prom candy posted:

I don't think it's like that at all. I'm very pro-gay marriage (my aunt had one of the first gay marriages in Canada, it was a lot of fun) but I would be okay with government dropping the term 'marriage' from their language and just saying "any two adults can form an exclusive domestic partnership."

Hulk Krogan posted:

What do you mean, "new?" WELFARE QUEENS BUYING STEAK AND LOBSTER has been a cornerstone of Republican politics since Reagan at least.

Dyz posted:

I can easily see this type of thing becoming the new conservative rallying point against food stamps.

"Look at these poors committing welfare fraud then getting to stay in their hotel prisons!"

SaltLick posted:

I find it strange that when people yell about welfare fraud that they are essentially pissed that the crime can't be stopped before it happens. Yea the dude committed fraud, but he was caught pretty quickly and is subsequently being punished for it like he should. Apparently that doesn't matter though. Yet if you try and stop gun violence before it happens then you are a Constitution hating shithead.

Aeka 2.0 posted:

There is a serious lack of the use of "thug" with Beiber's arrest.
The morning comedy radio show was bending over backwards in defending the use of thug against that quarterback and citing the definition. I don't understand why these people don't see that context is king. White people just don't get called a thug.

quote:

VET'S BACKLASH AGAINST OBAMA,

A movement has been started by our armed forces, to get out the vote in 2014. They are organizing themselves, but this can be done by all of us. The President, the Commander in Chief, has made the Rules of Engagement (ROE) so difficult, that our troops are often killed before they can even get permission to fight. Nothing has been done to stop our troops from being murdered by Afghanis they are training, either. Now, the President wants the US to sign on to the UNs International Criminal Court (ICC), which would allow the UNs ICC to arrest and try US troops for War Crimes, without the legal protections guaranteed under US Law, and from which there is no appeal. The President, with his Democrat control of the Senate, has nearly all the power. If the Non-Establishment can take back the Senate in 2014, our troops can once again be protected from unnecessary danger. Please consider this, and send it on to your mailing lists. Thank You and Semper Fi,
Interestingly enough, when GWB was president you heard about the military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan almost daily. With Obama in the White House, the mainstream media has been strangely quiet. ---More than 1,000 American soldiers have lost their lives in Afghanistan in the last 27 months. This is more than the combined total of the nine years before. Thirty died in August. During the last month, over 50 additional NATO and US servicemen have been murdered, inside jobs by those who are hired to be a force for good in Afghanistan .

The commander in chief is AWOL. Not a peep, although he ordered the White House flag flown at half-staff for the Sikhs that were killed. There is a deep disgust, a fury, growing in the ranks of the military against the indifferent incompetence of this president.

It has taken on a dangerous tone. No one knows what to do about him, but the anger runs deep as the deaths continue with no strategic end in sight to the idiocy of this war. Obama has had 4 years to end this futile insanity, during which time he has vacationed, golfed, campaigned, and generally ignored the plight of our men and women in uniform. But, there is now a movement afoot in the armed services to launch a massive get out the vote drive against this president. Not just current active duty types, but the National Guard, Reserves, the retired, and all other prior service members. This is no small special interest group, but many millions of veterans who can have an enormous impact on the outcome of the November election if they all respond.
The million military retirees in Florida alone could mean an overwhelming victory in that state if they all show up at the polls. It might not keep additional U.S. troops from dying between now and November, but a turn out to vote by the military against this heart breaking lack of leadership can make a powerful statement that hastens a change to the indifference of this shallow little man who just lets our soldiers die.

Veterans: Please forward to your lists.

Aeka 2.0 posted:

There is a serious lack of the use of "thug" with Beiber's arrest.
The morning comedy radio show was bending over backwards in defending the use of thug against that quarterback and citing the definition. I don't understand why these people don't see that context is king. White people just don't get called a thug.

RagnarokAngel posted:

Eh...Fascists are called "jack booted thugs" people who hate unions call them "union thugs" and that's usually white people just the "bad" kind. I'll give you just straight up thugs usually has racist implications though.

Deific Presence posted:

The Freeper definition of Union Thugs seems to imply black people since they often make claims that Obama is using Affirmative Action to fill all public positions with Amish Ferals.

I have stared too long into the abyss.

Ghost of Reagan Past posted:

Also, nobody has ever read John Galt's speech in its entirety.

Plom Bar posted:

The offhand lol at the end really sells it. Like a talisman protecting his reprehensibility from examination.

Wojtek posted:

I find it hard to believe that every 5 minutes statistic too.

Wojtek posted:

I find it hard to believe that every 5 minutes statistic too.

peak debt posted:

51 countries? Offhand, the only countries I can remember that restrict citizenship to Muslims are Saudi Arabia and the Maldives. I'm probably forgetting a few more but getting that list up to 51 must involve some extremely creative interpretation of the word "illegal".

ArchangeI posted:

What would you call a country in which it is illegal to try and mission, or in which Christians are oppressed? Citizenship is one aspect of legality, not the be all end all.

prom candy posted:

I don't think it's like that at all. I'm very pro-interracial marriage (my aunt had one of the first gay marriages in Canada, it was a lot of fun) but I would be okay with government dropping the term 'marriage' from their language and just saying "any two adults can form an exclusive domestic partnership." Then we can let individual churches decide what is and isn't a marriage. I'm just as happy with the government saying marriage is for everyone but I don't think there's inherently anything wrong with changing the language as long as the ultimate goal is to make one set of rules that applies to all adults equally.

hamster_style posted:

Mo_Steel posted:

It said 1 is murdered every 5 minutes just for believing in Jesus, not "trying to mission".

Sarcastic nitpicking aside, it's wrong to oppress people for their religious beliefs anywhere, Christian or otherwise. I take it from the collection of posts shown that this person probably thinks America is a place where Christians are also heavily oppressed for their beliefs though.

RagnarokAngel posted:

Yeah nitpicking the statistics aside, Christian oppression is a real issue in some countries, it's just...not this one.

peak debt posted:

51 countries? Offhand, the only countries I can remember that restrict citizenship to Muslims are Saudi Arabia and the Maldives. I'm probably forgetting a few more but getting that list up to 51 must involve some extremely creative interpretation of the word "illegal".

hamster_style posted:

Thanks everyone for the responses w/r/t "getting the government out of marriage". After a few posts what it came down to was the term "Marriage" and that he had no issues with same-sex couples having the same rights, but takes issue with those rights being under the umbrella of "Marriage", which I really don't get, but eh.

VitalSigns posted:

Like most Libertarian-speak, "I want the government to keep out of X" means "I want to put X totally under the control of local bigots".

See education, jobs, marriage, home ownership, etc.

darthbob88 posted:

It's even simpler; when libertarians talk about the evils of government, they mean federal government. State government deciding black folk aren't people, local LEOs going Boss Hogg, corporations taking over a town, that's all fine. Feds trying to stop that, though? The worst sort of statist intervention.

darthbob88 posted:

It's even simpler; when libertarians talk about the evils of government, they mean federal government. State government deciding black folk aren't people, local LEOs going Boss Hogg, corporations taking over a town, that's all fine. Feds trying to stop that, though? The worst sort of statist intervention.

hamster_style posted:

darthbob88 posted:

It's even simpler; when libertarians talk about the evils of government, they mean federal government. State government deciding black folk aren't people, local LEOs going Boss Hogg, corporations taking over a town, that's all fine. Feds trying to stop that, though? The worst sort of statist intervention.

RagnarokAngel posted:

Libertarians only rail against federal government because they see it as the largest obstacle to their idea of freedom. They don't like the idea of any government (At best some might support the idea of "minimal" government, without defining it). If in a hypothetical scenario the federal government dissolved and we all became feuding nation-states, they would probably start railing against those.

TerminalSaint posted:

God's name isn't "God"

Discendo Vox posted:

You're really describing Anarchism more than Libertarianism. Between the two, Anarchism has the advantage of being internally consistent and having a stronger backing literature.

TerminalSaint posted:

God's name isn't "God"

RagnarokAngel posted:

Libertarians only rail against federal government because they see it as the largest obstacle to their idea of freedom. They don't like the idea of any government (At best some might support the idea of "minimal" government, without defining it). If in a hypothetical scenario the federal government dissolved and we all became feuding nation-states, they would probably start railing against those.