|
Post by ltfred on Aug 8, 2010 8:23:36 GMT -5
That can't even happen. Seriously, why do people think this? It's not even a record-high debt yet. Jeez.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Aug 11, 2010 10:53:57 GMT -5
That can't even happen. Seriously, why do people think this? It's not even a record-high debt yet. Jeez. A meme can be more important then a fact. We all are guilty of this to some degree but teabaggers seem especially egregious. Remember, tebaggers still think we all taxed too much, ignoring that taxes went down under Obama and even the 'greatest Tax Hike in HISTORY" under Clinton was still only a fraction of the taxes under Eisenhower and Nixon. But that doesn't matter. Obama raised taxes (on somebody..somehow.. they think) and that's what's important.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Aug 11, 2010 11:00:46 GMT -5
Since going to church is a form of behavior, does that mean that being able to practice your religion isn't a civil right? I don't get the logic behind the whole idea that rights depend on whether a trait is inborn or not. For one, that's not how the constitution was written nor it's intent. The framers had no problem what so ever with denying rights based on inborn traits. The idea that inborn traits deserved protection came much later in our history . Obviously I have no problem with protecting inborn traits but that wasn't what the founders were tryign to protect, which leads me to my second point.. They were defending behaviors. Or more importantly the right to choose one's behaviors. Speaking your mind, assembling peacefully, refusing to consent to a search, not incriminating one's self, these are all behaviors that we choose to engage in (or not engage in) This woman holding up a sign displaying her beliefs is a BEHAVIOR. And it's her civil right to do so. So she literally refutes her own argument as soon as she makes it. Freedom of choice was not the only guiding principle behind why some things are rights and others not but it's certainly a big factor.
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Aug 12, 2010 9:43:57 GMT -5
In a star trek uniform? Kind of loses something otherwise... Yes, it's a newer version of the uniform. To be more specific, its a Voyager-era uniform. ... Yeah, I'm a Star Trek nerd.
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Aug 12, 2010 10:01:48 GMT -5
For one, that's not how the constitution was written nor it's intent.[...] They were defending behaviors. Or more importantly the right to choose one's behaviors. Speaking your mind, assembling peacefully, refusing to consent to a search, not incriminating one's self, these are all behaviors that we choose to engage in (or not engage in) This woman holding up a sign displaying her beliefs is a BEHAVIOR. And it's her civil right to do so. So she literally refutes her own argument as soon as she makes it. Freedom of choice was not the only guiding principle behind why some things are rights and others not but it's certainly a big factor. Well, sort of. The Constitution specifically protects those behaviors and calls them civil rights. The First Amendment protects, by name, peaceful protest.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Aug 12, 2010 10:44:44 GMT -5
Yes, it's a newer version of the uniform. To be more specific, its a Voyager-era uniform. ... Yeah, I'm a Star Trek nerd. I didn't want to show how Trekkie I am.
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Aug 12, 2010 11:39:50 GMT -5
Hahaha, I have almost no sense of shame, so it doesn't bug me. ;D
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Aug 12, 2010 11:49:17 GMT -5
Since going to church is a form of behavior, does that mean that being able to practice your religion isn't a civil right? Since protesting is a behavior, isn't she contradicting herself?
|
|
|
Post by Bezron on Aug 12, 2010 12:23:52 GMT -5
Since going to church is a form of behavior, does that mean that being able to practice your religion isn't a civil right? I don't get the logic behind the whole idea that rights depend on whether a trait is inborn or not. For one, that's not how the constitution was written nor it's intent. The framers had no problem what so ever with denying rights based on inborn traits. The idea that inborn traits deserved protection came much later in our history . Obviously I have no problem with protecting inborn traits but that wasn't what the founders were tryign to protect, which leads me to my second point.. They were defending behaviors. Or more importantly the right to choose one's behaviors. Speaking your mind, assembling peacefully, refusing to consent to a search, not incriminating one's self, these are all behaviors that we choose to engage in (or not engage in) This woman holding up a sign displaying her beliefs is a BEHAVIOR. And it's her civil right to do so. So she literally refutes her own argument as soon as she makes it. Freedom of choice was not the only guiding principle behind why some things are rights and others not but it's certainly a big factor. Here's the thing: Fundies want to insist and believe this is a behavior because, if you are born gay, then that means God made you that way. But they use God to defend anti-gay bigotry. If God made gay people that way, then either the fundies are wrong about homosexuality being an abomination to God or God made a mistake, which means that God is not infallible and brings up a whole mess of other questions (ones which we, the evil atheists, ask them every chance we get). Anything that makes fundies actually ask questions causes head asplosions. So, they insist it is behavior and not genetic and refuse to see any evidence to the contrary, which makes it ok to discriminate. I seriously had this very conversation with my fundie mother recently (who freely admits that she doesn't want to question her beliefs because it is just easier)
|
|
|
Post by Jodie on Aug 13, 2010 22:13:39 GMT -5
Well, duh. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Aug 14, 2010 1:29:42 GMT -5
I, for one, would love to be able to learn Spanish so that, in the event that America becomes a bilingual nation, I can laugh at all the Patriot Fundies while insulting them in Spanish.
|
|
|
Post by Vypernight on Aug 14, 2010 4:12:55 GMT -5
Since going to church is a form of behavior, does that mean that being able to practice your religion isn't a civil right? Since protesting is a behavior, isn't she contradicting herself? That's a She?
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Aug 14, 2010 4:27:27 GMT -5
Since protesting is a behavior, isn't she contradicting herself? That's a She? That's what the haircut, lipstick, and pearl necklace would suggest. (NOT THAT KIND OF PEARL NECKLACE YOU PERVERT!)
|
|
|
Post by Vypernight on Aug 14, 2010 4:44:03 GMT -5
She looks like she's got a guy's face, or maybe she's just REALLY ugly.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 14, 2010 5:00:52 GMT -5
She looks like she's got a guy's face, or maybe she's just REALLY ugly. You never noticed that people protesting against homosexual (and abortion) rights, are often ugly? You don't think that a deep seated, probably subconscious jealousy and fear that there are "other people getting more than me" is a significant contributing factor motivating these arsewits?
|
|