and unusual punishment? What else?

If gay marriage is deemed a right protected under the United States Constitution, Pan, tell me why the hell there should be compromises?

You would allow the public to hold sway over the constitutional rights of minority groups?

Let me be clear, Pan, upholding constitutionally protected rights is not "thrusting and imposing one's will onto others"; it's upholding a universal claim that everyone is entitled to.
I see so when a community says we don't want guns SOLD here, not infringing on your right to have them, just no buying them here. That community should be forced to sell them anyway?

Now, I am sure if I do research and maybe DK could even give me a clue where to look. When San Fran had something similar and it was debated here... many of those people saying, "you can't do the pick and choose on who can get their marriage licensed" were in support of allowing a pick and choose on where you can buy a gun.

So, in layman's terms according to past and present what you appear to be saying is, "The majority said you can't buy a gun in this city so you can't buy a gun, even tho you have a right to. On the other hand, you have to allow gay marriages to be licensed in your state, fuck the majority."

On the one, you can own a gun, just not buy it in that community. I don't see an issue. NO rights are infringed.

On the other, it's saying, the state/community will not originate or license a marriage, BUT if they are married oustide, the state will protect their rights as a legally married couple."

Exact same thing... but yet you will argue the exact opposite depending on how YOU feel about the issue.

Like I said, perfect example dry counties. You can imbibe, you can own alcohol, the county isn't going to arrest or fine you. You just can't buy in that county. Not one right is infringed upon.

The rest of what you say is extremist bullshit and you know it. Cruel and unusual punishment...lol... just ask those in favor and opposed to capital punishment. Compromises were made there and for the most part except for extremists... it's really not much of an election hot point anymore is it?
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 12:55 PM   #174 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Actually, Pan, it would be more akin to saying that black men can't buy guns, but white folks can. Or that women can't buy alcohol, they must send their husbands in. Because, you know, who wants a decaying society where the black men are armed with guns and wives are getting drunk? Don't you know the dangers of each?

But, hey, you can go to Mass. to do such things. They're all liberal-like up there.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 08-10-2010 at 12:58 PM..
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 01:00 PM   #175 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
pan:

unless you're arguing is that you see some constitutional right to be homophobic that's infringed by allowing people who happen to be gay to marry, you haven't anything like a coherent argument.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 01:05 PM   #176 (permalink)
Crazy, indeed
 
Location: the ether
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467 View Post
That community should be forced to sell them anyway?

So having a right to sell guns is akin to forcing them to sell guns?

I've yet to see any of the forcing and imposing of one's will that you seem to be talking about.

Unless, like RB said, you see a right to be a homophobe and that an action that doesn't involve anyone other than those married violates their right to be homophobic.
dippin is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 01:06 PM   #177 (permalink)
WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE!
 
FuglyStick's Avatar
 
Location: Southern Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy View Post
pan:

unless you're arguing is that you see some constitutional right to be homophobic that's infringed by allowing people who happen to be gay to marry, you haven't anything like a coherent argument.
That's exactly what it sounds like.
__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT!
FuglyStick is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 01:11 PM   #178 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood View Post
but as soon as you say "if you want to do X, you have to travel to Y to do it", you're limiting rights.

this isn't tough to understand
Oh, you mean like in a dry county where you have to go to a different county to buy alcohol? Or in some areas where they refuse to sell guns and your have to go somewhere else to buy a gun.

They don't limit you having it, they just don't let you purchase the product there.

How is having someone go somewhere to get what they need and then come back and the product is legal you just had to go elsewhere to purchase it, limiting your rights in anyway?


Quote:
you asked where you said something so I quoted you saying it
Well, the second "quote" did nothing but send me to the thread starting it didn't lead me to whatever the point you were trying to make.

The whole crux of the matter is simple... you don't want compromise no matter what, you don't care to educate, and you have no respect for anyone's opposing views. You just want to thrust your will onto others.

The Right and the Left are one in the same. Meanwhile, all this energy spent on hatred and bullshit does nothing to solve the deficit, a failing infrastructure, a shrinking middle class, a war, and so on. All it does do is drive this country apart further, makes people choose sides and dig in, and so on. Not one true positive issue that will help this country is solved.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 01:13 PM   #179 (permalink)
Who You Crappin?
 
Derwood's Avatar
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
false equivalancies are false

---------- Post added at 05:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:11 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467 View Post
And where did I say someone was not "allowed"? WHERE?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
I said a state or a community should have the right to decide if they want to issue the license for it.

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel
Derwood is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 01:26 PM   #180 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
I must say that I haven't before heard of anyone making such a farce of constitutionally protected rights.

The compromises you are asking for Pan are not compromises based on fair deliberation. This is not as simple as comparing to situations where no one can do something in a geographic area. This is not like special gun laws in certain cities, where no one can buy guns, or like areas with prohibition where no one can buy booze. This isn't even like the compromises you referred to with cruel and unusual punishment and capital punishment. It's not like it has been deemed okay to execute men of colour but not okay to execute white men or anything.

This is a "compromise" based on barring a minority group from their rights afforded them in the Constitution while permitting those not like them the very same rights.

This argument makes a complete farce of the idea of a constitution.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 01:28 PM   #181 (permalink)
Who You Crappin?
 
Derwood's Avatar
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
not to mention that the Tea Party shouldn't have any opinion on gay marriage, since they want government staying out of our lives
__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel
Derwood is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 01:32 PM   #182 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood View Post
not to mention that the Tea Party shouldn't have any opinion on gay marriage, since they want government staying out of our lives
I think that's been the undercurrent this whole time (at least in my mind).

You can't decry intrusive government while in the same breath call for the banning or the upholding of laws against abortion and gay marriage without sounding like a hypocrite.

You can't build your whole platform around the Constitution and only abide by it when it suits your values without looking like a hypocrite.

Maybe the Tea Party should decide on a leadership structure, and fast. They need to keep their story straight.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 08-10-2010 at 01:37 PM..
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 01:41 PM   #183 (permalink)
Living in a Warmer Insanity
 
Tully Mars's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
Or increase military and border patrol, cut taxes and reduce the deficit... all at the same time. It all BS logic. Demanding lower taxes when they're at the lowest % in over 50 years and demanding the deficit be lowered is not very logical. But most of the people making these demands are the very same folks that we're 100% for going to war and lowering taxes at the same time. It's like their logic comes from a Hollywood movie script. Magical thinking really isn't very magical.
__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club
Tully Mars is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 01:45 PM   #184 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Wes Mantooth's Avatar
 
Location: Tennessee
I was going to say the same thing on the previous page when responding the list of Tea Party issues. If you don't want the govt intruding on our daily lives then you can't look to them to mandate marriage, language and who you can and can't hire. Its hypocritical.

Its a buzz phrase designed to get small govt conservatives on board, which is why I suspect its more a recruitment tool then a set in stone platform.
__________________
“My god I must have missed it...its hell down here!”
Wes Mantooth is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 02:09 PM   #185 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Whatever... keep saying one side is full of hate and uncompromising when I just showed that your side is just as bad.

Like I said, the Tea Party members I know (and I know quite a few) are more willing to compromise on social issues and find ways to make them work so that the focus can stay on the real issues, unemployment, the deficit, corruption etc.

But keep hate alive.... you hate the Right for wanting to dictate to you their beliefs ... the right hates you for the same reason and both sides would rather destroy everything in this country than to compromise, eductae and treat the other side with respect.

There is no arguing with you, not because you are right... but solely because you refuse to respect, listen or try to find common ground.

I've said it before and I will say it again, that as the "common enemy" leaves this forum and they are... you all will eventually feast upon one another, because all that hatred and anger you have (that you deny having but accuse everyone who opposes you of having) has to be fed.

And some of you, may eventually see you have some here, (you call leaders and follow as great thinkers) as nothing more than what they are, hatemongers who truly would rather destroy this country than watch it heal...
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Last edited by pan6467; 08-10-2010 at 02:15 PM..
pan6467 is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 02:16 PM   #186 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
You will have to forgive me if I refuse to respect, listen to, and find common ground with hypocrisy. I don't hate the right who are guilty of it, but I will say that a lot of their hypocrisy is based on their own hatred and fear. The opposition to gay marriage and abortion comes from those who would never participate in such things. So why the opposition? It's not like allowing gay marriages and abortions will lead to the right's children turning gay, getting married, and aborting all their little gay babies. What they are doing is foisting their morality on others.

Even if I look for the positives, I run into the problem Tully points out: you can't easily cut taxes at the same time as reducing debt or managing a deficit. It doesn't take much business sense to get that. I can only assume that those who do get it are looking at major spending cuts (but not to the military, surprisingly). So what we get there is a bunch of libertarians who want to pay less tax after gutting, if not eviscerating, social programs.

You see, that's a position I can respect though I don't agree with it. I find libertarians to be selfish individualists for the most part, but at least what they say makes sense.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 08-10-2010 at 02:20 PM..
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 02:20 PM   #187 (permalink)
Who You Crappin?
 
Derwood's Avatar
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
ah, the "but you do it too" rebuttal. cunning

of course, you've already littered your posts with false equivalancies, so I can't really take your stance very seriously
__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel
Derwood is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 02:37 PM   #188 (permalink)
Crazy, indeed
 
Location: the ether
I would love to hear what is a fair compromise between bigotry and individual rights.

This whole thing where impinging one's right to be a bigot is a more serious offense than impinging on one's right to choose who they want to marry is ridiculous.
dippin is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 02:49 PM   #189 (permalink)
Living in a Warmer Insanity
 
Tully Mars's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
Saying I'm willing to compromise as long as I get my way isn't really compromising.

My sincere honest belief on the current state of US politics is basically the Dems couldn't predict 5 o'clock at 4:30 and GOP could convince a bunch of people at 4:30 that 5 o'clock will never happen. I've read all I can stand to read about the Tea Party folks and their ideas. I have little doubt that, fiscally, if they were to have their way we'd really be screwed. Of course they are a pretty vast group, with a wide range of opinions. Only constant I see is a dislike for anything they perceive as socialism. So it's kind of hard to tell what exactly they want. But for the last 40-50 years sound bites and slogans get people elected. Well that and telling people what they want to hear. Sound bite, slogans and pandering will not dig the US out of the hole it's dug it's self into, I just hope some solutions do make it through the sausage machine before we end up looking like the USSR when it fell.
__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club
Tully Mars is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 02:49 PM   #190 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
well here we are again, sports fans.
in today's session of everyone's favorite tfsport, what is the score?


those hate-filled egomaniacs who want to destroy america at some point either before or after their mad-dog hatred prompts them to eat themselves but whom even if they dont eat themselves in some hatred driven frenzy of hateful hating full of hate refuse to compromise with the Forces of Righteousness (see below) and who have in common support for the right of people who happen to be gay to marry

zero. nada. bubkes.

and pan 6467 who does nothing but give and give and give and watches as these hatefilled egomaniacs destroy america

everything. but in tragic circumstances.

and there we have it sports fans.
another thrilling contest between the forces of good and eeeevil.

see you next time we play exactly the same game.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Last edited by roachboy; 08-10-2010 at 02:51 PM..
roachboy is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 02:52 PM   #191 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
You will have to forgive me if I refuse to respect, listen to, and find common ground with hypocrisy. I don't hate the right who are guilty of it, but I will say that a lot of their hypocrisy is based on their own hatred and fear. The opposition to gay marriage and abortion comes from those who would never participate in such things. So why the opposition? It's not like allowing gay marriages and abortions will lead to the right's children turning gay, getting married, and aborting all their little gay babies. What they are doing is foisting their morality on others.
And are you not guilty of "Foisting your morality on others" just wrapping it under different wrapping and claiming "infringement of rights" but you are in fact infringing others rights and doing the exact foisting" You just find a bullshit justification for it and then refuse to listen making up ways a compromise would "infringe" rights. When I demonstrated no one's rights would be. But whatever... bullshit spun one way is still bullshit when spun the other.

Quote:
Even if I look for the positives, I run into the problem Tully points out: you can't easily cut taxes at the same time as reducing debt or managing a deficit. It doesn't take much business sense to get that. I can only assume that those who do get it are looking at major spending cuts (but not to the military, surprisingly). So what we get there is a bunch of libertarians who want to pay less tax after gutting, if not eviscerating, social programs.

You see, that's a position I can respect though I don't agree with it. I find libertarians to be selfish individualists for the most part, but at least what they say makes sense.
Very simple way of not "gutting" anything, except maybe foreign aid and that is bringing jobs back to this country and rebuilding a tax base.

Shrinking jobs, shrinking property taxes, shrinking sales taxes... leads to shrinking tax base which leads to only 2 solutions... raise the taxes on the rich to the point where they themselves leave our country OR cutting everything to the point of being basically a nation with 2 classes the extreme wealthy and poverty. Both of which will eventually lead to total government breakdown as we know it. Then human rights aren't going to fucking matter. People are just going to be trying to survive.

Until jobs come back those are the only solutions that exist. The only way to get a solution that will work is to put aside differences, ego and selfishness and work together.

But we'll keep dividing everyone on the social issues, (which can have simple workable compromises) so that the true issues can keep being dismissed until they blow up.

Like I said, some people truly would rather watch the country implode and destroyed rather than try to compromise and fix it. I'm not one of them.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 03:08 PM   #192 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467 View Post
And are you not guilty of "Foisting your morality on others" just wrapping it under different wrapping and claiming "infringement of rights" but you are in fact infringing others rights and doing the exact foisting" You just find a bullshit justification for it and then refuse to listen making up ways a compromise would "infringe" rights. When I demonstrated no one's rights would be. But whatever... bullshit spun one way is still bullshit when spun the other.
If you consider the constitution of your nation to be bullshit, then I suppose my justification is bullshit. Pan, you are not going up against my "bullshit justifications," you are going up against the United States Constitution. And one cannot be foisted upon where one is not involved in something. You cannot foist gay marriage upon someone who isn't gay. You cannot foist abortion upon someone unless you physically force them to have one. No one is doing that.

And you failed to demonstrate how no one's rights would be infringed. Your argument that it's okay to bar a gay couple from getting married and that they could just go out of state to get hitched is ridiculous. I demonstrated why that was. It wouldn't be much different than if a state started telling Latinos that they couldn't receive a public education, that they would have to go to another state to get one. But that wouldn't be an infringement or anything, because, you know, they can totally still get an education somewhere. Ridiculous.

I'm not refusing to listen: I read you loud and clear. Maybe that's my problem.

Quote:
Very simple way of not "gutting" anything, except maybe foreign aid and that is bringing jobs back to this country and rebuilding a tax base.

[...]

The only way to get a solution that will work is to put aside differences, ego and selfishness and work together.
You haven't quite offered any solutions yourself. How do you propose generating jobs domestically? Is your position like that of the Tea Party?
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 03:09 PM   #193 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
I find it odd when people take my accusations and turn them back on me without even comprehending why they were levied in the first place and with no regard as to how they might or might not apply to me.

When I correctly accused the Tea Party to having hatred as their commonality, regarding their social issues, I did so not as an emotional reaction or as an insult, but as an observation; my accusation was a judgment based on evidence. When, in turn, I'm accused of hatred without an evidence upon which to base that judgment, all it tells me is I'm talking to a wall, a party of simple reaction and no ability to self reflect. It's basically the "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument.

Now that I have all the information I need—the Tea Party's official social issues according to their own websites are functionally identical to those of the right and the GOP, when you speak to actual Tea Party members, their stances on social issues are identical and even right of the GOP, those social issues all revolve around hatred or a lack of acceptance of either people or reality (read: anti-intellectualism leads to fear which leads to hatred, duh), and when confronted, Tea Partiers and their advocates don't have a solid logical or legal foundation for said social beliefs—I feel like the conversation is over.

I feel like the conversation is over. I feel like if the conversation taking place continues, it will do nothing but devolve into what it was before Jazz jumped in the leaf pile. It's going to be trolling and flame-baiting and eventually it will force the moderation staff to overreact and there will be 'vacations'. The question is this: can we change the conversation, please? Can we get to a topic that won't end in people shouting at their monitors?
Willravel is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 03:16 PM   #194 (permalink)
Junkie
 
rahl's Avatar
 
Location: Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467 View Post
Whatever... keep saying one side is full of hate and uncompromising when I just showed that your side is just as bad.

Like I said, the Tea Party members I know (and I know quite a few) are more willing to compromise on social issues and find ways to make them work so that the focus can stay on the real issues, unemployment, the deficit, corruption etc.

But keep hate alive.... you hate the Right for wanting to dictate to you their beliefs ... the right hates you for the same reason and both sides would rather destroy everything in this country than to compromise, eductae and treat the other side with respect.

There is no arguing with you, not because you are right... but solely because you refuse to respect, listen or try to find common ground.

I've said it before and I will say it again, that as the "common enemy" leaves this forum and they are... you all will eventually feast upon one another, because all that hatred and anger you have (that you deny having but accuse everyone who opposes you of having) has to be fed.

And some of you, may eventually see you have some here, (you call leaders and follow as great thinkers) as nothing more than what they are, hatemongers who truly would rather destroy this country than watch it heal...
Pan, you can't compromise constitutional rights. You just can't. it's all or nothing. And your examples of gun restrictions and liquor restrictions, as has been pointed out, affect ALL PEOPLE. your "compromise" only affects GAY PEOPLE. that is still discrimination.
__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"
rahl is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 03:22 PM   #195 (permalink)
comfortably numb...
 
uncle phil's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: upstate
i agree completely, rahl...

__________________
"We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done."
- Robert S. McNamara
-----------------------------------------
"We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches...
We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles."
- Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message"
-----------------------------------------
never wrestle with a pig.
you both get dirty;
the pig likes it.
uncle phil is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 03:34 PM   #196 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
"compromise" in tea-party speak appears to mean "agree with me"

because if you dont.....why.....america's gonna burn and you're responsible.

pan's way of putting things is a perfect little reproduction of how the tea party works, though. all the more perfect because no doubt he'd deny it. then he'd talk about compromise and how good it is and how we are all destroying america.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 03:45 PM   #197 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
I'm glad Uncle Phil is here to remind us that penises on old, great works of art can be evidence that we're growing larger on average as a species. It's a fun threadjack.
Willravel is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 04:12 PM   #198 (permalink)
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wes Mantooth View Post
I was going to say the same thing on the previous page when responding the list of Tea Party issues. If you don't want the govt intruding on our daily lives then you can't look to them to mandate marriage, language and who you can and can't hire. Its hypocritical.
And if you don't want the government removing choices, then you have no basis for standing against infanticide. Come on now, none but the most ardent anarchists are for a complete withdrawal of government from "our daily lives". Use just a little imagination and see the magical italics: "less government intrusion". Of course liberals, conservatives, and their subgroups are going to differ on which areas the government should be less intrusive (or more intrusive). That tea partiers see a number of areas where the government isn't, in their view, present enough, doesn't exactly give you a slam-dunk case that they don't believe in smaller government. It's possible for the government to be overbearing in some areas and too lax in others simultaneously.

I don't doubt that there's hypocrisy in the tea party movement. (Not to as great of a degree as with Republicans or Democrats, but hey, it's a young movement.) But you seem to think it's easier to spot than it actually is.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.
FoolThemAll is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 04:33 PM   #199 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
well, we're in the modern world and if you're thinking inside of the capitalist mode of production the state is integral to it. and what's been obvious for some time is---like i said---conservatives tend to support the repressive state and others to support a more redistributive state. personally, i'd prefer a far more social-democratic approach, which in the present context would mean very significant cuts in military and other security expenditures and a reorientation of state policy away from the national security state toward something about industry and/or job creation. and education. that sort of thing.

it's well past time to dismantle the national security state.


the tea partiers tend, from what i've been able to figure out, to support increasing current levels of military spending while somehow imagining they can cut taxes and compensate for it by allowing the entire non-military economy to collapse (this an outline of the logic that'd follow in policy terms from what they say).

i wasn't joking earlier about the relation of the right to a notion of natural hierarchy as a jutification for diverting resources into repression.
and i wasn't joking when i talked about the ways in which the illusion that the conservative Subject---the position interpellated or constructed or posited through the ideology as its "object" or the person whom the constructs are "about"---is under continual attack is of a piece with the same thing.

the right is pretty transparent in terms of how most of its positions fit together if you think about it.

what makes contemporary conservatism in the us problematic (in my view) is not that it's ideologically smart--it isn't...but it is deftly fitted to the needs both of the economic masters it serves and the constituency it mobilizes in the service of those masters (one which is not at all the same)---but that the right is **organized** and that at the grassroots level and **very** efficiently.

the big fight, it seems to me, is between the tea partiers and republican party over who is going to be able to better use the organizational system to get out bodies at elections. the way that conflict goes---and i think (i am not sure, but i think) that's what we're seeing now, a conflict within the right---will determine the way the battle unfolds. it could be about a splitting of the right (i'm all for anything that weakens conservatives, so yay)---or it could be a struggle over who controls the republican party. at this point it's hard to say.

that's my take.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 08-10-2010, 04:36 PM   #200 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Wes Mantooth's Avatar
 
Location: Tennessee
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll View Post
And if you don't want the government removing choices, then you have no basis for standing against infanticide. Come on now, none but the most ardent anarchists are for a complete withdrawal of government from "our daily lives". Use just a little imagination and see the magical italics: "less government intrusion". Of course liberals, conservatives, and their subgroups are going to differ on which areas the government should be less intrusive (or more intrusive). That tea partiers see a number of areas where the government isn't, in their view, present enough, doesn't exactly give you a slam-dunk case that they don't believe in smaller government. It's possible for the government to be overbearing in some areas and too lax in others simultaneously.

I don't doubt that there's hypocrisy in the tea party movement. (Not to as great of a degree as with Republicans or Democrats, but hey, it's a young movement.) But you seem to think it's easier to spot than it actually is.
That's why I don't like the less govt intrusion position to begin with. You either have to accept that the govt is going to dictate and decide certain issues, be they left or right, or its hands off for everything except its outlined responsibilities in the constitution. They don't want less govt intrusion they want a govt that intrudes when it fits their agenda and one that backs off when it doesn't. That's not a smaller, less intrusive govt its a right wing govt that will be used to its fullest to suit their needs. (And yes both sides do this). Perhaps hypocrisy was too strong of a word but it is rather contradictive.

But again I was suggesting that the above list isn't so much a platform as it is a way to recruit as many conservatives as possible by throwing out vague right wing ideals weather they contradict one another or not.
__________________
“My god I must have missed it...its hell down here!”
Wes Mantooth is offline  
 

Tags
issues, party, social, tea


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:36 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360