PhoenixDark
Banned
Bento said:Nice to see that you Americans also have your fair share of political distractions, western politics is such an embarrassment.
Please tell me you're from Italy
Bento said:Nice to see that you Americans also have your fair share of political distractions, western politics is such an embarrassment.
I find it to be a sad and nihilistic philosophy. I'm not sure why banning me is your response to that observation. I'm addressing the argument, you happen to disagree...isn't that a discussion? I am not hiding behind anything. The social construct of marriage involves an exchange of vows and promises between two people. If you want to define away the integrity of a bond between two people as meaningless as a result of base biological impulses, that's your philosophy and you're welcome to it. I disagree with the entire premise that morality is not involved when discussing fidelity to another person to whom one has made a committment. Am I not allowed to do that without you threatening to ban me?Amir0x said:no i'm doing the don't hide behind the social construct of marriage to try to define something as morally reprehensible. And I'm going to further one up it by saying if you're going to try to insult me and then go further by not showing the respect to actually bother contributing, you'll be removed from this thread faster than you could say "another spineless liberal who cannot follow his political positions to their logical conclusion."
mckmas8808 said:Ami cheating on your wife is not being a man. It's being a little bitch! If he wanted to phone sex hoes all over the country then he should have taken the Derek Jeter route and never got married.
Nah, somebody needs to rage on how others still believe in monogamy first.TacticalFox88 said:When are we gonna move on from Wiener? What's done is done. He's already resigned and as such we should move on.
Amir0x said:I'm not going to blame Weiner for being a fucking MAN who did nothing wrong either lawfully or morally.
mckmas8808 said:Ami cheating on your wife is not being a man. It's being a little bitch! If he wanted to phone sex hoes all over the country then he should have taken the Derek Jeter route and never got married.
elrechazao said:I find it to be a sad and nihilistic philosophy. I'm not sure why banning me is your response to that observation. I'm addressing the argument, you happen to disagree...isn't that a discussion? I am not hiding behind anything. The social construct of marriage involves an exchange of vows and promises between two people. If you want to define away the integrity of a bond between two people as meaningless as a result of base biological impulses, that's your philosophy and you're welcome to it. I disagree with the entire premise that morality is not involved when discussing fidelity to another person to whom one has made a committment. Am I not allowed to do that without you threatening to ban me?
ToxicAdam said:In the real world, people change after they get married. I know this might be a difficult concept for you to grasp onto.
Commutes and not seeing your significant other can drive even more of a wedge into a marriage.
polyh3dron said:Either a teatard nutjob like that Alaskan republican senate candidate Whatshisface, or some idiot lapdog plucked out of obscurity.
Catchy phrase. Perhaps you can start a political movement based on it to get people focused back on the challenges at hand. Oh wait . . . ;-)TacticalFox88 said:When are we gonna move on from Wiener? What's done is done. He's already resigned and as such we should move on.
I hope he's asked about that tweet at the next debate. T-Paw will say something along the lines of how he was responding to a tweet someone else made, wasn't insulting that tall intimidating man standing next to me please don't hurt me ohgodOblivion said:LOL. T-Paw's such a loser:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_06/pawlentys_delayed_reaction030321.php
BOO-URNS! BOO-URNS!speculawyer said:Catchy phrase. Perhaps you can start a political movement based on it to get people focused back on the challenges at hand. Oh wait . . . ;-)
GhaleonEB said:I hope he's asked about that tweet at the next debate. T-Paw will say something along the lines of how he was responding to a tweet someone else made, wasn't insulting that tall intimidating man standing next to me please don't hurt me ohgod
haha Awesome.speculawyer said:Catchy phrase. Perhaps you can start a political movement based on it to get people focused back on the challenges at hand. Oh wait . . . ;-)
Missed this from the last page. I'm in the odd position of being really happy about something the Senate just voted on. I feel weird.Suikoguy said:
obviously you are 100% perfect or 100% flawed.AlteredBeast said:I still believe in monogamy...
Personally I think a man who thinks with his Dick isn't smart enough to govern or leaf much of anything. How did weiner not think he would get caught? He was a congressman for goodness sakes! Stuff like that could never stay a secret. How, then could I trust him to make rational decisions elsewhere?
AlteredBeast said:I still believe in monogamy...
Personally I think a man who thinks with his Dick isn't smart enough to govern or leaf much of anything. How did weiner not think he would get caught? He was a congressman for goodness sakes! Stuff like that could never stay a secret. How, then could I trust him to make rational decisions elsewhere?
Oblivion said:LOL. T-Paw's such a loser:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_06/pawlentys_delayed_reaction030321.php
I don't understand why the popular perception is that people committed to an institution as irrational as marriage are likely to make better decisions.AlteredBeast said:I still believe in monogamy...
Personally I think a man who thinks with his Dick isn't smart enough to govern or leaf much of anything. How did weiner not think he would get caught? He was a congressman for goodness sakes! Stuff like that could never stay a secret. How, then could I trust him to make rational decisions elsewhere?
I stopped reading after the first sentence. What in the fuck?ChoklitReign said:This article is going to make your head spin and explode.
Its thesis? Fox News and Druge are MODERATE.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...1/06/16/book-liberal-media-distorts-news-bias
AlteredBeast said:I still believe in monogamy...
Personally I think a man who thinks with his Dick isn't smart enough to govern or leaf much of anything. How did weiner not think he would get caught? He was a congressman for goodness sakes! Stuff like that could never stay a secret. How, then could I trust him to make rational decisions elsewhere?
Neither is polygamy.ToxicAdam said:Monogamy is not the natural state of man.
ToxicAdam said:Monogamy is not the natural state of man.
Hey, the Senate worked. And it was outside of a lame duck session! In all seriousness, this is quality legislation. Hopefully, in conjunction with the pressing matter of cotton subsidies, they will consider removing additional agricultural subsidies, quotas, etc. Furthermore, while only a minor issue, this will please Brazil and further bilateral relations.Suikoguy said:In other news:
The Senate has voted to end about $6 billion in taxpayer subsidies for the ethanol industry. The vote on an amendment was 73 to 27.
Under the amendment, co-sponsored by Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., refiners would lose the 45-cent-a-gallon subsidy, and the 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol from Brazil and other countries would be eliminated, Reuters writes.
Backing the repeal were 33 Republicans, 38 Democrats and both of the chamber's independents, who caucus with Democrats, The Hill reports. Voting to keep the tax breaks were 14 Republicans and 13 Democrats.
http://content.usatoday.com/communit...ol-subsidies/1]
I don't think he came anywhere near close to committing himself to that position. The two aren't logical opposites.Hitokage said:Neither is polygamy.
ChoklitReign said:This article is going to make your head spin and explode.
Its thesis? Fox News and Druge are MODERATE.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...1/06/16/book-liberal-media-distorts-news-bias
"Fox News is clearly more conservative than ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and National Public Radio. Some will conclude that 'therefore, this means that Fox News has a conservative bias,'" he writes in an advance copy provided to Washington Whispers. "Instead, maybe it is centrist, and possibly even left-leaning, while all the others are far left. It's like concluding that six-three is short just because it is short compared to professional basketball players."
Embarrassing that this guy is a professor at UCLA.What's more, he says, "this point illustrates a common misconception about the Drudge Report. According to my analysis, the Drudge Report is approximately the most fair, balanced, and centrist news outlet in the United States. Yet, the overwhelming majority of media commentators claim that it has a conservative bias. The problem, I believe, is that such commentators mistake relative bias for absolute bias. Yes, the Drudge Report is more conservative than the average U.S. news outlet. But it is a logical mistake to use that to infer that it is based on an absolute scale."
Did someone forget to tell me that it was opposite day today? This piece is straight up Rovian in that regard.ChoklitReign said:This article is going to make your head spin and explode.
Its thesis? Fox News and Druge are MODERATE.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...1/06/16/book-liberal-media-distorts-news-bias
Opiate said:From what I've read, it varies. For a minority of man, it is the natural state. For most, it isn't. For some, polygamy is natural. For others, it may be no marriage at all, just a variety of short term partners.
I'd add that there are lots of things that we do in nature that we don't do any longer, and often for good reason. Saying something "isn't natural" doesn't make it a bad idea. Whether monogamy should be one of those don't-follow-nature things is the question; I think polyamory should be acceptable.
XMonkey said:Embarrassing that this guy is a professor at UCLA.
Absolute bias?Yet, the overwhelming majority of media commentators claim that it has a conservative bias. The problem, I believe, is that such commentators mistake relative bias for absolute bias. Yes, the Drudge Report is more conservative than the average U.S. news outlet. But it is a logical mistake to use that to infer that it is based on an absolute scale."
Well, this makes perfect sense if you agree with . . . . say it with me now . . . "Reality has a well-known left-wing bias"! Seriously . . . that is what he appears to be saying.UCLA political science professor Tim Groseclose in Left Turn claims that "all" mainstream news outlets have a liberal bias in their reporting that makes even moderate organizations appear out of the mainstream and decidedly right-wing to news consumers who are influenced by the slant.
Jackson50 said:Hey, the Senate worked. And it was outside of a lame duck session! In all seriousness, this is quality legislation. Hopefully, in conjunction with the pressing matter of cotton subsidies, they will consider removing additional agricultural subsidies, quotas, etc. Furthermore, while only a minor issue, this will please Brazil and further bilateral relations.
Opiate said:From what I've read, it varies. For a minority of man, it is the natural state. For most, it isn't. For some, polygamy is natural. For others, it may be no marriage at all, just a variety of short term partners.
I'd add that there are lots of things that we do in nature that we don't do any longer, and often for good reason. Saying something "isn't natural" doesn't make it a bad idea. Whether monogamy should be one of those don't-follow-nature things is the question; I think polyamory should be acceptable.
ChoklitReign said:This article is going to make your head spin and explode.
Its thesis? Fox News and Druge are MODERATE.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...1/06/16/book-liberal-media-distorts-news-bias
Um....about that....Oblivion said:Wow, that's the most revolting article I've read all week. This is why political discussions will always be a headache. Because shitheels like that writer consistently shift the political spectrum to the right. Pretty soon believing the Earth is round will be a liberal only domain.
XMonkey said:Embarrassing that this guy is a professor at UCLA.
Instead, maybe it is centrist, and possibly even left-leaning, while all the others are far left.
We'll probably be looking at his name in the thread title for a while.TacticalFox88 said:When are we gonna move on from Wiener? What's done is done. He's already resigned and as such we should move on.
If that was/is the case then shouldn't Weiner take most of the responsibility for faking a marriage?Amir0x said:because, and this is a general rule, it looks a lot better politically to be married. The public at large has been shown to often look a bit suspect at politicians who are at a certain age and still not married, it has even been polled to show this in past years.
Heh, Sounds like a euphemism. Time for the "morning commute!"Manos: The Hans of Fate said:Hence why I make sure to commute with my wife. lol
scola said:Heh, Sounds like a euphemism. Time for the "morning commute!"
ChoklitReign said:This article is going to make your head spin and explode.
Its thesis? Fox News and Druge are MODERATE.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...1/06/16/book-liberal-media-distorts-news-bias
Marcus, a Christian counselor, believes in a homosexual agenda and has referred to gays as barbarians. David Graham reports.
Thats hard to reconcile with other statements hes made, however. Barbarians need to be educated, they need to be disciplined, and just because someone feels it or thinks it, doesnt mean we need to go down that road, he said while discussing homosexuality during the radio interview. We have a responsibility as parents and authority figures not to encourage such thoughts and feelings.
I wouldn't say we're "meant" to be with just one person, or that we're "meant" to be with more than one, post-marriage. I don't think you can use the data you posted and conclude "humans aren't mean to be caged in marriages". One could just as easily use the same data to argue that people get married for the wrong reasons (which you touched on), at the wrong time, how modern society makes many marriages unworkable or easily splinter. I don't think everyone should be married, and about half of the people who do marry do so at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons. Which is why about half of all marriages end in divorce and have adultery as a component of them.Amir0x said:Link
Others roughly put the figure at 30~60%. The point is, humans aren't mean to be caged in marriages. They do it because they were taught to in the society they were raised in. That it was something to aspire to. And that, ultimately, it's a good political decision for someone who is in politics.
That, too.cartoon_soldier said:Not to mention that is only US statistics.
Then may be there are. And if I cheated on my wife it'll be a bitch move on my part. Fidelity is one of the top 3 things that matter in a marriage imo.Byakuya769 said:Wow. Bet there are plenty of "lil bitches" in your life.
Not taking up for the act of adultery, but come off it. With all the shitty things we do to each other, and the ones we love, adultery is the one thing people can be high and mighty about because everyone can be a saint; until they're caught.
GhaleonEB said:I wouldn't say we're "meant" to be with one or more people. I'd argue you can't use the data you posted and conclude "humans aren't mean to be caged in marriages". One could just as easily argue that people get married for the wrong reasons (which you touched on), at the wrong time, how modern society makes many marriages unworkable or easily splinter. Me, I'd argue that not everyone should be married, and that about half of the people who do marry do so at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons. Which is why about half of all marriagtes end in divorce and have adulty as a component of them.
I'm biased, of course, since I've been married 11 years and am very happy in it. But I married the right person at the right time for the right reasons, and I wanted to get married. Zap just one of those factors and you've got the other half of the coin.
cartoon_soldier said:Michelle Bachman's Husband:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ann-s-first-dude-husband-marcus-bachmann.html
I think Democrats should vote for Bachman in any caucuses/primaries they can.