Why Do Liberal/Progressives Seek To Impose Their Views On Others?

[Kondor3]

See, you push values on people against their will. You are a fascist.

Guy, you had no problem pushing values on people when it was the white, Christian majority in charge, filling the restaurant with smoke and buying textbooks for Texas that don't teach about no evolution because Jesus would cry.

You just don't like it that you aren't making the calls anymore.

Thats totally wrong.
No one was obligated to eat in a smokng restaurant.
Local school boards choose textbooks.
As usual you've got nothing.

No one is obligated to marry someone of the same sex.

No, but we (the non-Gay 97% of the country) are fast reaching the point where we will be obliged to recognize at-law the perversion called Gay Marriage; a state of affairs that cannot be allowed to stand, in the long run.

Why should you have the right to impose your views on others and prevent them from marrying?

I dunno.

Why have Gays been barred from marriage within the Judeo-Christian environment for the past 3,000 years?

Why are we allowing you Liberals to shove your Revisionist Activism down our throats in direct contravention to 3,000 of tradition in this context?

 

[idb]

Guy, you had no problem pushing values on people when it was the white, Christian majority in charge, filling the restaurant with smoke and buying textbooks for Texas that don't teach about no evolution because Jesus would cry.

You just don't like it that you aren't making the calls anymore.

Thats totally wrong.
No one was obligated to eat in a smokng restaurant.
Local school boards choose textbooks.
As usual you've got nothing.

No one is obligated to marry someone of the same sex.

No, but we (the non-Gay 97% of the country) are fast reaching the point where we will be obliged to recognize at-law the perversion called Gay Marriage; a state of affairs that cannot be allowed to stand, in the long run.

Why should you have the right to impose your views on others and prevent them from marrying?

I dunno.

Why have Gays been barred from marriage within the Judeo-Christian environment for the past 3,000 years?

You are talking about two different things.
One is marriage as a religious coupling, the other is the legal definition of marriage which gives you recognition under the government.
You can get married without going near a church.

If you don't want to recognise someone as married under God - or whichever supreme being you cheer for - then fine.
What right do you have to impose your views on others and restrict them from having legal recognition though?

 

[Kondor3]

Thats totally wrong.
No one was obligated to eat in a smokng restaurant.
Local school boards choose textbooks.
As usual you've got nothing.

No one is obligated to marry someone of the same sex.

No, but we (the non-Gay 97% of the country) are fast reaching the point where we will be obliged to recognize at-law the perversion called Gay Marriage; a state of affairs that cannot be allowed to stand, in the long run.

Why should you have the right to impose your views on others and prevent them from marrying?

I dunno.

Why have Gays been barred from marriage within the Judeo-Christian environment for the past 3,000 years?

You are talking about two different things. One is marriage as a religious coupling, the other is the legal definition of marriage which gives you recognition under the government. You can get married without going near a church. If you don't want to recognise someone as married under God - or whichever supreme being you cheer for - then fine. What right do you have to impose your views on others and restrict them from having legal recognition though?

The same right by which such aberration was banned originally, and for so long, even within our 230-year-old secular framework.

It is not in the best interests of The Republic nor its People, to legitimize homosexual degeneracy and effeminacy and perversity, with respect to either its specific practices, nor its open presence within society.

When enough people believe that a state of affairs is dangerous or detrimental to The Nation, they move to ensure that the danger or detriment is eliminated or reduced or neutralized, at-law.

It is the right of self-preservation and the right to foster and sustain a society free from perversity.

The US Constitution is not a Suicide Pact.

 

[The Rabbi]

Oops. what does that have to do with corporate welfare? I guess when proven wrong you have to deflect to the next item.
Speaking of which, Israel's strongest supporters are Democrats, like Chuck Schumer.

Well, you got me there on Israeli bitches.

But getting rid of the ACA and refusing to raise taxes on the rich, have a lot to do with corporate welfare. Getting rid of the ACA gets rid of legislation that prevents corporations from charging you with services they don't provide. Like cancelling your coverage due to pre-conditions. Refusing to tax the rich and make them pay the same rate everyone else pays, lets them keep 10% more of their income than the rest of us. We need to raise the tax rate on capital gains and dividends by 10%.

How clueless are you?
ACA mandates insurance companies MUST sell you services you will never need. Mental health counseling, contraceptives, obstetric care for men , etc. The object is to drive up the cost so younger healthier people subsidize older sicker people. The insurance companies were among the most enthusiastic supporters of Obamacare, since it guaranteed them scads of customers.
The rich pay over 100% of the income taxes in this country. The bottom 47% pay no income tax. Who is getting the free ride here?

 

[The Rabbi]

No one is obligated to marry someone of the same sex.

No, but we (the non-Gay 97% of the country) are fast reaching the point where we will be obliged to recognize at-law the perversion called Gay Marriage; a state of affairs that cannot be allowed to stand, in the long run.

Why should you have the right to impose your views on others and prevent them from marrying?

I dunno.

Why have Gays been barred from marriage within the Judeo-Christian environment for the past 3,000 years?

You are talking about two different things. One is marriage as a religious coupling, the other is the legal definition of marriage which gives you recognition under the government. You can get married without going near a church. If you don't want to recognise someone as married under God - or whichever supreme being you cheer for - then fine. What right do you have to impose your views on others and restrict them from having legal recognition though?

The same right by which such aberration was banned originally, and for so long, even within our 230-year-old secular framework.

It is not in the best interests of The Republic nor its People, to legitimize homosexual degeneracy and effeminacy and perversity, with respect to either its specific practices, nor its open presence without society.

When enough people believe that a state of affairs is dangerous or detrimental to The Nation, they move to ensure that the danger or detriment is eliminated or reduced or neutralized.

It is the right of self-preservation and the right to foster and sustain a society free from perversity.

My feeling is if people in MA want gay marriage and vote it in, then they are entitled to do that. But states that passed bans shouldnt be forced to recognize it. Again, libs impose their views on everyone else and think they're moral for doing so.

 

[Kondor3]

No, but we (the non-Gay 97% of the country) are fast reaching the point where we will be obliged to recognize at-law the perversion called Gay Marriage; a state of affairs that cannot be allowed to stand, in the long run.

Why should you have the right to impose your views on others and prevent them from marrying?

I dunno.

Why have Gays been barred from marriage within the Judeo-Christian environment for the past 3,000 years?

You are talking about two different things. One is marriage as a religious coupling, the other is the legal definition of marriage which gives you recognition under the government. You can get married without going near a church. If you don't want to recognise someone as married under God - or whichever supreme being you cheer for - then fine. What right do you have to impose your views on others and restrict them from having legal recognition though?

The same right by which such aberration was banned originally, and for so long, even within our 230-year-old secular framework.

It is not in the best interests of The Republic nor its People, to legitimize homosexual degeneracy and effeminacy and perversity, with respect to either its specific practices, nor its open presence without society.

When enough people believe that a state of affairs is dangerous or detrimental to The Nation, they move to ensure that the danger or detriment is eliminated or reduced or neutralized.

It is the right of self-preservation and the right to foster and sustain a society free from perversity.

My feeling is if people in MA want gay marriage and vote it in, then they are entitled to do that. But states that passed bans shouldnt be forced to recognize it. Again, libs impose their views on everyone else and think they're moral for doing so.

Yes... that is the appropriate middle ground... empowering the licensing authorities to determine eligibility for and recognizability of such licensing.

Trouble is, the goddamned Gay Mafia offshoot of the Liberal faction leverages Federal benefit eligibility as the catalyst to override State determinations, so the State thing falls apart in the end, after all.

With that in mind, the only solution to this emerging perversity will need to be found on the Federal level - another battle, and another conversation, awaiting a more conservative SCOTUS on some future date, to serve-up a better mousetrap at-law... turning the law back upon them... a dose of their own medicine... and Constitutionally defensible.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's the STD transmission rate of same sex married couples?

Don't know, don't really care.

Of course you don't because the facts take a big fat shit on your nonsensical blather.

It's irrelevant. T he fact is that STD rates among homosexuals far exceed the rate among heterosexuals. part of that is the fact that homosexuals have many more partners per year than heterosexuals.

Why is it irrelevant? Is it irrelevant whether someone is married to one person or whether they have several different sex partners a week?

Are lesbians more promiscuous than heterosexual men?

You say that like those are mutually exclusive things.
The fact is that homosexuals have more STDs than heterosexuals as a group. This is simply inconvenient fact.

If there's an argument in there, it's that we should encourage same sex marriage.

 

[The Rabbi]

Don't know, don't really care.

Of course you don't because the facts take a big fat shit on your nonsensical blather.

It's irrelevant. T he fact is that STD rates among homosexuals far exceed the rate among heterosexuals. part of that is the fact that homosexuals have many more partners per year than heterosexuals.

Why is it irrelevant? Is it irrelevant whether someone is married to one person or whether they have several different sex partners a week?

Are lesbians more promiscuous than heterosexual men?

You say that like those are mutually exclusive things.
The fact is that homosexuals have more STDs than heterosexuals as a group. This is simply inconvenient fact.

If there's an argument in there, it's that we should encourage same sex marriage.

No, the argument is if you want same sex marriage then persuade a majority in the state to vote for it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Of course you don't because the facts take a big fat shit on your nonsensical blather.

It's irrelevant. T he fact is that STD rates among homosexuals far exceed the rate among heterosexuals. part of that is the fact that homosexuals have many more partners per year than heterosexuals.

Why is it irrelevant? Is it irrelevant whether someone is married to one person or whether they have several different sex partners a week?

Are lesbians more promiscuous than heterosexual men?

You say that like those are mutually exclusive things.
The fact is that homosexuals have more STDs than heterosexuals as a group. This is simply inconvenient fact.

If there's an argument in there, it's that we should encourage same sex marriage.

No, the argument is if you want same sex marriage then persuade a majority in the state to vote for it.

Why? It's a rights issue. Not what you call a mob rule issue.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's irrelevant. T he fact is that STD rates among homosexuals far exceed the rate among heterosexuals. part of that is the fact that homosexuals have many more partners per year than heterosexuals.

Why is it irrelevant? Is it irrelevant whether someone is married to one person or whether they have several different sex partners a week?

Are lesbians more promiscuous than heterosexual men?

You say that like those are mutually exclusive things.
The fact is that homosexuals have more STDs than heterosexuals as a group. This is simply inconvenient fact.

If there's an argument in there, it's that we should encourage same sex marriage.

No, the argument is if you want same sex marriage then persuade a majority in the state to vote for it.

Why? It's a rights issue. Not what you call a mob rule issue.

There is no issue of rights here. There is no box you check on your application for marriage license that says "homosexual".
It's a policy issue. You want to change policy, do the work. Don't rely on activist judges.

 

[idb]

No one is obligated to marry someone of the same sex.

No, but we (the non-Gay 97% of the country) are fast reaching the point where we will be obliged to recognize at-law the perversion called Gay Marriage; a state of affairs that cannot be allowed to stand, in the long run.

Why should you have the right to impose your views on others and prevent them from marrying?

I dunno.

Why have Gays been barred from marriage within the Judeo-Christian environment for the past 3,000 years?

You are talking about two different things. One is marriage as a religious coupling, the other is the legal definition of marriage which gives you recognition under the government. You can get married without going near a church. If you don't want to recognise someone as married under God - or whichever supreme being you cheer for - then fine. What right do you have to impose your views on others and restrict them from having legal recognition though?

The same right by which such aberration was banned originally, and for so long, even within our 230-year-old secular framework.

It is not in the best interests of The Republic nor its People, to legitimize homosexual degeneracy and effeminacy and perversity, with respect to either its specific practices, nor its open presence within society.

When enough people believe that a state of affairs is dangerous or detrimental to The Nation, they move to ensure that the danger or detriment is eliminated or reduced or neutralized, at-law.

It is the right of self-preservation and the right to foster and sustain a society free from perversity.

The US Constitution is not a Suicide Pact.

Exactly..."degeneracy", "perversity", "aberration"...they are your views and you wish to impose them others.

Just because something has been a law for a long time doesn't make that law right...race laws are a perfect example.

 

[Conservative65]

The usual complaint from libs about conservatives is that they seek to impose their views. Like everything else this is true, but only about libs. Consider gay marriage. Many states voted to amend their constitutions or enact other legislation that defined marriage as one man one woman. Libs werent successful making their case to the public (it was a loser issue at the pols) so they whined to some activist judges, who imposed gay marriage over the will of the people.
Or consider the Oregon bakers, whose business has been destroyed by lesbians offended that they wouldnt bake their wedding cake. And the bakers arent bigots, as often assumed. The lesbians picked the place because they were frequent customers there.
Or look at the demonization of smoking and smokers, who are considered one step above child molester in the media.
Or Common Core, which seeks to impose a national standard on what has traditionally been a local issue.
Or, but you get the point here.
Progs cant help themselves from wanting to make America look like their vision, where everyone practices safe sex and recylces to prevent global warming.
This isnt a free society. This is fascism in action.

Cause we want to live in a fair and free society.

How is forcing people to do things either fair or free?

Cause if you dont pay ss we will have to take care of your old broke ass and if you call 911 we will have to save your sorry life

Is it fair that some low skilled worker that earns minimum wage his/her entire working career will get out of SS far more than they put in after just a few years while people like my dad who earned a high wage and now draws, unless he lives to a very old age, won't get out what he was forced to put in?

Why do you ASSume that those of us who would rather invest our own money as we see fit will have to be taken care of. I have invested wisely and as it stands now, SS will be a bonus. I'll be more than happy to take it whether I need it or not for the sole reason that I was forced to put into it. I will gladly do so whether someone else needs it more than me.

Not everyone is as smart or as successful as you. I met a woman yesterday living on $700 a month. If we didn't make her pay into ss shed have nothing.

The next generation isnt saving shit. They're going to need ss. Americans no longer make enough to save.

Others not being as smart and successful as me doesn't mean it's my responsibility to support them.

Interesting how you think I should be forced to pay into something because someone else isn't doing what they should be doing. If they don't meet their own responsibility, let them do without. It's not my place to make up for their slack attitudes.

 

[Conservative65]

Why is it irrelevant? Is it irrelevant whether someone is married to one person or whether they have several different sex partners a week?

Are lesbians more promiscuous than heterosexual men?

You say that like those are mutually exclusive things.
The fact is that homosexuals have more STDs than heterosexuals as a group. This is simply inconvenient fact.

If there's an argument in there, it's that we should encourage same sex marriage.

No, the argument is if you want same sex marriage then persuade a majority in the state to vote for it.

Why? It's a rights issue. Not what you call a mob rule issue.

There is no issue of rights here. There is no box you check on your application for marriage license that says "homosexual".
It's a policy issue. You want to change policy, do the work. Don't rely on activist judges.

They know for the most part that despite the work, they still wouldn't be successful. That's how the left works. They can't win in the realm of legislation so they find sympathetic judges that force it against the will of the majority.

 

[The Rabbi]

You say that like those are mutually exclusive things.
The fact is that homosexuals have more STDs than heterosexuals as a group. This is simply inconvenient fact.

If there's an argument in there, it's that we should encourage same sex marriage.

No, the argument is if you want same sex marriage then persuade a majority in the state to vote for it.

Why? It's a rights issue. Not what you call a mob rule issue.

There is no issue of rights here. There is no box you check on your application for marriage license that says "homosexual".
It's a policy issue. You want to change policy, do the work. Don't rely on activist judges.

They know for the most part that despite the work, they still wouldn't be successful. That's how the left works. They can't win in the realm of legislation so they find sympathetic judges that force it against the will of the majority.

That's exactly right. That is why they are fascists.

 

[Conservative65]

If there's an argument in there, it's that we should encourage same sex marriage.

No, the argument is if you want same sex marriage then persuade a majority in the state to vote for it.

Why? It's a rights issue. Not what you call a mob rule issue.

There is no issue of rights here. There is no box you check on your application for marriage license that says "homosexual".
It's a policy issue. You want to change policy, do the work. Don't rely on activist judges.

They know for the most part that despite the work, they still wouldn't be successful. That's how the left works. They can't win in the realm of legislation so they find sympathetic judges that force it against the will of the majority.

That's exactly right. That is why they are fascists.

Yet they'll claim they believe in liberty and freedom. Just propose doing something they don't think you should do and see how quickly they come up with a reason why it's OK for the government to decide for you.

I'm having a conversation now with someone related to social security. They justify forcing people to be a part of it by claiming that people won't save on their own, therefore, if the government doesn't make them do something, they'll have nothing when they can no longer work.

 

[Conservative65]

How does wanting the federal government to abide by the Constitution make you think I hate America? I despise anyone that thinks I owe them something in life.

Does that include corporate welfare?

No such thing.

 

[sealybobo]

Cause we want to live in a fair and free society.

How is forcing people to do things either fair or free?

Cause if you dont pay ss we will have to take care of your old broke ass and if you call 911 we will have to save your sorry life

Is it fair that some low skilled worker that earns minimum wage his/her entire working career will get out of SS far more than they put in after just a few years while people like my dad who earned a high wage and now draws, unless he lives to a very old age, won't get out what he was forced to put in?

Why do you ASSume that those of us who would rather invest our own money as we see fit will have to be taken care of. I have invested wisely and as it stands now, SS will be a bonus. I'll be more than happy to take it whether I need it or not for the sole reason that I was forced to put into it. I will gladly do so whether someone else needs it more than me.

Not everyone is as smart or as successful as you. I met a woman yesterday living on $700 a month. If we didn't make her pay into ss shed have nothing.

The next generation isnt saving shit. They're going to need ss. Americans no longer make enough to save.

Others not being as smart and successful as me doesn't mean it's my responsibility to support them.

Interesting how you think I should be forced to pay into something because someone else isn't doing what they should be doing. If they don't meet their own responsibility, let them do without. It's not my place to make up for their slack attitudes.

We tried it your way. It led to the great depression. Tried it again and it led to the 2007 great recession.

 

[Conservative65]

How is forcing people to do things either fair or free?

Cause if you dont pay ss we will have to take care of your old broke ass and if you call 911 we will have to save your sorry life

Is it fair that some low skilled worker that earns minimum wage his/her entire working career will get out of SS far more than they put in after just a few years while people like my dad who earned a high wage and now draws, unless he lives to a very old age, won't get out what he was forced to put in?

Why do you ASSume that those of us who would rather invest our own money as we see fit will have to be taken care of. I have invested wisely and as it stands now, SS will be a bonus. I'll be more than happy to take it whether I need it or not for the sole reason that I was forced to put into it. I will gladly do so whether someone else needs it more than me.

Not everyone is as smart or as successful as you. I met a woman yesterday living on $700 a month. If we didn't make her pay into ss shed have nothing.

The next generation isnt saving shit. They're going to need ss. Americans no longer make enough to save.

Others not being as smart and successful as me doesn't mean it's my responsibility to support them.

Interesting how you think I should be forced to pay into something because someone else isn't doing what they should be doing. If they don't meet their own responsibility, let them do without. It's not my place to make up for their slack attitudes.

We tried it your way. It led to the great depression. Tried it again and it led to the 2007 great recession.

We've tried it your way for 50 years with the war on poverty and we still have the same percentage of people in poverty as we had before such programs were started. Difference is trillions of dollars have been wasted thinking that handing someone another person's money will cause them to start supporting themselves.

Sad thing about SS is that many people will get out more than they put in while people like my dad who put in at a high salary won't unless he lives to 100 years old. Guess that's OK with you as long as the lowlife leeches get more than they deserve.

 

[The Rabbi]

How is forcing people to do things either fair or free?

Cause if you dont pay ss we will have to take care of your old broke ass and if you call 911 we will have to save your sorry life

Is it fair that some low skilled worker that earns minimum wage his/her entire working career will get out of SS far more than they put in after just a few years while people like my dad who earned a high wage and now draws, unless he lives to a very old age, won't get out what he was forced to put in?

Why do you ASSume that those of us who would rather invest our own money as we see fit will have to be taken care of. I have invested wisely and as it stands now, SS will be a bonus. I'll be more than happy to take it whether I need it or not for the sole reason that I was forced to put into it. I will gladly do so whether someone else needs it more than me.

Not everyone is as smart or as successful as you. I met a woman yesterday living on $700 a month. If we didn't make her pay into ss shed have nothing.

The next generation isnt saving shit. They're going to need ss. Americans no longer make enough to save.

Others not being as smart and successful as me doesn't mean it's my responsibility to support them.

Interesting how you think I should be forced to pay into something because someone else isn't doing what they should be doing. If they don't meet their own responsibility, let them do without. It's not my place to make up for their slack attitudes.

We tried it your way. It led to the great depression. Tried it again and it led to the 2007 great recession.

No, progressives brought us the Great Depression. Progressives brought is the Great Recessiopn as well.

 

[Conservative65]

Cause if you dont pay ss we will have to take care of your old broke ass and if you call 911 we will have to save your sorry life

Is it fair that some low skilled worker that earns minimum wage his/her entire working career will get out of SS far more than they put in after just a few years while people like my dad who earned a high wage and now draws, unless he lives to a very old age, won't get out what he was forced to put in?

Why do you ASSume that those of us who would rather invest our own money as we see fit will have to be taken care of. I have invested wisely and as it stands now, SS will be a bonus. I'll be more than happy to take it whether I need it or not for the sole reason that I was forced to put into it. I will gladly do so whether someone else needs it more than me.

Not everyone is as smart or as successful as you. I met a woman yesterday living on $700 a month. If we didn't make her pay into ss shed have nothing.

The next generation isnt saving shit. They're going to need ss. Americans no longer make enough to save.

Others not being as smart and successful as me doesn't mean it's my responsibility to support them.

Interesting how you think I should be forced to pay into something because someone else isn't doing what they should be doing. If they don't meet their own responsibility, let them do without. It's not my place to make up for their slack attitudes.

We tried it your way. It led to the great depression. Tried it again and it led to the 2007 great recession.

No, progressives brought us the Great Depression. Progressives brought is the Great Recessiopn as well.

Sealybobo says we've tried it the Conservative way and it didn't work. I guess the trillions spent on the war on poverty, despite the same percentage of people still being in poverty as when it started, is something Progs consider a success. Trillions of dollars invested with no return.