Conquer Club

PLAYER57832 wrote:That proved that occasionally real people's wishes overrule what the conservative junkies want them to believe. Sadly, the touters of democracy seem to think that is only a good idea when it is THEIR ideas that are accepted.

Just because the majority wants something doesn't mean it's Constitutional.

AndyDufresne wrote:

john9blue wrote:why is that not all one big gif??

Ask the folks at the Star Trek Animated Gif tumblr.


--Andy

aHA!

i made you divulge the source of your gifs!

now i too have the power to use well-timed star trek gifs...

Because choosy mothers choose many Gifs.

Night Strike wrote:Just because the majority wants something doesn't mean it's Constitutional.

Here's looking at you, Prop. 8.

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:That proved that occasionally real people's wishes overrule what the conservative junkies want them to believe. Sadly, the touters of democracy seem to think that is only a good idea when it is THEIR ideas that are accepted.

Just because the majority wants something doesn't mean it's Constitutional.

God it's funny how often you and Phatscotty say things like that, yet you only apply it to half the circumstances.

john9blue wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:

john9blue wrote:why is that not all one big gif??

Ask the folks at the Star Trek Animated Gif tumblr.


--Andy

aHA!

i made you divulge the source of your gifs!

now i too have the power to use well-timed star trek gifs...

Just remember...with great power comes great responsibility.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Just because the majority wants something doesn't mean it's Constitutional.

Here's looking at you, Prop. 8.

Prop B wasn't unconstitutional, even if that's what a couple judges believed. But this doesn't need to become yet another thread discussing homosexual marriage.

Night Strike wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Just because the majority wants something doesn't mean it's Constitutional.

Here's looking at you, Prop. 8.

Prop B wasn't unconstitutional, even if that's what a couple judges believed. But this doesn't need to become yet another thread discussing homosexual marriage.

The homosexual marriages are infecting other topics! It has begun!? I'm heading to my fallout bunker. Damn you majority, damn you....?!


--Andy

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:That proved that occasionally real people's wishes overrule what the conservative junkies want them to believe. Sadly, the touters of democracy seem to think that is only a good idea when it is THEIR ideas that are accepted.

Just because the majority wants something doesn't mean it's Constitutional.

God it's funny how often you and Phatscotty say things like that, yet you only apply it to half the circumstances.

Not quite, I hold it all the time.. but sure, I am only commenting when Phattscotty or Nightstrike (or whomever) make their hypocrisy blatent.

I dare you to find where I have been inconsistant. I may DISLIKE what conservatives say, but I don't say they have no right, unless it is, as above, to deny others their rights.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:That proved that occasionally real people's wishes overrule what the conservative junkies want them to believe. Sadly, the touters of democracy seem to think that is only a good idea when it is THEIR ideas that are accepted.

Just because the majority wants something doesn't mean it's Constitutional.

God it's funny how often you and Phatscotty say things like that, yet you only apply it to half the circumstances.

Not quite, I hold it all the time.. but sure, I am only commenting when Phattscotty or Nightstrike (or whomever) make their hypocrisy blatent.

I dare you to find where I have been inconsistant. I may DISLIKE what conservatives say, but I don't say they have no right, unless it is, as above, to deny others their rights.

What the hell are you talking about? What is it about my statement makes you believe I was talking about you? Perhaps a guilty conscience or something?

I care about reducing spending and debt.

I care about knackwurst and beer.

Phatscotty wrote:I care about reducing spending and debt.

And most of the conservative-based anti-freedom social views on things like homosexual marriage. That's what makes you a Tea Partier instead of a Libertarian.

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I care about reducing spending and debt.

And most of the conservative-based anti-freedom social views on things like homosexual marriage. That's what makes you a Tea Partier instead of a Libertarian.

Isn't he adorable?

I've only ever been for the people being able to choose for themselves at a state level. Of that, I am guilty, but I have always supported the decision of democracy and Liberty either way on redefining marriage. To each their own.

You and I understand Freedom very differently, obviously...

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I care about reducing spending and debt.

And most of the conservative-based anti-freedom social views on things like homosexual marriage. That's what makes you a Tea Partier instead of a Libertarian.

That's interesting. I didn't know the Tea Party cared one way or another about gay marriage, unless of course it involves a loss of liberty or higher taxes/debt.

Can you show me where this is coming from, Woodruff? You don't seem the type to be led by the nose by the national media, which portrays the party as racist rednecks.

I'm not a member but I've been to 3 meetings and 1 rally, and gay marriage was never brought up. In fact not a single social issue was ever mentioned.

A lot of the members are in fact Libertarians I discovered, even if they don't recognize themselves as such.

Not being argumentative, genuinely wanting to know.

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I care about reducing spending and debt.

And most of the conservative-based anti-freedom social views on things like homosexual marriage. That's what makes you a Tea Partier instead of a Libertarian.

That's interesting. I didn't know the Tea Party cared one way or another about gay marriage, unless of course it involves a loss of liberty or higher taxes/debt.

Can you show me where this is coming from, Woodruff? You don't seem the type to be led by the nose by the national media, which portrays the party as racist rednecks.

I'm not a member but I've been to 3 meetings and 1 rally, and gay marriage was never brought up. In fact not a single social issue was ever mentioned.

A lot of the members are in fact Libertarians I discovered, even if they don't recognize themselves as such.

Not being argumentative, genuinely wanting to know.

Nobunaga wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I care about reducing spending and debt.

And most of the conservative-based anti-freedom social views on things like homosexual marriage. That's what makes you a Tea Partier instead of a Libertarian.

That's interesting. I didn't know the Tea Party cared one way or another about gay marriage, unless of course it involves a loss of liberty or higher taxes/debt.
Can you show me where this is coming from, Woodruff? You don't seem the type to be led by the nose by the national media, which portrays the party as racist rednecks.
I'm not a member but I've been to 3 meetings and 1 rally, and gay marriage was never brought up. In fact not a single social issue was ever mentioned.
A lot of the members are in fact Libertarians I discovered, even if they don't recognize themselves as such.
Not being argumentative, genuinely wanting to know.

Most Libertarians I know loved the Tea Party initially, but left it when it was co-opted by the Republican Party to further their social agenda. I'm not really a Libertarian, but I do like a lot of their ideas and favored the Tea Party myself for a time until that happened (I'm even avoiding the big name folks who were definitely part of the co-opting like Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell (and I think you know where they stand on the subject of gay marriage):

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/gay_tea_party_activist_denounces_gay_marriage/
and
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gay-tea-party-founder-if-we-redefine-marriage-we-re-going-redefine-children
and
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/06/24/253382/tea-party-nation-same-sex-marriage-will-become-one-more-factor-in-the-destruction-of-america/
and
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/tea-party-nation-gay-equality-marriage-freak-show

Even at the local level: http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/article/20130802/NEWS01/308020025/Tea-party-discuss-opposition-gay-marriage?nclick_check=1

Phatscotty wrote:You and I understand Freedom very differently, obviously...

Oh, there's never been any doubt of that. What's funny is that you like to pretend you support the idea of freedom.

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I care about reducing spending and debt.

And most of the conservative-based anti-freedom social views on things like homosexual marriage. That's what makes you a Tea Partier instead of a Libertarian.

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Isn't he adorable?

I've only ever been for the people being able to choose for themselves at a state level. Of that, I am guilty, but I have always supported the decision of democracy and Liberty either way on redefining marriage. To each their own.You and I understand Freedom very differently, obviously...

Oh, there's never been any doubt of that.

How about there isn't any doubt the time you waste trying to frame people into position they don't even hold? It's the hallmark of your dishonesty...like trying to turn a statement about debt/spending into gay marriage. See how ya are?

Spock doesn't roll that way, so why don't you stop disgracing his image???

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:That proved that occasionally real people's wishes overrule what the conservative junkies want them to believe. Sadly, the touters of democracy seem to think that is only a good idea when it is THEIR ideas that are accepted.

Just because the majority wants something doesn't mean it's Constitutional.

God it's funny how often you and Phatscotty say things like that, yet you only apply it to half the circumstances.

Not quite, I hold it all the time.. but sure, I am only commenting when Phattscotty or Nightstrike (or whomever) make their hypocrisy blatent.

I dare you to find where I have been inconsistant. I may DISLIKE what conservatives say, but I don't say they have no right, unless it is, as above, to deny others their rights.

What the hell are you talking about? What is it about my statement makes you believe I was talking about you? Perhaps a guilty conscience or something?

it would be this part....

God it's funny how often you and Phatscotty say things like that, yet you only apply it to half the circumstances.

saying I apply it to only half the circumstances tends to mean I am ignoring the other half.

Phatscotty wrote:I care about reducing spending and debt.

No, you only care about that when it is individuals who might benefit from the expenditures.

See, that is the ultimate irony when you put forward such statements.. most of you "solutions" really mean more expense, not less for everyone down the road.

I promote responsibility. Sometimes being responsible means paying more, particularly for things like schools and roads, requiring people/business to pay for damage they cause, even if inadvertently. Sometimes it means paying less -- less to support prices for non-critical goods (and very, very careful consideration of any artificial support for even very critical goods -- supports should not be a "given" even in those cases, just considered).

The key is not to just look at superficial balances, but real outcomes. You tend not to do that. You tend to concentrate on only the very, very short term.. and pretend that will fix long term issues also.

Dukasaur wrote:I care about knackwurst and beer.

Only knockwurst that comes from Sudwigs...
Else, Bratwurst is usually a much better bet!

Phatscotty wrote:

How about there isn't any doubt the time you waste trying to frame people into position they don't even hold? It's the hallmark of your dishonesty...like trying to turn a statement about debt/spending into gay marriage. See how ya are?

Spock doesn't roll that way, so why don't you stop disgracing his image???

hmm... well, Spock did tend to corner people into admitting they hold positions they like to claim they did not.


The topic above was freedom. You like to pretend you can seperate your fiscal policies from your social ones, but its all about real freedom.

BUT... economic freedom doesn't mean everyone gets to make money however they choose without regard, any more than freedom to move and drive a car means you can run over my lawn, cross a sensitive small stream or ignore exhaust emissions. Just as your right to swing your arm ends at my nose and your right to drive a car stops with various rules, your right to make a profit stops when that profit comes at the expense of others without equivalent gain in the long term.

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I care about reducing spending and debt.

And most of the conservative-based anti-freedom social views on things like homosexual marriage. That's what makes you a Tea Partier instead of a Libertarian.

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Isn't he adorable?

I've only ever been for the people being able to choose for themselves at a state level. Of that, I am guilty, but I have always supported the decision of democracy and Liberty either way on redefining marriage. To each their own.You and I understand Freedom very differently, obviously...

Oh, there's never been any doubt of that.

How about there isn't any doubt the time you waste trying to frame people into position they don't even hold?

I thought you were a Tea Partier? Hasn't that been your claim? Isn't that what you tried to claim when you finally tried to climb out of the box you put yourself into regarding Libertarianism? I'm just trying to keep up with you, Phatscotty.

It's the hallmark of your dishonesty...like trying to turn a statement about debt/spending into gay marriage. See how ya are?

Phatscotty wrote:Spock doesn't roll that way, so why don't you stop disgracing his image???

How you can manage to avoid seeing the irony in half the things you say is beyond me.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:That proved that occasionally real people's wishes overrule what the conservative junkies want them to believe. Sadly, the touters of democracy seem to think that is only a good idea when it is THEIR ideas that are accepted.

Just because the majority wants something doesn't mean it's Constitutional.

God it's funny how often you and Phatscotty say things like that, yet you only apply it to half the circumstances.

Not quite, I hold it all the time.. but sure, I am only commenting when Phattscotty or Nightstrike (or whomever) make their hypocrisy blatent.

I dare you to find where I have been inconsistant. I may DISLIKE what conservatives say, but I don't say they have no right, unless it is, as above, to deny others their rights.

What the hell are you talking about? What is it about my statement makes you believe I was talking about you? Perhaps a guilty conscience or something?

it would be this part....

God it's funny how often you and Phatscotty say things like that, yet you only apply it to half the circumstances.

saying I apply it to only half the circumstances tends to mean I am ignoring the other half.

Perhaps you can go back to that quote and SEE WHO THE HELL I WAS TALKING TO. Hint: It wasn't you. Jesus Christ.