You have a lot of catching up to do. You better start reading ;)
Expose a person who is a from a minority group as a racist and no one bats an eye.
Expose a person who is white as a racist and everyone loses their mind. ;)
People have been saying that for years ;)
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
People have been saying that for years ;)
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
So let me see if I understand what you are saying. Someone can lose his job (not because they cannot do the work or because they're assholes but rather) due to these obscure reasons you describe. They are not able to get another job (not because they cannot do the work or because they're assholes but rather) due to these obscure reasons you describe. They also do not have the safety net of friends and/or family (not because they're assholes but rather) because the friends and family are assholes. Is that about right? Because I subscribe to the common denominator principle. If there are a bunch of different reasons for losing your job, not being able to find a new job, not having friends and not having family to help you..., or..., if there's just one reason to explain losing your job, not being able to find a new job, not having friends and not having family to help you..., I usually assume the one reason is probably the right one ;)
Yeah..., I generally agree...., but then I crave a beer and...., well...., you know ;)
Actually, if the homeless person takes his pan handled money to Starbucks, he can get free internet access. Lol, a homeless person at Starbucks accessing the internet through his laptop! It boggles the mind ;)
Yes, this is true because it takes 2 to Tango. ;)
If God had violated the rules of nature, then everything would be magical. But just because there is no magic, does not mean that there is no God.
Wait, what? The government's going to euthanasia my grandma, and ship sick people to Antarctica ? ! OK, you know what, this Obamacare thing has gone too far. Where does he get off doing stuff like that? Are you starting rumors? ;)
The economy needs more help. We can't let something like this put us further in debt and destroy America.
isn't "Intelligent Politicians" an oxymoron? ;)
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
Oh that's that nosy broad that likes to stick her nose where it don't belong and put her two cents in ;)
There is a place for all of God's little creatures. Right next to the mash potatoes and gravy. Animals. It's what's for dinner. ;)
Actually, (as a Catholic) if he was going to fool around, I think Marylin Monroe was a good choice ;)
Both Jake. The race card right now is more annoying to me than racism because it has been over used but I want them to both go away.
Well then, since you put it that way, I mean one of those things on your first paragraph.... not on the second paragraph ;)
OK, I can hang with that. I do not (cannot) disagree with anything you have said.
No, I'm implying that the American drive by rate is higher than the education level of those groups committing drive bys.
Well..., yeah...., of course I'm implying that...., otherwise I'd be wrong and that's just not right ;)
Lol. I can't be racist because I'm a minority. I have never had a "chip on my shoulder" though.
Let me explain. Like I said, I am a minority. Yet, I was in the U.S. army and and I made sergeant in two years (which is the smallest amount of time that anyone can make sergeant).
So what?
Well, like ThePyg said, it's all about attitude.
I knew this black man while I was an enlisted man. The difference between us was that he had a different attitude than I had. He thought everyone was racist.
One day we were on the chow line waiting to be fed and we were talking to these white guys. It took quite a long time. Anyway, after we got our food I went and sat with the white guys we we had been talking to. They said, "where's Travis?" and I looked for him wondering the same thing. I finally saw him and I said, "He's over there sitting with the brothers." ;)
Anyway, Travis heard me and threw his plate of spaghetti at my head. He missed ;)
He threatened me (he was bigger than me) and I said, "Travis, don't threatened me. You are the one who segregated himself from us. We did not segregate ourselves from you."
Needless to say, Travis saw the truth in my statement and I'm still alive (like I said, he was way bigger than me).
Moral of the story: If you have a chip on your shoulder, you wont make it in America. At least..., that has been my experience.
Now, I'm a minority in an apparently racist country and my income has 6 figures. A lot more that the amount of most Americans (black or white) as quoted by you. ;)
Do you think that Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Bill Cosby or any one like them would have a hard time making it in America? Look at their attitude. They are my role models.
Now, don't think of this as an attack on you. It isn't. Think of it as a way for young black men to make it in this country and support me. No smiley here. I'm serious about this. Serious as a heart attack. I want them to make it. Like me. There's no reason they can't.
Well, you know, they've gotten really good at drive by shootings and not getting caught, which skews the statistics a bit ;)
Yeah, but minorities are more than 90% responsible for drive by shootings (less than 10% for whites). If minorities spent less time in drive bys and more time in educating themselves, then maybe the other statistic will change too. I mean, I know it's a radical idea but maybe we should give education a chance. ;)
BTW, 68% of all statistics are made up on the spot ;)
OK...., C-ya. I'll make sure to crawl around the house on my belly just in case ;)
Hey, they got their freedom. It would be hypocritical of them to deny me my freedom of speech? ;)
Are you suggesting that the people who would have a genuine reason to be offended by my comments would do a drive by shooting? OMG!!! You're more racist than me!!! At least I used my smileys to denote that I was only kidding.
Besides, the people who would have a genuine reason to be offended by my comments don't have computers and if they did they wouldn't waste any time on an intellectual site like CD ;)
I think that we may have finally gotten it out of our system. I mean, if any one played the race card on me I'd be like, "Yo homie, you got your boy up there in the white house so don't be giving me any of that crap!" ;)
Seriously though, the U.S. once voted for a Catholic president (JFK)... once!
And now we can say that the U.S. once voted for a black president... once! ;)
I'm itching to find out if the U.S. will vote for Obama again. At this rate.... who knows ;)
That depends. China, the biggest country in the world... are they one culture? They speak different dialects in different parts of the country and have a few different customs. Same with Austria and it is a small country. But if you think the differences are small, then yeah. It is possible to have only one culture. Just take out everyone who refuses to convert ;)
They show all the other crap. They are definitely biased. :)
The year is 2009. After all of this time the human race either has learned what works and what doesn't work. If not, then we might as well just hang it up. Change for change's sake is not necessarily good.
They are showing their true liberal colors. They are not concerned about the U.S. They are not concerned with journalistic integrity. They just want to get their liberal agenda passed. ;)
Yes. First, take out the socialist. Then, redistribute their wealth. Then put an end to regulated capitalism and replace it with real capitalism. But that's just me ;)
It's not morally wrong but I wonder what animals would say to each other in the vet's waiting room if they could speak? Probably something like...
Three dogs are sitting in the waiting room at the vet's when they strike up a conversation.
The black Lab turns to the chocolate Lab and says, "So why are you here?"
The Chocolate Lab replies, "I'm a pisser. I piss on everything.. ..the sofa, the curtains, the cat, the kids. But the final straw was last night when I pissed in the middle of my owner's bed."
The black Lab says, "So what is the vet going to do?"
"Gonna cut my nuts off," comes the reply from the chocolate Lab. "They reckon it'll calm me down."
The black Lab then turns to the yellow lab and asks, "Why are you here?"
The yellow Lab says, "I'm a digger I dig under fences, dig up flowers and trees. I dig just for the hell of it. When I'm inside, I dig up the carpets. But I went over the line last night when I dug a great big hole in my owners couch."
"So what are they going to do to you?" the black Lab inquires.
"Looks like I'm losing my nuts too, the dejected yellow Lab says.
The yellow Lab then turns to the black Lab and asks, "Why are you here?"
"I'm a humper," the black Lab says. "I'll hump anything. I'll hump the cat, a pillow, the table, whatever. I want to hump everything I see. Yesterday, my owner had just got out of the shower and was bending down to dry her toes. I just couldn't help myself. I hopped on her back and started hammering away."
The yellow and chocolate Labs exchange a sad glance and says, "So, nuts off for you too, huh?
The black Lab says ...."No, I'm here to get my nails clipped." ;)
I've always said, politicians are not the brightest bulb in the box ;)
This is the reason why government fear drugs and try to control them. The drug may make you not want to be productive. Have you ever seen a pot head working his little butt off ;)
If I have to answer to anyone, then I'm not free. Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose. Owning nothing sets you free. You've seen homeless people, I'm sure. The cost of freedom is high but the alternative is to live out in the wild. If cows and chicken could chose, which life would they chose ;)
Yeah, I'd like a shot at getting me some of that ill gotten booty ;)
...we can do is set an example to the rest of the world.
Have you been successful in changing anyone's mind on this site by example? If so, who. If not, what makes you think we can change anyone's mind by example?
If you think education is expensive, you should try stupidity (now that can get to be really expensive ;)
While the article above mentions businesses stating that they will move overseas to avoid taxes, it doesn't mention the obvious job losses that will occur here in the USA.
Not if the world ends by 2012 as scheduled ;)
But if we survive 2012, yes.
Internal issues will be the downfall of this country. As we lose more and more of our liberties, as we become more and more socialist, we will lose our ability to navigate this country through tough times. In short, the greatest threat to America today is liberalism.
Human nature dictates that those in power will do what they can to stay in power and the civilian population will not continue once casualties get too high.
I'm a problem solver. I don't assign goodness or badness, that's a waste of time. Here's my solution:
1. Dig a moat the length of the Mexican border (don't bother building a fence).
2. Send the dirt to New Orleans to raise the level of the levees.
3. As the ocean levels raise, due to global warming, the moat will fill up.
4. Befriend Southeast Asia and Northern Australia by taking all of their salt water crocodiles and putting them in the moat along the Mexican border. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Any other problems you would like for me to solve today? ;)
The bad thing about acorn was all those squirrels trying to get a nut ;)
Since he's that young, he's bound to be in rush hour traffic at some point in time. I'd let him die ;)
Put Darwinism back into society. Stupid people die off as expected and the population becomes smarter as a result. We don't keep people alive artificially. We don't have nationalized health care. We thus reduce the population and reduce the deficit. It's a win-win situation ;)
Most teens would vote for anyone that promises them that they can stay up late at night, sleep in on mornings, reduce the driving and drinking age, cut back on homework, facilitate teen sex. :)
Let me put it this way, if David the ass hole Letterman was a Conservative, you would never hear the end of it. It would be all over the news and they would grill him like there's no tomorrow. But, since he's an ass hole liberal, he gets a pass. Wow, I almost felt angry there for a second ;)
Yeah lets do it. Maybe we'll learn a valuable lesson like humility as we play God and .... screw up we will.
Well, the fact that, not only is she not a virgin but, she had a baby means she can take a good pounding ;)
It was tried in the sixties and failed miserably. Here's why:
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
OK, so long can you hold your breath? There are these pearl divers that can hold their breath for 5 minutes. Can you come close to that?
So, you have a nice set of lungs. I mean.... shit! I walked right into that one, didn't I ;)
That was too easy and you still went for it. You go for the low hanging fruits ;)
I think I would like my penis to live on. Are there people on a list somewhere waiting for one? ;)
Better online. I can take a lot of the negativity out of my argument and also because I can avoid getting slapped ;)
Well, in the words of Emily_Litella, "never mind." ;)
People end up in poverty mostly because they are born into poverty and have no real way of getting out. If they are poverty and were not born in poverty it is usually because they have a mental of physical disability and many are veterans.
What a bunch of crap. First of all, when I came to this country I did not speak English. They could have kept me back a grade but they said, "sink or swim. We ain't got no bilingual program." Within a year I was speaking English.
The four of us, my mom, dad, sister and me lived in a one bed room apartment. Someone's attic to be exact. We weren't on welfare and didn't accept handouts.
My aunt, on the other hand, is on welfare. Not because she can't work but because, why? She's getting paid to do nothing. This liberal notion of "Oh we must cuddle the poor" is detrimental.
Second of all, I'm an American Veteran. I served in the U.S. Army and I'm proud of it and I love this country and I'd fight for it.
So, to say the least, I'm just as passionate, if not more so, about my postion on this topic. More so because I have lived it and I feel I know what I'm talking about. I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth but I'm doing OK, thank you very much. Now, I wonder if you had a better head start than me and I wonder were you are now compared to me.
I stand by Jake and The Pyg on this.
Handouts rob the poor of any incentive to better themselves. Don't give them handouts, give them jobs.
I agree. And the government does a lot of what he says not to do.
In a perfect world what you propose should work but unfortunately it is not a perfect a world and so we have two options.
1. Continue fighting over whether or not they can or cannot use the word. This can last indefinitely like the abortion issue.
2. Pick another word, grab the benefits/rights, stop the fighting and move on with all of our lives.
I'm 100% for option 2. I want to move on with my life ;)
That's right. The courts made a mistake calling "marriage" a right. They should have separated the rights offered by marriage from the word "marriage." Porp 8 pointed out the errors of their ways, and they recanted ;)
Actually I have two eyes ;)
I think that you are trying to tell me that a right has been taken away from some group (specifically, same sex couples) and that if rights can be taken away by a simply majority rule, then we are in trouble.
What I'm trying to tell you is that I don't think any rights have been taken away from anyone.
1. I don't believe marriage is a "right" (just like driving is not a right)
2. They said same sex couples have the same rights afforded my "marriage"
3. Those rights were not taken away
The problem here is that people don't know what a right is and thus feel they are entitled to a myriad of things that they really have no rights to. For example, handicap people do not have a right to parking spaces close to the store. We make provisions to help them out a little but those provisions can be taken away. However, if you try to take those parking space away you will hear about how their rights are being violated.
So what is the difference between civil unions and marriage? As far as I'm concerned they are the same thing. So, the decision made by the Supreme Court of California is moot.
And now they don't have the right to call their benefits and their rights a "marriage." So what? They get their benefits and their rights. Which is what really matters.
Bottom line: same sex couples have the same rights as heterosexual couples. They just don't get to call it a "marriage." Big deal!
Prop 8 does not take away any of the legal rights associated with marriage away from same sex couples. The court said gay couples were losing only the nomenclature of marriage.
"Last year, California's Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriages and afforded married gay couples the same rights as married heterosexual couples. While this week's decision may seem like a reversal to many, according to the court, Prop. 8 only applies to the term "marriage" and does not take away any of the legal rights associated with marriage."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0528/
Regardless of right and wrong, the two sides are at odds because same sex couples see this issue as an equality issue and the religious right sees this as a religious issue.
The religious right is saying, "Take and keep your rights but leave the word behind." The argument that there are certain rights that are inseparable from the word "marriage" is bunk. Any and all rights afforded to the word "marriage" can be afforded to another word.
But for same sex couples, the word holds a special meaning. Kendell and other gay rights activists say the term "marriage" has a symbolic meaning that goes beyond words. "I'd like to walk down the street and ask 10 heterosexual couples if they would cease referring to themselves as married, or cease referring to themselves as spouse, or husband, or wife to their families, their friends, and the world," she says."Marriage is the common vernacular to understanding what two people mean to each other."
Yup. Typical liberal response. When they don't have a sound logical argument, they start with the name calling ;)
Are you saying that Proposition 8 takes away the benefits offered by Civil Unions between same sex couples? That doesn't make sense.
Look, I know that people love to vilify the religious right but it doesn't make sense for the religious right to take away the benefits offered by civil unions to same sex couples. What the hell does the religious right care if a gay couple gets a tax break or any other benefit offered by marriage? All the religious right cares about is preserving the meaning of the word "marriage."
But lets just say you're right, just for arguments sake, then I would argue that we should never give up our rights to bear arms. Because it is by preserving that right that we will be able to keep tyrants at bay.
Hey, I picked the other side so.... bring it with no less than 50 characters ;)
Hey, I picked the other side so.... bring it with no less than 50 characters ;)
Well, I like to be manhandled by women so I'm picking this side ;)
I don't see that way at all. I see it as, "Civil unions between same sex couples carries with it the same benefits as married heterosexual couples." In other words, heterosexuals can define the word marriage any way they want, but they can't take away the rights of same sex couples who can call it something else.
The alternative is that we create laws that favor the weak in order to protect them (and take away any drive for them to become stronger). This leads to political correctness in order to also protect their fragile emotional state. Eventually the weak get a feeling of entitlement and the rest of us see the world as totaly upside down (i.e., the fault lies not with the individual but with soviety).
And do what? Are you trying to put me out of business?As long as there are humans, there will be someone somewhere complaining about something that will require new technology.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/
I never said anything about marriage traditionally being an equal union. I said that it was a union between a man and a woman and that part has remained constant. But I like the way you twisted my words in order to call me naive.
Now you insinuate that heterosexuals consider homosexuals as subhumans and thus don't want them to marry. That's an assumption. You're assuming to know "the real reason" why some heterosexuals don't want to allow homosexuals to use the word marriage. Heterosexuals say that the reason they don't want gays to marry is because marriage has traditionally been a union between a man and a woman. You seem to be calling these heterosexuals liars and racists who consider gays to be subhuman.
So, to recap, your argument is based on discrediting me by calling me naive and appealing to the reader's emotions by insinuating that heterosexuals are racists. I tend to find these types of arguments as weak. I mean, name calling and trying to manipulate people's emotions instead of letting your argument stand alone on its merit is weak.
I understand your argument that the word marriage has changed in definition over time and thus there's a precedence for changing it once again. But the changes you site are minor and the underlying definition [the foundation, if you will] has never changed. It has always been between a man and a woman.
BTW, you may want to reply here.
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
or not ;)
I never thought for one moment that you were different in any way shape or form. I have had, and have to this day, gay friends that I never thought were any different. And since I have friends on both sides of the fence, I feel more like someone in the middle of a battle field. I hear both sides and figured I may be able to get one group to bypass the other. However, my solution falls short in that, although it gets homosexuals the rights they're after, it doesn't buy them acceptance. For example, it doesn't get them religious wedding ceremonies from some religions.
BTW, a little more about my personal life, if you're interested. When I was a child I loved to play with toy soldiers. I would spend hours setting them up. Once I asked my sister to play and she immediately started a battle. I said, "What are you doing?" She said, "Well...., they're soldiers. They are doing what soldiers do." I said, "No! they're supposed to make treaties!" She said, "That's boring!" and left. Later that night my grandmother said that it was time to go to bed and that I had to clear the soldiers off the bed. So I had a small skirmish so that I could go to bed and not have to put away those soldiers that were under the bed. In the morning I continued playing but I don't remember if the survivors had a funeral for those who died the night before or if they managed to resurrect them somehow. I guess that little boy that was always wanting to make peace is still alive and well in me. ;)
I don't know if you've been reading all of my arguments on this topic but what I'm proposing is for the government to stop using the word "marriage" and replace it with the words "civil union" and have those 2 words apply to heterosexual and homosexual unions. This would give homosexual unions the same rights as heterosexual unions.
However, If the government were to take this advice, the churches would still be able to deny to perform homosexual wedding ceremonies. In this case gays don't miss out on any "rights" because a wedding ceremony [performed by a representative of a given religion] is not a right.
If the government were to use the word "marriage" for homosexual unions, then would churches be required to perform homosexual wedding ceremonies? If so, wouldn't this mean that the government is telling the church what it can and cannot do? Is it a good idea for the government to get into the "business" of religion? And if the churches are forced to perform homosexual weddings, would gay couples automatically be accepted by the congregation?
As far as your "separate is not equal" statement, it simply does not apply to this situation.
That statement applied to the situation between blacks and whites. One example (for illustrations purposes) is schooling. The idea was that blacks would have their own schools and whites would have their own school. But since at that time whites were more affluent than blacks, their children were able to enjoy a higher level of education.
In the current situation heterosexual couples are not necessarily more affluent than gays. There's no reason to assume that a heterosexual union would be better than a homosexual union. There's also no reason to assume that by calling a homosexual union a "marriage" that they will receive a "higher level" of benefits than if they just called it a civil union. Therefore, the statement "separate but equal" does not apply.
Historically, marriage has meant a union between a man and a woman. If it has ever meant anything other than that, then I would like to see that proof.
When racists said that a black person could not marry a white person, they lost in the courts because the historical definition has been "a union between a man and a woman" not "a union between a man and a woman of the same race."
Racists did not try to claim ownership of the word. The racists tried to change the definition of the word and lost. As they should have.
Now a new group wants to change the definition of the word once again and they should lose that battle but they should win the battle to get their rights.
Gays ARE entitled to equal protection under the law.
Gays ARE entitled to have the same rights as heterosexual married couples.
Gays ARE NOT entitled to the word "marriage!"
If gays feel that they need the word in order to be accepted, then they are misguided because you can't legislate acceptance. Even if they get to use the word, they wont necessarily be accepted by those who believe they shouldn't be allowed the same rights as heterosexual married couples. If gays just want the same rights as heterosexual married couples, then they should just call it something else and stop this "war."
Having said all of that, I know exactly how you feel because I too want something that I'm not entitled to and the courts keep on deying me.
So my arguments to you are like therapy to me because if I can create a well thought out argument against gay marriage, then I can use a similar argument to justify the court's decision to myself and this in turn eases the pain and resentment and anger that is within me.
So don't think too harshly of me. We're all in this together. We all have issues. ;)
Now, my view on the topic itself. I have three points:
Point one: I am a purist and I want the word 'marriage' to mean exactly what those who invented the word years ago defined it to be, "A civil union between a man and a woman." I don't want to change the meaning of the word to "The loving union between two individuals."
Point two: Just because someone wants something doesn't mean that they are entitled to it. So, no matter how noble gays may be, no matter how important the word is to them, they are not entitled to it.
Point three: Gays started this "war" by trying to take something they feel strongly about but are not necessarily entitled to. Straights responded like anyone who has had someone try to take something away that doesn't necessarily belonged to them. Gays want to force straights to share the word. But trying to force someone into doing something they don't want usually results in them resisting with equal or greater force.
I thus propose that gays create a new word and stop this "war."
You are making an assumption and then you act on your assumption by making an accusation.
Assumption: straight people think they are more than we are
Accusation: that's why they want a copyright on the word.
My philosophy is to try and verify my assumptions before acting on them. That usually goes a long way towards saving face later on if the assumption proves to be wrong.
Your argument is also based on emotion and it thus tries to manipulate the reader's feelings. This is done by calling one group bad; the straight people. You do do this by saying that "straight people think they are more than we are." You then call the other group good; the gay people. You do this by saying "We wish it to mean exactly what the word 'Marriage' connotes and carries with it."
I prefer arguments that are based on data and let the reader decide. There is no way to prove that gays wish marriage to mean exactly what it connotes and carries with it. There is also no way to prove that straight people think they are more than gays. Nor is there a way to prove that that's why they want a copyright on the word.
So it was you! You little..., you little.... Shiite! May your sister marry a camel! ;)
The best way to solve poverty is to get rid of the poor people. Think about it. You can get a poor person a job. But that poor person may not be motivated to work. Start offing them and you will soon find that they are motivated not only to work, but to find their own damn jobs. ;)
Hey, I think you parked my car at the MGM Mirage once. I knew you looked familiar ;)
