Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile

<a href="http://www.game-advertising-online.com/" target=_blank>Game Advertising Online</a><br> banner requires iframes

LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info forum | HOMM4: info forum | HOMM5: info forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: United States President: 2008
Thread: United States President: 2008 [ This thread is 90 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 (47) 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 ]
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted June 06, 2008 10:59 PM

I don't give a good lickety split what the Church considers.  If the government wants to call it a civil union, fine - but it should be a civil union for EVERYONE.  If you call it civil union for homosexuals and marriage for everyone else, even if they are exactly the same, you leave the door open for future discriminatory legislation.  As I said: separate but equal is never equal.
____________
Moderating the OSM WOG forum is like being pecked to death by chickens.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Mulroney
Mulroney


Hired Hero
posted June 06, 2008 11:35 PM

Of course it's not the same as interracial marriage. Blacks can't choose to be white, and vice versa. (Please don't give me the tired old argument that homosexuality is not a choice; there is little to no evidence supporting that)

Marriage is a religious institution. It always has been and always will be. Eventually you're going to have to face the fact that YOUR government, just like most other governments, is based in part on a belief in God. As such, things like murder and theft are illegal, and so is gay marriage. If you don't like it, move to China. No religious danger there, and I hear they are the pinnacle of human rights.

Perhaps you're right, though, on one point. I wouldn't have too much trouble with the government referring to them all as "civil unions." People would still be free to have a MARRIAGE, but it would not be relevant in the eyes of the law.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted June 06, 2008 11:51 PM
Edited by Corribus at 23:56, 06 Jun 2008.

Quote:
Of course it's not the same as interracial marriage. Blacks can't choose to be white, and vice versa. (Please don't give me the tired old argument that homosexuality is not a choice; there is little to no evidence supporting that)

Ah, geez.  Here we go.

--> Show me the evidence for the "tired old argument" that homosexuality IS a choice.

Quote:
Marriage is a religious institution. It always has been and always will be.

It's a religious institution from the Church's point of view.  Interpreted by the government, marriage is essentially an economic contract, and marriage laws exist for the sole purpose of protecting the legal and economic interests of all invested parties.  There is no other reason to have marriage laws.  Marriage laws do not govern love, sexual contentment, fidelity (in most cases) or anything of that nature, and nor should they.  If the government cared about the religious aspect of the institution of marriage, then there would also be laws concerning baptism, communion, and other "religious institions".

Quote:
Eventually you're going to have to face the fact that YOUR government, just like most other governments, is based in part on a belief in God.

It's not, sorry.  Read out Constitution.  Read the writings of the people who founded our government.  You'll find that they specifically created a government with no religious basis.  Certainly, the morals of society have - in part - religious underpinnings.  But even those morals which people like to think of as "Christian" existed long before Christ was born and have more to do with common sense than "God said this" and "God said that".  

Quote:
As such, things like murder and theft are illegal, and so is gay marriage.

Ah, so homosexuals are like murderers and thieves?  So you think murder is illegal only because god says it is so?  Murder was a crime long before Jesus came around, you know.

Quote:
If you don't like it, move to China. No religious danger there, and I hear they are the pinnacle of human rights.

Murder is legal in China? I'm confused.

Quote:
Perhaps you're right, though, on one point. I wouldn't have too much trouble with the government referring to them all as "civil unions." People would still be free to have a MARRIAGE, but it would not be relevant in the eyes of the law.

You've just contradicted the entire premise of the first half of your post, but at least the end of your post at least makes it seem like you have the capability of seeing sense.

In any case, this is way beyond the scope of the thread.  I suggest that you move this to the homosexuality thread if you really want to discuss it.  Judging from what you've written so far, which basically amounts of the typical (Christian) homophobic vitriol, I'd advise against it.
____________
Moderating the OSM WOG forum is like being pecked to death by chickens.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
The_Gootch
The_Gootch


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
posted June 07, 2008 01:56 AM

Mulroney, noone is going to take you seriously if all you do is chirp about the dumb wedge issues the GOP has been driving for a generation.  Then again, I don't think I'll ever take anyone seriously when their listed e-mail is poltalian stallion.  

Glad to see you've met Corribus already.  I don't know if he and I are a lot alike in our views, but I will tell you we don't appreciate people who use dishonest arguments, from either side of the aisle.

Now, if you've got something of substance to say, I'm all ears.  But if all you've got is, "Zomg Obama's a leftwing liberal socialist do-gooding Saddam and Ahmadinejad appeaser!!!!!1" then *points finger* Investor's Business Daily and FOX News is thataway.

____________
"The trouble with America is
that when the dollar only earns
6 percent over here, then it
gets restless and goes overseas
to get 100 percent. Then the
flag follows the dollar and the
sold... too long to display...

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Mulroney
Mulroney


Hired Hero
posted June 07, 2008 03:44 AM

Hahah, relax guys. You people are always so angry. Firstly, the tail end of my post does not contradict the rest. If anything it shows I'm willing to compromise. There are better examples that the laws of the USA were founded mostly on Christian principles than murder or theft, but this being a gaming forum, and my wife being an impatient hog of my time, I can't be bothered to think of 'em.

I'm sorry if I sound like a typical Republican. The sort of argument I'm making here is unheard of up here in Canada, so it's not that I'm just buying into what those around me say.

I'm just trying to make the point that people do have legitimate concerns that Obama, combined with a Democrat majority, will make some serious changes, and the results of some of those changes could end up negatively. If you look at things like public health care, gun control, etc. in other countries (like Canada) you'll see they've utterly failed and wasted billions in the process.

Two quick things to close:
1) Some Fox News programs are actually not that bad
2) The e-mail is from highschool, and I don't like using my business one due to the risk of junk mail. So lay off. (Besides, I think it's cool )

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted June 07, 2008 08:57 AM

Quote:
If the government wants to call it a civil union, fine - but it should be a civil union for EVERYONE.
No, what I'm saying is that the government should call it "marriage".

Quote:
As I said: separate but equal is never equal.
I never suggested that they should be separate.

Quote:
1) Some Fox News programs are actually not that bad
Fox News Sunday isn't bad, but the rest range from horribly biased to extremely horribly biased.

So, why don't you think that homosexuality is natural?
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Mulroney
Mulroney


Hired Hero
posted June 07, 2008 01:05 PM

Quote:
So, why don't you think that homosexuality is natural?


I'm not a scientist or a psychiatrist. I'm just going with the one that makes more sense to me until further evidence is presented, to be honest.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
The_Gootch
The_Gootch


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
posted June 07, 2008 01:37 PM

Get out of here with all this homo talk!!!!

Christ, I swear I'll send you both Village People cds and you can indulge your man love in the quiet of your own stereo system.

Now, we were celebrating Obama's historic victory and the challenges both sides are going to face in the upcoming general election.

Actually, a few things.

Quote:
I'm just trying to make the point that people do have legitimate concerns that Obama, combined with a Democrat majority, will make some serious changes, and the results of some of those changes could end up negatively. If you look at things like public health care, gun control, etc. in other countries (like Canada) you'll see they've utterly failed and wasted billions in the process.


Ok, this one may have some substance yet.

For public health care, I think we are going to go that direction and it is big business that will push us there.  The boomers are set to retire and we're talking about a pool of 80 million workers with about 20 million set to replace them.  Combine that with the fact that many of our competitors have the healthcare of their workers subsidized by their own government.  Couple that with the upcoming pension obligations our companies are going to face with the boomers and you better believe we're going to shift towards some sort of universal healthcare.  

I think of gun control as another wedge issue that both sides use in a dishonest way.  One one side you've got clowns who scream the government is trying to take their guns away and that's the first sign of an oppressive government--removing the ability for the people to revolt!  On the other side you've got clowns who pander to people's fear by saying they want to make the world safer for their children and the other guy is a bloodthirsty, Heston loving, Armor Piercing Bullet worshipping...etc. and so on and so forth.  

Both sides skew statistics to further their argument, ranging from sweet Ethel May who managed to defend herself against the evil mugger who was trying to steal her social security check to those who say you're more likely to get shot by your own gun in a robbery if you try to use it for home defense.

If we are guaranteed the right to bear arms by the constitution it is the right and responsibility of the government to regulate it.  But that regulation needs to come from the state and local levels.  What works in Wyoming or even in my downstate Illinois doesn't necessarily work in Chicago.  I am curious to see what the high court says about the D.C. ban on handguns.  OmegaDestroyer's saying it's unconstitutional.  I don't know.  And considering the make-up of the court I don't see how they can say it's unconstitutional.  

As for the right to bear arms itself, well, Michael Moore showed us Yanks you Canadians are more responsible with your guns than we are.  


____________
"The trouble with America is
that when the dollar only earns
6 percent over here, then it
gets restless and goes overseas
to get 100 percent. Then the
flag follows the dollar and the
sold... too long to display...

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted June 07, 2008 02:02 PM
Edited by mvassilev at 14:10, 07 Jun 2008.

What many people (on both sides of the aisle) don't realize is that the government being involved in health care doesn't necessarily mean taxpayers paying for every cent of every medical expense. Case in point: my health-care proposal in the Economics thread. There are ways to improve competition while making health care more affordable.

As for gun control, many anti-control people don't realize that the military has far better weaponry than the civillian populace, so they stand no chance, even with guns.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Mulroney
Mulroney


Hired Hero
posted June 07, 2008 03:14 PM

Gootch, you talk about skewed statistics and then refer to Michael Moore in the same post. Faux pas.

Canada, per capita, has almost the same gun crime problem as the US does. The fact that we have 12 times less people, and a lot less dense population sure makes Moore's stats sound impressive, though.

Our government in the last decade spent literally billions* on a gun registry (How can it even cost that much to run a server with people's names in it?) and gun crimes have only INCREASED. The simple fact is, people do not commit crimes with registered, legal guns, so banning them solves nothing.

Regarding that handgun ban, I don't think they'll find it unconstitutional. It's not like they're banning rifles, but like I said, ban handguns and handgun crime will only increase.


*Quick point: Billions is a LOT when your whole economy (ie Canada's) is only about 1 trillion.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Xerox
Xerox


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
posted June 07, 2008 04:08 PM

Yay Obama is winning!


Now all in Sweden will be very happy.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
OmegaDestroyer
OmegaDestroyer

Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
posted June 07, 2008 06:41 PM
Edited by OmegaDestroyer at 18:42, 07 Jun 2008.

I'd wait until November to start rejoicing.  It's going to be a long, bitter campaign season.
____________
I am the kaiser
I bring forth the raze

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Consis
Consis


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
posted June 08, 2008 12:16 AM

LoL!

Quote:
FOX News is thataway

HAHAhahaha.......

The_Gootch = Love/Hate
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted June 08, 2008 12:24 AM

@Mulroney

Quote:
There are better examples that the laws of the USA were founded mostly on Christian principles than murder or theft, but this being a gaming forum, and my wife being an impatient hog of my time, I can't be bothered to think of 'em.

The US was founded on moral principles that also happen to be, in many cases, the same as Christian ones.  A correlation does not necessarily imply causation.  In any case, I guess if you can't be bothered to think of any salient argument, I can't be bothered to worry about your poor understanding of our government or the people who made it.

@The_Gootch

Quote:
I don't know if [Corribus] and I are a lot alike in our views, but I will tell you we don't appreciate people who use dishonest arguments, from either side of the aisle.

Well I don't know about the former.  Judging by your posts, I suspect that if we made a checklist of major issues, we wouldn't agree on all of them.  You appear to lean further left than I do, generally speaking.  I'm officially a registered Republican.  Before you break out the pitchforks, the reason has a lot to do with the fact that I grew up in a Republican household in central Pennsylvania, and being a teenager who hardly knew enough about the world to form any reasonably intelligent opinion on anything, I chose what I knew at the time.  Beyond that, the Republican party has changed a lot since then, or at least, it seems to have to me, but that might just be a reflection of my own growth as an invested and interested citizen.  My upbringing *has* influenced my view on a lot of matters - even if I'm not a slave to it - particularly economic ones, and I do believe in the general philosophy that smaller government is better.  This puts me firmly in the Libertanian camp, where I tend to agree with, in principle, Republicans on economic issues and Democrats on social ones (although, that's becoming less and less the case, as Republcans are departing further and further from fiscal conservatism, as well as gravitating more and more towards social authoritarianism).  It also pretty much means that no major political candidate is exactly what I'm looking for.  

In any case, I've never changed my party affiliation simply because I don't vote according to party - I consider each candidate on his own merits and on his own stances on issues.  I don't like to be pigeonholed by my party affiliation and I won't do it to the Candidates.  In the 2004 election, I voted for more Democrats than Republicans.  Maybe that will happen again. Who knows? I also tend to feel that as far as the president's powers are concerned, social stances are more important, and since I agree with most Democratic candidates on social issues, I am better able to "make a difference in my favor" by trying to change the outcome of Republican elections.  I don't know if that makes any sense.  

So, that's me in a nutshell.  I will admit that I'm getting more and more disenfranchised with what I perceive to be a progressively more authoritarian stance by major Republican candidates, and the seemingly progressively more self-righteous attitudes of religious conservatives in general.  I'm not sure how much that compares with your political compass, but one other thing I am getting more and more disenfranchised with is the growing feeling that people of different political flavors cannot even have civilized conversations any longer, because of the very dishonest arguments that you allude to.  Whether it's due to willfull, pointed chicanery and direct misrepresentation of opponents' views/opinions, or just plain old ignorance on the issues themselves and a general laziness to actually do any research at all, I find the political atmosphere in our country today depressing.  This extends all the way from the petty bickering and mudslinging that has soaked into almost every politicla campaign, down to the brackish verbal muck that clogs online message boards.   I get the sense that politicians of one party have no problem actively sabotaging a good program or proposed bill, not because they fundamentally disagree with it, but simply because it came from the other side, and let's not get into the deceit and underhanded crap that goes on in the elections.  This caustic and bellicose political climate is only exacerbated by the media and by all the CNN and Fox News zombies that just lap it up and then spew it back out whenever they get a chance.  The bottom line is that when people who have fundamental disagreements (and there's nothing wrong with that) over policy matters cannot have civil, honest, open conversations about it, how do we expect anything to ever get done?  It can't, and it won't.

So yeah, whatever your stance on the political issues is, I am definitely with you on the dishonest arguments scorecard.  Wow, that turned out to be a longer rant than I had planned...
____________
Moderating the OSM WOG forum is like being pecked to death by chickens.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Moonlith
Moonlith


Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
posted June 08, 2008 06:09 AM

Quote:
Of course it's not the same as interracial marriage. Blacks can't choose to be white, and vice versa. (Please don't give me the tired old argument that homosexuality is not a choice; there is little to no evidence supporting that)

"Of course" ?

I am living evidence that supports that "tired old argument"; I never choose my sexuality, nor can I change what my dick chooses to get hard from, period. Who the hell are YOU to tell me I have a choice in this? You have studied sexuoloy?

I find it both hilarious and insanely frustrating that the biggest ignorants who never even delved deeper into the subject think they can claim "of course" that it is this way or that way. The arrogance is killing me.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted June 08, 2008 11:09 AM

Corribus, it's nice to see a libertarian. I am not quite a libertarain, although close, being somewhere between Democrat and Libertarian. But if you believe in limited government and a free market, why haven't you spoken up earlier? I could've really used your help in the Economics thread.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted June 08, 2008 11:23 AM
Edited by Corribus at 11:37, 08 Jun 2008.

Quote:
Corribus, it's nice to see a libertarian. I am not quite a libertarain, although close, being somewhere between Democrat and Libertarian. But if you believe in limited government and a free market, why haven't you spoken up earlier? I could've really used your help in the Economics thread.

Well, first I don't usually like to label myself.  Labels invite assumptions.  When the primaries were going on here in Pennsylvania, I was approached by someone (an Obama supporter) who was trying to get people to vote for Obama in the primary.  I told them I was a registered Republican and couldn't vote in that primary.  And their response was (no joke), "I can't believe you are against gun control."  And I was like, "way to assume you know how I stand on every position just because of what party I happen to be a registered member of".  A lot of people will completely let your label determine their attitude towards you.  I could completely agree with someone on every issue, but just because I use a different label than they do, they automatically assume they don't like me.  The Obama-recruiter looked at me like a leper when I told her I was a registered Republican. So, that's why I don't usually volunteer to label myself.

Second, to be fair I hadn't really seen your economics thread until late in the game.
____________
Moderating the OSM WOG forum is like being pecked to death by chickens.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
OmegaDestroyer
OmegaDestroyer

Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
posted June 08, 2008 11:31 AM
Edited by OmegaDestroyer at 11:33, 08 Jun 2008.

That's the reason why I decided to become an independent.  Like you, Corribus, I got really sick of being associated with all of the beliefs of the party I was affiliated with.  Plus in seeking government employment, sometimes it's better not to have a label.  It can help, but I think in most employment cases, it's better to keep politics to oneself.
____________
I am the kaiser
I bring forth the raze

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted June 08, 2008 11:38 AM

Yeah I thought about becomming an independent, but I do like being able to vote in a major party's primary.  On most job applications, you aren't required to disclose that information, correct?
____________
Moderating the OSM WOG forum is like being pecked to death by chickens.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted June 08, 2008 11:56 AM
Edited by mvassilev at 11:57, 08 Jun 2008.

That's why more people should register as independents. "What are you?" "An independent." That makes keeps them guessing, and doesn't tie you down.

And that's why there should be a blanket primary.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
[ This thread is 90 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 (47) 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 ] < Prev Thread . . . Next Thread >
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0908 seconds