All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[worstblogever]

I was not talking about you. You present facts about certain members of the Republican party and this is perfectly fine. If someone feels insulted by mere facts, then it is his problem. As far as I know you do not call all republican voters names.

I do not want to repeat myself all the time, so this will be the end of it: Presenting and discussing facts is perfectly fine, I do not have any problem with it. But it should be in a civil manner without name calling imo.

Cool.

Case in point, I'll say something nice about two Republicans:

Susan Collins, for yesterday coming off the ACA was a refreshing change. Also, Walter Jones, of North Carolina, by and large seems like he's trying to actually govern in a responsible way. He once called for the Capitol cafeteria to rename "French Fries" as "Freedom Fries", and was someone who voted for the Iraq War, and eventually, he came to regret that vote, resent the Bush administration's "intelligence" that led to the war, and posted pictures of soldiers who were dying in the hall outside his office as a reminder of why it needed to end. (This being said, he voted for the Government Shutdown, and against the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, but at least he bucks the party some of the time.)

I can't hate on anybody who puts a human face on suffering like that, and legislates to prevent it based off it.

So, yeah. Not all Republicans are nuts. Just a near majority in Congress, though, at this point.

[Hellion]

For the record, I do not think all Republicans are nuts either. As stated earlier, I come from a family of them and am technically half-Republican in my own political beliefs. My criticism is directed towards social conservatives. I'm sure not all of them are terrible human beings, but every single one that I've encountered in my neck of the woods, and they are legion, have no qualms about treating certain groups of people as less than human. I mean, these people I have encountered personally are the types that would see no problems with slavery or stealing land from the Native Americans. Because their God tells them it's ok, or something. I do not believe blatantly insulting "the other party" is the way to go about disagreeing with things, I just have a tendency to do that because I'm a rage monster like that and in my personal experience, it is very hard to have a civil and rational debate when one side keeps throwing their religious beliefs at you and misinterpreting "beliefs" to mean "facts."

[worstblogever]

A friend of mine the other day:

"I'm a woman and I like guns.

Based off the two parties in this country, I think that makes me a moderate."

[heretic]

There was a time though where most people did not believe in gay marriage, twenty or even ten years ago. No one believed they were homophobes or bigoted for not doing so. However the homosexual movement changed this through various tactics and I don't think insulting people was one of them.

Now that the balance has changed, indicting opponents as homophobes has become a more common tactic however from what I recall on the statistics, gay marriage is still not popular among half or less than half of the country, and if you add people who believe in civil marriage, most people in the US don't believe in it.

I also think its important to consider why these people believe the way they do. Its not to directly harm or spite gay people. Usually these believes are held because they think gay marriage is harmful to society. At some point you are ware down that 50% more or less block to a nub and the people who continue to hold these beliefs do so out of spite or hatred of gays, but I don't think we are there yet. This is a transitional period and we must give people time.

So when people say that their own marriage is made less special by gays marrying, there is a movement to enforce homosexuality, and/or that young heterosexuals will refuse to marry because it will become a "Gay" thing; and I tell them they are not making sense. I am harming the cause of legalizing Same Sex Marriage.

Should we then have refused to refute what was said about Interracial Marriage not all that long ago?

[Hellion]

Haha that's great. I have a friend that's a fierce advocate for population control (he doesn't target a specific group, he just thinks the planet would be better off with less humans on it). Based off the two parties in this country, that makes him a leper.

[the4thpip]

Or maybe legions of straight, white, Christian men read arrogant jerk comments on the internet calling them dumber than dirt and having tiny little heads only because they vote an other party than the poster and decide that they do not want to support a party concisting of arrogant jerks?

I am obviously not a republican but I hate it when people belittle other people only because they made an different choice than themselves. It reminds me of the left and green party here in Germany. They are talking big about democracy and stuff, but only if the people share their opinion and vote "the right side".

The Green party, of course, is and has been in several funcktional coalitions on every imaginable level of German government and moving towards the center for decades, proving your opinion to be biased and wrong.

And the "different choice" you find so worthy or respect is a choice for denying people their basic human rights.

This is not a choice between chocolate and vanilla. This is a choice between chocolate and mustard gas.

[Spike-X]

Haha that's great. I have a friend that's a fierce advocate for population control (he doesn't target a specific group, he just thinks the planet would be better off with less humans on it). Based off the two parties in this country, that makes him a leper.

It's interesting how the people who put forth this view always assume they'll be one of the ones left alive.

[Hellion]

It's interesting how the people who put forth this view always assume they'll be one of the ones left alive.

Haha I know. There's really no way to implement any sort of population control without offending various large groups of people across the globe. Really, you'd have to volunteer to be culled, and I don't think the yield rate from that demographic would be large enough to be effective.

[Mr. Mastermind]

Meh. A Tory defector, popular in his constituency, with the advantage of already being the sitting MP, and By-elections are notorious for protest votes and unusual results. Let's see how UKIP do in the general election with none of those factors to help them, before getting too worried.

UKIP will come third in the popular vote, and at best sixth in the House of Commons behind the DUP and SNP. They might even lose to Sinn Fein (which doesn't matter of course). That's what happens when you try to make your party appeal to both Labour and Tory voters.

The real effect UKIP will have is in marginal seats where they'll cut down the Conservative vote and give many seats to Labour.

[the4thpip]

The same benefit of a doubt or civility I give to the voters of any other party I do not like. I like neither left nor right extremist parties, but as long they are not prohibited people have every right to vote for them. I do not walk around and insult other people, because they dare to vote for a party I do not like. I do not care if someone votes for the NPD or Die Linke or any other extremist legal party as long he is not involved into criminal activities and is able to discuss politics in a civil manner. Either you have a democracy or not.

You do realize that it is possible that there were too many people like you in our country in the 20s and 30s, people who felt that being against human rights for everybody was an opinion that deserves respect?

[Pinsir]

So when people say that their own marriage is made less special by gays marrying, there is a movement to enforce homosexuality, and/or that young heterosexuals will refuse to marry because it will become a "Gay" thing; and I tell them they are not making sense. I am harming the cause of legalizing Same Sex Marriage.

Should we then have refused to refute what was said about Interracial Marriage not all that long ago?

Anti-miscegenation laws have been, more or less, banned since 1967 in the US. Nowadays if one thinks these laws should be reestablished, well that person probably is racist. However I don't think the same can be said for people around 1967. A lot of these people saw these laws as a product of social good, not harm. A lot of the time people never questioned why they hold these beliefs too.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Anti-miscegenation laws have been, more or less, banned since 1967 in the US. Nowadays if one thinks these laws should be reestablished, well that person probably is racist. However I don't think the same can be said for people around 1967. A lot of these people saw these laws as a product of social good, not harm. A lot of the time people never questioned why they hold these beliefs too.

Um, no. If they saw it as a social good, it was for racist reasons like the belief miscegenation would dirty the gene pool. I know you love to be contrarian and support terrorists, fascists and bigots, but siding with the Klan is not a good look.

[Mikekerr3]

There was a time though where most people did not believe in gay marriage, twenty or even ten years ago. No one believed they were homophobes or bigoted for not doing so. However the homosexual movement changed this through various tactics and I don't think insulting people was one of them.

Now that the balance has changed, indicting opponents as homophobes has become a more common tactic however from what I recall on the statistics, gay marriage is still not popular among half or less than half of the country, and if you add people who believe in civil marriage, most people in the US don't believe in it.

I also think its important to consider why these people believe the way they do. Its not to directly harm or spite gay people. Usually these believes are held because they think gay marriage is harmful to society. At some point you are ware down that 50% more or less block to a nub and the people who continue to hold these beliefs do so out of spite or hatred of gays, but I don't think we are there yet. This is a transitional period and we must give people time.

If we start insulting people who could possibly be swayed, we run the risk of hardening their views. There was a study a year ago that more or less supports this notion.

The folks that thought gay marriage should be banned couple of decades ago, Including myself simply were homophobes. Jut like the people who thought or think that interracial marriage should have been banned were simply racist bigots, The fact that those were majority options doesn't change what they are or were.

Giving ignorance, insanity and hate respect is destructive. I have to repeats someone right to an opinion, but there is not an obligation to not state that people holding that opinion are bigots fools or jackasses. Pretending that all opinions are equal is a nastry trap, some opinions are stupid and/or evil

[Kasper Cole]

So when people say that their own marriage is made less special by gays marrying, there is a movement to enforce homosexuality, and/or that young heterosexuals will refuse to marry because it will become a "Gay" thing; and I tell them they are not making sense. I am harming the cause of legalizing Same Sex Marriage.

Should we then have refused to refute what was said about Interracial Marriage not all that long ago?

People still say those things about interracial marriage.

I think a big misconception people have is that interracial marriages are now common and widely accepted when they're not. They're more common and more accepted than they were 50 yrs ago, but still quiet rare and still seen as taboo by many people.

[Mikekerr3]

I was not talking about you. You present facts about certain members of the Republican party and this is perfectly fine. If someone feels insulted by mere facts, then it is his problem. As far as I know you do not call all republican voters names.

I do not want to repeat myself all the time, so this will be the end of it: Presenting and discussing facts is perfectly fine, I do not have any problem with it. But it should be in a civil manner without name calling imo.

Calli ng a fool a fool and a jackass a jackass, are basic reasons for free speech, and a moral requirement for good citizenship