Thread: Virginian Republican legislature is complete shit!

Originally Posted by Gumby

If given the opportunity, every religious organization will try and force their beliefs upon everyone else. Except Discordians because the natural world proves us right every day.

Also the fact that organizing Discordians is exceptionally hard to do.

... on purpose.


Æ

Originally Posted by ~BigTymer~

and see this is where you ignorant. A Republican freed slaves. The south use to be all Democrats and was the ones wanting to hold on to slavery.

It's a hard sell when your go-to "we're the good guys" example is from 150 years ago. Not to take anything away from Lincoln. I hear that the Cubs also once won the World Series.

... and yeah, Eisenhower was a Republican too. I think his record is pretty good. He was a force for integration in the armed services, and he had a good track record as prez too (at least if we judge in historical context). But the speculation of late isn't if Lincoln or Ike could get nominated as a Republican these days - it's that Nixon and Reagan would be unlikely to make the cut.

I hate to be a what-have-you-done-for-me-lately kind of guy, but I think the lesson of Lincoln and Eisenhower (and many others, from all parties) is that bigotry and racism have no loyalties to anything but themselves. You gotta look around and see where they're playing this season.

Lincoln isn't an example of why the Republican party is good. He's an example of what it could be if it tried.

Cheers,


AetheLove

Well, unless I am completely missing it (and that is possible given I've been awake and working for 36 hours straight now) you didn't really answer any of those questions.

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

I think it might be measurable; archival data research

I'm not sure I understand your reference. Can you clarify?

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

I think the question of their rights makes a LGBTQ group motivated to defend themselves without much funding or coercion.

I think that this is fairly boiler plate type statement that could (and does) apply to a very large and disparate list of groups. Most of whom feel motivated to defend themselves or what they perceive as their rights just as fervently as the group you refer to. Right, wrong or indifferent, that feeling provides the motivation for the groups you disagree with just as it does for the groups that you do agree with.

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

A comfortable middle class American who may not have any intention of voting being taken by a church group to a voting place is voting for a very different reason.

Who are, or where are, these groups of "comfortable, middle class Americans" "with no intentions of voting" "who are being taken (abducted/coerced/bamboozled?) by churches to vote"?
I am unfamiliar with this group(s) of people. Are there some examples? Or it is that you perceive them as such and that informs your judgement of them? I'm not in support of anything/group like this. I just wonder what such a group is comprised of and where these groups might reside.

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

It could go either way, but I can't think of any organization that is "liberal" that is equivalent to the church.

Are there not churches that support a more "liberal" platform than the common stereotypical church image? I think that there probably are. You just might not see them or want to see them. But they probably exist.

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

LGBTQ groups are groups because they are concerned about those things.

Any group is a group because the members of said group are concerned about the thing(s) that the group forms around..... right? I think that meets the basic standards of socio-political groups no? Common themes or issues or platforms?

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Their members are not there to worship and happen to vote on the side as part of a group function.

Given that "worship", in the vernacular, refers almost exclusively to religion; It goes without saying that a non-religious group would not convene to worship. The flaw in the argument here though is that LGBTQ "members" are not congregating to worship but just to vote. You then make an implied claim that people who are religious go to church to worship but also to vote (whether by personal choice or by church "coercion"). This ignores the several other very likely possibilities that a. not all LGBTQ persons might vote, some might also be part of a church group and vote....or not, that not all voters go to church, that not all churchgoers vote, that not all religiously minded people go to church and so on and so forth. In the attempt to simplify the argument to a black/white distinction you lose all relevancy to what cases actually do occur that break the argument.

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

What liberal church-like group brings anti-gun voters in to make sure they don't win? we could make a similar scenario for abortion rights. Most groups that facilitate voting are very specific to causes and their members came into that group to facilitate voting.

Again, I think that you're missing the point of direct comparison between groups who feel strongly about a topic. LGBTQ voters feel strongly about something, with good reason. In the case of abortion (go go thread derailment cattle-guard) many of the very people who feel strongly opposed to it happen to be religious (churchgoers or not). So it stands to reason that a convenient group function on "pick a specific day of weekly observance" would act as a springboard for other points of shared interest. That it happens at church is irrelevant to whether or not they feel strongly about the topic. They would feel that way, and likely want to vote a specific way, regardless of whether they gathered at church. Let's be honest about that for a moment and admit that part of the issue of who votes where or how they get there is in part biased by an already stated opposition to religion in general and organized religion specifically. You're welcome to that position. I have my own strong gripes against those two items. But I'm not willing to "throw the baby out with the bath water" simply because of choice of meeting ground.

Show examples of priests/pastors/rabbis/mulahs (w/e) extolling or demonizing the virtues of a political candidate or issue and I am pretty sure I can find both sides of the extremes regardless of race, religion or creed. It's not the inviolable territory of one group or set of ideals. Humans group. When they group, they tend to mob. When they mob, they'll do quite a few things that they wouldn't do individually. Religion is just another method of grouping for some. \o/


I also had to lookup what the "Q" stood for as that was a new one for me.

And I do think that there are people who shouldn't vote. But that's a whole other topic.

Originally Posted by ~BigTymer~

So before you run your dick sucker at least know what your talking about

Pot meet kettle...... FFS if ever there were a "diarrhea of the mouth/keyboard".....

Those points, while interesting historically, have very little to do with the topic or the round about nature of this discussion. But when has that stopped you before? It never ceases to amaze me that you fail to grasp the basic rudiments of "discussion." There is an exchange of ideas (or ought to be) at which point rebuttals and counter points are exchanged.

You bring up points of note, however they are so easily countered by more recent current events and statements made by Republican politicians (and some Democratic politicians too) that very few people, if any will the time to list them out.

Ultimately in these types of discussions a fencer's deft and subtle stroke often gains far more respect and consideration than the game of "ideological whack-a-mole" you're currently engaged in. In other words, your bombast is gaining you zero tickets for the prize counter on the way out.

Originally Posted by SpecOpsScott

For the record, Alundil has been reading my mind and posting my thoughts in a complete and articulate way. Thanks man, its impossible to post and drive through thunderstorms at the same time!

Sounds like scott has a man crush. lol jk