Adam Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Were other things that aren't real removed, like the square roots of negative numbers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Were other things that aren't real removed, like the square roots of negative numbers? Those are real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 I admire principled men. Ya know, the kind of men that are for gay marriage, then before an important election to become president of the US, decides that he isn't for gay marriage, then suddenly before the next election decides that he is for gay marriage. So I guess he was completely evolved, then he de evolved, then he evolved again, ya know, because he has a spine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 I admire principled men. Ya know, the kind of men that are for gay marriage, then before an important election to become president of the US, decides that he isn't for gay marriage, then suddenly before the next election decides that he is for gay marriage. So I guess he was completely evolved, then he de evolved, then he evolved again, ya know, because he has a spine. So he did the reverse of Romney who started for then moved against? Both candidates made mirrored moves on the issue -- neither should be held up as an example of principled actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 I never claimed that he was, just pointing out the hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 So he did the reverse of Romney who started for then moved against? Both candidates made mirrored moves on the issue -- neither should be held up as an example of principled actions. I've never seen any candidate run a campaign on any principle other than "win". Except Kerry, and his awesome "I have a plan" principle. There's a word for politicians that pander to the electorate during elections, then moderate themselves in office. They're called "successful." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 I never claimed that he was, just pointing out the hypocrisy. I've never seen any candidate run a campaign on any principle other than "win". Except Kerry, and his awesome "I have a plan" principle. There's a word for politicians that pander to the electorate during elections, then moderate themselves in office. They're called "successful." Not disputing the benefit of pandering to politicians. But this is an entirely different issue. One politician moved towards supporting equality. One moved AGAINST equality -- not because he believes it (he doesn't) but because the religious fringe in his party demands it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Not disputing the benefit of pandering to politicians. But this is an entirely different issue. One politician moved towards supporting equality. One moved AGAINST equality -- not because he believes it (he doesn't) but because the religious fringe in his party demands it. Which is which? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 And what about us Pastafarians? Are those the one's that season their fettuccine with marijuana?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Not disputing the benefit of pandering to politicians. But this is an entirely different issue. One politician moved towards supporting equality. One moved AGAINST equality -- not because he believes it (he doesn't) but because the religious fringe in his party demands it. You frame it as "equality" they frame it as a religious belief. Let's not pretend that this is a one-sided issue. Both Views should be respected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 You frame it as "equality" they frame it as a religious belief. Let's not pretend that this is a one-sided issue. Both Views should be respected accepted. I can accept that people believe things. I can accept that people believe that I, as an upper middle class white male, have to fork over my earnings to take care of them. But I don't have to !@#$ing respect it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 You frame it as "equality" they frame it as a religious belief. Let's not pretend that this is a one-sided issue. Both Views should be respected But, fittingly with this topic, Religion has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE US GOVERNMENT. So how can you justify amending the constitution to include a religious based view that oppresses a segment of the population? This is exactly why a barrier was created between church and state, was it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 But, fittingly with this topic, Religion has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE US GOVERNMENT. So how can you justify amending the constitution to include a religious based view that oppresses a segment of the population? This is exactly why a barrier was created between church and state, was it not? I can't justify it, because I don't agree with it. I can accept that people believe things. I can accept that people believe that I, as an upper middle class white male, have to fork over my earnings to take care of them. But I don't have to !@#$ing respect it. Yes, accepted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 I can't justify it, because I don't agree with it. But you don't speak out against it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 But you don't speak out against it? I don't care about the issue nearly as much as I do fiscal policies. Any half brained twit realizes that it's a pandering position that will never occur, so it's a moot point. However, their decisions regarding fiscal and economic policies can profoundly affect us, such as myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 So how can you justify amending the constitution to include a religious based view that oppresses a segment of the population? This is exactly why a barrier was created between church and state, was it not? How can you justify a constitutional amendment on the subject either way? The definition of marriage is not a federal issue. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 I don't care about the issue nearly as much as I do fiscal policies. Any half brained twit realizes that it's a pandering position that will never occur, so it's a moot point. However, their decisions regarding fiscal and economic policies can profoundly affect us, such as myself. Interesting. How can you justify a constitutional amendment on the subject either way? The definition of marriage is not a federal issue. Period. I agree in principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 I agree in principle. Stop being wrong. Agree in practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Those are real. And they're spectacular! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Stop being wrong. Agree in practice. I do agree in practice. But at what point does it become a federal issue? Currently there are what, 20+ states that have adopted constitutional amendments that ban same sex marriage... which runs counter to the 14th amendment. While a constitutional amendment defining marriage either way is a mistake, how long do we let a segment of the population dangle in limbo? What's the middle ground? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts