Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reply To Thread

We support equality except at work!Follow

#1 Nov 04 2013 at 10:18 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
GOP Senators failed to block **** rights non discrimination at work.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/gay-rights-bill-clears-senate-republican-hurdle-house-010301611.html

Quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A White House-backed bill to ban workplace discrimination against gays narrowly cleared a Republican procedural roadblock in the U.S. Senate on Monday with the support of a handful of Republicans, just hours after the party's top lawmaker declared his opposition.
On a vote of 61-30, one more than the needed 60, the Democratic-led Senate agreed to begin consideration of the bipartisan bill, with passage likely by the end of this week. Seven of the 45 Senate Republicans joined 52 Democrats and two independents in voting to move toward passage. All the no votes were cast by Republicans.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013 has become the latest example of the ideological struggle in a divided Republican Party.


____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#2 Nov 05 2013 at 12:04 AM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
Quote:
Heritage Action, a conservative advocacy group opposed to the bill, warned lawmakers last week that it would include their votes on it in their annual "legislative scorecard." It says the measure would undermine civil liberties, increase government interference in the labor market, and trample on religious liberty.
Although the bill exempts religious groups,


I'm sorry, I fail to see the connection. Also, **** these guys. **** 'em right in the ass. The Heritage folks are a bunch of queers.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#3 Nov 05 2013 at 1:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Dead in the House. Tea Party hates gays. Business groups want to be able to discriminate against gays without being sued.

Because, you know, liberty.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4 Nov 05 2013 at 3:11 AM Rating: Good
******
43,432 posts
Someone quote that "rights for all except [...] nobody gets rights. America!" gag. I am currently unable to do so.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#5 Nov 05 2013 at 7:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,670 posts
Boehner probably won't even let it come to vote.
Quote:
The Speaker believes this legislation will increase frivolous litigation and cost American jobs, especially small business jobs," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in a statement.
Do you suppose he ever thinks about what he says?

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#6 Nov 05 2013 at 7:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It'll also increase non-frivolous litigation to protect homosexuals and cost small business jobs among firms that discriminate against gays, etc.

But we can't have that. Liberty! Freedom! Equal Rights to hate gays!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#7 Nov 05 2013 at 10:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,601 posts
Moderate Republicans trying to appear moderate and keep the tea party yuckiness away from them on a safe bill that won't get past the nutballs in the other chamber?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#8 Nov 05 2013 at 10:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kirk (R-IL) was also one of the GOP voices who led to DADT being repealed a few years ago. I think he's probably sincere in his support for ENDA although burnishing his moderate credentials in Illinois is a nice side effect.

Edited, Nov 5th 2013 10:39am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Nov 05 2013 at 1:49 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Why do you guys vote so much? It seems like your politicians are always campaigning.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#10 Nov 05 2013 at 1:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
"You guys", who? Citizens?

House Reps elected every 2 years
Senators every 6 years
President/Governors every 4 years

So you're going to have federal elections at least every other year. New Jersey & Virginia, for reasons I have no interest in knowing, have their gubernatorial elections of "off years" so they're being talked about since nothing else is happening. But they still only elect a governor every four years.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#11 Nov 05 2013 at 1:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,601 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Why do you guys vote so much? It seems like your politicians are always campaigning.
We don't, they are.

It's against freedom of speech to limit political fundraising or something. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#12 Nov 05 2013 at 2:12 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Jophiel wrote:
"You guys", who? Citizens?

House Reps elected every 2 years
Senators every 6 years
President/Governors every 4 years

So you're going to have federal elections at least every other year. New Jersey & Virginia, for reasons I have no interest in knowing, have their gubernatorial elections of "off years" so they're being talked about since nothing else is happening. But they still only elect a governor every four years.



Ya citizens, you always voting on people. You never stop. Vote vote vote. You guys love to vote. Not just for Washington. Its really weird. We hate voting in Canada, we accept one way or the other we are getting the shaft so really its just do you want it to the right or the left. We give people majorities so we don't have to vote for a while.





Edited, Nov 5th 2013 3:12pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#13 Nov 05 2013 at 2:23 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,677 posts
Yea, and we do things like appoint Senators for life...
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#14 Nov 05 2013 at 2:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
rdmcandie wrote:
You guys love to vote. Not just for Washington.

Well, most state and local elections fall on the same day as the federal ones if they can manage it just as a matter of economics. Holding elections is expensive.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#15 Nov 05 2013 at 3:48 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,211 posts
My city has nothing to vote on this year. Not even a referendum for dog catcher or anything.

Our polls aren't even open. Smiley: frown

Edited, Nov 5th 2013 4:48pm by Catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#16 Nov 05 2013 at 4:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,601 posts
We just had a school levy, which will almost certainly pass by some obscene amount. I put down the Skyrim long enough to fill in the little square and then took the ballot out to the mailbox when I went to work the next morning.


Edited, Nov 5th 2013 2:07pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#17 Nov 05 2013 at 4:47 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,004 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Yea, and we do things like appoint Senators for life...
You should make that a king of the hill kind of thing. Off the previous Senator in hand to hand gladiatorial combat and you get to be the new Senator.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#18 Nov 05 2013 at 5:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
In happier **** rights news...
Political Wire wrote:
The Illinois General Assembly "narrowly approved a **** marriage bill, clearing the way for Illinois to become the 15th state to legalize same-sex unions," the Chicago Tribune reports.

"The bill got 61 votes in the House, one more than the bare minimum needed to send the measure back to the Senate, which quickly signed off. Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn has said he would sign the bill into law should it reach his desk."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19gbaji, Posted: Nov 05 2013 at 6:15 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'll go out on a limb and guess that they believe religious liberty should not be limited just to religious groups. Put another way, someone should not be required to be a member of or operating on behalf of an official religious organization (based on tax status) in order to have religious freedom.
#20 Nov 05 2013 at 6:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Right. Everyone should be allowed to ignore laws based on just saying it's for religion. Sorry, black lady... my faith in No Black Ladyology says you can't be a clerk in my store. Now why don't you move on along so some nice white men can get the job as my God intended?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#21 Nov 05 2013 at 6:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Yep. If a moslem refused to hire Jews, I'm possitive gbaji and his GOP buddies would totally support him!
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#22gbaji, Posted: Nov 05 2013 at 7:28 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It's a matter of social degrees and acceptance. I could go in the other direction and mock someone whose faith says that a @#%^phile can't be a clerk in their store. There's no objective absolute right and wrong here.
#23 Nov 05 2013 at 10:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
Right. Except a pedophile is a felon and a danger to small children, while a black lady and a homosexual are not.

#24 Nov 05 2013 at 11:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,250 posts
It's a matter of social degrees and acceptance. I could go in the other direction and mock someone whose faith says that a @#%^phile can't be a clerk in their store. There's no objective absolute right and wrong here.

Straight to the gay-pedo dog-whistle? Seems a little abrupt, even for you. Been reading the stormfront forums again?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#25 Nov 05 2013 at 11:14 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,250 posts
Right. Except a @#%^phile is a felon and a danger to small children, while a black lady and a homosexual are not.

Hey, easy now. There are no absolutes. I'm sure there have been teams of black ladies and homosexuals who were felons and dangers to small children. I'm going to assume they named themselves "Butch Assity and Slumdance Sista"

Butch is the **** one. The black one probably has a big hat.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#26 Nov 05 2013 at 11:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Right. Everyone should be allowed to ignore laws based on just saying it's for religion.
No. But an advocacy group is certainly within its right to oppose a law on the basis of their religion. Which is what they are doing. Currently, the law does not grant special protective status based on sexual orientation.

Nor should it since an advocacy group is not a church.

Quote:
It's a matter of social degrees and acceptance. I could go in the other direction and mock someone whose faith says that a @#%^phile can't be a clerk in their store. There's no objective absolute right and wrong here.

Which is why "Bona fide religious organizations are exempt within their actual religious duties" is the best possible compromise and "Anyone who doesn't like a law on the basis of their faith shouldn't have to follow it because... religious liberty!" is a shitty, short-minded excuse.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#27 Nov 06 2013 at 3:20 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,432 posts
Constitution: Negotiable Except When I Don't Agree.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#29 Nov 06 2013 at 10:25 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,530 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Constitution: Negotiable Except When I Don't Agree.


You intrigue me with this religion you propose...do you have any pamphlets?
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#30 Nov 06 2013 at 10:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,601 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Which is why "Bona fide religious organizations are exempt within their actual religious duties" is the best possible compromise and "Anyone who doesn't like a law on the basis of their faith shouldn't have to follow it because... religious liberty!" is a shitty, short-minded excuse.
Especially when so many members of a particular religion don't feel that way to begin with. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#31gbaji, Posted: Nov 06 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm not making a moral judgement here, just pointing out that these are matters of degree and not absolutes. At one point in time, homosexuality was considered aberrant sexual behavior and was illegal, just as pedophilia is considered aberrant sexual behavior and is illegal today. We cannot therefore assume that at some point in the future, there wont be a group of forward thinking progressive people on an internet forum bashing backwards thinking conservative people because even though we've finally realized that **** with children isn't aberrant (and got the AMA to officially declare it so), and finally stopped jailing people for it, there are still some people who think what they're doing is morally wrong and will discriminate against them. And those people are bad people who must be vilified for their blatant oppression of the rights of others.
#32 Nov 06 2013 at 6:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,475 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Right. Everyone should be allowed to ignore laws based on just saying it's for religion.
No. But an advocacy group is certainly within its right to oppose a law on the basis of their religion. Which is what they are doing. Currently, the law does not grant special protective status based on sexual orientation.

Nor should it since an advocacy group is not a church.


I think you completely misunderstood what I'm trying to say. It's not about ignoring the law. It's about opposing the passage of the law in the first place. Those are two completely different things.

Quote:
Which is why "Bona fide religious organizations are exempt within their actual religious duties" is the best possible compromise and "Anyone who doesn't like a law on the basis of their faith shouldn't have to follow it because... religious liberty!" is a shitty, short-minded excuse.


Again. The argument isn't for expanding the exemption to the law Joph. It's about not passing the law in the first place. Hence whey they are opposed to the law, not advocating for additional exemptions within it.

I thought I was clear about this in my earlier post, but apparently not.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#33 Nov 06 2013 at 6:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I think you completely misunderstood what I'm trying to say. It's not about ignoring the law. It's about opposing the passage of the law in the first place. Those are two completely different things.

Fair enough. So they're opposed to the law because they think retail store managers and restaurant owners should be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals in the workplace using their faith as a pretext. I wouldn't be really proud of that position but I guess that's why I don't donate to the Heritage Foundation.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#34gbaji, Posted: Nov 06 2013 at 7:23 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It's a social question though, isn't it? Let's say (for the sake of an example, I have no clue if this is true or not), that the owner of Chick-fil-a decides that in keeping with his businesses principles regarding the morality of its workers, and his own personal belief that homosexuality is sinful, that he cannot allow openly **** workers to be employed at his business since this would be a contradiction (how can he claim to be promoting morality when he's employing people who engage in immoral behavior?). To him, this is no more discriminatory than saying that he will not hire drug addicts, or felons, or anyone else who engages in behavior that he believes is not representative of the standards he believes in.
#35 Nov 06 2013 at 7:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I get your argument. Honestly, I do. I just think it's a fairly reprehensible one and serves as a sterling illustration of why I'm not a conservative.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#36gbaji, Posted: Nov 06 2013 at 8:29 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It's reprehensible to say that there should be a point at which we allow normal social interactions to punish/reward behavior we agree or disagree with rather than attempting to force compliance via legislation? I think you're allowing your opinion with regard to the specific case at hand to cloud your judgement with regard to the broader concept of legislating social norms that I'm talking about. I'm saying that we should not reject a given position with regard to that line I spoke of by simplistically comparing it to racial or gender discrimination and concluding that since they are "wrong", that this must be "wrong" as well.
#37 Nov 06 2013 at 8:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Again... I "get" it. Honest. You don't need to try to keep explaining the same thing over and over. I understand it.

That said, excusing **** discrimination by saying it should just be a "conversation" and comparing it to drug abuse once again reminds me why I'm not a conservative. Wherever the supposed line is drawn, I don't believe that it should be drawn in a way to legitimize discrimination against homosexuals based on some "But it's a conversation about social norms!" excuse. You apparently think that's fine. I won't try to convince you otherwise but I will file it away under "Why I'm glad I'm not one of them".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#38 Nov 06 2013 at 8:47 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,432 posts
Discrimination is okay as long as you can rationalize it. Saying they're only 3/5 people worked pretty well for a while.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#39 Nov 07 2013 at 4:53 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,004 posts
gbaji wrote:
To him, this is no more discriminatory than saying that he will not hire drug addicts, or felons, or anyone else who engages in behavior that he believes is not representative of the standards he believes in.

Should he have the freedom to do this?
No more than he should have the freedom to not hire black people because he thinks they're lesser humans.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#40 Nov 07 2013 at 8:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,670 posts
gbaji wrote:
[quote=Jophiel][quote=gbaji]

Should he have the freedom to do this?

No. Being **** is not comparable with being a drug addict or a felon.

We've been through this, being **** is not a lifestyle choice.

Should the store owner be able to refuse employment to black people?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#41 Nov 07 2013 at 8:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Not that unusual a position. Representative Ron Paul famously said he wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights Act (and voted against it during a symbolic vote on its anniversary) because the "liberty" of the discriminators was worth more than protecting the discriminated.

There's people out there who legitimately feel this way.

Edit: Apparently Senator Rand Paul made similar comments but then walked them back under protest and because he wanted to win his election.

Edited, Nov 7th 2013 8:48am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Nov 07 2013 at 8:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Should he have the freedom to do this?

No. Being **** is not comparable with being a drug addict or a felon.

We've been through this, being **** is not a lifestyle choice.

Should the store owner be able to refuse employment to black people?


I'm not disagreeing with you, but it doesn't really matter if being **** is a choice. Being a Christian is a choice, and you can't decide not to hire Christians.

The only reason that drug addicts and felons are ok to discriminate against is because they pose a high risk to the business.
#43 Nov 07 2013 at 8:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,670 posts
Jophiel wrote:
the "liberty" of the discriminators was worth more than protecting the discriminated.

I suppose you could rank liberty greater than discrimination.

You could argue though that when you discriminate you could be said to be infringing on someones liberty as you're disallowing them equal freedoms.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#44 Nov 07 2013 at 8:59 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,670 posts
Belkira wrote:
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Should he have the freedom to do this?

No. Being **** is not comparable with being a drug addict or a felon.

We've been through this, being **** is not a lifestyle choice.

Should the store owner be able to refuse employment to black people?


I'm not disagreeing with you, but it doesn't really matter if being **** is a choice. Being a Christian is a choice, and you can't decide not to hire Christians.

The only reason that drug addicts and felons are ok to discriminate against is because they pose a high risk to the business.

Yes. I was faulty. Smiley: tongue
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#45 Nov 07 2013 at 9:03 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,915 posts
Elinda wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
the "liberty" of the discriminators was worth more than protecting the discriminated.

I suppose you could rank liberty greater than discrimination.

You could argue though that when you discriminate you could be said to be infringing on someones liberty as you're disallowing them equal freedoms.

Desu. So this.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#46 Nov 07 2013 at 9:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
True. I suppose you could move the quotes around say that people like Ron & Rand Paul and Gbaji believe that the "liberty of the discriminators" is worth more than the protection of the discriminated.

Again, it's an argument that I understand and it's not that complicated. It just also happens to be one that I emphatically disagree with and illustrates why I vote on the blue side of the ticket.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#47 Nov 07 2013 at 9:17 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,648 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
"You guys", who? Citizens?

House Reps elected every 2 years
Senators every 6 years
President/Governors every 4 years

So you're going to have federal elections at least every other year. New Jersey & Virginia, for reasons I have no interest in knowing, have their gubernatorial elections of "off years" so they're being talked about since nothing else is happening. But they still only elect a governor every four years.



Ya citizens, you always voting on people. You never stop. Vote vote vote. You guys love to vote. Not just for Washington. Its really weird. We hate voting in Canada, we accept one way or the other we are getting the shaft so really its just do you want it to the right or the left. We give people majorities so we don't have to vote for a while.


Actually, Americans hate voting. Our turnout is terrible. Probably less than 30% of registered voters in my district voted this Tuesday, and a minority of people are registered voters.

And yeah, the problem with looking at liberty exclusively at the small scale is that we have a society based on "liberty of all" not "liberty to the majority."

You aren't free to oppress someone else, because under the foundational rules of our government system, that individual has the right to be free, e.g., un-oppressed.

It's literally the same reason you aren't at liberty to murder someone, kidnap them, etc. Your right to freedom doesn't supersede someone else's right to live free.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#48 Nov 07 2013 at 9:37 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,670 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:

Actually, Americans hate voting. Our turnout is terrible. Probably less than 30% of registered voters in my district voted this Tuesday, and a minority of people are registered voters.


I don't think it's hate as much as apathy.

I didn't vote this week. All I had to vote on were some bonds - they always pass.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#49 Nov 07 2013 at 10:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,601 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Actually, Americans hate voting. Our turnout is terrible. Probably less than 30% of registered voters in my district voted this Tuesday, and a minority of people are registered voters.
Which is why we mail ballots out. The only people who are going to stand in the rain for hours to vote for a city consul member are those too fanatical to make an unbiased decision anyway.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#50 Nov 07 2013 at 2:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
ENDA passed the Senate today with all Democrats voting for it plus ten Republicans.
Roll Call wrote:
Republicans voting for the bill included Sens. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Susan Collins of Maine, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, Dean Heller of Nevada, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, Rob Portman of Ohio and John McCain of Arizona.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#51 Nov 07 2013 at 2:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Belkira wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with you, but it doesn't really matter if being **** is a choice. Being a Christian is a choice, and you can't decide not to hire Christians.

I was shooting a Tweet to my senator and someone was asking him where the law protecting Christians from discrimination was Smiley: facepalm
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 54 All times are in CDT
Bijou, ElneClare, Kastigir, Anonymous Guests (51)