Support NeoGAF

[explodet]

I read a lot of political commentary

Where do you go for your political commentary?

 

[HyperionX]

Pro Abortion
Pro Gay rights
Legalising drugs
Anti-Christianity
Pro-Pornography (which some of you will be like WTH?)

What I like about Democrats is:
National Healthcare
Care for the Poor such as tax breaks
Minority support (support for hispanics and African Americans)

Then I see that you've been tricked by the Republican party. Don't say I didn't warn you but the Republican utterly love your kind of people. This country needs Healthcare, welfare, etc., and the Republicans have bought you off with the classic guns, gays, god, and abortion trick. Congradulations, you've traded what's important with some potboilers. At some point you just need to realize things like anti-christianity, pro-pornography and legalizing drugs are just madeup bullshit and no one is in favor on the left, and the rest you're gonna have to realize that will eventually happen whether you like it or not.

 

[HyperionX]

oh, can you give me some obvious proof that the christian right has hijacked the Republicans?

see how silly that sounds, I don't need proof because I know that is true.

*looks at Bush* Need I say more? :lol



This is silly dude, it really is.

 

[Ned Flanders]

oh, can you give me some obvious proof that the christian right has hijacked the Republicans?

see how silly that sounds, I don't need proof because I know that is true.

So are you asking me for proof, or not? The list is long, spanning everything from "faith-based initiatives" to outright public endoresement of Republican candidates by churches. But if you're saying that you already accept that the party is in large part under the sway of the religious right then I guess there's no point in me going on. In fact you've given little reason for anyone to attempt to continue this "discussion" with you considering that you're not interested in rational discourse.

 

[Che]

Pro Abortion -- no, pro-choice. I'm against abortion, but for a woman's right to choose. I'd venture most 'liberals' feel the same way.

Pro Gay rights -- yes. Gay folk are human beings and deserve all the basic rights shared by 'heterosexuals'.

Legalising drugs -- some drugs. Can you demonstrate that marijuana is worse for you than, say, alcohol, beyond any reasonable doubt? And that legalizing drugs would have bad effect on society?

Anti-Christianity -- no, just anti government-sponsored evangelism. No-one wants ANYONE to stop being Christian; they just don't want their children exposed to one religion, and in many cases, one specific flavor of that religion as practiced by the instructor, especially if it countermands the teaching of their own religion or parents.

Pro-Pornography (which some of you will be like WTH?) -- nothing wrong with sexual urges. All pornography is not created equal, though, and the kind that exploits children or people against their will is demonstrably bad for society.

The liberal social stance is one of civil freedom: that a person thus inclined can go down to the store and buy weed and a few skin mags, marry his buddy on the weekend, and do a little life councilling with his recently-pregnant teenage sister. Likewise, a person thus inclined can go to their church and worship the God of their choosing, write long tracts about the evils of buying weed and skin mags and marrying dudes, and stand outside an abortion clinic to remind all the people that pass through its doors of their fiery fate. Everyone is happy, except folks like you who want to codify their peculiar and exclusive perspectives into law.

Once again, we see a common theme in your complaints -- that a refusal to endorse one of your beliefs is somehow magically identical to being against it. The public sphere is about commonality; about those things that are common to all people, by and large. Christianity is a very exclusive and specific thing, and it should not be endorsed or sponsored by the government. (And in case that continues to escape you, that does NOT mean it should be banned, or that people should not be allowed religious expression.)

Specific to your little link: why SHOULD God have a place in a PUBLIC school? Why should the goverment do the work of your church?

Docwiz please answer this. I would love to see your response.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

God in their eyes should be illegal.

Not illegal, but rather alegal.

Well thats great, but that isn't what it means now. You want to look back in the past, I would rather look towards the future. The left wing liberals also hijacked the Democratic party with whom I do like some ideas about the democrats including National Healthcare, but they can leave the left wing liberal stuff at home.

If the Democrats were putting up crazy-liberal candidates, I might vote for them more often. I wish a non-Christian would have a half chance as a major candidate. Then again, my far-left nut favorite of this year was Dennis Kucinich, a Catholic.

 

[kumanoki]

This has been the most entertaining thread on the OT forum all week.

Not neccesarily enlightening, but still....


:lol

 

[firex]

i'm running for president in a decade or two on the Goatse Party ticket. we don't have any real national plans except to put a pair of giant stone hands on each side of the grand canyon, but our slogan is "most politicians are gaping assholes anyway."

 

[adam20]

I highly dissaprove this topic! BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Be gone religeous zealot! bOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

We didn't like religeon when it was in schools and we didn't like it when it was in Halo 2 (die evil prophets!).

The downfall of schools in America are due to america as a society as a whole. Not due to lack of religeon. That is just retarded. American society has what you call.... violence... sexual media... and all sorts of things for our 10 year olds to be exposed to. boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[etiolate]

The liberal social stance is one of civil freedom: that a person thus inclined can go down to the store and buy weed and a few skin mags, marry his buddy on the weekend, and do a little life councilling with his recently-pregnant teenage sister. Likewise, a person thus inclined can go to their church and worship the God of their choosing, write long tracts about the evils of buying weed and skin mags and marrying dudes, and stand outside an abortion clinic to remind all the people that pass through its doors of their fiery fate. Everyone is happy, except folks like you who want to codify their peculiar and exclusive perspectives into law.

Do you really think people would get along in the world you just stated if it wasn't for people like Docwiz? People will just feel out what they feel is right and cause a fuss. I just don't think it would work. You need some unifying purpose and I don't see civil freedom as a purpose. It's really hard to have unity and individuality. How do you have choices and differences without conflict?

Maybe thats a whole different conversation.

 

[Manabanana]

i'm running for president in a decade or two on the Goatse Party ticket. we don't have any real national plans except to put a pair of giant stone hands on each side of the grand canyon, but our slogan is "most politicians are gaping assholes anyway."

*raises glass*

 

[Vinzer Deling]

So from what I gather...

Right-wing bad, left-wing good?

 

[Docwiz]

Pro Abortion -- no, pro-choice. I'm against abortion, but for a woman's right to choose. I'd venture most 'liberals' feel the same way.

The baby inside the mother is a living being of it's own accord. The mother has no right to decide what is for the babies life as she does for mine.

Pro Gay rights -- yes. Gay folk are human beings and deserve all the basic rights shared by 'heterosexuals'.

So by getting scholarship because they are gay that gives them the same rights as everyone else? Could have fooled me. They are human beings and everyone should treat them as such, but they are getting a lot of rights that I don't get. They can get health insurance for them and their lovers and you can't get that for your girlfriend.
They should not have the right to marry because that is given from God and multiple of million of people feel the same way I do.

Legalising drugs -- some drugs. Can you demonstrate that marijuana is worse for you than, say, alcohol, beyond any reasonable doubt? And that legalizing drugs would have bad effect on society?

Just by looking at Alcohol and the famlies that have been broken up by it and causing other problems sure doesn't seem to be that great too me. When I was in high school one of my friends got killed because of alcohol poisoning.

As for pot, well you can do anything you want but I still wouldn't be for it. There are far more worse drugs I suppose, but I think if you do drugs then that's up to you, but I don't do that stuff. I don't want to poison my body more than it already is. Thanks but no thanks.

Legalising drugs will just create more problems than there already are and honestly I don't want that, I wan't people to get off of that and enjoy life.

Anti-Christianity -- no, just anti government-sponsored evangelism. No-one wants ANYONE to stop being Christian; they just don't want their children exposed to one religion, and in many cases, one specific flavor of that religion as practiced by the instructor, especially if it countermands the teaching of their own religion or parents.

Please list all the deaths this year due to Christianity alone and then you can list all the drug deaths or deaths due in some way to some form of alcohol or drugs.

Christianity preaches non selfish love and forgiveness and hope for all mankind.
I cannot imagine anyone wanting to turn that down.

Pro-Pornography (which some of you will be like WTH?) -- nothing wrong with sexual urges. All pornography is not created equal, though, and the kind that exploits children or people against their will is demonstrably bad for society.

Porn does nothing but hurt people. It does not help and it makes normal people into sexual preditors.

The liberal social stance is one of civil freedom: that a person thus inclined can go down to the store and buy weed and a few skin mags, marry his buddy on the weekend, and do a little life councilling with his recently-pregnant teenage sister. Likewise, a person thus inclined can go to their church and worship the God of their choosing, write long tracts about the evils of buying weed and skin mags and marrying dudes, and stand outside an abortion clinic to remind all the people that pass through its doors of their fiery fate. Everyone is happy, except folks like you who want to codify their peculiar and exclusive perspectives into law.

Without laws there is chaos and there is no justice and no accountability.

Specific to your little link: why SHOULD God have a place in a PUBLIC school? Why should the goverment do the work of your church?

The government doesn't have to. People are the church and they should be allowed to meet at school. Does the federal government own the school? No it doesn't. They used to meet at school and have Bible study, what is so different now?

 

[firex]

No, the federal government doesn't own schools... but the states do. And the states are just as obligated to keep church and state separate. As such there can't (and shouldn't) be any school-sanctioned church groups allowed during school hours or at any school functions, however, the school's administration has the right to let religious groups use their facilities when there is no school (or school function, such as sports games, debates, open houses or dances) going on, nor are they allowed to endorse anything religious.

 

[Mandark]

Drinky: Small disagreement. Lazy teachers generally don't like theories of education in which every single child is equally able to learn. They would love to write off half the class as unteachable.

Docwiz:

The argument that gay people have a favored status is totally bogus. There are a small amount of GLBT scholarships, which are privately funded. There are also Christian scholarships. Do Christians have extra rights?

I do not know of any company or organization that gives benefits to live-in partners to gay employees but not to heterosexual employees. If you could list a few, that would be great.

Just because *you* can't imagine that someone doesn't want to be Christian doesn't give you the right to foist it on other people's kids. I've personally met Muslims, Buddhists, and atheists who were just as unable to understand how anyone could reject their perspective.

You're moving the goalposts about Christianity in schools. Also, you're flat-out wrong about church groups meeting in schools. Many religious groups, including Christian ones, use public school buildings for meeting places (as well as religious student groups). There was a Bible study group at my high school.

Please, try to get just a tiny bit informed before you talk about this stuff.

 

[xsarien]

They should not have the right to marry because that is given from God and multiple of million of people feel the same way I do.

Congratulations on nullifying almost every stance you've made so far, not that they weren't too stable to begin with. In the eyes of the law, not religious teachings, but the law, their sexual preference does not enter the equation. They're American citizens, they're entitled to the same rights enjoyed by other American citizens. When they're denied it, well, that's called discrimination.

The government doesn't have to. People are the church and they should be allowed to meet at school. Does the federal government own the school? No it doesn't. They used to meet at school and have Bible study, what is so different now?

Actually, public schools are technically "owned" by state and local governments, which are bound by the same seperation statutes as the federal government. If you want to meet your Church buddies, do it in your private home or in a church.

 

[karasu]

So by getting scholarship because they are gay that gives them the same rights as everyone else? Could have fooled me. They are human beings and everyone should treat them as such, but they are getting a lot of rights that I don't get. They can get health insurance for them and their lovers and you can't get that for your girlfriend.
They should not have the right to marry because that is given from God and multiple of million of people feel the same way I do

:lol But why can fornicators, atheist and non christians marry? According to your beliefs, all of those are sins.

Marriage isn't exclusive to christianity buddy.

 

[maharg]

They should not have the right to marry because that is given from God and multiple of million of people feel the same way I do.

As a married atheist, I am insulted by your position here. And, yes, I am insulted by all those other 'million of people.'

 

[iapetus]

The baby inside the mother is a living being of it's own accord. The mother has no right to decide what is for the babies life as she does for mine.

Thanks for your opinion. The issue of abortion is a huge one in its own right, and you've shown no ability to back up your arguments sufficient to make me think it's one worth discussing with you, except to say that your hideous oversimplification here is a sadly typical one.

So by getting scholarship because they are gay that gives them the same rights as everyone else?

I won't touch this one, since you've already been so fundamentally taken to pieces on it that you're now in a position where you have to call out for an end to pro-Christian discrimination through scholarships and other means or be shown to be a whining hypocrite.

When I was in high school one of my friends got killed because of alcohol poisoning.

When I was in high school one of my friends got killed by an ambulance. Ban ambulances!

As for pot, well you can do anything you want but I still wouldn't be for it.

Congratulations. A healthy and liberal attitude.

Legalising drugs will just create more problems than there already are

That's debatable (and highly debated). The illegality and consequent lack of regulation of drugs lead to a lot of problems in and of themselves.

Please list all the deaths this year due to Christianity alone and then you can list all the drug deaths or deaths due in some way to some form of alcohol or drugs.

Great straw man. I give it 7/10.

Christianity preaches non selfish love and forgiveness and hope for all mankind.
I cannot imagine anyone wanting to turn that down.

All mankind except gays, surely? And people who don't want public schools teaching the Bible as fact. And non-Christians (how soon people forget the story of the good Samaritan...)

Porn does nothing but hurt people. It does not help and it makes normal people into sexual preditors.

I hope you've got some pretty solid evidence for that, because otherwise you're going to look extremely stupid (hey, like we'd notice, right?) given the number of people on GA who enjoy a bit of porn and aren't turning into evil sexual preditors. Or predators.

Without laws there is chaos and there is no justice and no accountability.

"Anarchy isn't a great form of government, but it's better than no government at all."

The government doesn't have to. People are the church and they should be allowed to meet at school. Does the federal government own the school? No it doesn't. They used to meet at school and have Bible study, what is so different now?

There's a difference between allowing people to meet at school for entirely optional Bible study and mandating it as part of the curriculum in a given school, in case you hadn't noticed.

[Edit: Does anyone else feel that with the views and arguments Docwiz is trotting out it's highly ironic that he accuses the liberal school system of brainwashing?]

 

[CrimsonSkies]

It's amusing to see the majority of this board take the wrong positions on a lot of things. Please continue.

 

[Manabanana]

It's amusing to see the majority of this board take the wrong positions on a lot of things. Please continue.

You're just asking to get dragged into this, aren't you?

 

[kumanoki]

CrimsonSkies~

I take issue with the 'definately' in your tag.


def·i·nite ( P ) Pronunciation Key (df-nt)
adj.
Having distinct limits: definite restrictions on the sale of alcohol.
Indisputable; certain: a definite victory.
Clearly defined; explicitly precise: a definite statement of the terms of the will. See Synonyms at explicit.
Grammar. Limiting or particularizing.
Botany.
Of a specified number not exceeding 20, as certain floral organs, especially stamens.
Cymose; determinate.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English diffinite, defined, from Latin dfntus, past participle of dfnre, to define. See define.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
defi·nite·ly adv.


PLEASE FIX

 

[Minotauro]

It's amusing to see the majority of this board take the wrong positions on a lot of things. Please continue.

What a chickenshit comment. Either come out directly against a statement or keep your mouth shut.

And, yes, I am aware of the irony in my post.

 

[Dilbert]

Boogie -- well, as Drinky pointed out, Docwiz has at least TRIED to be responsive, though his
"evidence" is simply more unsubstantiated positions. He gets a very few points for stepping enough to respond...unlike certain OTHER posters, past and present. I'm not going to ban him based on this thread -- I haven't laughed this hard all week! -- but I sure hope that he a) doesn't start a topic like this every week and b) enjoys the gaming side of the forums as well. (I hear liberals are responsible for Nintendo slipping to #3, by the way.)

CrimsonSkies -- if you have something to contribute, feel free to lay out your positions and evidence. If you're not going to do that...feel free to shut up and vanish. kthxbye.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Christianity preaches non selfish love and forgiveness and hope for all mankind.
I cannot imagine anyone wanting to turn that down.

Change "Christianity preaches" to "Liberalism proposes", and you've basically got how I feel. But that doesn't mean I want mandatory Air America hour in public schools.

(I hear liberals are responsible for Nintendo slipping to #3, by the way.)

Well I tell ya, Drinky Crow and Raoul Duke are certainly no help.

 

[radioheadrule83]

I find it strange how lately the goalposts have been moved. If you're not with the far right, Christian moral value loving, defenders of the free world, you're a leftie/commie/liberal as far as some people are concerned... when in fact 5 to 10 years ago these people being labeled as liberals would have been thought of as pretty central... kinda part of that whole Third Way thing B. Clinton and T. Blair are into. A pragmatic approach.

You can't have libertarian conservative/republican supporters any more. Or a non-socialist/compromising democrat/socialist/labour supporter. Where did this black and white view of things come from?

Or am I missing something and getting it all wrong?,..

 

[Jim Bowie]

Is it wrong to tell the truth even though other folks don't agree with you and that you are not trolling to get a rise out of anyone but that you are sick of others doing hating of Christianity or other religions and always putting down people who worship at churches because they think they are rednecks or hicks? Is this wrong? According to the TOS it isn't.

No, but you're not stating a definite truth. You're stating your opinion.

Now, let me give you a slice of truth- you've done nothing in this forum but add subjective ideas into the mix without a shred of evidence. You've blithely overlooked the concept of "supported fact" and tried to pass it as truth. You've tried to say that a REVEREND, an ORDAINED MAN OF GOD is anti-Christianity! Worst of all, you HAVE ATTACKED EVERY DISSENTING OPINION BY CALLING US BRAINWASHED. Yes, you did. Three fucking times.

I say that YOU'VE been smashing TOS hardcore since starting this post. But don't take my word for it. The evidence is all around you. In this thread. In nearly every post you've made, you attack "liberals", or in your definition any Democrat. Check out the TOS, sir.

A. Language
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use the Gaming Age Forums to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. Foul language in the form of insults directed towards other forum members may result in a ban.

Moderators, make your decision wisely.

 

[impirius]

I find it strange how lately the goalposts have been moved. If you're not with the far right, Christian moral value loving, defenders of the free world, you're a leftie/commie/liberal as far as some people are concerned... when in fact 5 to 10 years ago these people being labeled as liberals would have been thought of as pretty central... kinda part of that whole Third Way thing B. Clinton and T. Blair are into. A pragmatic approach.

You can't have libertarian conservative/republican supporters any more. Or a non-socialist/compromising democrat/socialist/labour supporter. Where did this black and white view of things come from?

Or am I missing something and getting it all wrong?,..

(skips first 4 pages of thread)

You raise a great point. I think that the two major contributing factors are:

1. The structure of America's government, which from its inception has been biased toward a two-party system which tends to polarize the public, and

1. The media, which regularly presents a false dichotomy to viewers because it's easier to produce and digest and makes for more entertaining verbal exchanges.

 

[Triumph]

I find it strange how lately the goalposts have been moved. If you're not with the far right, Christian moral value loving, defenders of the free world, you're a leftie/commie/liberal as far as some people are concerned... when in fact 5 to 10 years ago these people being labeled as liberals would have been thought of as pretty central... kinda part of that whole Third Way thing B. Clinton and T. Blair are into. A pragmatic approach.

You can't have libertarian conservative/republican supporters any more. Or a non-socialist/compromising democrat/socialist/labour supporter. Where did this black and white view of things come from?

Or am I missing something and getting it all wrong?,..

Spot on post for the most part. I'll just interject that "that whole Third Way thing" was in fact responsible for some of the worst aspects of globalization and privitization. Read "The Best Democracy Money can Buy" by Greg Palast for more info(trust me, it's worth the scratch).

Oh, and then sell your gamecube. It's all over.

 

[Saturnman]

Oh, and then sell your gamecube. It's all over.

The best thing said in this topic.

 

[radioheadrule83]

Spot on post for the most part. I'll just interject that "that whole Third Way thing" was in fact responsible for some of the worst aspects of globalization and privitization. Read "The Best Democracy Money can Buy" by Greg Palast for more info(trust me, it's worth the scratch).

Oh, and then sell your gamecube. It's all over.

Cheers for the recommendations... I'll try and get hold of the book, but I think I'll keep the cube thanks!