Michelle Bachman is an evil cunt

his gay marriage argument is more of a separation of powers argument. at least that's how i perceived it. he doesn't think the fed should enforce any 1 ideal. i'm sort of with him, but not really.

i think "marriage" should be redefined in a political context to give tax benefits to any couple raising children. but i'd be fine if this happened at the federal level

i think it would HAVE to happen at a federal level or vast swathes of america are going to be completely unequal

  On 8/17/2011 at 9:09 PM, theSun said:

his gay marriage argument is more of a separation of powers argument. at least that's how i perceived it. he doesn't think the fed should enforce any 1 ideal. i'm sort of with him, but not really.

 

i think "marriage" should be redefined in a political context to give tax benefits to any couple raising children. but i'd be fine if this happened at the federal level

I think that all gays should be given all rights ( tax and otherwise ) that straight people have, regardless of whether or not they have children.

enacting wide reaching social policy is dangerous and it oversteps what some people consider the scope of the government. i think paul is in this boat.

it's sort of a cop out but it's not a moral issue, it's a states rights vs fed issue

  On 8/17/2011 at 9:31 PM, jefferoo said:

  On 8/17/2011 at 9:09 PM, theSun said:

his gay marriage argument is more of a separation of powers argument. at least that's how i perceived it. he doesn't think the fed should enforce any 1 ideal. i'm sort of with him, but not really.

 

i think "marriage" should be redefined in a political context to give tax benefits to any couple raising children. but i'd be fine if this happened at the federal level

I think that all gays should be given all rights ( tax and otherwise ) that straight people have, regardless of whether or not they have children.

the only rights i'm talking about are tax writeoffs. ie, a straight married couple should get tax breaks for kids, and no tax breaks for no kids. a gay married couple should get tax breaks for kids, and no tax breaks for no kids.

  On 8/17/2011 at 9:35 PM, theSun said:

  On 8/17/2011 at 9:31 PM, jefferoo said:

  On 8/17/2011 at 9:09 PM, theSun said:

his gay marriage argument is more of a separation of powers argument. at least that's how i perceived it. he doesn't think the fed should enforce any 1 ideal. i'm sort of with him, but not really.

 

i think "marriage" should be redefined in a political context to give tax benefits to any couple raising children. but i'd be fine if this happened at the federal level

I think that all gays should be given all rights ( tax and otherwise ) that straight people have, regardless of whether or not they have children.

 

the only rights i'm talking about are tax writeoffs. ie, a straight married couple should get tax breaks for kids, and no tax breaks for no kids. a gay married couple should get tax breaks for kids, and no tax breaks for no kids.

I don't think gays should have any more or fewer rights than straight people. If they don't have kids, they don't get a tax break for them. If they do, great, they get a tax break.

so how many people in this thread are stockholming it all the way to the ballot box and casting a vote for Barack Obama again?

(besides Jefferoo)

besides childishly calling me drunk or 'fucking idiotic' in a different font/color. i'd to see some actual thought out rebuttals to what i said. Too difficult? Or is it just too emotional to see pictures of dead children, the president you voted for helped kill? I mean i could understand that, because it is very provocative to show you his actual murder victims (sorry if you classify it as hyperbole, im not going to stop), but yeah i guess his extremely latent stance on DOMA and DADT cancels all that out right? Instead lets focus on how Ron Paul is a racist and michelle bachmann is an evil cunt, because that's where the focus should be. Not on who's been sitting in office for the past 4 years and taking this country in the exact same mass murdering, civil liberties destroying, whistle-blower prosecuting ( more than any other administration previously combined) direction as george bush on 95% of the issues.

I feel like people have the same reaction when you criticize Obama as if you were criticizing their father or best friend. Reason goes out the window almost immediately. Why on earth wold you put so much blind loyalty in a politician you do not know? Are you psychically connected to his inner most thoughts?

hey, sometimes war is war. we just need to let go that no matter who is in office, they will continue sending us to indiscriminately bomb kill children terrorist training camps.

  On 8/17/2011 at 8:40 PM, karmakramer said:

[ it seems like you are going after all of pauls negatives and exaggerating the reign of destruction he will have on this country

it is quite interesting to me the double standard that can be leveled at Paul is rarely if ever voiced towards Obama

  On 8/17/2011 at 10:50 PM, Awepittance said:

besides childishly calling me drunk or 'fucking idiotic' in a different font/color. i'd to see some actual thought out rebuttals to what i said. Too difficult? Or is it just too emotional to see pictures of dead children, the president you voted for helped kill? I mean i could understand that, because it is very provocative to show you his actual murder victims (sorry if you classify it as hyperbole, im not going to stop), but yeah i guess his extremely latent stance on DOMA and DADT cancels all that out right? Instead lets focus on how Ron Paul is a racist and michelle bachmann is an evil cunt, because that's where the focus should be. Not on who's been sitting in office for the past 4 years and taking this country in the exact same mass murdering, civil liberties destroying, whistle-blower prosecuting ( more than any other administration previously combined) direction as george bush on 95% of the issues.

 

I feel like people have the same reaction when you criticize Obama as if you were criticizing their father or best friend. Reason goes out the window almost immediately. Why on earth wold you put so much blind loyalty in a politician you do not know? Are you psychically connected to his inner most thoughts?

Would you consider Bob Woodward's Obama's Wars to be a fair and balanced telling of the entire issue? Or isn't that emotional enough as a response to murdered children?

supposed to be an edit.: sure, there's lots and lots of double standards in the entire discussion. But from my point of view, I can see a president actually suffering from the way things are developing. Perhaps that naive sympathy on my part. But to a certain extent the murdered children argument could be just as naive. It's the same media which brings you the news. For all I know the Taliban have been recruiting children for a while now. And not just to do the laundries.

  On 8/17/2011 at 9:41 PM, jefferoo said:

  On 8/17/2011 at 9:35 PM, theSun said:

  On 8/17/2011 at 9:31 PM, jefferoo said:

  On 8/17/2011 at 9:09 PM, theSun said:

his gay marriage argument is more of a separation of powers argument. at least that's how i perceived it. he doesn't think the fed should enforce any 1 ideal. i'm sort of with him, but not really.

 

i think "marriage" should be redefined in a political context to give tax benefits to any couple raising children. but i'd be fine if this happened at the federal level

I think that all gays should be given all rights ( tax and otherwise ) that straight people have, regardless of whether or not they have children.

 

the only rights i'm talking about are tax writeoffs. ie, a straight married couple should get tax breaks for kids, and no tax breaks for no kids. a gay married couple should get tax breaks for kids, and no tax breaks for no kids.

 

I don't think gays should have any more or fewer rights than straight people. If they don't have kids, they don't get a tax break for them. If they do, great, they get a tax break.

yeah that's what i said lol

  On 8/17/2011 at 11:10 PM, goDel said:

But to a certain extent the murdered children argument could be just as naive. It's the same media which brings you the news. For all I know the Taliban have been recruiting children for a while now. And not just to do the laundries.

i was going to seriously respond to your post before you said this. Are you implying even semi truthfully that all statistics involving civilian casualties are somehow false? i mean if you were joking i'm truly sorry

@ awep - how much power do you think the president has? the US isn't a monarchy ffs. good things have happened under obama but many more bad things continue to happen. this is not because he wants to bomb kids but because the US is actively involved in "wars" and you can't blame our whole fucked up foreign policy on the sitting president. a much more fitting body to blame would be our own congress, the president is just basically the most popular congressman.

who would you like to see in office and (if nonpartisan) what makes you think both parties won't be able to stop them?

  On 8/17/2011 at 10:50 PM, Awepittance said:

besides childishly calling me drunk or 'fucking idiotic' in a different font/color. i'd to see some actual thought out rebuttals to what i said. Too difficult? Or is it just too emotional to see pictures of dead children, the president you voted for helped kill? I mean i could understand that, because it is very provocative to show you his actual murder victims (sorry if you classify it as hyperbole, im not going to stop), but yeah i guess his extremely latent stance on DOMA and DADT cancels all that out right? Instead lets focus on how Ron Paul is a racist and michelle bachmann is an evil cunt, because that's where the focus should be. Not on who's been sitting in office for the past 4 years and taking this country in the exact same mass murdering, civil liberties destroying, whistle-blower prosecuting ( more than any other administration previously combined) direction as george bush on 95% of the issues.

 

I feel like people have the same reaction when you criticize Obama as if you were criticizing their father or best friend. Reason goes out the window almost immediately. Why on earth wold you put so much blind loyalty in a politician you do not know? Are you psychically connected to his inner most thoughts?

There's no argument against your points, you're right, people trust based on hope and faith alone. In the end, personal politics looks no more different that choosing a sports team to support.

  On 8/17/2011 at 11:11 PM, theSun said:

  On 8/17/2011 at 9:41 PM, jefferoo said:

  On 8/17/2011 at 9:35 PM, theSun said:

  On 8/17/2011 at 9:31 PM, jefferoo said:

  On 8/17/2011 at 9:09 PM, theSun said:

his gay marriage argument is more of a separation of powers argument. at least that's how i perceived it. he doesn't think the fed should enforce any 1 ideal. i'm sort of with him, but not really.

 

i think "marriage" should be redefined in a political context to give tax benefits to any couple raising children. but i'd be fine if this happened at the federal level

I think that all gays should be given all rights ( tax and otherwise ) that straight people have, regardless of whether or not they have children.

 

the only rights i'm talking about are tax writeoffs. ie, a straight married couple should get tax breaks for kids, and no tax breaks for no kids. a gay married couple should get tax breaks for kids, and no tax breaks for no kids.

 

I don't think gays should have any more or fewer rights than straight people. If they don't have kids, they don't get a tax break for them. If they do, great, they get a tax break.

 

yeah that's what i said lol

yeah that's what I said lol

  On 8/17/2011 at 11:13 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 8/17/2011 at 11:10 PM, goDel said:

But to a certain extent the murdered children argument could be just as naive. It's the same media which brings you the news. For all I know the Taliban have been recruiting children for a while now. And not just to do the laundries.

 

i was going to seriously respond to your post before you said this. Are you implying even semi truthfully that all statistics involving civilian casualties are somehow false? i mean if you were joking i'm truly sorry

That's not what I'm implying. What I was implying was that those murdered children might just as well have been trained suicide bombers. Might have been. I'm not implying that I know. I'm implying there's a possibility. And because of that the "gotcha-accusation" of yours is not really justified, imo. I just don't know.

Also, there's not much room to have any kind of counterargument, is it? If I try to make some counter argument within your given premisses, I'm instantly open to some form of moral judgement because human lives - or better - children are the most precious things in the entire universe.

For all I know you're just pulling a "Franklin" on us. (read: using us for some sociopsychological experiment)

I'm ignoring Awepittance.

Well, his whole point was if we'd call Bachman an evil cunt, Obama should be seen at least as evil as her. To some extent I can agree with that premise. Luckily, I wouldn't call Bachman an evil cunt, so I'm allowed to suck Obama's cunt all I want.

;)

More people should read some Noam Chomsky.

Can't believe the US nuked Hiroshima.

  On 8/17/2011 at 11:36 PM, vamos scorcho said:

More people should read some Noam Chomsky.

my guess is that people already have, but they read a page or two, maybe even a book, and decided that they don't like the elitist realm of academia telling them what happens in reality. or they know his name and remember that he is bad.

I have never met a single professor when confronted with Chomsky could offer a solid academic criticism, other than "he is very opinionated."

No shit sherlock, I would probably put a lot of stock into my opinion if I had come across those sources affirming one and the same.

Chomsky is indeed very opinionated. And that's a good thing in his case. He's brilliant in his out-of-the-box approach. Can't say that of all the nicely 'boxed' academics which are trained to think from inside the system.

Also, mr awep, if you're serious on this, talk about governance and policies.

Here's a link to Charlie Rose's interview with Woodward on the mentioned book.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11229

Shoot while you can. Sticking to murdered children will get the discussion nowhere. As cold as it sounds.

insane. what we're going to see is the becoming of politicians as internet users. this is wild.

what i mean is, Obama and friends are going to have to adapt. and if they do, they will see that they are not liked very much by anybody. in fact, the word on the entire internet is that the choices are NOT LIKED!

they will have to adapt. and I personally have faith that they will. the internet makes it a global situation. it's unbelievable how 'new' it is.

  On 8/17/2011 at 7:01 PM, karmakramer said:

  On 8/17/2011 at 6:52 PM, vamos scorcho said:

I really don't understand libertarianism clearly enough to have an opinion. I'm pretty skeptical whether or not most people should have opinions either, haha.

 

Most people shouldn't, probably including myself, which is why I am launching a website that will hopefully help inform people of our political climate today. I just conceptualized the idea and am working with other passionate people on how to move forward. But I think it will be immensely beneficial for helping citizens understand the issues and where both parties stand as well as your local candidates etc.

really good idea!