Obama throws Gay community under the bus...

[Nik]

really....speech is a "behavior"....really....the constitution guarantees the behavior of speech....really....has nothing to do with the content or thoughts, the constitution protects the use of your vocal chords...really

Yes really the constitution protects speech, and it doesn't have to be vocal either, see the Tinker case and flag burning for more details.

it is not the behavior being protected, give me a break...it is the content, the thought, the symbol...etc...NOT the behavior, if was the behavior alone, then yelling fire in a crowded theater would be protected

Well them homosexuality isn't a behavior. Thrusting in and out (or being thrust into and out of) is the behavior. Homosexuality (whether the person is a woman or a man) is just the content.

Works both ways, eh?

 

[Nik]

Was this the bus Obama threw the homosexuals under?

Was he driving the bus at the time?

What the fuck is that stupid whore smiling about... because she's sick in the head?

Umm, and you were complaining about the sexism of liberals?

 

[Yurt]

Yes really the constitution protects speech, and it doesn't have to be vocal either, see the Tinker case and flag burning for more details.

it is not the behavior being protected, give me a break...it is the content, the thought, the symbol...etc...NOT the behavior, if was the behavior alone, then yelling fire in a crowded theater would be protected

Well them homosexuality isn't a behavior. Thrusting in and out (or being thrust into and out of) is the behavior. Homosexuality (whether the person is a woman or a man) is just the content.

Works both ways, eh?

 

[Nik]

it is not the behavior being protected, give me a break...it is the content, the thought, the symbol...etc...NOT the behavior, if was the behavior alone, then yelling fire in a crowded theater would be protected

Well them homosexuality isn't a behavior. Thrusting in and out (or being thrust into and out of) is the behavior. Homosexuality (whether the person is a woman or a man) is just the content.

Works both ways, eh?

Let me guess...you couldn't explain why I was wrong, so you decided to post a picture with the hope that people would be impressed? I mean it fools the rightwingers, so I guess its not that bad of a strategy, but your still a fucking retard.

 

[Yurt]

your epic fail speaks for itself....

 

[Nik]

your epic fail speaks for itself....i've already explained to you exactly how it is not the behavior of speech that is protected, but you're such an arrogant moron you can't admit you're wrong so you give a complete and utter false analogy to sticking your cock in someone's ass as not behavior....

Oh, do explain how its a "complete and utter false analogy".

You defined behavior in an asinine way. Rather than play semantics, I showed you why that defining behavior as that works against you. Don't blame me if your too stupid to realize the consequences of your own arguments.

 

[Nik]

your epic fail speaks for itself....

Lmfao. Thought better of the complete and utter bullshit you spewed before? It speaks for itself so obviously that you tried to explain it...and then edited it away?

Nice try.

 

[FactFinder]

Everyone can speak or at least sign. Not everyone engages in Homosexual behavior and more than half find such behavior a bit crass to put it mildly.

Put it this way if a constitutional ban can pass muster in California and the only hope you have in almost every state in the union is the courts cramming it down peoples throats rather than pissing off half the people in the country and risking making a hero out of Fred Phelps find a work around that provides you the same benefits as marriage and call it something else... Oh wait that already exists. You just want to cram your sexual mores down everyone else's throat.

Your conflating the ability to do something and the actual engagement in that act. How bout you leave the government out of peoples sex lives, eh?

How about you leave people's sex lives out of the government?

 

[007]

Proof?

Our society today as compared to what it was July 6th, 1955, when I was born. A lot has changed, much of which, not for the better.

Fail. This isn't even you failing to see in shades of grey, this is just failing basic logic.

Ppphht...

What a moron.

 

[007]

Was this the bus Obama threw the homosexuals under?

Was he driving the bus at the time?

What the fuck is that stupid whore smiling about... because she's sick in the head?

Umm, and you were complaining about the sexism of liberals?

You go ahead and call me pointing out perversion what ever you want zit face.

 

[Nik]

Everyone can speak or at least sign. Not everyone engages in Homosexual behavior and more than half find such behavior a bit crass to put it mildly.

Put it this way if a constitutional ban can pass muster in California and the only hope you have in almost every state in the union is the courts cramming it down peoples throats rather than pissing off half the people in the country and risking making a hero out of Fred Phelps find a work around that provides you the same benefits as marriage and call it something else... Oh wait that already exists. You just want to cram your sexual mores down everyone else's throat.

Your conflating the ability to do something and the actual engagement in that act. How bout you leave the government out of peoples sex lives, eh?

How about you leave people's sex lives out of the government?

Wtf? What do you even mean by this?

 

[Sinatra]

This thread was on the brink - then brought back...but now brain dead.

RIP Gay Obama Bus thread...

 

[RadiomanATL]

DOMA is currently the law, and the executive branch should uphold it. If they want to change it, then Obama should have his compatriots in congress introduce a bill to repeal or change it.

Now, having said that, I couldn't give a tinker's damn if homosexuals wish to marry. It does not affect my marriage in the least. And anyone who says that it affects them, unless they are gay, is full of it.

Well you're one person with one opinion. Thank God the vast majority DO care what marriage is, and want to keep it that way without being defiled by a bunch of perverts.

Vast majority? Marriage defiled? The only way homosexuals marrying each other could defile someone's marriage is if they invite the homosexuals into their marriage.

Methinks you're long on feeling, but a little short on facts. Like most liberals.

 

[JBeukema]

DOMA is currently the law, and the executive branch should uphold it. If they want to change it, then Obama should have his compatriots in congress introduce a bill to repeal or change it.

Now, having said that, I couldn't give a tinker's damn if homosexuals wish to marry. It does not affect my marriage in the least. And anyone who says that it affects them, unless they are gay, is full of it.

Well you're one person with one opinion. Thank God the vast majority DO care what marriage is, and want to keep it that way without being defiled by a bunch of perverts.

Vast majority? Marriage defiled? The only way homosexuals marrying each other could defile someone's marriage is if they invite the homosexuals into their marriage.

Methinks you're long on feeling, but a little short on facts. Like most liberals.

you realize that PR's post expresses a conservative/neo-conservative iew, right?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Well you're one person with one opinion. Thank God the vast majority DO care what marriage is, and want to keep it that way without being defiled by a bunch of perverts.

Vast majority? Marriage defiled? The only way homosexuals marrying each other could defile someone's marriage is if they invite the homosexuals into their marriage.

Methinks you're long on feeling, but a little short on facts. Like most liberals.

you realize that PR's post expresses a conservative/neo-conservative iew, right?

Letting the government gain more power over the personal lives of citizens is most definitely not conservative.

Don't really care what they "claim" to be.

 

[JBeukema]

Vast majority? Marriage defiled? The only way homosexuals marrying each other could defile someone's marriage is if they invite the homosexuals into their marriage.

Methinks you're long on feeling, but a little short on facts. Like most liberals.

you realize that PR's post expresses a conservative/neo-conservative iew, right?

Letting the government gain more power over the personal lives of citizens is most definitely not conservative.

Don't really care what they "claim" to be.

Conservative: Seeking to preserve the status quo or bring about a return to the staus quo ante

The desire to 'preserve' that which is 'traditional' or enforce archaic religious laws and thought processes is conservativism in the strictest sense


moron

 

[RadiomanATL]

you realize that PR's post expresses a conservative/neo-conservative iew, right?

Letting the government gain more power over the personal lives of citizens is most definitely not conservative.

Don't really care what they "claim" to be.

Conservative: Seeking to preserve the status quo or bring about a return to the staus quo ante

The desire to 'preserve' that which is 'traditional' or enforce archaic religious laws and thought processes is conservativism in the strictest sense


moron

Well, that's one narrow definition. Feel free to narrow all political philosophies down to one sentence. It sure won't demonstrate any deep thought on your part, but from your reply I do not think anyone was expecting any anyway.

 

[JBeukema]

You said his statement was not conservative. I demonstrated that it is, in fact, conservative by even the strictest definition.

You tried to call PR a liberal based on a conservative statement, and now you're trying to save face. It's not working, though- you still look like a fool.

 

[RadiomanATL]

You said his statement was not conservative. I demonstrated that it is, in fact, conservative by even the strictest definition.

Nope. Go back and re-read what I wrote:


Methinks you're long on feeling, but a little short on facts. Like most liberals.


I am not referencing his statement. I'm referencing his views on the subject. And I also didn't call him a liberal directly. I said he was expressing a liberal viewpoint. I've also already basically told you that your "strictest definition" of a conservative is, well, hogwash. Under your definition conservatives would be pining away for the days of FDR and the New Deal. After all, that was the status quo ante and would be a return to the past. I can assure you that this is not the case, therefore your definition is severely flawed.

But by all means keep banging this same drum over and over....it just makes it easier to point out the flaws in your arguments.

 

[JBeukema]

said he was expressing a liberal viewpoint

Which is false and has been shown to be such.

I've also already basically told you that your "strictest definition" of a conservative is, well, hogwash. Under your definition conservatives would be pining away for the days of FDR and the New Deal.

Really? They could go farther back and call fora return to the 1700s. Some strict Constitutionalists do, in fact. or they could call for the status quo ante circa 200BS or 1987. all would be Conservatives in the strictest sense.

After all, that was the status quo ante and would be a return to the past. I can assure you that this is not the case, therefore your definition is severely flawed.

Not all 'conservatives' adhere to the same ideology. You have Conservatives, 'neo-cons', 'right-wing'- all referring to different groups, depending on who is speaking

But by all means keep banging this same drum over and over....it just makes it easier to point out the flaws in your arguments.

Which is impossible, since none exist. You have been shown wrong and now you're scrambling to save face.

the fact reamins: PR's comment regarding gay marriage was neither liberal nor progressive in any sense. It was conservative by all applicable definitions.