If a person wasn't black/purple/whatever would racism still apply?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.
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.
I didn't know Bill O'Reilly posted on BuF!...idiocy...
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.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?
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?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.
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.
SkaarjMaster, there's nothing wrong with socialism.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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 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.
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.
What often gets forgotten is that at the end of the day, more often than not, we are trying to achieve the same goals.
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.
There's nothing wrong with socialism other than it hasn't worked. /shrugs
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.