As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The New GOP Thread: Taking Anti-Intellectualism to a Whole New Level

15455565759

Posts

  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    mxmarks wrote: »
    Starcross wrote: »
    IS the frog coming out of Obama's mouth based on a line from Revelation or does it make sense only in the mind of the person making that sign?
    13 Then I saw three evil spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet.
    14 They are spirits of demons performing miraculous signs, and they go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them for the battle on the great day of God Almighty.
    So Obama is a Dragon/beast/false-prophet. And the frog is an evil spirit! Duh, get with it duder.

    This may take the thread off topic, so I apologize, but I just have to say something that Ive thought about a bunch of times since these crazies started coming out of the woodwork, but never actually vocalized.

    How come the crazy religious people take EVERY SINGLE THING in the Bible SOOOOOOO literally - EXCEPT Revelation?

    They argue that the bible says marriage is between a man and a woman ONLY, because ITS RIGHT THERE IN THE BIBLE. Theyve used the bible to argue for segregation. They use the LITERAL BIBLE for all the excuses, yet the one really BADASS part of the Bible is CONVENIENTLY 100% interpretation.

    I hope so badly one day that a fucking dragon descends down from the sky on National News and opens his mouth and frogs start flying out and every religious nutjob goes "Ooooooh THATS the Antichrist."

    This also makes me think again how I would pay a billion times to see a movie that was a literal, word for word, version of Revelations. That shit in CG with the four horsemen and dragons and fire and huge epic angel battles would be so awesome.

    This was pretty awesome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megiddo_(film)

    SyphonBlue on
    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • Dr Mario KartDr Mario Kart Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Oh god it's actually happening
    After hard-line conservatives and tea party activists forced moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava to drop out of the race in New York’s 23rd congressional district, they announced that Florida Gov. Charlie Crist would likely be their next target in the GOP civil war. Politico’s Ben Smith reports that some Florida Republicans recently registered an official “Tea Party” to challenge both Republicans and Democrats:

    “The current system has become mired in the sludge of special interest money that seeks to control the leadership of both parties. It’s time for real change,” says Orlando lawyer Frederic O’Neal, the new party’s chairman, who couldn’t be reached immediately by phone, in a press release.

    A spokeswoman for the Florida Secretary of State, Jennifer Davis, said the party had registered in August.

    O’Neal compared his party’s role to that of the Conservative Party in New York’s 23rd District. Florida, however, lacks the “fusion” rules that has allowed third parties in New York to amass influence by offering their ballot line to acceptable major-party candidates.

    On Saturday, Dan Semenza, a Lake County Republican Party executive committee member, told the Daily Commercial that the registration of the third party organization meant “that the Tea Party has considerable strength.”

    I'm so happy I could cry
    I'm not clear on the underlined portion. Does this mean that any 3rd party candidate would have to beat either the D or R in a primary to be on the ballot or what, I dont follow these fusion rules.

    Dr Mario Kart on
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Delzhand wrote: »
    You know, I'm almost tempted to put WBC members in a better position on the Totem Pole of Bigotry than people who vote against gay marriage because "it's immoral". Why? Because at least they believe they're helping the USA avoid God's wrath. Using your shitty principles to "protect" others is at least marginally better than just wanting to deny rights because you disagree with it.

    So you would rate a bunch of soldier hating idiots who give real Christians a bad name higher than those who vote to not redefine marriage? Why is it somehow unacceptable to vote against gay "marriage" if one believes it is immoral? Morality one way or another is involved with most politics.

    WBC are attention whores, nothing more or less. They are the Ann Coulters/Michele Bachmans of this world without any sort of moral restraint.

    But yes, it is perfectly acceptable to vote against gay marriage on moral grounds, I understand that as a active christian, that's not something you would want to see. Unfortunately those types of people seem to suffer from social blinders and come off looking like complete hypocrites, since casually ignoring divorce while claiming sanctity of marriage smacks of it, or the fact that people are so up in arms over abortion and saving children in the womb, but are nowhere to be found when those babies are born. I think it is fair to call out the sanctity of marriage people especially though, because when faced with the direct facts of the situation, I can't see their vote of no as anything other than thinly veiled hate, which is the very capital the entire republican party runs on.

    Dark_Side on
  • Clint EastwoodClint Eastwood My baby's in there someplace She crawled right inRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Oh god it's actually happening
    After hard-line conservatives and tea party activists forced moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava to drop out of the race in New York’s 23rd congressional district, they announced that Florida Gov. Charlie Crist would likely be their next target in the GOP civil war. Politico’s Ben Smith reports that some Florida Republicans recently registered an official “Tea Party” to challenge both Republicans and Democrats:

    “The current system has become mired in the sludge of special interest money that seeks to control the leadership of both parties. It’s time for real change,” says Orlando lawyer Frederic O’Neal, the new party’s chairman, who couldn’t be reached immediately by phone, in a press release.

    A spokeswoman for the Florida Secretary of State, Jennifer Davis, said the party had registered in August.

    O’Neal compared his party’s role to that of the Conservative Party in New York’s 23rd District. Florida, however, lacks the “fusion” rules that has allowed third parties in New York to amass influence by offering their ballot line to acceptable major-party candidates.

    On Saturday, Dan Semenza, a Lake County Republican Party executive committee member, told the Daily Commercial that the registration of the third party organization meant “that the Tea Party has considerable strength.”

    I'm so happy I could cry

    This is going to be delicious. Is it too early to predict a win for the Dem candidate?

    Clint Eastwood on
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    So you would rate a bunch of soldier hating idiots who give real Christians a bad name higher than those who vote to not redefine marriage?
    Can't speak for Delz, but I would. Like he said, at least WBC believe they are trying to protect us from something rather than trying to impose their own backward religious beliefs on other people for no good reason.

    Also, please tell me who the "real Christians" are.

    Bama on
  • BullioBullio Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Oh god it's actually happening
    After hard-line conservatives and tea party activists forced moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava to drop out of the race in New York’s 23rd congressional district, they announced that Florida Gov. Charlie Crist would likely be their next target in the GOP civil war. Politico’s Ben Smith reports that some Florida Republicans recently registered an official “Tea Party” to challenge both Republicans and Democrats:

    “The current system has become mired in the sludge of special interest money that seeks to control the leadership of both parties. It’s time for real change,” says Orlando lawyer Frederic O’Neal, the new party’s chairman, who couldn’t be reached immediately by phone, in a press release.

    A spokeswoman for the Florida Secretary of State, Jennifer Davis, said the party had registered in August.

    O’Neal compared his party’s role to that of the Conservative Party in New York’s 23rd District. Florida, however, lacks the “fusion” rules that has allowed third parties in New York to amass influence by offering their ballot line to acceptable major-party candidates.

    On Saturday, Dan Semenza, a Lake County Republican Party executive committee member, told the Daily Commercial that the registration of the third party organization meant “that the Tea Party has considerable strength.”

    I'm so happy I could cry

    Because FreedomWorks, Club For Growth, Americans For Prosperity, Minuteman PAC, the Oathkeepers, and everyone that sponsored the 9/12 march AREN'T special interest groups. Nope, pure grassroots movement over here!

    Bullio on
    steam_sig.png
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    mxmarks wrote: »

    This also makes me think again how I would pay a billion times to see a movie that was a literal, word for word, version of Revelations. That shit in CG with the four horsemen and dragons and fire and huge epic angel battles would be so awesome.

    emnmnme on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    and Laser Jesus as Godzilla

    nexuscrawler on
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Bullio wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Oh god it's actually happening
    After hard-line conservatives and tea party activists forced moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava to drop out of the race in New York’s 23rd congressional district, they announced that Florida Gov. Charlie Crist would likely be their next target in the GOP civil war. Politico’s Ben Smith reports that some Florida Republicans recently registered an official “Tea Party” to challenge both Republicans and Democrats:

    “The current system has become mired in the sludge of special interest money that seeks to control the leadership of both parties. It’s time for real change,” says Orlando lawyer Frederic O’Neal, the new party’s chairman, who couldn’t be reached immediately by phone, in a press release.

    A spokeswoman for the Florida Secretary of State, Jennifer Davis, said the party had registered in August.

    O’Neal compared his party’s role to that of the Conservative Party in New York’s 23rd District. Florida, however, lacks the “fusion” rules that has allowed third parties in New York to amass influence by offering their ballot line to acceptable major-party candidates.

    On Saturday, Dan Semenza, a Lake County Republican Party executive committee member, told the Daily Commercial that the registration of the third party organization meant “that the Tea Party has considerable strength.”

    I'm so happy I could cry

    Because FreedomWorks, Club For Growth, Americans For Prosperity, Minuteman PAC, the Oathkeepers, and everyone that sponsored the 9/12 march AREN'T special interest groups. Nope, pure grassroots movement over here!

    Michelle Bachmann organized the latest tea party on Capitol steps.

    The very next day, she had a press conference where she applauded the grass-roots protest the day before.

    The grass-roots protest that she, an elected member of Congress, organized.

    SyphonBlue on
    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Bullio wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Oh god it's actually happening
    After hard-line conservatives and tea party activists forced moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava to drop out of the race in New York’s 23rd congressional district, they announced that Florida Gov. Charlie Crist would likely be their next target in the GOP civil war. Politico’s Ben Smith reports that some Florida Republicans recently registered an official “Tea Party” to challenge both Republicans and Democrats:

    “The current system has become mired in the sludge of special interest money that seeks to control the leadership of both parties. It’s time for real change,” says Orlando lawyer Frederic O’Neal, the new party’s chairman, who couldn’t be reached immediately by phone, in a press release.

    A spokeswoman for the Florida Secretary of State, Jennifer Davis, said the party had registered in August.

    O’Neal compared his party’s role to that of the Conservative Party in New York’s 23rd District. Florida, however, lacks the “fusion” rules that has allowed third parties in New York to amass influence by offering their ballot line to acceptable major-party candidates.

    On Saturday, Dan Semenza, a Lake County Republican Party executive committee member, told the Daily Commercial that the registration of the third party organization meant “that the Tea Party has considerable strength.”

    I'm so happy I could cry

    Because FreedomWorks, Club For Growth, Americans For Prosperity, Minuteman PAC, the Oathkeepers, and everyone that sponsored the 9/12 march AREN'T special interest groups. Nope, pure grassroots movement over here!

    It's amazing. It's so targeted to marginalize the conservative party that it would not shock me to find that Freedomworks was bought out by Obama six months ago. No sane group would pretty much TRY to get their opponents elected by showing the reason we're a two party system with this electoral method. That's just bat shit crazy or shortsighted as all hell.

    kildy on
  • galenbladegalenblade Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Oh god it's actually happening
    After hard-line conservatives and tea party activists forced moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava to drop out of the race in New York’s 23rd congressional district, they announced that Florida Gov. Charlie Crist would likely be their next target in the GOP civil war. Politico’s Ben Smith reports that some Florida Republicans recently registered an official “Tea Party” to challenge both Republicans and Democrats:

    “The current system has become mired in the sludge of special interest money that seeks to control the leadership of both parties. It’s time for real change,” says Orlando lawyer Frederic O’Neal, the new party’s chairman, who couldn’t be reached immediately by phone, in a press release.

    A spokeswoman for the Florida Secretary of State, Jennifer Davis, said the party had registered in August.

    O’Neal compared his party’s role to that of the Conservative Party in New York’s 23rd District. Florida, however, lacks the “fusion” rules that has allowed third parties in New York to amass influence by offering their ballot line to acceptable major-party candidates.

    On Saturday, Dan Semenza, a Lake County Republican Party executive committee member, told the Daily Commercial that the registration of the third party organization meant “that the Tea Party has considerable strength.”

    I'm so happy I could cry
    I'm not clear on the underlined portion. Does this mean that any 3rd party candidate would have to beat either the D or R in a primary to be on the ballot or what, I dont follow these fusion rules.

    Nope. NY's fusion rules are simple. A party can either put forward their own candidate, or candidates who have already been put forward can be sponsored by other similarly-intentioned party and thus also appear on their line on the ballot.

    For example, the most recent election, you could vote for Bloomberg either on the Independent, Republican, or Conservative lines on the ballot, and the votes would all go to Bloomberg. For The Other Guy, you could vote for him on the Democratic or Working Families line, with the same result.

    The only real downside is that there's something like less diversity of candidates on the ballot.

    galenblade on
    linksig.jpg
  • edited November 2009
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    But yes, it is perfectly acceptable to vote against gay marriage on moral grounds, I understand that as a active christian, that's not something you would want to see. Unfortunately those types of people seem to suffer from social blinders and come off looking like complete hypocrites, since casually ignoring divorce while claiming sanctity of marriage smacks of it, or the fact that people are so up in arms over abortion and saving children in the womb, but are nowhere to be found when those babies are born. I think it is fair to call out the sanctity of marriage people especially though, because when faced with the direct facts of the situation, I can't see their vote of no as anything other than thinly veiled hate, which is the very capital the entire republican party runs on.


    I don't think anybody is just fine with divorce rates these days. I have no respect for those who who just leave their wife alone with their kid, and I get pissed when I unwillingly hear about these actors and singers who get married and divorced within three months. Yet this issue doesn't come up in legislation, indeed it is something that can't be dealt with by laws alone. I can find plenty of things to hate these days, and the world isn't going to stop providing reasons for that anytime soon. Yet just because one votes against gay marriage doesn't mean they hate gays. It is possible to oppose a certain viewpoint and actions without hating the person themselves. Hell, I loathe the political, social, and religious views of a good friend of mine, but he is still my friend.

    Even some more rational gays have come forward supporting civil unions and not wanting it to be "marriage." Do they supposedly hate their own kind or something?

    The very capital the entire Republican party runs on is thinly veiled hate? Even if that was true that isn't the reason people vote for them or any political party. Besides, if there wasn't any rage in politics we would still be under British rule. We saw more than enough hate directed against Bush and Republicans (excuse me, "Bushiter") throughout the 8 years. So why doesn't the Democrat party run on the same force according to your logic.

    KingLampshade on
    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."
    British publisher and writer Ernest Benn [1875-1954]
  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Bama wrote: »
    Also, please tell me who the "real Christians" are.

    They're over there by the "real Americans".

    Hexmage-PA on
    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Delzhand wrote: »
    You know, I'm almost tempted to put WBC members in a better position on the Totem Pole of Bigotry than people who vote against gay marriage because "it's immoral". Why? Because at least they believe they're helping the USA avoid God's wrath. Using your shitty principles to "protect" others is at least marginally better than just wanting to deny rights because you disagree with it.

    So you would rate a bunch of soldier hating idiots who give real Christians a bad name higher than those who vote to not redefine marriage? Why is it somehow unacceptable to vote against gay "marriage" if one believes it is immoral? Morality one way or another is involved with most politics.

    Yes, as much as it displeases me to agree with KL on, well, anything, he's right- people who protest military funerals and say "America deserved 9-11" are significantly worse people than intolerant homophobic fucksticks

    But this is like getting hanged is worse than getting shot. I mean, it's true but it doesn't make getting shot like, awesome

    Rent on
  • NarianNarian Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    I can find plenty of things to hate these days, and the world isn't going to stop providing reasons for that anytime soon. Yet just because one votes against gay marriage doesn't mean they hate gays. It is possible to oppose a certain viewpoint and actions without hating the person themselves.

    You're right, you don't need to hate someone to think that they are a lower form of human than you and thus do not deserve the same rights as you.

    Narian on
    Narian.gif
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    mxmarks wrote: »

    This also makes me think again how I would pay a billion times to see a movie that was a literal, word for word, version of Revelations. That shit in CG with the four horsemen and dragons and fire and huge epic angel battles would be so awesome.

    This guy made a webcomic about it:
    http://www.serializer.net/comics/apocamon.php?view=toc

    Pi-r8 on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Lampshade there's nothing wrong with hate. Right now the GOP is being fueled by hate for it's own sake. Hate without reason becomes rage and rage is the death of discourse.

    I hated GWB but if you wanted me to tell you why I could've written a dissertation about why I hated him. These Tea Party freaks can't even muddle together a coherent sentence about why they hate Obama

    nexuscrawler on
  • edited November 2009
    Bama wrote: »
    Can't speak for Delz, but I would. Like he said, at least WBC believe they are trying to protect us from something rather than trying to impose their own backward religious beliefs on other people for no good reason.

    Also, please tell me who the "real Christians" are.

    Really now? Backwards religious beliefs? I could say the same about yours. And those who vote against gay marriage aren't trying to impose their religious beliefs, rather they are trying to prevent the other side from imposing their beliefs. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. Or even if it is broke, don't do something counter-productive.

    And the "real Christians" like most Americans aren't ones protesting and slandering our soldier at funerals, while acting at a level of asshole-ery comparable to godless internet whiners and Muslim extremists.

    KingLampshade on
    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."
    British publisher and writer Ernest Benn [1875-1954]
  • KastanjKastanj __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2009
    Rent wrote: »
    Delzhand wrote: »
    You know, I'm almost tempted to put WBC members in a better position on the Totem Pole of Bigotry than people who vote against gay marriage because "it's immoral". Why? Because at least they believe they're helping the USA avoid God's wrath. Using your shitty principles to "protect" others is at least marginally better than just wanting to deny rights because you disagree with it.

    So you would rate a bunch of soldier hating idiots who give real Christians a bad name higher than those who vote to not redefine marriage? Why is it somehow unacceptable to vote against gay "marriage" if one believes it is immoral? Morality one way or another is involved with most politics.

    Yes, as much as it displeases me to agree with KL on, well, anything, he's right- people who protest military funerals and say "America deserved 9-11" are significantly worse people than intolerant homophobic fucksticks

    But this is like getting hanged is worse than getting shot. I mean, it's true but it doesn't make getting shot like, awesome

    You're wrong, Rent. Both people hurt others mentally and attempt to do so politically as well, for religious reasons. They're all self-entitled, solipsist busy-bodies, and nothing significant occurs when we try to assert which type is worse.

    Kastanj on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    But yes, it is perfectly acceptable to vote against gay marriage on moral grounds, I understand that as a active christian, that's not something you would want to see. Unfortunately those types of people seem to suffer from social blinders and come off looking like complete hypocrites, since casually ignoring divorce while claiming sanctity of marriage smacks of it, or the fact that people are so up in arms over abortion and saving children in the womb, but are nowhere to be found when those babies are born. I think it is fair to call out the sanctity of marriage people especially though, because when faced with the direct facts of the situation, I can't see their vote of no as anything other than thinly veiled hate, which is the very capital the entire republican party runs on.


    I don't think anybody is just fine with divorce rates these days. I have no respect for those who who just leave their wife alone with their kid, and I get pissed when I unwillingly hear about these actors and singers who get married and divorced within three months. Yet this issue doesn't come up in legislation, indeed it is something that can't be dealt with by laws alone. I can find plenty of things to hate these days, and the world isn't going to stop providing reasons for that anytime soon. Yet just because one votes against gay marriage doesn't mean they hate gays. It is possible to oppose a certain viewpoint and actions without hating the person themselves. Hell, I loathe the political, social, and religious views of a good friend of mine, but he is still my friend.

    Even some more rational gays have come forward supporting civil unions and not wanting it to be "marriage." Do they supposedly hate their own kind or something?

    The very capital the entire Republican party runs on is thinly veiled hate? Even if that was true that isn't the reason people vote for them or any political party. Besides, if there wasn't any rage in politics we would still be under British rule. We saw more than enough hate directed against Bush and Republicans (excuse me, "Bushiter") throughout the 8 years. So why doesn't the Democrat party run on the same force according to your logic.

    Oh I agree the whole debate over "marriage" is infinitely stupid, I have no problem with calling them civil unions and being done with it, because at its essence, all marriage really is, at least from the government's standpoint anyway, is a legal contract between two people. But as to the republicans and thinly veiled hate? Yes, that is their entire platform right now. And I find it hard to believe you could really say otherwise. The democrats on the other hand...who knows what the hell their platform is, they couldn't rally up an actual vote and get something done if the law to be enacted was the puppy dogs, rainbows, and free money for everyone law.

    Dark_Side on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Really now? Backwards religious beliefs? I could say the same about yours. And those who vote against gay marriage aren't trying to impose their religious beliefs, rather they are trying to prevent the other side from imposing their beliefs.

    What does gay marriage impose on anyone?

    Oh right, tolerance of something that doesn't negatively affect anyone anywhere.

    Quid on
  • KastanjKastanj __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2009
    "And those who vote against gay marriage aren't trying to impose their religious beliefs, rather they are trying to prevent the other side from imposing their beliefs."

    I don't "believe" that there are no decent reasons as to why gays shouldn't have the opportunity to marry.

    There simply are no decent reasons as to why gays shouldn't be able to get married.

    "godless"

    Now you've done it, mighty man.

    Kastanj on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Kastanj wrote: »
    Rent wrote: »
    Delzhand wrote: »
    You know, I'm almost tempted to put WBC members in a better position on the Totem Pole of Bigotry than people who vote against gay marriage because "it's immoral". Why? Because at least they believe they're helping the USA avoid God's wrath. Using your shitty principles to "protect" others is at least marginally better than just wanting to deny rights because you disagree with it.

    So you would rate a bunch of soldier hating idiots who give real Christians a bad name higher than those who vote to not redefine marriage? Why is it somehow unacceptable to vote against gay "marriage" if one believes it is immoral? Morality one way or another is involved with most politics.

    Yes, as much as it displeases me to agree with KL on, well, anything, he's right- people who protest military funerals and say "America deserved 9-11" are significantly worse people than intolerant homophobic fucksticks

    But this is like getting hanged is worse than getting shot. I mean, it's true but it doesn't make getting shot like, awesome

    You're wrong, Rent. Both people hurt others mentally and attempt to do so politically as well, for religious reasons. They're all self-entitled, solipsist busy-bodies, and nothing significant occurs when we try to assert which type is worse.

    Well, at least they're not committing terrorism in support of their belief system, I'll give them that

    Rent on
  • TachTach Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Lampshade there's nothing wrong with hate. Right now the GOP is being fueled by hate for it's own sake. Hate without reason becomes rage and rage is the death of discourse.

    I hated GWB but if you wanted me to tell you why I could've written a dissertation about why I hated him. These Tea Party freaks can't even muddle together a coherent sentence about why they hate Obama

    "With Blood and Rage of crimson red,
    Ripped from a corpse so freshly dead,
    Together with our hellish hate,
    We'll burn you all- that is your fate!"

    3598258619_c6a12d708f.jpg

    Tach on
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Bama wrote: »
    Can't speak for Delz, but I would. Like he said, at least WBC believe they are trying to protect us from something rather than trying to impose their own backward religious beliefs on other people for no good reason.

    Also, please tell me who the "real Christians" are.

    Really now? Backwards religious beliefs? I could say the same about yours. And those who vote against gay marriage aren't trying to impose their religious beliefs, rather they are trying to prevent the other side from imposing their beliefs. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. Or even if it is broke, don't do something counter-productive.

    And the "real Christians" like most Americans aren't ones protesting and slandering our soldier at funerals, while acting at a level of asshole-ery comparable to godless internet whiners and Muslim extremists.
    If you can make a secular argument against gay marriage, then go ahead. Your religion should not be considered compelling support for any public policy. Oh, and when those secular arguments have implications that aren't supported with similar force then you really look like a bigot in a shitty disguise.

    I'm still eager to hear who the "real Christians" are.

    Bama on
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Bama wrote: »
    Can't speak for Delz, but I would. Like he said, at least WBC believe they are trying to protect us from something rather than trying to impose their own backward religious beliefs on other people for no good reason.

    Also, please tell me who the "real Christians" are.

    Really now? Backwards religious beliefs? I could say the same about yours. And those who vote against gay marriage aren't trying to impose their religious beliefs, rather they are trying to prevent the other side from imposing their beliefs. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. Or even if it is broke, don't do something counter-productive.

    And the "real Christians" like most Americans aren't ones protesting and slandering our soldier at funerals, while acting at a level of asshole-ery comparable to godless internet whiners and Muslim extremists.

    Well, your logic is ridiculously flawed regarding "the other side...imposing their beliefs." They are imposing nothing on you, they just want the same benefits that you have in their relationship between consenting adults. The total impact on you and your lifestyle regarding the legalization of gay marriage is zero.

    In regards to the "real american" trend, does anybody else think it's an attempt to rekindle the "silent majority" meme?

    DoctorArch on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
  • Orochi_RockmanOrochi_Rockman __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2009

    Those who vote against gay marriage aren't trying to impose their religious beliefs

    Except that they are.

    Orochi_Rockman on
  • edited November 2009
    Lampshade there's nothing wrong with hate. Right now the GOP is being fueled by hate for it's own sake. Hate without reason becomes rage and rage is the death of discourse.

    I hated GWB but if you wanted me to tell you why I could've written a dissertation about why I hated him. These Tea Party freaks can't even muddle together a coherent sentence about why they hate Obama

    I know many intelligent Republicans some of whom have gone to Tea Parties who can summarize the reason for their anger quite well. Yet cameras all too often get drawn in front of idiots who ramble on incoherently and look like jackasses. There are more than enough examples taken from countless more liberal protests. Yet people also hear what they want to hear to an extent. I have heard many Democrat protesters who sound like complete idiots but you might think they are brilliant.

    KingLampshade on
    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."
    British publisher and writer Ernest Benn [1875-1954]
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Bama wrote: »
    Can't speak for Delz, but I would. Like he said, at least WBC believe they are trying to protect us from something rather than trying to impose their own backward religious beliefs on other people for no good reason.

    Also, please tell me who the "real Christians" are.

    Really now? Backwards religious beliefs? I could say the same about yours. And those who vote against gay marriage aren't trying to impose their religious beliefs, rather they are trying to prevent the other side from imposing their beliefs. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. Or even if it is broke, don't do something counter-productive.

    And the "real Christians" like most Americans aren't ones protesting and slandering our soldier at funerals, while acting at a level of asshole-ery comparable to godless internet whiners and Muslim extremists.

    Why do so many so-called "traditional marriage" advocates keep insisting on this disgusting "man-woman-love" fallacy? You make me sick, all of you. I'm going to ask the ranking male of a family wealthy enough to improve my social standing to give me his young and impressionable daughter who I will then repeatedly and violently force myself into until she gives me a son or I tire of her and take a mistress.


    The way God intended.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • TachTach Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Lampshade there's nothing wrong with hate. Right now the GOP is being fueled by hate for it's own sake. Hate without reason becomes rage and rage is the death of discourse.

    I hated GWB but if you wanted me to tell you why I could've written a dissertation about why I hated him. These Tea Party freaks can't even muddle together a coherent sentence about why they hate Obama

    I know many intelligent Republicans some of whom have gone to Tea Parties who can summarize the reason for their anger quite well. Yet cameras all too often get drawn in front of idiots who ramble on incoherently and look like jackasses. There are more than enough examples taken from countless more liberal protests. Yet people also hear what they want to hear to an extent. I have heard many Democrat protesters who sound like complete idiots but you might think they are brilliant.
    Let these intelligent GOP'ers come forth and present their arguments. We would be happy to debate them in casual style, hoping to reach understanding of eachother's viewpoints.

    However, whilst they remain the quiet minority of attendees at these "protests", they will continue to be lumped in with the crazies and the pedantics.

    Tach on
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Lampshade there's nothing wrong with hate. Right now the GOP is being fueled by hate for it's own sake. Hate without reason becomes rage and rage is the death of discourse.

    I hated GWB but if you wanted me to tell you why I could've written a dissertation about why I hated him. These Tea Party freaks can't even muddle together a coherent sentence about why they hate Obama

    I know many intelligent Republicans some of whom have gone to Tea Parties who can summarize the reason for their anger quite well. Yet cameras all too often get drawn in front of idiots who ramble on incoherently and look like jackasses. There are more than enough examples taken from countless more liberal protests. Yet people also hear what they want to hear to an extent. I have heard many Democrat protesters who sound like complete idiots but you might think they are brilliant.

    Well, I don't think anybody ever thought Cindy Sheehan was brilliant by any means....there's someone who totally drank the kool-aid. But if you know people that can easily summarise their distaste for Obama without looking like massive flaming hypocrites, please, do summarise those views here, because honestly I've yet to hear one of their complaints that doesn't equally apply to Bush's admin. either. (i.e. horribe fiscal policy and deficit spending)

    Edit: Also, I'll just post this here, that this article from Rolling Stone absolutely killed off a lot of my faith in Obama's administration. And if the tea baggers and national party were actually chasing down and criticising stuff like this, as well as actually proposing some sort of effective policy change, I'd be right there with them. But as it stands now it's a bunch loons who are pulling an Abe Simpson and yelling at the clouds.

    Dark_Side on
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    KL, you know soldiers in America defend peoples' rights, correct?

    That means the rights of people that they might have moral disagreements with

    Gay people deserve rights. The fact that they don't is fucking digusting. I say this is as someone who finds homosexual acts to be a sin.

    DADT is just as wrong, because I guaran-fucking-tee you that being gay in the military doesn't affect your capabilities as a servicemember.

    Being against gay marriage or repeal of DADT is being in support of suspension of people's rights. That's fucking wrong

    Rent on
  • KastanjKastanj __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2009
    "I know many intelligent Republicans some of whom have gone to Tea Parties who can summarize the reason for their anger quite well. Yet cameras all too often get drawn in front of idiots who ramble on incoherently and look like jackasses."

    Then maybe these intelligent republicans ought to take a stand themselves and state that they don't agree with the teabaggers. You know, otherwise one might be given the impression that you and other republicans think the teabaggers might be unnecessary to oppose despite the harm they do to your image, which is giving me the mental image of somebody bringing the cake towards their mouth while going "Oh please be there when I've stopped chewing oh please please be there when I've stopped chewing".

    Kastanj on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Now now, KL doesn't hate soldiers. He just doesn't give a damn about the things that they make enormous sacrifices to protect.

    Bama on
  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User
    edited November 2009
    Tach wrote: »
    Let these intelligent GOP'ers come forth and present their arguments.

    Did somebody say my name?

    mrdobalina on
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited November 2009
    Really now? Backwards religious beliefs? I could say the same about yours. And those who vote against gay marriage aren't trying to impose their religious beliefs, rather they are trying to prevent the other side from imposing their beliefs.

    When you say something like this it sort of obligates you to explain how they are significantly different.

    Jacobkosh on
    rRwz9.gif
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Kastanj wrote: »
    "I know many intelligent Republicans some of whom have gone to Tea Parties who can summarize the reason for their anger quite well. Yet cameras all too often get drawn in front of idiots who ramble on incoherently and look like jackasses."

    Then maybe these intelligent republicans ought to take a stand themselves and state that they don't agree with the teabaggers. You know, otherwise one might be given the impression that you and other republicans think the teabaggers might be unnecessary to oppose despite the harm they do to your image, which is giving me the mental image of somebody bringing the cake towards their mouth while going "Oh please be there when I've stopped chewing oh please please be there when I've stopped chewing".

    Oh they have taken a stand, upon which they are promptly chased out of the party by a mob of teabaggers holding torches and pitchforks crying out "Burn her! She's a witch! Burn her!" The last presidential election was a perfect example of this behavior.

    DoctorArch on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Bama wrote: »
    Now now, KL doesn't hate soldiers. He just doesn't give a damn about the things that they make enormous sacrifices to protect.

    Awesome

    Question for you KL: You in support of torture, er, "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques"?

    Rent on
  • KastanjKastanj __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2009
    "Gay people deserve rights. The fact that they don't is fucking digusting. I say this is as someone who finds homosexual acts to be a sin."

    That last part doesn't change anything. Like, at all. Whether you think homosexuality is a sin or not has no bearing on the importance or weight of your crediting defense of their rights. In fact, if you just plain stopped telling this forum you think homosexuality is a sin, it would not affect anything ever forever.

    Kastanj on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Kastanj wrote: »
    "Gay people deserve rights. The fact that they don't is fucking digusting. I say this is as someone who finds homosexual acts to be a sin."

    That last part doesn't change anything. Like, at all. Whether you think homosexuality is a sin or not has no bearing on the importance or weight of your crediting defense of their rights. In fact, if you just plain stopped telling this forum you think homosexuality is a sin, it would not affect anything ever forever.
    It depends on who you're trying to influence or convince.

    iTunesIsEvil on
This discussion has been closed.