GOP candidates

bennett13

bennett13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

bennett13 wrote:

Yeah....good luck with that.

I see most of the chastising in response to bigoted, discriminatory beliefs that oppress others. Do you think people should just let those slide?

You're absolutely right...some beliefs are clearly unworthy and should be suppressed at all costs. :roll:

I'm curious as to how beliefs can oppress...I can see how laws and policies driven by beliefs can be oppressive, but the beliefs themselves?

If that's the case, I see more conservatives being "oppressed" on this forum than any other group of people.

Don't try to word swap. Originally, it was 'chastised', not supressed. If an opinion is based on mis-truths and not based in fact, than it is, by default, wrong. If someone wants to post in here, and then not be disagreed with, then they're setting themselves up to feel 'chastised'. Opressive law and policies have oppressive beliefs connected to them. In aet, beliefs are discussed, and that's it, because we aren't making policy. It seems odd that you want people to come in here to discuss beliefs, but then play up disagreements like you're being victimized some way. Do you want each thread to have 4 posts in it? "I think this", "well, I think this", "no, I like this way better", "I think Ron Paul said it best..."?[/quote]

Ok...you did say "chastised"...I stand corrected. And I never said I was being victimized...I don't feel victimized by anyone...hence my laughter. I just find it funny (hence my laughter) that conservatives on this forum are treated rather shabbily by the exact same people that demand respect and tolerance for any and every group of people...except conservatives, of course.
I see the word "bigot" thrown around an awful lot around here...usually directed toward anyone that doesn't believe in radical progressive ideology.

I agree that beliefs based on mis-truths are by definition wrong. But on so many of these issues, "truth" is relative. For example, while I'm pretty liberal as far as homosexuality goes, I'm aware of many devoted Christians who are not as liberal because of their religious beliefs. And while some of those people are vicious and hateful people, I believe that a great many of them hold those beliefs with no hate in their hearts. A common mantra I've heard from Christians is "hate the sin...love the sinner." So, in an issue like that, what is "truth"? When talking about God and morality, I don't think any of us can know for sure. And because such issues can't be proven or disproven, it's much easier to label your opponent as a "bigot" and dismiss their opinion as unworthy of being heard.
I'm really not the type of person to feel offended or victimized by much of anything...I just see an awful lot of humor in what I observe here...no more, no less.
Peace!

inmytree

fear4freedom wrote:

I love Herman Cain and Chris Christie! I also love Marco Rubio! He would be a great VP this time around!
Herman is a great man.....a problem solver! He will get the job done! He will simplify the whole thing!

simplify the whole thing...

sounds super easy...If anyone can do it, I'm sure it's ol' Herman...

mikepegg44

inmytree wrote:

fear4freedom wrote:

I love Herman Cain and Chris Christie! I also love Marco Rubio! He would be a great VP this time around!
Herman is a great man.....a problem solver! He will get the job done! He will simplify the whole thing!

simplify the whole thing...

sounds super easy...If anyone can do it, I'm sure it's ol' Herman...

he certainly took godfathers from a second rate pizza place to a second rate pizza place with dessert pizza! If he can do that, he can do anything

keeponrockin

MookiesLaw wrote:

Cain is a bigot. If you haven't already struck Herman Cain from your list of sane and reasonable presidential candidates, now would be a good time. According to Cain, people worshipping the God of their choice is such an infringement of religious freedom. I must have missed the part where the first amendment only applied to Religions i approve of.

http://www.newser.com/story/123546/herman-cain-tennessee-mosque-is-an-infringement-and-an-abuse-of-our-freedom-of-religion.html

"Cain also claimed the mosque "is an infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion," the AP reports.

Exactly. Cain is an idiot.

Plus his whole 'loyalty oath' thing. Plus the '3 page bills' thing.

VINNY GOOMBA

I have no issue with the 3-page bills. But if so many others do, let's compromise. What about 10? 100? Fine, 100. Thousands of pages of legislation = complete bullshit. Even 100 pages is guaranteed to totally screw somebody somewhere. But let's start with baby steps. How about reading the bills before they are passed first?

cincybearcat

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

I have no issue with the 3-page bills. But if so many others do, let's compromise. What about 10? 100? Fine, 100. Thousands of pages of legislation = complete bullshit. Even 100 pages is guaranteed to totally screw somebody somewhere. But let's start with baby steps. How about reading the bills before they are passed first?

How can anyone have a problem with capping the size of bills? All the extra text and fluff to hide the pork and get people to vote on things without any time to read it. We are leaving the laws of the land up to the Senators' and Representatives' Staffers, because they are the only ones that read them anymore.

Go Beavers

bennett13 wrote:

bennett13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

I see most of the chastising in response to bigoted, discriminatory beliefs that oppress others. Do you think people should just let those slide?

You're absolutely right...some beliefs are clearly unworthy and should be suppressed at all costs. :roll:

I'm curious as to how beliefs can oppress...I can see how laws and policies driven by beliefs can be oppressive, but the beliefs themselves?

If that's the case, I see more conservatives being "oppressed" on this forum than any other group of people.

Don't try to word swap. Originally, it was 'chastised', not supressed. If an opinion is based on mis-truths and not based in fact, than it is, by default, wrong. If someone wants to post in here, and then not be disagreed with, then they're setting themselves up to feel 'chastised'. Opressive law and policies have oppressive beliefs connected to them. In aet, beliefs are discussed, and that's it, because we aren't making policy. It seems odd that you want people to come in here to discuss beliefs, but then play up disagreements like you're being victimized some way. Do you want each thread to have 4 posts in it? "I think this", "well, I think this", "no, I like this way better", "I think Ron Paul said it best..."?

Ok...you did say "chastised"...I stand corrected. And I never said I was being victimized...I don't feel victimized by anyone...hence my laughter. I just find it funny (hence my laughter) that conservatives on this forum are treated rather shabbily by the exact same people that demand respect and tolerance for any and every group of people...except conservatives, of course.
I see the word "bigot" thrown around an awful lot around here...usually directed toward anyone that doesn't believe in radical progressive ideology.

I agree that beliefs based on mis-truths are by definition wrong. But on so many of these issues, "truth" is relative. For example, while I'm pretty liberal as far as homosexuality goes, I'm aware of many devoted Christians who are not as liberal because of their religious beliefs. And while some of those people are vicious and hateful people, I believe that a great many of them hold those beliefs with no hate in their hearts. A common mantra I've heard from Christians is "hate the sin...love the sinner." So, in an issue like that, what is "truth"? When talking about God and morality, I don't think any of us can know for sure. And because such issues can't be proven or disproven, it's much easier to label your opponent as a "bigot" and dismiss their opinion as unworthy of being heard.
I'm really not the type of person to feel offended or victimized by much of anything...I just see an awful lot of humor in what I observe here...no more, no less.
Peace!

[/quote]
You didn't say you're being victimized, but conservatives in amt act like they are when they say that they're such a small minority and that they are disrespected by liberals in nearly every one of their posts, which isn't true.

I'm glad God and morality is a grey area for you, but for many conservative Christians, it isn't. They believe that God states that homosexuality is a sin. This belief translates to behaviors that oppresses others and says that the group they are in is less than the majority group. They vote on measures and elect representatives that deny homosexuals the right to marry. You may define hate based on motives, others define hate based on actions. I believe any opinion is worthy of being heard, but it's also going to be questioned and discussed, which is also the point of amt.

Conservative Christians who continue to deny homosexuals rights when presented with the fact that gay and lesbian teens have a higher suicide rate, in my book, are coming from a place of hate and fear. I've seen many able-minded people turn fundamentalist Christian because it gives them an outline on how to manage the grey areas and complexities of life by giving them easy answers. It alleviates their fear and confusion and lowers their emotional tension they have when interacting with the world around them. They tend to want to reduce others ability of thought and experience, but cloak it in what they think God wants.

inmytree

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

I have no issue with the 3-page bills. But if so many others do, let's compromise. What about 10? 100? Fine, 100. Thousands of pages of legislation = complete bullshit. Even 100 pages is guaranteed to totally screw somebody somewhere. But let's start with baby steps. How about reading the bills before they are passed first?

I'm not sure who's against shorter, more clearly written bills...and it's nice that Herm suggested it, however, I'm not going to cast my vote for him because he's supporting a decent idea...

I will say this, the reasons I will not vote for ol' Herm is based on my experience listening to him when he fill in for the fool boortz on his radio show....

Fact of business, Herm's a little to wingnutty for me...

VINNY GOOMBA

inmytree wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

I have no issue with the 3-page bills. But if so many others do, let's compromise. What about 10? 100? Fine, 100. Thousands of pages of legislation = complete bullshit. Even 100 pages is guaranteed to totally screw somebody somewhere. But let's start with baby steps. How about reading the bills before they are passed first?

I'm not sure who's against shorter, more clearly written bills...and it's nice that Herm suggested it, however, I'm not going to cast my vote for him because he's supporting a decent idea...

I will say this, the reasons I will not vote for ol' Herm is based on my experience listening to him when he fill in for the fool boortz on his radio show....

Fact of business, Herm's a little to wingnutty for me...

There is no way I am voting for Cain, but I will give him credit for a good idea, at least in principle. I could settle on more pages, sure, but not tons more. Considering how most of the language of The Constitution restricts government and not the people, these types of laws ARE the ones that I favor. But let's face it, 99% of these people are either complete liars and are bought and paid for, or do not have the leadership ability to follow through on any of their promises. I will not be voting for a candidate from either of the 2 major parties unless their names are Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, or maybe Dennis Kuncinich if by some miracle Obama backed out.