Page 12 of 480 FirstFirst ... 289101112131415162262112 ... LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 7191
  1. #166
    Incredible Member zinderel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    2. You are going to need to quote Mike Pence or his acknowledged religious mentors if your argument is that he thinks gay people deserve to be stoned to death.
    Okay. First, 'stoned to death' is a rhetorical flourish that MOST people understand to refer to 'Biblical death sentences' that 'Christians' like to call for their enemies to suffer.

    Second, only the most foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics openly call for death today. Most, like Scott Lively, see more profit in exporting their Christian hatred to places like Africa, where they help craft laws in nations where Christianity IS the law of the land, and we get 'death penalty for homosexuality' laws. Those who don't take active roles in subjugating third world homosexuals in the name of Jesus and prefer to stay here in the States? They instead focus on Leviticus and Romans. Particularly Leviticus 20:13: "'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

    Oh, they SAY they love us and don't LITERALLY want us dead, but...then why keep bringing up the verse that calls for our deaths, and blames us for being murdered? Could it be...subtext barely hiding beneath actual text?

    As to Mike Pence and his opinions on gay people, let's dive right in.

    Here is timeline of Mike Pence's statements and actions taken against us: https://www.indems.org/a-timeline-of...gbt-community/

    Here's another listing: http://time.com/4406337/mike-pence-g...gious-freedom/

    It is well known fact that Mike Pence supports conversion therapy and thinks taxpayer money should supplement bigoted private donations. Conversion therapy includes or has included such 'loving' practices as electroshock, aversion, non-consensual sex with the supposedly straight 'therapists' and beating up pillows while screaming about hating your father. It is a laughingstock among actual, reputable therapists and mental health professionals. Well, a laughingstock and torture, so...y'know...he just thinks we deserve to be tortured and berated into hating ourselves, not actually 'killed', I guess.

    In addition, Mike Pence has spoken at Family Research Council events. The FRC has a long history of demonizing, dehumanizing, and outright denying the existence of LGBT+ people. They are a SPLC qualified hate group for their penchant for spreading lies and distortions about us for DECADES, all in the name of Jesus. Their leader, Tony Perkins, has called for jailing LGBT+ people for the crime of...not being straight? They have lobbied the government to not condemn Uganda's kill the gays bill, which their friend Scott Lively had a major hand in crafting. They are prime proponents of anti-trans and anti-gay measures, resolutions, and laws, and major opponents of any attempt at treating LGBT+ people with dignity, compassion and humanity on a national and even international scale. But that doesn't count as wanting us dead, I suppose, right?

    Here, we see Christian pastors cheering the Pulse massacre and praising the shooter: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/u...g-outrage.html. But I guess that doesn't count as 'wanting us dead', huh?

    Then there's Kevin Swanson, who has spoken at various 'Christian' events and was a big Ted Cruz and Roy Moore booster, who openly called for death for gays. http://www.pfaw.org/blog-posts/jeff-...ys-conference/

    Again, Mike Pence may not have said the exact words 'I want gay people dead', but people he surrounds himself with, people who support him and his peers, people who he has praised as 'good' HAVE called for our deaths, and he has remained silent on the matter. Frankly, if he DIDN'T agree with them, he would have said so by now. Instead, he takes the cowards way out and hides behind weak 'religious liberty' arguments so he doesn't HAVE to admit that he hates us and wants us as dead as his friends do...
    Last edited by zinderel; 04-14-2019 at 04:57 PM.
    There is no such thing as an ethical Republican anymore. Period.

  2. #167
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    656

    Default

    It is so weird when these people don't mind doing the hating. But they get all indignant when you call them what they are. Mike Pence clearly hates gays. His policies and who he surround himself with undeniably show that. But, he and his wife and supporters get all in their feelings about it when called out.

    If you are right just own it and be the out and proud homophobe you are.

    Same with people who are clearly racist, say and do racist things in this administration. But, you call them a racist and oh no its playing the "race card". You know you can't stand brown people and make policies targeting them. Just own it. You aren't fooling anyone

  3. #168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    I'm not evading anything Mets -- I've already told you pointblank I'm not answering an inherently dishonest and misleading question.

    For the sake of clarity though, I don't "infer" anything from their silence because actions speak louder than words, regardless: the Democrats have proposed reasonable immigration reform in the past while the Republican party has proposed and enacted separating families en masse at the border -- Trump has even suggested "getting rough" and mentioned "machine guns" in dealing with said immigrants.

    What should we infer from that Mets, and the silence of the Republicans like yourself who let this man stoke racism and xenophobia amongst the American people while denying us the right to see whether he is compromised by foreign influence? Should we infer that you support his racist and anti-democratic agenda since you cover for him and echo his words?

    The Democrats are not for "open borders" no matter how you try to frame this argument -- you're trying to make this a matter of opinion, and in the process avoid the fact that your party is separating families at the border to incite the racists in the Republican base while simultaneously trying to hide the Mueller report from both Congress and the public.

    So peddle your opinion to others with dishonest arguments as you will -- I'll stick with the facts, which you like to avoid for obvious reasons.
    How are my questions misleading or dishonest? These aren't questions predicated on a false assumption, since it does allow for multiple possibilities depending on what the facts are.

    With the questions you ask, I have to agree with multiple premises (IE- that Trump is stoking racism and xenophobia, and the American people are denied the chance to see that he's free of foreign influence, and that I'm echoing his words; my main arguments from open borders come from listening to Ezra Klein podcast discussions.)

  4. #169
    Extraordinary Member Malvolio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Freeville, NY
    Posts
    7,127

    Default

    Let's get something straight here, once and for all. Not setting a limit on how many immigrants can enter the country DOES NOT equal "open borders." But if we help out those nations where immigrants are coming from, they'll have less reason to leave and less incentive to come here. And yes, by help out, I mean giving them money.

  5. #170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zinderel View Post
    Okay. First, 'stoned to death' is a rhetorical flourish that MOST people understand to refer to 'Biblical death sentences' that 'Christians' like to call for their enemies to suffer.

    Second, only the most foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics openly call for death today. Most, like Scott Lively, see more profit in exporting their Christian hatred to places like Africa, where they help craft laws in nations where Christianity IS the law of the land, and we get 'death penalty for homosexuality' laws. Those who don't take active roles in subjugating third world homosexuals in the name of Jesus and prefer to stay here in the States? They instead focus on Leviticus and Romans. Particularly Leviticus 20:13: "'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

    Oh, they SAY they love us and don't LITERALLY want us dead, but...then why keep bringing up the verse that calls for our deaths, and blames us for being murdered? Could it be...subtext barely hiding beneath actual text?

    As to Mike Pence and his opinions on gay people, let's dive right in.

    Here is timeline of Mike Pence's statements and actions taken against us: https://www.indems.org/a-timeline-of...gbt-community/

    Here's another listing: http://time.com/4406337/mike-pence-g...gious-freedom/

    It is well known fact that Mike Pence supports conversion therapy and thinks taxpayer money should supplement bigoted private donations. Conversion therapy includes or has included such 'loving' practices as electroshock, aversion, non-consensual sex with the supposedly straight 'therapists' and beating up pillows while screaming about hating your father. It is a laughingstock among actual, reputable therapists and mental health professionals. Well, a laughingstock and torture, so...y'know...he just thinks we deserve to be tortured and berated into hating ourselves, not actually 'killed', I guess.

    In addition, Mike Pence has spoken at Family Research Council events. The FRC has a long history of demonizing, dehumanizing, and outright denying the existence of LGBT+ people. They are a SPLC qualified hate group for their penchant for spreading lies and distortions about us for DECADES, all in the name of Jesus. Their leader, Tony Perkins, has called for jailing LGBT+ people for the crime of...not being straight? They have lobbied the government to not condemn Uganda's kill the gays bill, which their friend Scott Lively had a major hand in crafting. They are prime proponents of anti-trans and anti-gay measures, resolutions, and laws, and major opponents of any attempt at treating LGBT+ people with dignity, compassion and humanity on a national and even international scale. But that doesn't count as wanting us dead, I suppose, right?

    Here, we see Christian pastors cheering the Pulse massacre and praising the shooter: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/u...g-outrage.html. But I guess that doesn't count as 'wanting us dead', huh?

    Then there's Kevin Swanson, who has spoken at various 'Christian' events and was a big Ted Cruz and Roy Moore booster, who openly called for death for gays. http://www.pfaw.org/blog-posts/jeff-...ys-conference/

    Again, Mike Pence may not have said the exact words 'I want gay people dead', but people he surrounds himself with, people who support him and his peers, people who he has praised as 'good' HAVE called for our deaths, and he has remained silent on the matter. Frankly, if he DIDN'T agree with them, he would have said so by now. Instead, he takes the cowards way out and hides behind weak 'religious liberty' arguments so he doesn't HAVE to admit that he hates us and wants us as dead as his friends do...
    The public has moved on wider acceptance on gay rights. When Mike Pence co-sponsored a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, that was eight years before a Democratic candidate for President would be willing to publicly be in favor of same-sex marriage. We've developed a better understanding of the problems of conversion therapy now than in 2000.

    It's disgusting that Christian pastors praised the shooter in the Pulse massacre. But I am unaware of him supporting them in this afterwards, or any of them being his religious mentors.

  6. #171
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Malvolio View Post
    Let's get something straight here, once and for all. Not setting a limit on how many immigrants can enter the country DOES NOT equal "open borders." But if we help out those nations where immigrants are coming from, they'll have less reason to leave and less incentive to come here. And yes, by help out, I mean giving them money.
    This is what the "Build a wall" crowd will never understand. The wall has always been a useless symbol.

    The real solution to immigrants seeking asylum is diplomatic and economic incentives and restoration of their home countries. If you don't get to the root cause of them leaving or needing to leave it will never stop. People will ALWAYS want to protect their families and escape poverty, crime if they can. Nothing you call them, no wall you build will stop the attempts.

    We have to work with the countries some other way help stimulate their economies. Give the governments reason, or incentive to target the corruption, gangs, etc. No one wants a war or us taking over or overthrowing anything. But you have to target the source or you will forever be chasing the symptoms.

  7. #172
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,693

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    How are my questions misleading or dishonest? These aren't questions predicated on a false assumption, since it does allow for multiple possibilities depending on what the facts are.
    And the facts are -- as I demonstrated via link -- that the Democrats are not for open borders or abolishing ICE, so it's misleading to try to infer that from their "silence" and dishonest repeatedly project that as a prominent Democratic platform or policy.

    https://www.factcheck.org/2018/07/ca...-open-borders/

    Anyway, you have my answer -- I don't "infer" anything from their "silence" because I judge them (and the Republicans) by their actions.
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 04-14-2019 at 05:47 PM.

  8. #173
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I've asked these questions for months and haven't gotten an answer: Have Democrats expressed any opinion on a limiting principle on legal immigration (an upper limit on the number of immigrants who should be allowed in)? If so, what is it? If not, what should we infer from the silence, and why should we infer that?
    I asked someone I know and they said this.
    No they have not. The thing to infer from that is that they don't want any upper limit on immigration. The reason to infer that is that since the 90s their normal members have stopped seeing immigrants as a problem and started seeing them as a benefit. Also, the main interest group in the Democratic party that opposed immigration was the trade unions. And the leaders of the major trade unions stopped seeing immigrants as a drag on wages and started seeing them as potential constituents.
    https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/69480...nged-the-party
    https://democrats.org/issues/immigration-reform/

  9. #174
    Incredible Member zinderel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kidfresh512 View Post
    It is so weird when these people don't mind doing the hating. But they get all indignant when you call them what they are. Mike Pence clearly hates gays. His policies and who he surround himself with undeniably show that. But, he and his wife and supporters get all in their feelings about it when called out.

    If you are right just own it and be the out and proud homophobe you are.

    Same with people who are clearly racist, say and do racist things in this administration. But, you call them a racist and oh no its playing the "race card". You know you can't stand brown people and make policies targeting them. Just own it. You aren't fooling anyone
    Yuuuuuup. Pretty much exactly right. But they like to try to say that what they DO isn't as important as what they say. It's a common technique in abusive relationships.

    'I love you and will never hurt you!'
    *smack*
    'Why did you make me do that?'
    There is no such thing as an ethical Republican anymore. Period.

  10. #175
    Incredible Member zinderel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    The public has moved on wider acceptance on gay rights. When Mike Pence co-sponsored a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, that was eight years before a Democratic candidate for President would be willing to publicly be in favor of same-sex marriage. We've developed a better understanding of the problems of conversion therapy now than in 2000.

    It's disgusting that Christian pastors praised the shooter in the Pulse massacre. But I am unaware of him supporting them in this afterwards, or any of them being his religious mentors.
    Who you 'pal around with' (remember that?) says more about who you are than what you say when pressured. Mike Pence continues to associate with those people, continues to evade giving a clear answer on his stance on the issue, and thus, it is only fair and logical to assume that he agrees with them, but knows that saying so will damage his career. So he takes the cowards way out.

    But we see him. We see him, and we see his wife. We know who they willingly, cheerfully associate with. We know where they work, who they work for, and what policies they repeatedly champion and what policies they are silent on. They may not ever admit it in words, but that's the fun thing about humans. We don't need to speak the words to make it clear how we feel about a thing. And how Pence feels about gay people is ABUNDANTLY clear, no matter how well he thinks he hides it. We see him.
    Last edited by zinderel; 04-14-2019 at 07:26 PM.
    There is no such thing as an ethical Republican anymore. Period.

  11. #176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    And the facts are -- as I demonstrated via link -- that the Democrats are not for open borders or abolishing ICE, so it's misleading to try to infer that from their "silence" and dishonest repeatedly project that as a prominent Democratic platform or policy.

    https://www.factcheck.org/2018/07/ca...-open-borders/

    Anyway, you have my answer -- I don't "infer" anything from their "silence" because I judge them (and the Republicans) by their actions.
    You say that they're silent. So, why are they silent?

    Quote Originally Posted by Farealmer View Post
    Thanks for addressing the question.

    I've suspected the same conclusion, that many Democrats don't want any upper limit on immigration. A difference between us is that I'm not sure the party is unified on this; there may be some prominent members who are against open borders, but don't want to have the fight with the extremists that will come with any honest discussion on the matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Malvolio View Post
    Let's get something straight here, once and for all. Not setting a limit on how many immigrants can enter the country DOES NOT equal "open borders." But if we help out those nations where immigrants are coming from, they'll have less reason to leave and less incentive to come here. And yes, by help out, I mean giving them money.
    This is largely a distinction without a difference since we are talking about two very unpopular policies. Presumably an absolute open borders policy in which no one bothers to have any sort of border patrol is less popular than a de facto open borders policy in which the numbers allowed into the country are pretty much unlimited. However, when only a third of the United States (and 40 percent of Democrats) thinks there should be any increase in immigration, the idea that we should switch from the current numbers to allowing unlimited numbers in is not going to over well with voters, whether or not there's any kind of vetting.

    https://www.people-press.org/2018/06...-into-the-u-s/

    https://www.usnews.com/news/politics...g-both-parties

    I will note that I do think there should be an increase in immigration, so on this issue I appear to be on the left of the majority of Democrats.

    Quote Originally Posted by zinderel View Post
    Who you 'pal around with' (remember that?) says more about who you are than what you say when pressured. Mike Pence continues to associate with those people, continues to evade giving a clear answer on his stance on the issue, and thus, it is only fair and logical to assume that he agrees with them, but knows that saying so will damage his career. So he takes the cowards way out.

    But we see him. We see him, and we see his wife. We know who they willingly, cheerfully associate with. We know where they work, who they work for, and what policies they repeatedly champion and what policies they are silent on. They may not ever admit it in words, but that's the fun thing about humans. We don't need to speak the words to make it clear how we feel about a thing. And how Pence feels about gay people is ABUNDANTLY clear, no matter how well he thinks he hides it. We see him.
    Has Mike Pence specifically associated with the people who praised the Orlando shooter?

  12. #177
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,026

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kidfresh512 View Post
    This is what the "Build a wall" crowd will never understand. The wall has always been a useless symbol.

    The real solution to immigrants seeking asylum is diplomatic and economic incentives and restoration of their home countries. If you don't get to the root cause of them leaving or needing to leave it will never stop. People will ALWAYS want to protect their families and escape poverty, crime if they can. Nothing you call them, no wall you build will stop the attempts.

    We have to work with the countries some other way help stimulate their economies. Give the governments reason, or incentive to target the corruption, gangs, etc. No one wants a war or us taking over or overthrowing anything. But you have to target the source or you will forever be chasing the symptoms.
    Well this line of logic eventually leads you to an inconvenient truth though, which is that the continued prosperity of America and other developed nations depends in large part on exploiting poorer and weaker nations for resources and cheap labor, and that is only possible by keeping them poverty ridden and unstable, so that they'll be desperate enough to work for peanuts and to sell off large swathes of their country to be strip mined by American corporations. If we were somehow to fix all of these failed states to a sufficient degree that they wouldn't be driven to emigrate, we would also be severely impacting our own quality of life by cutting off the flow of resources. At the end of the day, the United States accounts for 5% of the world's population but uses something like 25% of the world's resources, which is only possible because we bully the rest of the world into submission and turn around and point the finger at them for being lazy. We cannot on one hand expect to maintain the same quality of life forever, while at the same time being shocked that others around the globe would want to live the same way.

  13. #178
    Incredible Member zinderel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    743

    Default

    And there he goes...JAQing off again, asking minutely detailed, pedantic questions that have zero relevance but help distract from the actual matters being discussed. *throws hands in the air and walks off* Jesus Christ...
    There is no such thing as an ethical Republican anymore. Period.

  14. #179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    The public has moved on wider acceptance on gay rights. When Mike Pence co-sponsored a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, that was eight years before a Democratic candidate for President would be willing to publicly be in favor of same-sex marriage. We've developed a better understanding of the problems of conversion therapy now than in 2000.
    Then maybe you should give a damn that the Republican Party still opposes bans to gay conversion therapy, on the whole, and put their support for it in the f***ing 2016 Republican Party platform.

    Clearly, they've changed so much since 2000. They're more full of s*** than you were then about what you're actually doing.
    X-Books Forum Mutant Tracker/FAQ- Updated every Tuesday.

  15. #180
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    16,692

    Default

    Nancy Pelosi hips you to exactly where she is at...

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/speaker...ew-2019-04-14/

    Nancy Pelosi: The 2019 60 Minutes interview
    Lesley Stahl: You have these wings-- AOC, and her group on one side--

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi: That's like five people.

    Lesley Stahl:
    No, it's-- the progressive group is more than five.

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi: Well, the progressive-- I'm a progressive. Yeah.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •