Random Politics & Religion #00
Random Politics & Religion #00
God, I just got rickrolled by a nazi vampire SJW.
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
And now Radicalism goes on the list of words with no meaning.
Right up there with every word you say.
This whole confederate flag thing has played out exactly how it theoretically should have, by conservative standards. Both state governments and some private businesses have volunteered to disavow any glorification of what's essentially an ancient and shameful American symbol without the intervention of any central authority. Yet this movement, however small in the grand scheme of racial dynamics, is still met with derision despite, for the most part, it being relatively bipartisan.
I'm just curious what it is that conservatives stand for nowadays other than "GRRRRR nothing must change EVAR!".
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
"GRRRRR nothing must change EVAR!".
[+]
People complaining about being offended that other people get offended... hmmm... lol...
They're feeling others feelz for them.
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
I'm just curious what it is that conservatives stand for nowadays.
Making old people eat dog food, starving children, tripping pregnant women so they fall down the stairs, you know... the usual.
making war just for fun, treating people just like pawns in chess, Wait 'til their judgement day comes, yeah!
YouTube Video Placeholder
Ramyrez said: »
republicans - money-grubbing businessmen and the fat douchebags that we dupe
and people say we're closed minded and prejudiced...
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
I'm just curious what it is that conservatives stand for nowadays other than "GRRRRR nothing must change EVAR!".
Upholding the bill of rights, the constitution. You know, the good stuff.
I don't have a problem with people deciding for themselves if they will fly a flag or not, but you really can't be this blind bro. There is an absolute panic to get out of the way of this thing, it isn't because everyone has rationally come to some new sense of enlightenment. There is some huge MOB cannon looking for victims.
National Cathedral to remove confederate stained glass
Apple pulls all games with a Confederate Flag in them
No more Dukes of hazard toys with the flag on them
Looks like the Court has ruled to take away peoples right to decide what a marriage is today as well.
Next step from the radicals will be to strip tax exempt status from churches who refuse to marry people based on their faith. Indeed a sad day for the public.
Great day for authoritarians all over tho.
Next step from the radicals will be to strip tax exempt status from churches who refuse to marry people based on their faith. Indeed a sad day for the public.
Great day for authoritarians all over tho.
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Next step from the radicals will be to strip tax exempt status from churches who refuse to marry people based on their faith. Indeed a sad day for the public.
Strip tax exempt status from all of them, there's no valid basis for it to begin with.
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
National Cathedral to remove confederate stained glass
Get rid of the national cathedral while we're at it.
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Looks like the Court has ruled to take away peoples right to decide what a marriage is today as well.
Next step from the radicals will be to strip tax exempt status from churches who refuse to marry people based on their faith. Indeed a sad day for the public.
Next step from the radicals will be to strip tax exempt status from churches who refuse to marry people based on their faith. Indeed a sad day for the public.
Lakshmi.Flavin said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Looks like the Court has ruled to take away peoples right to decide what a marriage is today as well.
Next step from the radicals will be to strip tax exempt status from churches who refuse to marry people based on their faith. Indeed a sad day for the public.
Next step from the radicals will be to strip tax exempt status from churches who refuse to marry people based on their faith. Indeed a sad day for the public.
Where is the narrow mindedness? I think you mean pessimistic.
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Looks like the Court has ruled to take away peoples right to decide what a marriage is today as well.
That's completely disingenuous hogwash. Ruling in favor of gay marriage (as you are obviously referring to) IS people's right to decide what a marriage is. Ruling against it would be taking away that right. Besides, the most it does is ban the government from enacting laws that discriminate against same-sex marriages. Brown vs. Board of Education clearly stated that any forced segregation, no matter the details, constituted government discrimination and was unconstitutional.
You're free to decide what marriage means to you, you don't have the right to decide it for others.
[+]
Odin.Jassik said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Looks like the Court has ruled to take away peoples right to decide what a marriage is today as well.
That's completely disingenuous hogwash. Ruling in favor of gay marriage (as you are obviously referring to) IS people's right to decide what a marriage is. Ruling against it would be taking away that right. Besides, the most it does is ban the government from enacting laws that discriminate against same-sex marriages. Brown vs. Board of Education clearly stated that any forced segregation, no matter the details, constituted government discrimination and was unconstitutional.
You're free to decide what marriage means to you, you don't have the right to decide it for others.
In all but one state where the people voted on the topic they people voted it down. I'm not going to argue if it's good or bad or whatever, just that as of today, people don't have the right to decide for themselves if they want it or not. The authoritarians have taken that right from us.
The courts did this 40 years ago with abortion too. Good thing too, it's been nothing but smooth sailing since that decision amirite?
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Lakshmi.Flavin said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Looks like the Court has ruled to take away peoples right to decide what a marriage is today as well.
Next step from the radicals will be to strip tax exempt status from churches who refuse to marry people based on their faith. Indeed a sad day for the public.
Next step from the radicals will be to strip tax exempt status from churches who refuse to marry people based on their faith. Indeed a sad day for the public.
Where is the narrow mindedness? I think you mean pessimistic.
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
However, to suggest that because it is offensive to one particular person or group of people it not be permitted and be banned from the public square, that is narrow mindedness.
[+]
Lakshmi.Flavin said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Lakshmi.Flavin said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Looks like the Court has ruled to take away peoples right to decide what a marriage is today as well.
Next step from the radicals will be to strip tax exempt status from churches who refuse to marry people based on their faith. Indeed a sad day for the public.
Next step from the radicals will be to strip tax exempt status from churches who refuse to marry people based on their faith. Indeed a sad day for the public.
Where is the narrow mindedness? I think you mean pessimistic.
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
However, to suggest that because it is offensive to one particular person or group of people it not be permitted and be banned from the public square, that is narrow mindedness.
I'm arguing over the court striping away the right of people to choose how they define a marriage. Not about the marriage itself. I accept people might have different opinions about a marriage than mine, and above all, their right to decide for themselves.
We no longer have that right today. Does it make sense now?
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Looks like the Court has ruled to take away peoples right to decide what a marriage is today as well.
That's completely disingenuous hogwash. Ruling in favor of gay marriage (as you are obviously referring to) IS people's right to decide what a marriage is. Ruling against it would be taking away that right. Besides, the most it does is ban the government from enacting laws that discriminate against same-sex marriages. Brown vs. Board of Education clearly stated that any forced segregation, no matter the details, constituted government discrimination and was unconstitutional.
You're free to decide what marriage means to you, you don't have the right to decide it for others.
In all but one state where the people voted on the topic they people voted it down. I'm not going to argue if it's good or bad or whatever, just that as of today, people don't have the right to decide for themselves if they want it or not. The authoritarians have taken that right from us.
The courts did this 40 years ago with abortion too. Good thing too, it's been nothing but smooth sailing since that decision amirite?
Individual states are still able to have popular vote referendums and congress is able to pass a constitutional amendment reversing or clarifying this decision. You are either exceptionally dim or pretending to be if you cannot acknowledge the difference between a personal right to choose and the government dictating it through legislation.
Either way, I'm completely done with you, congratulations on being the first and only person on my blacklist.
Odin.Jassik said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Looks like the Court has ruled to take away peoples right to decide what a marriage is today as well.
That's completely disingenuous hogwash. Ruling in favor of gay marriage (as you are obviously referring to) IS people's right to decide what a marriage is. Ruling against it would be taking away that right. Besides, the most it does is ban the government from enacting laws that discriminate against same-sex marriages. Brown vs. Board of Education clearly stated that any forced segregation, no matter the details, constituted government discrimination and was unconstitutional.
You're free to decide what marriage means to you, you don't have the right to decide it for others.
In all but one state where the people voted on the topic they people voted it down. I'm not going to argue if it's good or bad or whatever, just that as of today, people don't have the right to decide for themselves if they want it or not. The authoritarians have taken that right from us.
The courts did this 40 years ago with abortion too. Good thing too, it's been nothing but smooth sailing since that decision amirite?
Individual states are still able to have popular vote referendums and congress is able to pass a constitutional amendment reversing or clarifying this decision. You are either exceptionally dim or pretending to be if you cannot acknowledge the difference between a personal right to choose and the government dictating it through legislation.
Either way, I'm completely done with you, congratulations on being the first and only person on my blacklist.
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
No, individual states cannot have referendums deciding what a marriage is. That's what the ruling today is about.
Good?
You shouldn't be allowed to tell two people who love each other that they can't get married, regardless of their genders.
Ramyrez said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
No, individual states cannot have referendums deciding what a marriage is. That's what the ruling today is about.
Good?
You shouldn't be allowed to tell two people who love each other that they can't get married, regardless of their genders.
This is a BAD thing. Not because SSM is good or bad, (we all have our own opinions on it) but because the government has taken away our right to govern the issue ourselves.
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Ramyrez said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
No, individual states cannot have referendums deciding what a marriage is. That's what the ruling today is about.
Good?
You shouldn't be allowed to tell two people who love each other that they can't get married, regardless of their genders.
This is a BAD thing. Not because SSM is good or bad, (we all have our own opinions on it) but because the government has taken away our right to govern the issue ourselves.
[+]
Jetackuu said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Ramyrez said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
No, individual states cannot have referendums deciding what a marriage is. That's what the ruling today is about.
Good?
You shouldn't be allowed to tell two people who love each other that they can't get married, regardless of their genders.
This is a BAD thing. Not because SSM is good or bad, (we all have our own opinions on it) but because the government has taken away our right to govern the issue ourselves.
Right, I forgot people can't make their own decisions, someone will inevitably be discriminated against. Better just fork over all civil freedoms.
When shall we be petitioning the government to marry children? How long shall we permit such discrimination? (/sarcasm)
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.