Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Chart of 2012 contenders on LGBT issuesFollow

#1 Aug 16 2011 at 7:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
Marriage Equality USA released a chart of where the potential Republican candidates (and Obama) stand on LGBT issues. It's interesting to look at, although not too descriptive on the "Maybe" categories (for example, Obama has come out and blatantly said "No" to gay marriage, but he's listed as a maybe on it).
Screenshot

The methodology was as such:
Quote:
Starting in August 2011, a survey was delivered to the office of each active, formally announced candidate via e-mail, web mail, and/or facsimile, and also via certified U.S. mail for which a staff member signed a receipt confirming the delivery. Each candidate’s survey showed his or her latest stand on each LGBT issue, based on speeches made, documents signed, and interviews given. All candidates were invited to notify MEUSA of updates to their positions as they occur, up through election day on 6 November 2012.


Only real surprise to me was how some candidates came out as strict "No"s on some issues, like repealing DOMA, foreign spouse citizenship, or adoption by LGBT couples. I wasn't sure if the foreign spouse citizenship was for gay marriage or marriage in general, as it doesn't distinguish between the two. I also wonder if some of the "No"s are because the candidates don't believe the federal government should have the power to influence the category, as opposed to their personal feelings; however, it seems unlikely that it's the case of the latter for most of them.

Edited, Aug 16th 2011 9:50am by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#2 Aug 16 2011 at 8:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
LockeColeMA wrote:
(for example, Obama has come out and blatantly said "No" to gay marriage, but he's listed as a maybe on it).

He's said his views are "evolving" or somesuch which is political speak for "I ain't sayin' yes, I ain't sayin' no". I have the feeling that if, through a mixture of fairy dust and incriminating photos, Congress passed a bill allowing federally recognized gay marriage that Obama would sign it. On the other hand, he's not going to put a lot of effort into seeing that bill realized.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#3 Aug 16 2011 at 8:13 AM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
Jophiel wrote:
He's said his views are "evolving" or somesuch which is political speak for "I ain't sayin' yes, I ain't sayin' no".
I always hate the safe answer.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4 Aug 16 2011 at 8:14 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
It seems if you agree that same-sex relationships are as legitimate as opposite-sex relationships then all other responses should follow suit. If not, you're either being contradictory or discriminating.

I still think a lot of the deal with marriage versus civil unions is strategic semantics. If the state is going to bestow a license on two people that reads exactly the same whether it be called a marriage license or a civil union license it's silly redundancy but meaningless in theory. Calling the legal relationship something different is simply a tool to make folks feel better about their willingness to keep their noses out of other's business. It's politics, it's ignorant, but if it allows same-sex folks to live together with the same family rights and responsibilities then it's a worthwhile stepping stone to full recognition of same-sex marriages.




Edited, Aug 16th 2011 4:15pm by Elinda
____________________________
LOOK here.
#5 Aug 16 2011 at 8:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I always hate the safe answer.

Welp, you'll never have to worry about being elected then.
#6 Aug 16 2011 at 11:56 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,809 posts
Allegory wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I always hate the safe answer.

Welp, you'll never have to worry about being elected then.


That was my philosophy. I know I wouldn't ever get elected because I would just keep it real and tell it how it is. That's ironic, because people complain about being deceived and mislead by the governemnt, but when people tell them the truth, THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH....Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#7 Aug 16 2011 at 11:57 AM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
Allegory wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I always hate the safe answer.
Welp, you'll never have to worry about being elected then.
You really think that would be the issue that prevented me from elected office? Smiley: dubious
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#8 Aug 16 2011 at 12:11 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Allegory wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I always hate the safe answer.
Welp, you'll never have to worry about being elected then.
You really think that would be the issue that prevented me from elected office? Smiley: dubious


*cough*
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#9 Aug 16 2011 at 1:31 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,349 posts
I'm guessing it'll more about the picture of him humping a My Little Pony doll after painting himself covered in rainbows and glitter.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#10 Aug 16 2011 at 2:13 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,703 posts
How many votes does he gain by coming out for SSM: 0
How many does he lose: >0
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#11 Aug 16 2011 at 3:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
How many votes does he gain by coming out for SSM: 0
How many does he lose: >0


I think the more relevant point is that this is a liberal organization. They're providing political cover for Obama here. They know that mostly it'll be other liberals and people who care about various gay rights issues who'll visit the site and see the chart. They presumably hope that the "maybe" for Obama will gain him votes among those people, while not losing him any among people who are unlikely to ever see it.

So they turn a lose/lose situation for Obama into a win/win.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#12 Aug 16 2011 at 3:55 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
yeah it is sad that the right wing is willing to oppress people to score political points. It is even more sad that left wing politicians fall for it.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#13 Aug 16 2011 at 4:16 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
You really think that would be the issue that prevented me from elected office? Smiley: dubious

It was more about prodding you for a comment about the nature of politicians. You seem to target them a lot, and I always think you're pointing in the wrong direction.

To somewhat agree with Alma, politicians only use the means they do to win elections because it works. Being a straight talker doesn't win votes for the most part, and as a candidate if you want to do anything beneficial for the country you first need to be elected.

When people value inconvenient truths over comfortable lies, then we'll get straight talkers. Politicians aren't the problem, people are.

Edited, Aug 16th 2011 5:17pm by Allegory
#14 Aug 16 2011 at 4:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
gbaji wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
How many votes does he gain by coming out for SSM: 0
How many does he lose: >0


I think the more relevant point is that this is a liberal organization. They're providing political cover for Obama here. They know that mostly it'll be other liberals and people who care about various gay rights issues who'll visit the site and see the chart. They presumably hope that the "maybe" for Obama will gain him votes among those people, while not losing him any among people who are unlikely to ever see it.

So they turn a lose/lose situation for Obama into a win/win.


As I learned about it on The Blaze, Beck's flagship website... meh...
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#15 Aug 16 2011 at 4:19 PM Rating: Good
******
41,289 posts
Duh Locke, The Blaze is Liberal Main Stream Media Propaganda. EVERYONE knows that. Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#16 Aug 16 2011 at 4:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I think the more relevant point is that this is a liberal organization. They're providing political cover for Obama here. They know that mostly it'll be other liberals and people who care about various gay rights issues who'll visit the site and see the chart. They presumably hope that the "maybe" for Obama will gain him votes among those people, while not losing him any among people who are unlikely to ever see it.

Yeah, the repeal of DADT and the administration's stance on DOMA wasn't enough; people who care about it need a "maybe" to vote for him over Bachmann and a chart viewed by 250 people will do just the trick Smiley: rolleyes

Quick! A liberal conspiracy! Get it!!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#17 Aug 16 2011 at 5:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Iron Chef Olorinus wrote:
yeah it is sad that the right wing is willing to oppress people to score political points. It is even more sad that left wing politicians fall for it.


Wait! So any time a special interest group writes down a list of political changes they want, we get to say that any politician who disagrees with them is "oppressing people"? That's a funny bit of linguistic twisting going on right there!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#18 Aug 16 2011 at 5:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, the repeal of DADT and the administration's stance on DOMA wasn't enough; people who care about it need a "maybe" to vote for him over Bachmann and a chart viewed by 250 people will do just the trick Smiley: rolleyes


You tell me. Those other items also appear on the chart, right? So apparently they do think that a "maybe" in the Marriage column would help. Sure looks like they just didn't want to see a "no" anywhere next to Obama. Perhaps if I were wearing Liberal tinted glasses, I'd see things differently though!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#19 Aug 16 2011 at 6:08 PM Rating: Good
******
30,625 posts
gbaji wrote:
Iron Chef Olorinus wrote:
yeah it is sad that the right wing is willing to oppress people to score political points. It is even more sad that left wing politicians fall for it.


Wait! So any time a special interest group writes down a list of political changes they want, we get to say that any politician who disagrees with them is "oppressing people"? That's a funny bit of linguistic twisting going on right there!


I read that three times as "opposing people" and wondered what else you'd call them.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#20 Aug 16 2011 at 6:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You tell me.

I did. I rolled my eyes and laughed at you.

Maybe the issue is that the laughter was implicit. Here ya go: Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#21 Aug 16 2011 at 7:35 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You tell me.

I did. I rolled my eyes and laughed at you.


I've noticed that this is your normal response when you realize you don't have a legitimate response.

As I said, those other issues are on the damn chart Joph. If, as you suggest, people would find that his positions on those things more than balance out a "no" answer on gay marriage, then that wouldn't be a reason to put "maybe" there, right? Your entire answer just makes no sense at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#22 Aug 16 2011 at 7:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I've noticed that this is your normal response when you realize you don't have a legitimate response.

I've noticed this is your normal response when you just said something stupid, got laughed at and then start to throw a princess hissy that everyone thinks what you said was stupid.

Then bitch about how you didn't get a "legitimate response" which only means "One where I'll agree that it was stupid but since I'll never do this, no response will ever be 'legitimate'."

Quote:
Your entire answer just makes no sense at all.

In the context of your liberal conspiracy hysteria? Of course not. When you all have is a tissue, every problem is a liberal conspiracy to cry about.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#23 Aug 16 2011 at 8:02 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:

I've noticed this is your normal response when you just said something stupid, got laughed at and then start to throw a princess hissy that everyone thinks what you said was stupid.

Then bitch about how you didn't get a "legitimate response" which only means "One where I'll agree that it was stupid but since I'll never do this, no response will ever be 'legitimate'."


This. So much.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#24 Aug 17 2011 at 2:07 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,809 posts
Allegory wrote:

To somewhat agree with Alma, politicians only use the means they do to win elections because it works. Being a straight talker doesn't win votes for the most part, and as a candidate if you want to do anything beneficial for the country you first need to be elected.

When people value inconvenient truths over comfortable lies, then we'll get straight talkers. Politicians aren't the problem, people are.

Edited, Aug 16th 2011 5:17pm by Allegory


Exactly...Furthermore, until that time comes, we will always be stuck with Republicans vs Democrats as a "real" 3rd party will never gain the amount of support to be competitive.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#25 Aug 17 2011 at 2:19 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,703 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Allegory wrote:

To somewhat agree with Alma, politicians only use the means they do to win elections because it works. Being a straight talker doesn't win votes for the most part, and as a candidate if you want to do anything beneficial for the country you first need to be elected.

When people value inconvenient truths over comfortable lies, then we'll get straight talkers. Politicians aren't the problem, people are.

Edited, Aug 16th 2011 5:17pm by Allegory


Exactly...Furthermore, until that time comes, we will always be stuck with Republicans vs Democrats as a "real" 3rd party will never gain the amount of support to be competitive.


No. The rise and fall of parties comes independent of the change in human nature.

The change is slow though, typically taking more than a generation to form.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#26 Aug 17 2011 at 5:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
At least in US history, the "change" in parties is a rapid upheaval where one party is largely replaced by another, leaving the country with a two-party system -- just one with a different party. Third parties don't work here because they take their voters primarily from one side or the other and voters typically decide that it's better to vote Republican than to split the vote with a Libertarian candidate and risk a Democrat taking the seat (or vice versa with the Green party and Democrats). There's no magical "Centrist" party that appeals equally to both sides of the divide.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#27 Aug 17 2011 at 5:43 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,703 posts
Jophiel wrote:
At least in US history, the "change" in parties is a rapid upheaval where one party is largely replaced by another, leaving the country with a two-party system -- just one with a different party. Third parties don't work here because they take their voters primarily from one side or the other and voters typically decide that it's better to vote Republican than to split the vote with a Libertarian candidate and risk a Democrat taking the seat (or vice versa with the Green party and Democrats). There's no magical "Centrist" party that appeals equally to both sides of the divide.


In my opinion, it's a part of the problem with the system. We have an all or nothing system which makes 49% of votes not seeing a return, a number which would be even higher if there were more parties. If we were interested in making a more smooth political system (ie. less of the edge effects that lead to a wholly adversarial system) which would put more weight on compromise plans, we could shift that. Right now, 51% of the votes make 100% of the decisions whereas a more proportional representation system (ie. 51% has 51% of the power) would favor a larger number of parties meaningfully taking part in the political process. Unfortunately the design of such a system is tricky, because you have to be more able to quantify qualitative things.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#28 Aug 17 2011 at 5:53 AM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:

Wait! So any time a special interest group writes down a list of political changes they want, we get to say that any politician who disagrees with them is "oppressing people"? That's a funny bit of linguistic twisting going on right there!
Any time one group of people is denied the same rights that everyone else has they are being oppressed, whether a list is presented or not.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#29 Aug 17 2011 at 7:12 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
gbaji wrote:
Iron Chef Olorinus wrote:
yeah it is sad that the right wing is willing to oppress people to score political points. It is even more sad that left wing politicians fall for it.


Wait! So any time a special interest group writes down a list of political changes they want, we get to say that any politician who disagrees with them is "oppressing people"? That's a funny bit of linguistic twisting going on right there!

You would have us believe - well let's say YOU believe and therefor assume it's factual - that anytime a special interest group with a social agenda does anything it's sole purpose is to garner votes for Obama.

Quote:
I think the more relevant point is that this is a liberal organization. They're providing political cover for Obama here.


Smiley: lol

gbaji you're a joke that you don't get.

____________________________
LOOK here.
#30 Aug 17 2011 at 5:48 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Vestal Chamberlain Lubriderm wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Wait! So any time a special interest group writes down a list of political changes they want, we get to say that any politician who disagrees with them is "oppressing people"? That's a funny bit of linguistic twisting going on right there!
Any time one group of people is denied the same rights that everyone else has they are being oppressed, whether a list is presented or not.


Way to /whoosh there!

The circular part is where you decide whether a group is being denied their rights pretty much entirely because a special interest spends tons of time and money telling you that they are. Get it? Or do I need to draw you a picture?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Aug 17 2011 at 6:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,908 posts
gbaji wrote:
Vestal Chamberlain Lubriderm wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Wait! So any time a special interest group writes down a list of political changes they want, we get to say that any politician who disagrees with them is "oppressing people"? That's a funny bit of linguistic twisting going on right there!
Any time one group of people is denied the same rights that everyone else has they are being oppressed, whether a list is presented or not.


Way to /whoosh there!

The circular part is where you decide whether a group is being denied their rights pretty much entirely because a special interest spends tons of time and money telling you that they are. Get it? Or do I need to draw you a picture?


Deduction: he disagreed with you, so he couldn't possibly have understood.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#32 Aug 17 2011 at 6:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Kavekk wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Vestal Chamberlain Lubriderm wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Wait! So any time a special interest group writes down a list of political changes they want, we get to say that any politician who disagrees with them is "oppressing people"? That's a funny bit of linguistic twisting going on right there!
Any time one group of people is denied the same rights that everyone else has they are being oppressed, whether a list is presented or not.


Way to /whoosh there!

The circular part is where you decide whether a group is being denied their rights pretty much entirely because a special interest spends tons of time and money telling you that they are. Get it? Or do I need to draw you a picture?


Deduction: he disagreed with you, so he couldn't possibly have understood.


When someone responds to my statement refuting the correlation between two things by simply restating the same correlation it's safe to say that they didn't understand that I was refuting that correlation in the first place. Right? Well, that or they just completely fail at basic logic and reason, I suppose.

Edited, Aug 17th 2011 5:26pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#33 Aug 17 2011 at 6:33 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,908 posts
gbaji wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Vestal Chamberlain Lubriderm wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Wait! So any time a special interest group writes down a list of political changes they want, we get to say that any politician who disagrees with them is "oppressing people"? That's a funny bit of linguistic twisting going on right there!
Any time one group of people is denied the same rights that everyone else has they are being oppressed, whether a list is presented or not.


Way to /whoosh there!

The circular part is where you decide whether a group is being denied their rights pretty much entirely because a special interest spends tons of time and money telling you that they are. Get it? Or do I need to draw you a picture?


Deduction: he disagreed with you, so he couldn't possibly have understood.


When someone responds to my statement refuting the correlation between two things by simply restating the same correlation it's safe to say that they didn't understand that I was refuting that correlation in the first place. Right? Well, that or they just completely fail at basic logic and reason, I suppose.


You didn't refute it, you just indicated disagreement by characterising the position in a certain way. The good Chamberlain disagreed with you by characterising it ina different way. Both of you have simply stated your positions, without justification; if this goes on for another five pages, it'll be a typical Asylum argument.

Now stop kicking rocks.

Edited, Aug 18th 2011 12:34am by Kavekk
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#34 Aug 18 2011 at 1:05 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,809 posts
TLW wrote:
No. The rise and fall of parties comes independent of the change in human nature.

The change is slow though, typically taking more than a generation to form.


I'm not following what you're trying to get at, but it appears that I disagree with you.


Jophiel wrote:
Third parties don't work here because they take their voters primarily from one side or the other and voters typically decide that it's better to vote Republican than to split the vote with a Libertarian candidate and risk a Democrat taking the seat (or vice versa with the Green party and Democrats).


This.

People aren't going to vote for 3rd party out of fear of the "opponent" taking office. When people focus more on supporting what they truly believe, other parties can stand a chance. Simply labeling yourself as a Republican/Democrat will you give you support over the other.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#35 Aug 18 2011 at 6:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
When people focus more on supporting what they truly believe, other parties can stand a chance. Simply labeling yourself as a Republican/Democrat will you give you support over the other.

I'll feel worse about that when "historic" primary election participation isn't 15-20%. That's your main chance to affect the direction of the parties and most people just sit out the process and wait until two candidates are left and then start whining about how they don't like either of them.

And God forbid someone get involved earlier than that and actually help support a candidate in the primaries or help someone they'd like move out of being a state-level legislative rep to running for Congressional rep.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#36 Aug 18 2011 at 6:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Kavekk wrote:
gbaji wrote:
When someone responds to my statement refuting the correlation between two things by simply restating the same correlation it's safe to say that they didn't understand that I was refuting that correlation in the first place. Right? Well, that or they just completely fail at basic logic and reason, I suppose.


You didn't refute it, you just indicated disagreement by characterising the position in a certain way.


Um... That's one of the two meanings of the word "refute":

Quote:
2. To deny the accuracy or truth of


Quote:
The good Chamberlain disagreed with you by characterising it ina different way.


No. He responded to my statement with a statement which rested on the exact assumption I was refuting (or disagreeing with, if that makes you feel better).

I disagreed with the assumption that opposing the things on this groups list is equivalent with oppressing a group of people (homosexuals in this case).

He responded by saying that when you deny a group their rights, we are oppressing that group. Which while certainly true, is completely irrelevant as a response to my statement unless he's assuming that the things on the list are necessary to prevent the denial of rights and thus represents oppression of the group.

Um... Which is exactly what I said wasn't true. Hence the /whoosh. He completely missed what I was disagreeing with and went off on some other thing. I questioned an assumption, and he just repeated the same assumption again. Which seems terrifically unhelpful, wouldn't you agree?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#37 Aug 18 2011 at 8:12 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,809 posts
Jophiel wrote:

I'll feel worse about that when "historic" primary election participation isn't 15-20%. That's your main chance to affect the direction of the parties and most people just sit out the process and wait until two candidates are left and then start whining about how they don't like either of them.


The number of people who participate is overrated. I am a firm believer that stupid people shouldn't be able to vote. If you're just voting for the sake of voting or something stupid like, sex, skin color, religion, looks, etc., then you're better off not voting. I would rather let the 15% of the population that's actually following the politics to vote rather than having 60%-75% of the nation voting over stupid reasons.

Jophiel wrote:
And God forbid someone get involved earlier than that and actually help support a candidate in the primaries or help someone they'd like move out of being a state-level legislative rep to running for Congressional rep.


That's the problem, the way the system is set up now, you'll lose/gain most of your support at the beginning even before the race actually starts. Instead of allowing the nation to vote in the primaries all on one day, we spread it out. That alone isn't bad, but the media does these stupid polls and try to project winners. If you lose the first couple of states, then people change their support out of fear of "wasting a vote".
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#38 Aug 18 2011 at 8:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,908 posts
I'm not going to tarnish the brilliance of my last post by engaging in a pointless argument with you.

Using 'refute' to mean 'deny' is a fairly common mistake, but should not be regarded as a proper meaning because to do so is to conflate proof with denial. This is obviously undesirable.

That's all I have to say on the matter.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#39 Aug 18 2011 at 11:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
The number of people who participate is overrated

As long as it's smaller than the number of people who vote in the general election, I don't care about their bitching over their choices.
Quote:
That's the problem, the way the system is set up now, you'll lose/gain most of your support at the beginning even before the race actually starts. Instead of allowing the nation to vote in the primaries all on one day, we spread it out.

There's only one political office where that makes a difference and 536 elected seats in the federal government where it doesn't.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#40 Aug 18 2011 at 11:43 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,809 posts
Jophiel wrote:
As long as it's smaller than the number of people who vote in the general election, I don't care about their bitching over their choices.


I'm not sure if I follow. If a candidate has to drop out of the race due to the media projections causing a lack of support, then I believe they have a right to complain.

Jophiel wrote:
There's only one political office where that makes a difference and 536 elected seats in the federal government where it doesn't.


Why stop there? You could go down to local city elections. We aren't talking about those elected seats. Unless your argument is that one political office has no pull/power, then you have no point.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#41 Aug 19 2011 at 12:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I'm not sure if I follow. If a candidate has to drop out of the race due to the media projections causing a lack of support, then I believe they have a right to complain.

Sure. I have the right to dismiss your complaints. Win-win!

Quote:
Why stop there? You could go down to local city elections.

Given that those seats can often act as feeders to higher office, that would be an excellent use of your time if you were actually worried about influencing the direction of political parties. See previous comment about "help[ing] someone they'd like move out of being a state-level legislative rep to running for Congressional rep."

Quote:
We aren't talking about those elected seats.

We were talking about political parties. Even local elections usually have partisan identification.

Edited, Aug 19th 2011 1:11am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Aug 19 2011 at 12:48 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,809 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Sure. I have the right to dismiss your complaints. Win-win!


Correction, they have a logical REASON to complain, you don't have a logical reason to dismiss their complaints.

Jophiel wrote:
Given that those seats can often act as feeders to higher office, that would be an excellent use of your time if you were actually worried about influencing the direction of political parties. See previous comment about "help[ing] someone they'd like move out of being a state-level legislative rep to running for Congressional rep."


I'm not denying that, that's just not the point of the discussion. Your excellent local city job performance will not alter the media's projections on future elections. Hence why it's irrelevant. Now, I will give you credit because if I understand you correctly, you're referencing people who only vote for the President and nothing else. That is a legitimate point, but it doesn't alter anything for the person who did vote in every local, state and national election. The outcome for the presidential election is still the same. Just because other elections aren't "jacked" doesn't overwrite the errors with the election in question.

Jophiel wrote:

We were talking about political parties. Even local elections usually have partisan identification.


Well, maybe I wasn't clear, my bad... I'm referring to the scenarios where it matters, local cities matters much less. I was primarily referring to the General Election. I don't know the record of Governors, but I'm sure they fall in the same category.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#43 Aug 19 2011 at 2:18 AM Rating: Good
Screenshot


It's really too bad she's such a bigot, as she's got so much in common with the gays.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#44 Aug 19 2011 at 4:10 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
better to be a bigot then a blithering moron.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#45 Aug 19 2011 at 6:34 AM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I am a firm believer that stupid people shouldn't be able to vote.
I agree, so stay away from the polls.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#46 Aug 19 2011 at 6:57 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,246 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
better to be a bigot then a blithering moron.

Didn't she recently say that the USSR was a threat to the USA?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#47 Aug 19 2011 at 7:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Obligatory Onion Link

Sadly, they're not making up the details, just pointing out the absurdity.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#48 Aug 19 2011 at 1:19 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,246 posts
I shudder to think of what would happen if Bachmann were to become the 44th person to run your country. Bad news for everyone in the world, methinks.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#49 Aug 19 2011 at 1:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
Nilatai wrote:
I shudder to think of what would happen if Bachmann were to become the 44th person to run your country. Bad news for everyone in the world, methinks.

God might be happy. It would likely bring us closer to the End of the World, and I'm sure the Almighty's getting antsy for the after-party.
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#50 Aug 19 2011 at 1:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,403 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
I shudder to think of what would happen if Bachmann were to become the 44th person to run your country. Bad news for everyone in the world, methinks.

God might be happy. It would likely bring us closer to the End of the World, and I'm sure the Almighty's getting antsy for the after-party.


She's the anti-Christ! Smiley: eek
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#51 Aug 19 2011 at 1:38 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,246 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
I shudder to think of what would happen if Bachmann were to become the 44th person to run your country. Bad news for everyone in the world, methinks.

God might be happy. It would likely bring us closer to the End of the World, and I'm sure the Almighty's getting antsy for the after-party.


She's the anti-Christ! Smiley: eek

She's dangerously delusional, I don't know about anything else.

I'm not even sure if Ron Paul would be a less dangerous choice than her, what with his hatred of keeping church and state separate and all.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 46 All times are in CDT
Aethien, Almalieque, DSD, Kuwoobie, lolgaxe, Nadenu, Anonymous Guests (40)