Romney to pick Paul Ryan for VP

PJ_Soul

DS1119 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

He represented millions and millions who felt the same way? Did millions and millions even vote him into office? I don't think so!
Never the less, I think he really believes those things. Nothing you've said affects what I've said about that. After all you've said (none of which I've disagreed with), I still think he actually believes those things. And if he didn't (which he does), that would make him even WORSE... I mean, as far as politicians go, he's a real asshole. What I'm saying is that he's the bloody diarrhea of the shit pile.

Sorry. I didn't realize you knew what he believes. Do you know what everyone else believes as well?


And as far as the millions and millions he represents. Not sure how it works in Canada but here its run you for a small office and when you win you represent the interests of your constituants and supporters...you keep moving up in office and as you do your constituant size grows as well as your political supporters and interest groups...eventually you get to millions and millions of people you are representing. Pretty simple system actually.

:roll: :roll: Don't know how many times I can say "I think" and "it's my opinion that"... I build conclusions based on facts combined with observation and experience. I think he believes what he he voted for. Period. I am hardly alone in that.
Yes, I know the system. I also know that his anti-gay votes don't represent millions and millions in his position. And I think that politicians only represent those who voted for them. Not the ones who didn't. I am quite sure that millions and millions of people's votes did not go towards this guy at any point.

PJ_Soul

DS1119 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Certain people are constantly trying to change the subject.

What I find strange is that people seem to try and act like Republicans don't stand for being anti gay rights. I mean, it's a fact, not an opinion. I don't know why they don't just own it by now. And if they are pro gay rights, I don't know how they can support that party at all, just because for me, issues of civil and human rights trump all else. My morals won't allow me to think otherwise. Money comes second, not first.

And that's a person's rights. And that's why we vote. For me, I'm not of that lifestyle, so quite frankly why would I support anything that would cost me money...something same sex marriage will only do for the general public.

Wow. That is pretty heartless. I care more about people than that.

DS1119

PJ_Soul wrote:

.... back to the subject... it's because they've found that the means by which they are slaughtered tend to be particularly inhumane. From what I've seen from the videos posted by IFAW, they are. They are placed under duress for a very long time, and the slaughter methods tend to go wrong way too often, resulting in blatant torture. This is because, I think, there is no mass slaughter protocol for horses. Things go more smoothly for, say, cows (not that there isn't room for VAST improvement there too). Also, horses are more emotionally tortured just by virtue of their personalities. Cows are calm and relatively dumb. Horses or way more sensitive and smarter, and so feel much more stress and panic than most of the other animals we eat during the slaughter process.
Sorry for being so off topic, but just wanted to point that out since it came up!

...and yet the President of the US signed into law, a DEmocrat mind you, the ability to slaughter and eat horses in the United States on 11/18/2011. Even after campaigning against it throughout 2008. Makes him quite person I would say...I mean at least based on how sensitive and smart you portrya horses in your post.

PJ_Soul

DS1119 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

.... back to the subject... it's because they've found that the means by which they are slaughtered tend to be particularly inhumane. From what I've seen from the videos posted by IFAW, they are. They are placed under duress for a very long time, and the slaughter methods tend to go wrong way too often, resulting in blatant torture. This is because, I think, there is no mass slaughter protocol for horses. Things go more smoothly for, say, cows (not that there isn't room for VAST improvement there too). Also, horses are more emotionally tortured just by virtue of their personalities. Cows are calm and relatively dumb. Horses or way more sensitive and smarter, and so feel much more stress and panic than most of the other animals we eat during the slaughter process.
Sorry for being so off topic, but just wanted to point that out since it came up!

...and yet the President of the US signed into law, a DEmocrat mind you, the ability to slaughter and eat horses in the United States on 11/18/2011. Even after campaigning against it throughout 2008. Makes him quite person I would say...I mean at least based on how sensitive and smart you portrya horses in your post.

:? Chill out with the disparaging tone man. I was simply offering the facts of why people would be against eating horses. I didn't install any of my own personal feelings about it at all. I am actually quite indifferent on the issue specifically, even though I think standards generally need to be improved as far as animal slaughtering goes. I didn't even know about his Obama's stance on it. And I don't vote for him. I'm Canadian. But I'd way prefer a leader who supports gay marriage but goes back on his word about horse meat than one who is anti-gay rights and stood strong on eating Mr. Ed!

DS1119

Cliffy6745 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Ok, and that's fine. Neither do I in regards to eating horse.

I guess that's why I post stuff like this. What the AMerican public needs to realize is there's a segment...a good segment of people...who don't give a shit about gay marriage. If they're not gay or don't believe in it, why would they want it to be legalized? If it's only going to increase their cost of living (which it will just simply in insurance costs) especailly in these economic times, why vote for or push for it? Just doesn't make sense. The Republicans represent in a larger part this segment of people. That's the stance the politicinas will take. They're representing their party. To call one politician however homophobic or anti-gay becasue of this is quite ignorant in my opinion since he's only representing his party and constituants.

Alright, so how about a more fitting analogy than a fucking horse. Why would anyone in the 60's in the south support desegregation? I mean, these politicians speak for their people and during a war and all, why would they think about something as crazy as allowing black people to go to the same school as whites, as unpopular as it was in certain constituencies? I mean, they represent their people and their people certainly didn't want their kids going to school with blacks.

Politicians who didn't support desegregation then were racist and politicians who don't support equal rights for gay couples are homophobic/anti-gay or whatever you want to call it. Simple as that.

You do what is right, period, not what uneducated idiots you represent think you should do, especially with social issues and equality. If you don't support these social issues you will be labeled a bigot, a homophobe, racist or anti-gay. Easy as that.

The overwhelming majority did support segregation in the South duuring the 60's. :?

PJ_Soul

DS1119 wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Ok, and that's fine. Neither do I in regards to eating horse.

I guess that's why I post stuff like this. What the AMerican public needs to realize is there's a segment...a good segment of people...who don't give a shit about gay marriage. If they're not gay or don't believe in it, why would they want it to be legalized? If it's only going to increase their cost of living (which it will just simply in insurance costs) especailly in these economic times, why vote for or push for it? Just doesn't make sense. The Republicans represent in a larger part this segment of people. That's the stance the politicinas will take. They're representing their party. To call one politician however homophobic or anti-gay becasue of this is quite ignorant in my opinion since he's only representing his party and constituants.

Alright, so how about a more fitting analogy than a fucking horse. Why would anyone in the 60's in the south support desegregation? I mean, these politicians speak for their people and during a war and all, why would they think about something as crazy as allowing black people to go to the same school as whites, as unpopular as it was in certain constituencies? I mean, they represent their people and their people certainly didn't want their kids going to school with blacks.

Politicians who didn't support desegregation then were racist and politicians who don't support equal rights for gay couples are homophobic/anti-gay or whatever you want to call it. Simple as that.

You do what is right, period, not what uneducated idiots you represent think you should do, especially with social issues and equality. If you don't support these social issues you will be labeled a bigot, a homophobe, racist or anti-gay. Easy as that.

The overwhelming majority did support segregation in the South duuring the 60's. :?

Wasn't that the point? That the government went against what their voters wanted because it was the moral thing to do?

DS1119

PJ_Soul wrote:

I am quite sure that millions and millions of people's votes did not go towards this guy at any point.

Really? And yet he's the Vice Presidential cnadidate?

DS1119

PJ_Soul wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

.... back to the subject... it's because they've found that the means by which they are slaughtered tend to be particularly inhumane. From what I've seen from the videos posted by IFAW, they are. They are placed under duress for a very long time, and the slaughter methods tend to go wrong way too often, resulting in blatant torture. This is because, I think, there is no mass slaughter protocol for horses. Things go more smoothly for, say, cows (not that there isn't room for VAST improvement there too). Also, horses are more emotionally tortured just by virtue of their personalities. Cows are calm and relatively dumb. Horses or way more sensitive and smarter, and so feel much more stress and panic than most of the other animals we eat during the slaughter process.
Sorry for being so off topic, but just wanted to point that out since it came up!

...and yet the President of the US signed into law, a DEmocrat mind you, the ability to slaughter and eat horses in the United States on 11/18/2011. Even after campaigning against it throughout 2008. Makes him quite person I would say...I mean at least based on how sensitive and smart you portrya horses in your post.

:? Chill out with the disparaging tone man. I was simply offering the facts of why people would be against eating horses. I didn't install any of my own personal feelings about it at all. I am actually quite indifferent on the issue specifically, even though I think standards generally need to be improved as far as animal slaughtering goes. I didn't even know about his Obama's stance on it. And I don't vote for him. I'm Canadian. But I'd way prefer a leader who supports gay marriage but goes back on his word about horse meat than one who is anti-gay rights and stood strong on eating Mr. Ed!

How do you feel about a presient that lies?

PJ_Soul

DS1119 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

I am quite sure that millions and millions of people's votes did not go towards this guy at any point.

Really? And yet he's the Vice Presidential cnadidate?

:?: I don't get what you mean. People didn't vote for him to be that... I mean, Sarah Palin was one of those too. Millions and millions didn't vote for her either.

DS1119

PJ_Soul wrote:

Wasn't that the point? That the government went against what their voters wanted because it was the moral thing to do?

Absolutley not. The money won out. The North was a far superior section of the government not only monetarily but industrialy. I'll put it this way...if the North in the 60's wanted segregation and the south didn't...we would still have segragation.

PJ_Soul

DS1119 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

...and yet the President of the US signed into law, a DEmocrat mind you, the ability to slaughter and eat horses in the United States on 11/18/2011. Even after campaigning against it throughout 2008. Makes him quite person I would say...I mean at least based on how sensitive and smart you portrya horses in your post.

:? Chill out with the disparaging tone man. I was simply offering the facts of why people would be against eating horses. I didn't install any of my own personal feelings about it at all. I am actually quite indifferent on the issue specifically, even though I think standards generally need to be improved as far as animal slaughtering goes. I didn't even know about his Obama's stance on it. And I don't vote for him. I'm Canadian. But I'd way prefer a leader who supports gay marriage but goes back on his word about horse meat than one who is anti-gay rights and stood strong on eating Mr. Ed!

How do you feel about a presient that lies?

That is a matter of degrees. I'm pretty sure there has never in the history of America a president who hasn't lied, and there never will be. One must choose the best of a bad bunch when choosing who to support as a national leader ... since there is no alternative to that, I've made my peace with that fact. I think that Romney has already lied more in the last few months than Obama has throughout the last 4 years as president though. So... whatever I guess.

PJ_Soul

DS1119 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Wasn't that the point? That the government went against what their voters wanted because it was the moral thing to do?

Absolutley not. The money won out. The North was a far superior section of the government not only monetarily but industrialy. I'll put it this way...if the North in the 60's wanted segregation and the south didn't...we would still have segragation.

... what exactly are you saying about people in the South?

DS1119

PJ_Soul wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

I am quite sure that millions and millions of people's votes did not go towards this guy at any point.

Really? And yet he's the Vice Presidential cnadidate?

:?: I don't get what you mean. People didn't vote for him to be that... I mean, Sarah Palin was one of those too. Millions and millions didn't vote for her either.

Yes...he was just plucked out of a hat one day. It's funny how they do it here in this country actually. The republicans pick a name out of a hat and the democrats play duck duck goose to pick vice presidiental candidates.

DS1119

PJ_Soul wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Wasn't that the point? That the government went against what their voters wanted because it was the moral thing to do?

Absolutley not. The money won out. The North was a far superior section of the government not only monetarily but industrialy. I'll put it this way...if the North in the 60's wanted segregation and the south didn't...we would still have segragation.

... what exactly are you saying about people in the South?

Well, they did lose the civil war and they did lose the segregation war. Nothing against the Southern people, its just that this country was settled and developed in the north...northeast more specifically, and spread from there. The infrastructure at those times was and still remains pretty much to this day much stronger in that region of the country.

PJ_Soul

DS1119 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Really? And yet he's the Vice Presidential cnadidate?

:?: I don't get what you mean. People didn't vote for him to be that... I mean, Sarah Palin was one of those too. Millions and millions didn't vote for her either.

Yes...he was just plucked out of a hat one day. It's funny how they do it here in this country actually. The republicans pick a name out of a hat and the democrats play duck duck goose to pick vice presidiental candidates.

Wtf are you talking about?? Do you think that citizens vote for who the vice-presidential candidate is?? You're not making any sense. I know Ryan has garnered votes in his past, making him a qualified candidate... yet millions and millions still haven't cast a vote for him in his career... what is it you are talking about?

Btw, how's that cancelling your membership going? Or was that just some weird twitter lie? Just wondering. Not suggesting you fuck off or anything.

DS1119

PJ_Soul wrote:

Wtf are you talking about?? Do you think that citizens vote for who the vice-presidential candidate is?? You're not making any sense. I know Ryan has garnered votes in his past, making him a qualified candidate... yet millions and millions still haven't cast a vote for him in his career... what is YOU are talking about?

Btw, how's that cancelling your membership going? Or was that just some weird twitter lie? Just wondering. Not suggesting you fuck off or anything.

Perhaps you should read all of the twitter posts and you can find out yourself and I appreciate being told to fuck off actually. Usually that's the step before people realize they are arguing a point they can't win.


Now back to the Vice President. The Vice Presidentail candidate is chsoen by the Presidential candidate who he believes will support his views, his constituents, and his political supporters the best to his own views. The Vice Presidential candidate also has to worry about his constituents and political supporters. As a whole they represent millions and millions of Republican or Democratic views...as a whole.

Prince Of Dorkness

The idea that allowing me to be my husband's legal next of kin will "cost money" is stupid. It's wrong and incorrect and it's the latest in a long line of dumb-ass excuses that anti-gay people make to keep my family legally beneath theirs.

Being gay isn't a "lifestyle" and when you hear someone call it that it tells us more about their own insecurities than anything else.

And as I've said many times before...

http://aggravatedjasun.tumblr.com/post/29968706745

PJ_Soul

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

The idea that allowing me to be my husband's legal next of kin will "cost money" is stupid. It's wrong and incorrect and it's the latest in a long line of dumb-ass excuses that anti-gay people make to keep my family legally beneath theirs.

Being gay isn't a "lifestyle" and when you hear someone call it that it tells us more about their own insecurities than anything else.

And as I've said many times before...

http://aggravatedjasun.tumblr.com/post/29968706745

Yeah, this economic excuse for being bigoted towards gays is absolutely ludicrous, and I can't believe it's even been suggested. Being gay is a lifestyle as much as as being straight is a lifestyle. I'm not sure what the term is actually supposed to mean.

Prince Of Dorkness

PJ_Soul wrote:

I'm not sure what the term is actually supposed to mean.

It's more slander against the GLBT community to suggest that we chose to be gay and that we have some odd group mentality and are a threat to one's way of life.

While they blather endlessly on about "freedom of choice and the pursuit of happiness," they take every chance to vote to make sure that nobody is different than them.

PJ_Soul

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

I'm not sure what the term is actually supposed to mean.

It's more slander against the GLBT community to suggest that we chose to be gay and that we have some odd group mentality and are a threat to one's way of life.

While they blather endlessly on about "freedom of choice and the pursuit of happiness," they take every chance to vote to make sure that nobody is different than them.

It does kind of seem to turn gayness into a verb, doesn't it.