A Black Columnist on Obama

[Tarheel]

Agreed...  We can't have an effective third party in this country until we revise the election process.  We can't have a minority elected official and expect that person to be an effective leader. 

Racist!

[AUChizad]

By the bye, congratulations on your past position.  But what happened to drive you away from the Republican Party and into the Loser-tarian camp?

By the way, kirkAU was an officer along with me.

As I said before, I'm not a card-carrying Libertarian either.

But namely, the nanny-state conservative Republicans seem to favor grinds my gears. Politicians are some of the most morally bankrupt individuals in society. I don't want hypocrites enforcing morals on me. A lot of Republicans would just as soon throw Separation of Church and state out the window. Conversely, many liberals take it to the other extreme with wanting to ban the word Christmas and Christmas trees, moments of silence and whatnot. But there's no liberals arguing that point with me so I'll stick with you guys. Conservatives are the ones blocking bills like the gourmet beer bill and any chance at our state ever getting a lottery, in order to enforce their religious beliefs (not even held amongst the majority of Christians) upon us as law of the land.
Fuck censorship. Yes liberals freak out when something isn't PC enough for their likings, but Conservatives flip their shit over four letter words and nipples. Many even aren't satisfied with ratings systems, but rather believe there is no place in society for them (See AUNation).
And finally the thinly veiled bigotry held by most conservatives. Again, sure liberals can go overboard with political correctness, affirmative action and all of that. No I don't believe that wanting to secure our southern border from illegal immigrants means you hate Mexicans. Yes, I think things like quotas are bullshit. But many arguments against these things, while I may even agree with the principle argument trying to be made, almost always end up based on some bigoted point of view where I end up going "Wait, you had me until you said (fill in racist comment here)".
You brought up for example gay marriage. Seriously, who gives a shit? Gay dudes are gonna fuck. You can't stop it no matter how much the idea of the act may disgust you. Might as well let them settle down and go through the same hell straight dudes have to. Might as well keep them from hitting on you in a bar by being tied down. To paraphrase Louis C.K. I'd understand if gay dudes were just everywhere. "Ah God dammit, every time I try to mow the lawn, I gotta cut around you faggots butt fucking." Or when you're trying to eat your cereal in the morning there were two dudes touching dicks over your spoon. "Ah come on, I'm late for work, I don't have time for this shit." The point is, people may not do shit that fits your moral standard, but as long as no one's getting hurt by it and it doesn't affect you, who gives a fuck really? Despite what you may believe, gay people are still people. I work with  three. I don't have to think it's cool to realize that it's fucked up to deny a certain faction of society a basic right like marriage, tax benefits and all, just because you don't approve of what kind of kinky shit a person is into. If you want to take the slippery slope argument that if we allow this "What's next, allow child molesters, inter-species marriage?" (which is dumb), then you also must accept that the government regulating how you can and can't fuck (between consenting adults) is a scarier slope. Also spare me the sanctity of marriage bullshit until the divorce rate amongst straight couples at least levels off with the divorce rate of gay couples.

[wesfau2]

By the bye, congratulations on your past position.  But what happened to drive you away from the Republican Party and into the Loser-tarian camp?

I never held a post in the party, but I was driven away from the Republican Party because they sold their fiscal conservative values to the religious right for votes.

[Tarheel]

I think he was referencing the fallacies of the party-line absolutes, but I'll let him clear that up for himself.  There are absolutes, and there's nothing wrong with looking at issues as black or white, right or wrong.  The Kerry-like "nuances" introduced in 2004 are nothing more than opportunities to excuse yourself from lacking a strong value system.  It's spineless, weak, gutless, deadbeat politics.  

For this particular argument that is what I was referring to as well...not blind, party-line absolutes.

[AUChizad]

I never held a post in the party, but I was driven away from the Republican Party because they sold their fiscal conservative values to the religious right for votes.

Bingo.

[Tarheel]

By the way, kirkAU was an officer along with me.

As I said before, I'm not a card-carrying Libertarian either.
...

You certainly sound like one card-carrying or not.

...
You brought up for example gay marriage. Seriously, who gives a shit? Gay dudes are gonna fuck. You can't stop it no matter how much the idea of the act may disgust you. Might as well let them settle down and go through the same hell straight dudes have to. Might as well keep them from hitting on you in a bar by being tied down. To paraphrase Louis C.K. I'd understand if gay dudes were just everywhere. "Ah God dammit, every time I try to mow the lawn, I gotta cut around you faggots butt fucking." Or when you're trying to eat your cereal in the morning there were two dudes touching dicks over your spoon. "Ah come on, I'm late for work, I don't have time for this shit." The point is, people may not do shit that fits your moral standard, but as long as no one's getting hurt by it and it doesn't affect you, who gives a fuck really? Despite what you may believe, gay people are still people. I work with  three. I don't have to think it's cool to realize that it's fucked up to deny a certain faction of society a basic right like marriage, tax benefits and all, just because you don't approve of what kind of kinky shit a person is into. If you want to take the slippery slope argument that if we allow this "What's next, allow child molesters, inter-species marriage?" (which is dumb), then you also must accept that the government regulating how you can and can't fuck (between consenting adults) is a scarier slope. Also spare me the sanctity of marriage bullshit until the divorce rate amongst straight couples at least levels off with the divorce rate of gay couples.
...

I don't really disagree with you on anything up to the point of what you wrote above.  It is exactly this kind of moral relativism that is causing the marriage problems, divorces, and the breakdown of values of this nation.  

No one is saying what you do in your bedroom should be regulated, if you want to fuck a dog or garden furniture then by all means have at it...what I am saying is the definition of what a marriage IS has been defined for a reason (see my post above).

[AUChizad]

For this particular argument that is what I was referring to as well...not blind, party-line absolutes.

I was talking about party-line absolutes, but I do think there are gray areas within those party line absolutes.
For example, liberals will say war is never justified, many conservatives will say war is always justified. I happen to find that issue to not be a black and white absolute.

[Tarheel]

I never held a post in the party, but I was driven away from the Republican Party because they sold their fiscal conservative values to the religious right for votes.

I can't say that I disagree with you on that...and the Republicans will answer for it this fall.  But that does not mean I am going to sit at home on election day because of it; you have to be pro-active and let them know what's wrong.  Voting a third party is a waste of time at this point.

[Tarheel]

I was talking about party-line absolutes, but I do think there are gray areas within those party line absolutes.
For example, liberals will say war is never justified, many conservatives will say war is always justified. I happen to find that issue to not be a black and white absolute.

This is a very subjective, issue-oriented example.  From a rational standpoint war is always an option to any disagreement; it only becomes a non-option when one is thinking from an emotional standpoint (I'd refer to GarMan's excellent post on definitions above).

I understand what you are saying but that kind of rationale for voting (or not voting or third-party voting) will help put Obama into the White House.

As I said earlier; I don't agree with McCain 100 percent but when it comes to that 3am crisis call to the White House I'd rather him answer it...and when it comes to selecting judges for the Supreme Court (given the realistic candidates that will be running for president this fall) I'd rather him make the choices.

[GarMan]

I never held a post in the party, but I was driven away from the Republican Party because they sold their fiscal conservative values to the religious right for votes.

I don't know if that's true.  I do know that the current batch of Repubicraps forgot about the Conservative base that brought them into power, but I don't see where they sold out to the "religious right" as the media likes to portray.  For as long as I can remember, those “evil” Christians have always been Conservative, and Conservatives tend to favor the Republican party.  It was the Left and the media who made an issue over religion, and as far as I’m concerned, that was just their way to blame somebody else for them losing elections.  They have done a damn good job demonizing religion, which is probably another reason we have another RINO/Neo-Con on the Republican ticket.  Let’s see…  What did they throw around this year?  There was Mormon and the cultist accusations to vilify Romney…  They used Evangelical to slander Huckabee…  You could argue that Obama’s situation with his pastor was “equal time”, but the media knew about it and kept it quiet for more than a year before “evil” right-wing talk radio broke that story.  They were forced into reporting it, and even then, they did their best to underplay it. 

[GarMan]

I was talking about party-line absolutes, but I do think there are gray areas within those party line absolutes.
For example, liberals will say war is never justified, many conservatives will say war is always justified. I happen to find that issue to not be a black and white absolute.

You're playing with 50,000 foot generalizations here.  Some of those same "gray area" liberals called Hitler, "Europe's problem."  Later out of necessity, they had to revise their definition and refer to him as, "Churchill's problem."  Of course, he conquered most of Europe by then and started bombing raids on London.  How many millions died because we were ignoring the absolutes and playing in nuanced gray areas?  The same is essentially true with Iraq.  Over 350,000 bodies have been found in mass graves throughout that country, and we continue to let the UN dictate global diplomacy.  We're fuckin' doomed! 

[wesfau2]

I don't know if that's true.  I do know that the current batch of Repubicraps forgot about the Conservative base that brought them into power, but I don't see where they sold out to the "religious right" as the media likes to portray.  For as long as I can remember, those “evil” Christians have always been Conservative, and Conservatives tend to favor the Republican party.  It was the Left and the media who made an issue over religion, and as far as I’m concerned, that was just their way to blame somebody else for them losing elections.  They have done a damn good job demonizing religion, which is probably another reason we have another RINO/Neo-Con on the Republican ticket.  Let’s see…  What did they throw around this year?  There was Mormon and the cultist accusations to vilify Romney…  They used Evangelical to slander Huckabee…  You could argue that Obama’s situation with his pastor was “equal time”, but the media knew about it and kept it quiet for more than a year before “evil” right-wing talk radio broke that story.  They were forced into reporting it, and even then, they did their best to underplay it. 

I was speaking specifically to the Republican Party's carrot/stick routine with gay marriage amendments to lure out the Christian voting blocks during Bush's 2nd run at the WH. 

[GarMan]

I was speaking specifically to the Republican Party's carrot/stick routine with gay marriage amendments to lure out the Christian voting blocks during Bush's 2nd run at the WH. 

Well, true dat, but I don't think it had that much of an effect.  We should just exterminate all gays.  Either that or recognize their mental disorder and treat them accordingly.  I mean, if we're going to recognize one sexual proclivity, why not recognize them all? 

[AUChizad]

Well, true dat, but I don't think it had that much of an effect.  We should just exterminate all gays.  Either that or recognize their mental disorder and treat them accordingly.  I mean, if we're going to recognize one sexual proclivity, why not recognize them all? 

Re: My earlier comments on bigotry.

[Tarheel]

Re: My earlier comments on bigotry.

Well ain't THAT a case of the pot calling the kettle black!  Jeez, just look at your own signature for bigotry "AUChizad"!

"When God gives you AIDS (and God does give you AIDS by the way), make LemonAIDS."
-Sarah Silverman

[AUChizad]

Well ain't THAT a case of the pot calling the kettle black!  Jeez, just look at your own signature for bigotry "AUChizad"!

So quoting a stand-up comedian's humorous variation on the "Life Hands You Lemons" adage of when you get a shitty hand in life, make the best of it = advocating genocide in a political debate. Got it.

Who is that statement bigoted against by the way? AIDS victims?

[Tarheel]

So quoting a stand-up comedian's humorous variation on the "Life Hands You Lemons" adage of when you get a shitty hand in life, make the best of it = advocating genocide in a political debate. Got it.

Who is that statement bigoted against by the way? AIDS victims?

She's a comedian?

[Tarheel]

So quoting a stand-up comedian's humorous variation on the "Life Hands You Lemons" adage of when you get a shitty hand in life, make the best of it = advocating genocide in a political debate. Got it.

Who is that statement bigoted against by the way? AIDS victims?

In all seriousness it is a contemptuous attempt at black humor and there is a hint of bigotry against Christianity and Judaism in it, albeit veiled.  God does not give one AIDS; one gets it from degenerate behavior but I guess in a Libertarian "do-what-the-fuck-you-want-to-do-as-long-as-it-feels-right-and-doesn't-effect-somebody-else-world" it's ok.

[GarMan]

Well, true dat, but I don't think it had that much of an effect.  We should just exterminate all gays.  Either that or recognize their mental disorder and treat them accordingly.  I mean, if we're going to recognize one sexual proclivity, why not recognize them all? 

Re: My earlier comments on bigotry.

I'm guessing that you either completely missed the sarcasm and point of that comment or you just ignored it.  Bigotry has absolutely nothing to do with it.  The Left has this little fetish where they have to go around hyphenating everyone’s Americanism, and they do it by race, creed, color, sexual orientation/proclivity, gender, economic status, handicap, social status, physical appearance, employment status, body type, shoe size, etc, etc, etc…  It’s absolutely ridiculous.  Then, they establish separate values and priorities for each group making them issues in the next campaign, blaming America for their “problems” and accusing those mean-old Conservatives (aka white, heterosexual, Christian, males) of bigotry.  I’ve had my fill of that crap!  The messages are all confused and don’t make any sense.  I’m supposed to recognize people for their differences, and I’m not supposed to recognize people for their differences.  I’m supposed to treat everyone as equal and not treat everyone as equal.  Everybody wants equal rights, but some “require” special more-equal rights.  Pardon me for calling a spade, a spade, but enough is enough. 

By the way, if you understand the origin of the spade comment, you know that race has nothing to do with it. 

[GarMan]

And sometimes, this ridiculousness just falls in your lap.  You don't even have to look for it.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/20/news/money_blind/index.htm?cnn=yes

Paper money unfair to blind - court
Federal appeals court says Treasury Department is violating the law by keeping dollars the same size and feel.

By Jessica Dickler, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: May 20, 2008: 3:38 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the U.S. Treasury Department is violating the law by failing to design and issue currency that is readily distinguishable to blind and visually impaired people.

Here we go again.  The "bigoted" United States is unfairly excluding visually-impaired-Americans from being able to count their money.  It must be those damn Conservatives again!

And here's another one for you... 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356592,00.html

Boston’s Children’s Hospital bills itself as the hospital for children — and now it’s also the hospital for children who want a sex change...

Dr. Norman Spack, a pediatric specialist at the hospital, has launched a clinic for transgendered kids — boys who feel like girls, girls who want to be boys — and he’s opening his doors to patients as young as 7.

Yes...  Those poor transgendered-American kids need help too!  The "enlightened" Boston Children's Hospital is there to save these poor confused soles.  I'm certain that those evil "bigoted" Conservatives will try to stop them.