I'm voting Republican.

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

Airmoran

Construct
Nov 9, 2004
2,075
0
0
So you don't agree with their practices. Alright. So what does that have to do with disallowing gays to marry again?

And oh, btw, that is homophobia. A fear of homosexuality. Right there in the ol' dictionary.
 
Last edited:

Hadmar

Queen Bitch of the Universe
Jan 29, 2001
5,557
42
48
Nerdpole
The problem with racism is that it assumes hating an entire racial group no matter what they do. In that way it is not completely comparable to homophobia. If a person wasn't gay would homophobia still apply? No. So its not the same.
If a person wasn't black/purple/whatever would racism still apply? o_O

Maybe it's just me being tired, but not having a beef with homosexuals, but being against them ****ing each other, seems to make as much sense to me as telling a black man he won't be treated like a pice of **** if he wears a full body suit so that his skin color can't be seen.
 
Last edited:

ilkman

Active Member
Mar 1, 2001
3,559
1
38
East coast
So you don't agree with their practices. Alright. So what does that have to do with disallowing gays to marry again?

And oh, btw, that is homophobia. A fear of homosexuality. Right there in the ol' dictionary.

Then by that logic any time you disagree with someone else you must be afraid of them? If thats the case then we're all terribly fearful of each other.

There is a lot more that I think that does involve my belief in reserving marriage specifically for a man and a woman but I will not get into that here. Its the wrong thread for that sort of discussion.
 

T2A`

I'm dead.
Jan 10, 2004
8,752
0
36
Richmond, VA
...idiocy...
I didn't know Bill O'Reilly posted on BuF!

Because I want freedom FROM religion, even though the Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion. Who needs to abide by a 200 year old document anyways?
What point are you trying to make, exactly? That religion SHOULD be instilled and woven into our government? Freedom OF religion includes being able to decide to stay the f**k away from it.

While you can't actually do because the government has decided to make up our minds for us and interleave it throughout... while under Republican control. Booyah!

Idiot.
 

Crotale

_________________________ _______________
Jan 20, 2008
2,535
12
38
Anywhere But Here
I didn't know Bill O'Reilly posted on BuF!

What point are you trying to make, exactly? That religion SHOULD be instilled and woven into our government? Freedom OF religion includes being able to decide to stay the f**k away from it.

While you can't actually do because the government has decided to make up our minds for us and interleave it throughout... while under Republican control. Booyah!

Idiot.
Nice piece of work you are. What I meant by that is that we have freedom guaranteed to practice or not to practice religion, but I hear and read from a great many liberals that it should be "freedom FROM religion" as though religion should be banned. Too bad I'm the idiot, huh?
 

evilmrfrank

Banned
Apr 22, 2005
1,631
0
36
35
Florida, US
www.evilmrfrank.com
Ya thats the funny thing. Everyone is so worried about religion destroying the government and the people of the world that they start to care less and less about the actual rights for the people who want to practice their religious ways.
 

N1ghtmare

Sweet Dreams
Jul 17, 2005
2,411
12
38
Where least expected
I'm voting Democrat...
Because I relish in the fact that gay and lesbian marriages are extremely important to the health of our great nation and we as a people cannot survive without those blessed unions.

I'm not sure the Dems brought up the subjects. Religious conservatives wanted it to be banned.

And about all the gay maarraiges intercours: why the hell do you care? I don't. If they want to have gay intercourse, let them. Marriage? I don't care. They are humans, let them live how they want. Isn't thats what capitalism and freedom is all about?
 

SkaarjMaster

enemy of time
Sep 1, 2000
4,870
8
38
Sarasota, FL
SkaarjMaster, there's nothing wrong with socialism.

Um, I think you missed my sarcasm with a wink smilie at the end and the fact I was stating it exactly like things were stated in the original link. And, yes, there is nothing wrong with a little socialism.:)

Oh my, what did I start (or was it T2A`)? Don't even get me going on the public school system, health insurance, welfare, taxes, national security, the Republican party, energy, war, abortion, religion, marriage, racism and f**king Bill O'Reilly. Seems to be a lot of hot topics in this one thread.:)
 
Last edited:

daloonie

sex boobs nude
Feb 7, 2004
4,877
9
38
37
Denmark
www.daloonie.com
election08.jpg
\o/
 

Crotale

_________________________ _______________
Jan 20, 2008
2,535
12
38
Anywhere But Here
Um, I think you missed my sarcasm with a wink smilie at the end and the fact I was stating it exactly like things were stated in the original link. And, yes, there is nothing wrong with a little socialism.:)

Oh my, what did I start (or was it T2A`)? Don't even get me going on the public school system, health insurance, welfare, taxes, national security, the Republican party, energy, war, abortion, religion, marriage, racism and f**king Bill O'Reilly. Seems to be a lot of hot topics in this one thread.:)
Yeah, the irony for me is that a video game fansite is comprised of 99.9 percent liberal-minded members while that .01% is more conservative. Maybe it's because I'm much older than most of you that I have a different mindset when it comes to socio-political issues. Honestly, I feel that most Americans, regardless of which side of the aisle they are on, want pretty much the same things in life.

As much as the views I presented were a bit exaggerated, so were the views presented in the OP's linked video. Both were done for effect.
 

TomWithTheWeather

Die Paper Robots!
May 8, 2001
2,898
0
0
43
Dallas TX
tomwiththeweather.blogspot.com
Socialism, Capitalism; it's all a big balancing act. Both have their strengths and both have their weaknesses. A little bit of both seems to work well enough. Lean too far in favor of either one direction and you end up in a rough spot. The Dem's often need the Rep's to pull them back from "crazy" just as the Rep's need the Dem's to pull them back from "crazy".

IMO, the only truely backwards political idealogies around at the moment that are worth avoiding and preventing at all costs are many aspects of Social Conservatism and this new, warmongering bread of Neo-Conservatism. Fiscal Conservatism is fine, but that's not what we've had for the past 8 years.

Nice piece of work you are. What I meant by that is that we have freedom guaranteed to practice or not to practice religion, but I hear and read from a great many liberals that it should be "freedom FROM religion" as though religion should be banned. Too bad I'm the idiot, huh?

Ya thats the funny thing. Everyone is so worried about religion destroying the government and the people of the world that they start to care less and less about the actual rights for the people who want to practice their religious ways.

Nobody is advocating that religion be outright banned. These "liberals" you speak of, aren't advocating that we ban all religion when they say, "freedom FROM religion". They are saying that they believe that non-religious views (think Atheism, Secular Humanism, etc.) be treated equally to traditional religious views like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.

There are two debates here.

One centers around the question of whether or not Christianity is sort of the "official" religion of the US, whether or not the US was founded on Christian principles, what the Constitution says about it, etc.

The other issue here is whether or not the rights of people to practice their preferred religion or to not practice a religion at all are being violated in some way.

I personally feel that there should be no preference of a particular religion or non-religion by the government at all. Government should remain as neutral/secular as possible so they may do their real job of working for all citizens equally, regardless of the religious beliefs those citizen hold. Government should stay out of all religious matters to better serve 100% of the population.

Imagine if you were in court, as a witness to some crime, and before you were to give your testimony, you had to swear on the Koran, Torah, Book of Mormon, or some Buddhist scripture. But you're Christian and you don't honor those holy books. You'd rather have a Bible. That's what is feels like to be in the roughly 30% of the US population that isn't Christian. That's just one example of the issue. Federally controlled stuff should remain neutral.

But that issue isn't the same as the violation of rights issue. How are religious peoples rights being violated? I don't really see anyone in the US being forced to change religions or being forced to have no religion. That would certainly be a rights violation. I personally don't believe in the claims of most religions, but I respect the rights of other people to believe what they wish, as do the vast majority of non-believers. Just because a Christian might preach on the sidewalk or an Atheist might publicly voice his opinion doesn't mean someone's rights are being violated.

Removing the Ten Commandments from a courtroom isn't violating some persons rights; it's protecting us all and promoting equality. After all, we are a multicultural, multireligious, multiracial nation. To favor any one group, whether they are the majority or not, is just plain criminal.
 

TomWithTheWeather

Die Paper Robots!
May 8, 2001
2,898
0
0
43
Dallas TX
tomwiththeweather.blogspot.com
Yeah, the irony for me is that a video game fansite is comprised of 99.9 percent liberal-minded members while that .01% is more conservative. Maybe it's because I'm much older than most of you that I have a different mindset when it comes to socio-political issues. Honestly, I feel that most Americans, regardless of which side of the aisle they are on, want pretty much the same things in life.

As much as the views I presented were a bit exaggerated, so were the views presented in the OP's linked video. Both were done for effect.

Exactly. We are all more alike than what our debates over the "hot topics" usually show. What often gets forgotten is that at the end of the day, more often than not, we are trying to achieve the same goals. :)
 

Crotale

_________________________ _______________
Jan 20, 2008
2,535
12
38
Anywhere But Here
Socialism, Capitalism; it's all a big balancing act. Both have their strengths and both have their weaknesses. A little bit of both seems to work well enough. Lean too far in favor of either one direction and you end up in a rough spot. The Dem's often need the Rep's to pull them back from "crazy" just as the Rep's need the Dem's to pull them back from "crazy".

IMO, the only truely backwards political idealogies around at the moment that are worth avoiding and preventing at all costs are many aspects of Social Conservatism and this new, warmongering bread of Neo-Conservatism. Fiscal Conservatism is fine, but that's not what we've had for the past 8 years.
Yup, I can pretty much agree on all areas. I will never call for the demise of either side because you are correct, we need some balance. The problem I see is that too many extremists on ether "side" get to be the prime voices and that causes more problems than it usually fixes.


Nobody is advocating that religion be outright banned. These "liberals" you speak of, aren't advocating that we ban all religion when they say, "freedom FROM religion". They are saying that they believe that non-religious views (think Atheism, Secular Humanism, etc.) be treated equally to traditional religious views like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.
I have heard a great number of pundits and highly visible public figures refer to it as freedom FROM religion because they do not want anyone to practice it, as though religion is a blight on society. Again, I will agree that maybe the more vocal persons here do not speak for the majority, but that is the impression I'm getting, especially when some of those are elected members of the Government.

The issue with the Ten Commandments is a tricky one. In one hand, it appears to show a Government endorsement of Judeo-Christian beliefs. On the other hand, save for one or two of the Commandments that are specific to the religion(s) in question, they are golden rules that we as a society generally follow. I'm personally okay with either decision to allow its use in public display (as long as it is used in the golden rule context I stated above) or the denial of that display.
 
Last edited:

Soggy_Popcorn

THE Irish Ninja
Feb 3, 2008
564
0
0
I don't understand why people are so against socialism when it's already a part of our country.

Social security, welfare, and the like are tax payers distributing their wealth around to everyone.

Okay, yes, it's costing us billions, and I'm pretty sure the baby boomers are f**king everyone over because they're getting old and senile and there's so many of them, but still.

So... Why are you bitching about more socialism when you should be bitching about the stuff that's already here. :)

Yes, goddammit, it's what places so much unnecessary and detrimental government control over everything. We don't want it.

The issue with the Ten Commandments is a tricky one. In one hand, it appears to show a Government endorsement of Judeo-Christian beliefs. On the other hand, save for one or two of the Commandments that are specific to the religion(s) in question, they are golden rules that we as a society generally follow. I'm personally okay with either decision to allow its use in public display (as long as it is used in the golden rule context I stated above) or the denial of that display.

The thing is, the U.S. government has incorporated Judeo-Christian values since its inception. Even that most famous "deist" Ben Franklin requested prayer sessions in the Constitutional Convention (or whatever it was called).

What often gets forgotten is that at the end of the day, more often than not, we are trying to achieve the same goals. :)

Unfortunately, no. :)

Not only that, there is already socialism for a small cabal of private business interests. When banks were going bust over the sub-prime mortgage crisis, the government bails them out,not the people who lost their homes.

NASA and the Millitary are practically a welfare system for companies like Boeing, Haliburton, Northrop Gruman, Raytheon etc etc Billions and Billions of public monies go to these corporations through goverment contracts to develop pretty useless weapons technologies.

Sorry Greg, but again, this is BS. Yes, the Fed bailed out Bear Stearns, and that was wrong. But now they're siphoning our money into the retards who couldn't figure out how big of a house they could afford. Neither is right, and there is no secret, evil CAPITALIST conspiracy here. Just some retarded closet-socialists in Congress. The reason the gov. has to work so closely with Boeing, Northrop, etc. is because they contribute to national security, and are thus a high priority.
 
Last edited:

Grobut

Комиссар Гробут
Oct 27, 2004
1,822
0
0
Soviet Denmark
There's nothing wrong with socialism other than it hasn't worked. /shrugs

You might want to take a good look at the Scandinavian countries, we have been proving you wrong for about half a century now ;)

Socialism doesen't have to be what we saw in the old USSR and China, there are other ways, much smarter and more humane ways to impliment it, and with the right balance it works very well indeed.
 

TomWithTheWeather

Die Paper Robots!
May 8, 2001
2,898
0
0
43
Dallas TX
tomwiththeweather.blogspot.com
I have heard a great number of pundits and highly visible public figures refer to it as freedom FROM religion because they do not want anyone to practice it, as though religion is a blight on society. Again, I will agree that maybe the more vocal persons here do not speak for the majority, but that is the impression I'm getting, especially when some of those are elected members of the Government.

There are still two different things here.

Yes, some high profile Atheists and other non-believers personally think that religion should go away. I myself would personally like to see many of the negative aspects of organized religion go away. I tend to use the phrase "freedom FROM religion" also, simply because I don't want government endorsed religion or some fanatical fundamentalist to try and convert me by force. That's a violation of my right to believe or not believe what I want to.

But, the respect for the rights of others comes before those personal wishes. I would never try and convert anyone by force. I'll debate and such, but never by force.

Many religious Social Conservatives frame the argument as you just have; that those that use the phrase "freedom FROM religion" are aiming to ban all religion from public and private life. That's simply not true.

The issue with the Ten Commandments is a tricky one. In one hand, it appears to show a Government endorsement of Judeo-Christian beliefs. On the other hand, save for one or two of the Commandments that are specific to the religion(s) in question, they are golden rules that we as a society generally follow. I'm personally okay with either decision to allow its use in public display (as long as it is used in the golden rule context I stated above) or the denial of that display.

So then they should get rid of the few that are specific to Christianity. Some of the Ten Commandments are not specific to Christianity and are fine because everyone can agree upon them. But in hanging those few, it wouldn't be the "Ten" Commandments anymore. ;)

I'd rather them just avoid the mess and not display any of them in a federally controlled building.