Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus Politics Thread: Campaign 2016 EditionFollow

#152 Oct 02 2015 at 3:09 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,566 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Jeb? Bush just argued against gun control in Greenville, SC by saying "Stuff happens".

Those two words are cherry-picked out of context, but I suppose that won't change your opinion of him in any case.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#153 Oct 02 2015 at 3:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,207 posts
Ever since the Terry Schiavo case, I've had no use for Jeb Bush. No number of chirpy punctuation marks would impel me to spit on him if he were on fire.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#154 Oct 02 2015 at 3:36 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,320 posts
What about Jeb: Bush

Or Jeb, Bush

My favorite, Jeb~ Bush
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#155 Oct 02 2015 at 3:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Not really out of context. Jeb:( was saying that "stuff happens" so we shouldn't just react. At its most charitable, it was remarkably tone deaf. "Tragedies occur"? "Horrific things happen"? Probably about fifty better ways than "stuff".



Edited, Oct 2nd 2015 5:40pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#156 Oct 02 2015 at 3:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,207 posts
Our Freedoms! demand sacrifices. Bloody human sacrifices. They're a sort of amalgamation of Elder Gods, if you must know.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#157 Oct 02 2015 at 4:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Here, Jeb:P fixed it.
https://twitter.com/emmaroller/status/650038495709405184

I'd format that or embed the video but more effort than its worth on the phone.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#158 Oct 05 2015 at 7:49 AM Rating: Good
******
49,563 posts
Jophiel wrote:
colorado kid ‏@YesMrGilbert Oct 2 wrote:
@emmaroller and his campaign is now over
Only if you ignore everyone else, Mr Gilbert.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#159 Oct 06 2015 at 11:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Will this help or hurt his 0.05% support in the polls?
PW wrote:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) “is asking for federal aid for his home state of South Carolina as it battles raging floods, but he voted to oppose similar help for New Jersey in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy in 2013,” CNN reports.

Said Graham: “Let’s just get through this thing, and whatever it costs, it costs.”

Graham was among the GOP senators who opposed federal aid to assist states hit by Hurricane Sandy, but now he doesn’t remember why: “I’m all for helping the people in New Jersey. I don’t really remember me voting that way.”
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#160 Oct 06 2015 at 11:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,215 posts
Some people just need to be hit in the head with a jug of sweet tea.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#161 Oct 06 2015 at 1:24 PM Rating: Good
******
49,563 posts
In Graham's defense, it is New Jersey.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#162 Oct 06 2015 at 3:21 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
A. Not every rule and regulation in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, is a rule or regulation our modern society follows.
Yes, people do pick and choose which parts are "important" (NO GEHYS!!!) and which aren't (NO ADULTERY!!). People; am I right?


Sure. We also don't drain people's blood with leeches today, but that used to be common medical practice. Societies change. Rules change. We keep the ones that make sense for society today, and abandon those that don't. Only those who try to argue that unless one follows every rule in the Bible, one must reject everything in the bible (and of course the far less common people who actually take up that strawman) seem to think differently.

The bible also says not to commit murder. So are you arguing that since we no longer follow the rules with regard to eating shellfish, or mixing fabrics, and whatnot, that we should automatically allow murder? Um... Of course not. There's nothing wrong with picking and choosing rules to follow that make sense and ignoring those that no longer do.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
B. The Bible doesn't say that..
Yeah, it kinda does. Not our fault you slept through CCD.


No. It doesn't. In the OT, it tells Jews not to marry non-Jews. But that's not so much about race, but religion and culture. The concern being that by marrying with people of different faiths and cultures, their own would be diluted and disappear. Remember that for them, the people and the religion were one and the same. Obviously, that is not true in the NT under Christianity (since the whole point is to spread the word to non-Jews). And, just as one might predict, the same prohibition exists warning against marrying non-Christians, for more or less the same reason (this time though, less about culture and more just about religion).

Nowhere does it say to marry or not marry based on the skin tone of the other person. That would be absurd under Christianity since those who were being converted came in all colors. I'm frankly not sure where you got this idea. It simply does not exist.

Edited, Oct 6th 2015 2:46pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#163 Oct 06 2015 at 3:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Not really out of context. Jeb:( was saying that "stuff happens" so we shouldn't just react. At its most charitable, it was remarkably tone deaf. "Tragedies occur"? "Horrific things happen"? Probably about fifty better ways than "stuff".


It's out of context to say he was speaking specifically about gun control though (which was what the "out of context" statement referred to). He was speaking broadly about overreacting to anything at all (hence, "stuff" instead of "mass shootings"). It was a bit of an awkward transition from specific to general, but that's clearly what he was doing when he made the statement.

I do find it typical of liberals to obsess over word choice, while ignoring the point he was making (ie: we should not overreact when emotions are high, but should take our time and make sensible decisions). Frankly, the far more offensive action by a politician in response to the shooting was Obama politicizing it while first responders were still on scene sorting out bodies. The need to jump on the emotion of the moment to push an agenda forward should usually indicate to us that the agenda isn't a good one. That and it's kinda classless to do that right at that moment anyway.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#164 Oct 06 2015 at 4:46 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,320 posts
gbaji wrote:
(ie: we should not overreact when emotions are high, but should take our time and make sensible decisions statements)


EDIT: IrGUDqwoter

Edited, Oct 6th 2015 3:47pm by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#165 Oct 06 2015 at 6:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,207 posts
Quote:
Sure. We also don't drain people's blood with leeches today, but that used to be common medical practice.


Still do, in some (rare) circumstances. Microsurgeries, re-attachments.

Quote:
Societies change. Rules change. We keep the ones that make sense for society today, and abandon those that don't.


So glad you're finally on board with homosexual marriage.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#166 Oct 06 2015 at 6:14 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,246 posts
gbaji wrote:
Societies change. Rules change. We keep the ones that make sense for society today, and abandon those that don't.

Believing that being gehy is an abomination makes sense in modern society...how?
gbaji wrote:
There's nothing wrong with picking and choosing rules to follow that make sense and ignoring those that no longer do.
So you're an anarchist now?
gbaji wrote:
In the OT, it tells Jews not to marry non-Jews. But that's not so much about race, but religion and culture.
I know. I was just curious if you went to CCD as a kid.Smiley: tongue


Edited, Oct 6th 2015 6:21pm by Bijou
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#167 Oct 06 2015 at 6:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
Samira wrote:
Quote:
Societies change. Rules change. We keep the ones that make sense for society today, and abandon those that don't.


So glad you're finally on board with homosexual marriage.


I've never been opposed to SSM. I'm opposed to the government subsidizing them. In precisely the same way that my opposition to the government paying people to eat hot dogs does not mean that I hate hot dogs.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#168 Oct 06 2015 at 6:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Societies change. Rules change. We keep the ones that make sense for society today, and abandon those that don't.

Believing that being gehy is an abomination makes sense in modern society...how?


It does not. Little girls owning ponies isn't an abomination either, yet, amazingly, I oppose our government spending money to provide little girls with ponies. You do understand that there's a whole range of behavior between "oppose something" and "subsidize something", right?

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
There's nothing wrong with picking and choosing rules to follow that make sense and ignoring those that no longer do.
So you're an anarchist now?


Ok. Not "ignoring", so much as "changing". The point being that the bible is not a set of our laws here in the US. It's a set of laws that applied to the Jewish people about 2500 years ago. And while some of those rules may make sense to continue to follow, many do not. I'm not sure why some people have such a hard time with this.


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
In the OT, it tells Jews not to marry non-Jews. But that's not so much about race, but religion and culture.
I know. I was just curious if you went to CCD as a kid.Smiley: tongue


I attended Catholic school for most of my K-12 education, so that would be a yes. I can also state that at no time did that education ever include the suggestion, much less statement, that the bible tells us that it's wrong to marry outside your own race.

Of course, you're free to read what the Catholic catechism has to say about it. There's like 6 pages on Marriage alone, and no mention of race at all. Heh. I do find the first page's statement interesting though (and maybe just one more source for "marriage is about procreation"):

Catholic Church wrote:
The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#169 Oct 06 2015 at 8:12 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,516 posts
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
Quote:
Societies change. Rules change. We keep the ones that make sense for society today, and abandon those that don't.


So glad you're finally on board with homosexual marriage.


I've never been opposed to SSM. I'm opposed to the government subsidizing them. In precisely the same way that my opposition to the government paying people to eat hot dogs does not mean that I hate hot dogs.

I never figured out how the government subsidizes SSM. Can you run that one by me again?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#170 Oct 06 2015 at 9:14 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,215 posts
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#171 Oct 06 2015 at 9:18 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,215 posts
ANAL SEX ZIONIST BLOWJOB*

*This message brought to you by GoogleAdserve.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#172 Oct 06 2015 at 9:52 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,246 posts
gbaji didn't notice the smiley-face.Smiley: frown

Stop being such a grouch, man!Smiley: mad
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#173 Oct 06 2015 at 9:57 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,246 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Societies change. Rules change. We keep the ones that make sense for society today, and abandon those that don't.

Believing that being gehy is an abomination makes sense in modern society...how?
You do understand that there's a whole range of behavior between "oppose something" and "subsidize something", right?
The bible doesn't mention "not subsidizing" geyh people. Since we're talking about the the bible and all, howzaboot you not change the subject in such an incredibly ham-handed way?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#174 Oct 06 2015 at 10:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Heh. I do find the first page's statement interesting though

I found the recent SCOTUS ruling more interesting but you take what you can get Smiley: grin
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#175 Oct 07 2015 at 7:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,207 posts
Quote:
This is generally a flawed argument because same *** couples do adopt children and thus he is also paying for a stable marriage that may also have children.


Not only with they sometimes adopt and raise children, but those children will come out of the subset of orphaned/surrendered children who would otherwise be wards of the state, and a drain on resources.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#176 Oct 07 2015 at 7:54 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,563 posts
gbaji wrote:
There's nothing wrong with picking and choosing rules to follow that make sense and ignoring those that no longer do.
Sure, as long as you don't pretend that you're following certain rules because of some higher authority said you had to with some dire consequence attached. It's the height of hypocricy to say you have to follow some rules because "God said so" yet ignore other rules even though the same source said it. Just man up and own up to it.
gbaji wrote:
I attended Catholic school for most of my K-12 education, so that would be a yes. I can also state that at no time did that education ever include the suggestion, much less statement, that the bible tells us that it's wrong to marry outside your own race.
I attended Catholic school too, and I can state as absolute fact that there's more in the Bible than what is taught to kids. Kind of like how more things happened in the world than what is taught during History classes. For one, just the fact you think there's a difference between Old and New Testament is evidence enough that you need a remedial course or two. Start with Matthew.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#177 Oct 07 2015 at 6:25 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,516 posts
Samira wrote:
Quote:
This is generally a flawed argument because same *** couples do adopt children and thus he is also paying for a stable marriage that may also have children.


Not only with they sometimes adopt and raise children, but those children will come out of the subset of orphaned/surrendered children who would otherwise be wards of the state, and a drain on resources.

See, that was always my argument: these gay couples are taking all the leftover kids from the failed (yet sacred!) hetero marriages. But I guess he'd rather his tax dollars go to orphanages and foster homes than to stable, loving families. Man, conservatives have fucked up priorities.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#178 Oct 07 2015 at 6:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I can't believe you people are wasting time debating SSM with Gbaji. I thought the main benefit of the Right's devastating loss would be that we wouldn't have to do that any longer. Also, homosexuals could get married to one another but mainly the debate thing.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#179 Oct 07 2015 at 6:44 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,516 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I can't believe you people are wasting time debating SSM with Gbaji. I thought the main benefit of the Right's devastating loss would be that we wouldn't have to do that any longer. Also, homosexuals could get married to one another but mainly the debate thing.

When this thread hits critical mass you can just start another new one. Again.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#180 Oct 07 2015 at 7:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Debalic wrote:
I never figured out how the government subsidizes SSM. Can you run that one by me again?


Tax incentives for marriage. Gbaji does not mind paying for tax incentives to create stable families that will (likely) have children.


I'd say "that may create children" though. The objective is to try to maximize the degree to which children are born to a stable family where both biological parents are legally bound to their continued support.

Quote:
This is generally a flawed argument because same *** couples do adopt children and thus he is also paying for a stable marriage that may also have children.


You're kinda playing with the word "have", which could mean "have, as in 'to possess'", or "have, as in 'to create'". I'm talking about creation of children, which *** couples cannot do. Thus, there is zero reason to subsidize that couple to form, since they don't cause the problem we're trying to avoid. The problem we're trying to prevent/reduce is children born out of wedlock. Adoption is an entirely different issue, and is problematic since it kinda relies on others already having produced a child, presumably in that problematic case we're trying to avoid.

Quote:
The rate for opposite *** families with children is around 40% and the rate for same-*** couples with children is around 20%. Same-*** couples face more barriers to having children; most must go through a lengthy application process in order to adopt, whereas opposite *** couple can quite literally acquire children accidentally. I believe a better route to subsidizing married families is either to attach the tax incentives to having children, or alternately, decrease the barrier to entry for same-*** couples acquiring children via adoption (although there are intrinsically more liability concerns with this method). In any event, if the child-rearing rates were similar or quite close for opposite *** and same *** married couples, there would no longer be an economic argument against same *** marriage.


Again though, these are two different sides of the issue. Adoption is a fix after the fact. Marriage incentives are an attempt to prevent the need for that fix in the first place. We can have both, of course, but trying to mix them up like that seems odd to me.

I'm going to ask whether your use of the phrase "having children" in the context of subsidies refers to possessing or creating children? We already have a ton of tax breaks and programs that assist those who possess children, whether married or not. And that's actually part of the problem IMO. Now, if you're suggesting that we restrict those programs and tax breaks to only those who posses children and are married, I might actually agree. But I still see that as fixing the problem after the fact. The stats overwhelmingly show that if the children are created in an already existing marriage between the two biological parents of the child, their odds of needing any kind of assistance programs (ie: taxpayer cost) is much lower than otherwise. So the subsidies for marriage can be a great deal cost wise, if we'd actually stick to using them for that purpose rather than politicizing them as some kind of "right" to be handed out to everyone, regardless of applicability.

It would also help terrifically if we *didn't* provide so much assistance to single moms, effectively creating a disincentive for them to get married to the man they're shacking up with at the moment. Safety nets help people who find themselves in difficult situations, but they also increase the rate at which people find themselves in those spots. This again goes to the difference in approach between treating the symptoms of a problem after the fact versus preventing the problem in the first place. We'd be much better off focusing more of our efforts on the latter approach IMO, and marriage status is a key component to that.


Um... I actually also agree with you on the barriers to adoption angle. What I would propose (and I believe I have proposed in the past) is to separate the legal contract of marriage from the legal status of marriage. Allow any two people to enter into a legal marriage if they want, complete with power of attorney, joint finances and property, etc. Basically, all the civil arrangements needed for a marriage to be a marriage. Then, you can tie things like adoption, custody, etc, to that status, and it's about the choices of the people and the agencies they're interacting with. If married couple X qualify for adoption based on the agencies criteria, they quality. No barrier based on being *** or straight. Doesn't matter. Well, except to faith based adoption agencies, but again, as a private process, they should be free to set whatever criteria they want. I'm sure plenty of different agencies will exist to fill the need. You keep the government granted benefits and whatnot as an incentive for potential breeders who qualify for them, with "being in a legally binding marriage" being one of the requirements (but we could add more).

What this would do is get the social/civil concept of "marriage" out of a situation where it's tied to a whole bunch of things that don't necessarily make sense for newer concepts of what a marriage may be or can include. Heck. Since these are just private contracts between people, you could have group marriages under this system. Anything you want. Why not? The big stumbling block for a lot of this stuff is government involvement. We have systems (like say social security) that grant benefits to married couples based on assumptions about that married couple (that they'll likely consist of a breeding pair, and one of them will likely give up some career opportunities to produce and raise children, meaning that person should get their spouses SS benefits if they outlive him/her). The entire thing is based on that concept so people balk at the idea of something like say group marriages, for example, since you could then theoretically keep adding members and maintain the marriage for eternity, collecting on all the deceased spouses social security the whole time.

Same deal (to a degree) with SSM. Adopting is a choice, not a necessary component to keeping the species alive. That's great, but then it's really on you to have the resources to raise that child. Expecting the rest of the population to provide you benefits for doing so seems strange. Expecting them to do so on the off chance you *might* choose to adopt is doubly so. Providing a surviving spouse with the social security benefits of the deceased spouse, because that couple chose to adopt, and one of them chose to be a stay at home mom/dad, seems strange to me. Those were all choices you made, that are not necessary choices at all. The cost should be born by you. You should presumably be financially capable of handling those choices on your own without government subsidy, or you should not make that choice.

The same can't be said of traditional male/female couples. They *must* procreate (at some rate as a group, of course, not each individual couple). We want them to procreate in the best environment for the children. So we should create an incentive for them to do so. Which is what the marriage status, and all the attendant benefits and effects are about. *** couples (again, as a group) don't need to adopt. We don't need for them to adopt. It's nice if they do. But it's nice if I help clear my neighbors yard too. I don't expect the government to reward me for that.

Edited, Oct 7th 2015 6:51pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#181 Oct 07 2015 at 7:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
Debalic wrote:
Samira wrote:
Quote:
This is generally a flawed argument because same *** couples do adopt children and thus he is also paying for a stable marriage that may also have children.


Not only with they sometimes adopt and raise children, but those children will come out of the subset of orphaned/surrendered children who would otherwise be wards of the state, and a drain on resources.

See, that was always my argument: these gay couples are taking all the leftover kids from the failed (yet sacred!) hetero marriages. But I guess he'd rather his tax dollars go to orphanages and foster homes than to stable, loving families. Man, conservatives have fucked up priorities.


That would make sense if even a tiny percentage of children available for adoption were produced by a married couple. They aren't. They are produced by single mothers, often (75% of the time) with no involvement of the birth father at all (in the adoption, that is). The better solution, if our objective is really to reduce the burden of those children on the state, should be to strengthen the incentives for those women to marry the men they are having children with before having children with them, right?

No solution is perfect, of course, but you're arguing based on the smallest case, while I'm looking at the far far bigger side of the issue. The impact of SSM on total adoptions in the US is more or less statistical static. The impact on the number of children born to and raised by single mothers, and those given up for adoption, as a result of the weakening of marriage as a social institution in our country is massive. We should be looking to fix that latter problem, and not worry so much about the former.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#182 Oct 07 2015 at 7:54 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,246 posts
gbaji wrote:
We don't need for them to adopt.
Yes, we do

gbaji wrote:
It's nice if they do. But it's nice if I help clear my neighbors yard too.
Raising children is just like clipping hedges!!!

gbaji wrote:
I don't expect the government to reward me for that.
But you'll let them reward you for buying a house.

Edited, Oct 7th 2015 7:57pm by Bijou
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#183 Oct 07 2015 at 8:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
We don't need for them to adopt.
Yes, we do


*** couples specifically? No. Any couple or person? Sure. You're aware that you don't have to be married to adopt, right? *** or straight isn't the issue. Marriage isn't the issue. Supporting a SSM agenda on the ground that "well, now they can adopt and make the world a better place" is incredibly weak.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
I don't expect the government to reward me for that.
But you'll let them reward you for buying a house.


Sure. Just as I already pointed out that we provide tons of assistance for those raising children already. What your arguing is more equivalent to the government rewarding me for opening up a bank account, because I might use that account to save money, and I might use that money to buy a house. If you want to reward people for doing something, you reward them for doing that thing. You don't reward them for doing some other thing, which might just result in them choosing to do the thing you want them to do.

The causal relationship between opposite *** couples marrying or not marrying and children being born out of wedlock (and potentially being given up for adoption) is direct and strong. The causal relationship between same *** couples marrying or not marrying and children born out of wedlock and given up and later being adopted by that same *** couple is incredibly torturous and weak. To equate those two is bizarre.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#184 Oct 07 2015 at 8:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,215 posts
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Samira wrote:
Quote:
This is generally a flawed argument because same *** couples do adopt children and thus he is also paying for a stable marriage that may also have children.


Not only with they sometimes adopt and raise children, but those children will come out of the subset of orphaned/surrendered children who would otherwise be wards of the state, and a drain on resources.

See, that was always my argument: these gay couples are taking all the leftover kids from the failed (yet sacred!) hetero marriages. But I guess he'd rather his tax dollars go to orphanages and foster homes than to stable, loving families. Man, conservatives have fucked up priorities.


That would make sense if even a tiny percentage of children available for adoption were produced by a married couple. They aren't. They are produced by single mothers, often (75% of the time) with no involvement of the birth father at all (in the adoption, that is). The better solution, if our objective is really to reduce the burden of those children on the state, should be to strengthen the incentives for those women to marry the men they are having children with before having children with them, right?

No solution is perfect, of course, but you're arguing based on the smallest case, while I'm looking at the far far bigger side of the issue. The impact of SSM on total adoptions in the US is more or less statistical static. The impact on the number of children born to and raised by single mothers, and those given up for adoption, as a result of the weakening of marriage as a social institution in our country is massive. We should be looking to fix that latter problem, and not worry so much about the former.


Both problems take children out of the "children of non-married couples" pool and put them in the "children of married couples" pool. It literally makes no difference whether you are incentivizing otherwise single mothers to be part of a marital union, or putting those children into a different stable parental unit. Stability is what matters, and reduction of state burden. Both incentivizing marriage, and incentivizing adoption do this. So does removal of people who would generate wards of the state from the gene pool for that matter, but that solution is generally regarded as barbaric. Unless your solution involves damning single mothers to destitution, it's a more appropriate solution to allow those with the resources to pick up the tab for some of the children who fall through the cracks.

You are assuming that because a group is small, and thus statistically insignificant it should not be incentivised to make decisions that positively impact the collective. If so, why stop at same sxe couples? Why not also say, well Asians are a minority, so they aren't a group that needs to be subsidized? Why not also left handed people?

The point is to offer the same deal to everyone: Take on the burden of having children and we will lend a helping hand. It won't cover everything, and it won't come close to the cost we would be forced to collectively pay otherwise, but we will help.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#185 Oct 07 2015 at 10:08 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,246 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Both problems take children out of the "children of non-married couples" pool and put them in the "children of married couples" pool. It literally makes no difference whether you are incentivizing otherwise single mothers to be part of a marital union, or putting those children into a different stable parental unit. Stability is what matters, and reduction of state burden. Both incentivizing marriage, and incentivizing adoption do this. So does removal of people who would generate wards of the state from the gene pool for that matter, but that solution is generally regarded as barbaric. Unless your solution involves damning single mothers to destitution, it's a more appropriate solution to allow those with the resources to pick up the tab for some of the children who fall through the cracks.

You are assuming that because a group is small, and thus statistically insignificant it should not be incentivised to make decisions that positively impact the collective. If so, why stop at same sxe couples? Why not also say, well Asians are a minority, so they aren't a group that needs to be subsidized? Why not also left handed people?

The point is to offer the same deal to everyone: Take on the burden of having children and we will lend a helping hand. It won't cover everything, and it won't come close to the cost we would be forced to collectively pay otherwise, but we will help.
He knows all that. His ideology is to pretend to care; not to actually care. Well, except about money. Money is the most important thing, like, ever.


Edited, Oct 7th 2015 10:10pm by Bijou
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#186 Oct 08 2015 at 7:24 AM Rating: Good
******
49,563 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
The point is to offer the same deal to everyone:
But if you treat everyone the same then you can't run on a political platform of how people are invading your holy land and ruining your tradition and stealing your soul.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#187 Oct 08 2015 at 8:04 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,215 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Both problems take children out of the "children of non-married couples" pool and put them in the "children of married couples" pool. It literally makes no difference whether you are incentivizing otherwise single mothers to be part of a marital union, or putting those children into a different stable parental unit. Stability is what matters, and reduction of state burden. Both incentivizing marriage, and incentivizing adoption do this. So does removal of people who would generate wards of the state from the gene pool for that matter, but that solution is generally regarded as barbaric. Unless your solution involves damning single mothers to destitution, it's a more appropriate solution to allow those with the resources to pick up the tab for some of the children who fall through the cracks.

You are assuming that because a group is small, and thus statistically insignificant it should not be incentivised to make decisions that positively impact the collective. If so, why stop at same sxe couples? Why not also say, well Asians are a minority, so they aren't a group that needs to be subsidized? Why not also left handed people?

The point is to offer the same deal to everyone: Take on the burden of having children and we will lend a helping hand. It won't cover everything, and it won't come close to the cost we would be forced to collectively pay otherwise, but we will help.
He knows all that. His ideology is to pretend to care; not to actually care. Well, except about money. Money is the most important thing, like, ever.


Edited, Oct 7th 2015 10:10pm by Bijou


Ok, but my point is that even if that were the case, the structure should be either all married couples should be subsidized, all married couples with children should be subsidized, or no couples should be subsidized.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#188 Oct 08 2015 at 8:14 AM Rating: Good
***
1,061 posts
You're responding to Gbaji, and are thus not allowed the dignity of a point.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#189 Oct 08 2015 at 10:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kevin McCarthy, after disastrously admitting to the political motivations of the Benghazi committee (well, the third? fourth? such committee) and lacking support from the anti-establishment factions, is dropping his bid for Speaker.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#190 Oct 08 2015 at 10:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I guess it should be "dropping" his bid -- by reports, McCarthy didn't leave the conference meeting happy.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#191 Oct 08 2015 at 11:36 AM Rating: Good
******
49,563 posts
Jason Chaffetz still in the running, I guess? Wonderful.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#193 Oct 08 2015 at 12:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,207 posts
Webster vs. Chaffetz for the GOP, neither looks particularly strong. A House divided against itself, etc.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#194 Oct 08 2015 at 12:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
You are assuming that because a group is small, and thus statistically insignificant it should not be incentivised to make decisions that positively impact the collective. If so, why stop at same sxe couples? Why not also say, well Asians are a minority, so they aren't a group that needs to be subsidized? Why not also left handed people?


Because I'm not creating a criteria for marriage status qualification based on whether it would make it easier for that couple to adopt. You are. I have repeatedly rejected that as a good reason to expand the marriage status.

By your argument, why not expand marriage to siblings then? Why not parents and adult children? Heck. Why not whole families? Why not groups of people? If two people is a more stable condition for raising children than one, wouldn't three be better? Or 5? Or 10? We could argue that any number of people greater than one should be allowed to marry by your argument, because all of those have the same result with regard to potential for that larger number of people adopting children.

It's a really weak argument for expanding marriage.

Quote:
The point is to offer the same deal to everyone: Take on the burden of having children and we will lend a helping hand. It won't cover everything, and it won't come close to the cost we would be forced to collectively pay otherwise, but we will help.


Again though, then why not argue for offering the same deal to everyone? You're offering it just to SS couples. Why the restriction? I get the whole slippery slope fallacy thing, but when your argument literally is a slippery slope, and you've provided no reason it shouldn't slide further, then it's a perfectly valid response. Clearly, unless you are arguing for further expansion, there must be some other criteria for marriage that is stronger than just "if we let them marry, they might adopt". Can you tell me what that criteria is now? Prior to SSM, that criteria was simple: "Grant marriage status to the set of all couples who might procreate". Now? What is it? What purpose does it serve? And where is the boundary for that status within the context of that purpose?

Edited, Oct 8th 2015 11:56am by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#195 Oct 08 2015 at 12:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Kevin McCarthy, after disastrously admitting to the political motivations of the Benghazi committee (well, the third? fourth? such committee) and lacking support from the anti-establishment factions, is dropping his bid for Speaker.


Almost certainly more of the latter than the former. Could be something else entirely though. Prominent Republicans come under amazingly high scrutiny (liberal media, dontchaknow), so even the slightest problem in his past will come up and will be used against him politically. Maybe he went to a swingers party 20 years ago or something. Maybe he had an affair once. Maybe he went to a Celine Dion concert once? Had a mullet? Who knows?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#196 Oct 08 2015 at 1:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,207 posts
...used a position of trust to rape a minor. You know, something laughably silly like that.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#197 Oct 08 2015 at 1:24 PM Rating: Good
******
49,563 posts
gbaji wrote:
Prior to SSM, that criteria was simple: "Grant marriage status to the set of all couples who might procreate".
In reality the criteria was "how much land and status will you give me to fuck my daughter?" But you still ignoring facts aside, prior to SSM conservatives were whining about how black and white people could marry each other and how it was against their religion and traditional values. I guess black and white people couldn't procreate together in the 60s, right? Once that stopped for a while it was quiet because no one was making any noise, and now another group of people got tired of being treated like second class citizens forced to pay taxes into a system they can't benefit from and started making noise, and looky looky you twits are making the same excuses to discriminate and try to look like victims at the same time. Thankfully, history shows how this is going to go, no matter how revisionist you want to be. You can either go blue in the face complaining about it or you can just relax but it's going to happen. Women won the right to not be property, black and white can get married, and now it's the anti-breeders. Slippery slope, so what if groups of people want to get married? Oh, right, because it's against your religion (it's not, by the way. Sorry not Noah, Abraham had 3. Was thinking something else. Correcting on my own, point still stands though.), it's against tradition (if you ignore any time before 1000, and the Mormons), it's unnatural (all marriage is unnatural), and it's against the law (gee, wonder how that will go).

Those who don't study history yadda yadda.

Edited, Oct 8th 2015 3:31pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#198 Oct 08 2015 at 1:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, McCarthy has admitted that the Benghazi admission was part of the reason for him dropping out. He hasn't admitted to raping Celine Dion's kid at a swingers club though. He's trying to frame it as "I don't want to be a distraction" but foes within the GOP were using it against his nomination. Successfully, it would seem.

Boehner is now saying he's going to retain his seat until the GOP coalesces around a single candidate which has to be thrilling the people who cheered his initial resignation.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#199 Oct 08 2015 at 1:32 PM Rating: Good
******
49,563 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Boehner is now saying he's going to retain his seat until the GOP coalesces around a single candidate
So he's Speaker for life?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#200 Oct 08 2015 at 1:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Imperial Speakership! Boehner's regime!

I assume he'll want to get the fuck out of town before, oh, say... December 11th? By Nov 30th, he'll be giving his gavel and tiara to the House janitor.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#201 Oct 08 2015 at 3:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Prior to SSM, that criteria was simple: "Grant marriage status to the set of all couples who might procreate".
In reality the criteria was "how much land and status will you give me to fuck my daughter?"


It was the government doing that? It was private citizens making deals among themselves. Which, um, you didn't need a supreme court ruling for *** couples to do. You know, if they wanted to, that is. Great job totally missing the entire issue. I'm talking about the government granted status. You know, the one that a portion of my tax dollars goes to pay? I don't care what relationships private citizens enter into on their own time and with their own money. When they're asking me to subsidize those relationships is when I think I should have some choice about it though.

Quote:
But you still ignoring facts aside, prior to SSM conservatives were whining about how black and white people could marry each other and how it was against their religion and traditional values. I guess black and white people couldn't procreate together in the 60s, right?


Well. If we're paying attention to facts, we'd realize that prior to Loving v Virginia (back in 1967), the Democrats were whining about black and white people marrying, not conservatives. It was the GOP that fought against racial discrimination for 100 years until the political left realized they were losing on that issue, and changed tactics to oppressing poor people of color by using government entitlement programs. Which, as it happens, has been even more successful at keeping them poor and in ghettos than any of their Jim Crow laws they'd passed previously.

And we'd also realize that one of the big justifications for the Loving case ruling was the fact that mixed race couples could procreate, and thus needed the same marriage capability as same-race couples. Something that has been completely forgotten since.

So once again, you're proving just how little you understand the issue at hand.

Quote:
Once that stopped for a while it was quiet because no one was making any noise, and now another group of people got tired of being treated like second class citizens forced to pay taxes into a system they can't benefit from and started making noise, and looky looky you twits are making the same excuses to discriminate and try to look like victims at the same time.


No. The same people who argued that blacks and whites should be granted marriage licenses because they form procreative pairs are now arguing that two people of the same *** should not be granted them because they don't meet the same criteria. We're not looking at whether a group looks like a victim group, or we feel sorry for them, or whatever. We're looking at the status, the purpose it serves, and whether existing restrictions make sense within that context. The same criteria we used in the 60s to allow mixed marriages does not allow for SSM. That's the point so many people don't seem to get.


Quote:
Those who don't study history yadda yadda.


Are going to constantly get their facts wrong, like you've done?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 59 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (59)