The Democrat Thread

[Soxbadger]

I understood your position.

 

I just wanted to make it crystal clear why Kap's position is so terribly illogical and give a specific historical example of the exact same situation using Lincoln (I would almost bet that every historical shift in rights was tied to some sort of political gain or deal to keep power, even the Magna Carta. Its not like the King of England just decided "Oh lets give them rights", it was a deal to keep power. I guess I just am shocked that either Kap is extremely naive or just so divisive of a person that even when Obama does something to give people rights, he still wants to turn it into a negative, I just cant stand people who cant give their opponents credit or respect for the good, its a terribly petty trait.)

 

Anyways its really offensive to me and one of my best friends is a lesbian, and if you are friends with people who are not "normal" you understand just how real these issues are. To make light of this, to try and turn it into a bad thing, that just is not going to stand.

 

If I am sheep, then this sheep will roar.

[farmteam]

No, a definition of a sheep is just allowing yourself to be sucked in, saying RAH RAH RAH!!! by a weak sauce president who is using a sensitized issue for a political prop and to shake a group down for more money. You all are praising a stance that may be right or wrong (which you keep assuming my stance but you don't know) that is 100% allowing your position to be used. He did it TODAY because the pollsters told him to. Quick. Call GMA, because now I'm for gay marriage! (sic). It's a disgusting, purely political bald face move. I'm glad you all support using gay people like that. I sure don't, and frankly I don't have a problem with the issue at all. But I sure do mind it for a political prop and you all cheer it on ... so hisssstoric!!

 

The biggest condemnation here seems to be liberals are glad Obama used gays as a prop.

 

People in this thread have repeatedly said "but what if the group affected is GLAD (pun intended) to be used as a political prop if that's the only way they'll get these rights that have been denied to them?"

 

And you keep ignoring that question.

[kapkomet]

The biggest condemnation here seems to be liberals are glad Obama used gays as a prop.

 

People in this thread have repeatedly said "but what if the group affected is GLAD (pun intended) to be used as a political prop if that's the only way they'll get these rights that have been denied to them?"

 

And you keep ignoring that question.

 

No, I don't. I'm glad you "settle" for being used. If it's a principled stance, so be it. This isn't. Nonetheless, you are all in love again because we have a leader who loves to play people's emotions instead of being a real leader.

 

It's sad you can't see that.

[Soxbadger]

No, a definition of a sheep is just allowing yourself to be sucked in, saying RAH RAH RAH!!! by a weak sauce president who is using a sensitized issue for a political prop and to shake a group down for more money. You all are praising a stance that may be right or wrong (which you keep assuming my stance but you don't know) that is 100% allowing your position to be used. He did it TODAY because the pollsters told him to. Quick. Call GMA, because now I'm for gay marriage! (sic). It's a disgusting, purely political bald face move. I'm glad you all support using gay people like that. I sure don't, and frankly I don't have a problem with the issue at all. But I sure do mind it for a political prop and you all cheer it on ... so hisssstoric!!

 

I dont know your stance because you are to afraid to say it. Unlike the rest of us, who are willing to stand by their position, you meekly refuse to say what you believe. Man up, Im so sick of your cowardice. You know how easy it is to attack people and never offer a solution? A child can do it, I could train a 6 year old to argue this way, only the weakest minded person is persuaded by it. Because anyone who actually thinks for themselves, asks the follow up question:

 

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

 

Just come out and say it, instead of dancing around the issue.

 

As for the rah rah, let me guess something about you, you are a christian male. Because when you are a minority, and when your life has been s***ty for thousands of years, you dont give 2 s***s about the reasons why you get youre freedom. I dont hear a lot of Jews worrying about the fact that Israel was given to them as blood money for the World War II. I dont hear a lot of blacks complaining about Lincoln only freeing them because it helped with the Civil War, I dont hear a lot of people complaining about LBJ doing the right thing even if he didnt agree with it.

 

Why?

 

Not because of your nonsensical premise that its because they are sheep, its because they arent sheep. And they arent willing to let people like you try and convince them that some how their life is better because they arent been given rights.

 

You know thats a thing right?

 

You remind me of John Calhoun, his basic style of argument was similar to yours. He rationalized that slavery was actually better for slaves, because if you compared them to people in Africa, some of them could read and they all had Jesus Christ/Christianity, which is far better than being free in a jungle. And that the reason why Northerners wanted to free the slaves wasnt because they were altruistic white people, its because it would cripple the South.

 

So you know what those slaves should have done, they should have refused to accept freedom. Those damn northerners using them for a prop, how terrible of them. I a gentle Southern Slave owner refuse to agree with this, the South actually left the Union because they did not want to be a part of using black people like that.

 

Oh, and you know, LBJ was bigoted before he turned into a race hero, right? .... ..... ........

 

It's not (the) issue, it's that you all just jump right in and drain the swamp with someone who has no moral compass whatsoever.

 

 

See above, baah.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Soxbadger]

No, I don't. I'm glad you "settle" for being used. If it's a principled stance, so be it. This isn't. Nonetheless, you are all in love again because we have a leader who loves to play people's emotions instead of being a real leader.

 

It's sad you can't see that.

 

No whats sad is that you dont see that every single leader in the history of mankind did the exact same thing. You actually somehow believe that these people get into power and then do something for the good of humanity.

 

That is what being a sheep is.

 

/sigh

[farmteam]

No, I don't. I'm glad you "settle" for being used. If it's a principled stance, so be it. This isn't. Nonetheless, you are all in love again because we have a leader who loves to play people's emotions instead of being a real leader.

 

It's sad you can't see that.

 

I should stop being surprised in the Buster when people do not read what I've written and then respond to what I haven't said.

[Balta1701]

No, I don't. I'm glad you "settle" for being used. If it's a principled stance, so be it. This isn't. Nonetheless, you are all in love again because we have a leader who loves to play people's emotions instead of being a real leader.

 

It's sad you can't see that.

A principled stance in favor of hate is still a stance in favor of hate, and you're quite clearly arguing you'd rather have that.

 

And that goes right back to te term "disgusting" you threw around earlier.

[Soxbadger]

I should stop being surprised in the Buster when people do not read what I've written and then respond to what I haven't said.

 

Its easier to be evasive and attack, then actually take a position and defend.

 

Cant pin someone down on in the internet.

[kapkomet]

I should stop being surprised in the Buster when people do not read what I've written and then respond to what I haven't said.

 

 

Oh, like I get almost every post?

 

MMMkay.

[southsider2k5]

No, the Republican is the disgusting one. Whatever motivation moves a person away from that is a win.

 

Why this argument is pointless.

[southsider2k5]

Tweet I posted 2 pages ago.

 

Because the 50 years spent opposing them publicly now just disappears.

[southsider2k5]

A principled stance in favor of hate is still a stance in favor of hate, and you're quite clearly arguing you'd rather have that.

 

And that goes right back to te term "disgusting" you threw around earlier.

 

And Obama has spent a lifetime hating. Now that gets forgotten, and then by some miracle it gets added to the party platform on the same day. The thing is if he is willing to change this one there is no reason to stop him from switching again.

[Balta1701]

Because the 50 years spent opposing them publicly now just disappears.

Wow, I didn't expect such a strong endorsement of reparations from you.

[southsider2k5]

Wow, I didn't expect such a strong endorsement of reparations from you.

 

According to you there is no need. He switched positions, all is fine.

[Soxbadger]

And Obama has spent a lifetime hating. Now that gets forgotten, and then by some miracle it gets added to the party platform on the same day. The thing is if he is willing to change this one there is no reason to stop him from switching again.

 

You are right, there is no reason to trust Obama.

 

But if given 2 options:

 

1) We are going to change and do what you want

 

or

 

2) We arent going to change and we arent going to do what you want.

 

Dont you take option 1, even if it may not come true? There is no other alternative position, the Republican party is not promoting a more pro-equality position, so why should any rationale person care about the reasoning.

 

No one is even mentioning that the people were holding the money back to try and force Obama's hand. Politics are dirty, its about results.

[Balta1701]

And Obama has spent a lifetime hating. Now that gets forgotten, and then by some miracle it gets added to the party platform on the same day. The thing is if he is willing to change this one there is no reason to stop him from switching again.

Frankly, yes.

 

I will not hold it against people if they admit they were wrong for being a bigot in the past.

 

I hold it against them for continuing to be one.

 

The only way change happens is for people to change. A principled stand as a bigot is still a bigot.

[Balta1701]

According to you there is no need. He switched positions, all is fine.

There is still legislative work to be done, And bigoted damage like te NC hate amendment passed yesterday to undo. But I will not pretend that having people come out and publicly offer support is not a necessary step.

 

Which is why I've invited condemnation of that kind of hate about a half dozen times...only to be met by crickets.

[kapkomet]

You are right, there is no reason to trust Obama.

 

But if given 2 options:

 

1) We are going to change and do what you want

 

or

 

2) We arent going to change and we arent going to do what you want.

 

Dont you take option 1, even if it may not come true? There is no other alternative position, the Republican party is not promoting a more pro-equality position, so why should any rationale person care about the reasoning.

 

No one is even mentioning that the people were holding the money back to try and force Obama's hand. Politics are dirty, its about results.

 

Yes, I did, which is why I find the whole thing reprehensible.

 

But all is well in liberal land.

[BigSqwert]

How long before Shep Smith is ousted for not towing the bigotry line?

[BigSqwert]

Yes, I did, which is why I find the whole thing reprehensible.

But for some reason it's not reprehensible that a group of people are being treated as less than equals? Nice priorities.

[kapkomet]

Frankly, yes.

 

I will not hold it against people if they admit they were wrong for being a bigot in the past.

 

I hold it against them for continuing to be one.

 

The only way change happens is for people to change. A principled stand as a bigot is still a bigot.

 

And a liar is a liar, and a shakedown is a shakedown.

 

Whatever. You sheeple move the goalposts so bad you can't see the forest at all. TREE!

 

Like I said, he doesn't mean a damn thing he says. But he said what you wanted to hear, so he gets money, and all is forgiven and well in la la land.

[BigSqwert]

Like I said, he doesn't mean a damn thing he says. But he said what you wanted to hear, so he gets money, and all is forgiven and well in la la land.

What the hell are you even talking about? I will not send one penny to him. Who the hell cares what he feels inside about the issue? Ultimately this is good news for the gay community but obviously you could care less about that.

[kapkomet]

But for some reason it's not reprehensible that a group of people are being treated as less than equals? Nice priorities.

 

 

But for some reason it's not reprehensible that a group of people are being treated as pawns over an issue that shouldn't be one to begin with? Nice priorities.

[kapkomet]

What the hell are you even talking about? I will not send one penny to him. Who the hell cares what he feels inside about the issue? Ultimately this is good news for the gay community but obviously you could care less about that.

 

 

Don't read half the posts and start sniping, killer.

[BigSqwert]

But for some reason it's not reprehensible that a group of people are being treated as pawns over an issue that shouldn't be one to begin with? Nice priorities.

You make no sense and your argument is childish. The absolute number one priority here is treating gays as equals and that seems to be number 48 on your list of priorities regarding this topic.

Edited May 10, 2012 by BigSqwert