The Daily Show 12/09

Page 2 of 3 [ 35 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Legato
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 822

11 Dec 2008, 12:34 am

vivinator wrote:

I wasn't aware [Coulter] was atheist or socialist.

Transsexual, though, is very plausible

Death_of_Pathos
Deinonychus

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 351

11 Dec 2008, 1:43 am

skafather84 wrote:

called libertarians boarderline anarchists and basically said he knows best for everyone.

Way to take that out of context. They were specifically talking about a theoretical place without any law but the Golden Rule.

His talk about how we can not have a smaller government until we fundamentally change human nature (I'm taking bets on when that will happen, btw) was well rationalized, and very much so for a Republican.

A primary reason I don't support him is because of his stance on gay marriage. Pursuit of happiness is a guaranteed right, and yet he supports a straight majority that blindly impedes the efforts of a minority to pursue happiness... which is as good as saying "I don't want blacks to marry" or "I think Atheists should have their citizenship revoked" (f**k you Orson Scott Card, and your deceptively adept writing).

flutter
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 575

11 Dec 2008, 1:21 pm

skafather84 wrote:

flutter wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

flutter wrote:

I'm running as an agnostic socialist transsexual in 2012, close enough?

hillary?

Ann Coulter?

you said socialist transexual...i just went with the most logical guess.

if it was fascist transexual, then yeah...coulter fits.

The point of the joke was more that Ann Coulter would call Hillary a Transsexual, while in fact being one herself.

Cyanide
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,003
Location: The Pacific Northwest

11 Dec 2008, 2:35 pm

I think we should get marriage out of government and instead make civil unions the norm. Any couple would be able to get a civil union, but the whole definition of "marriage" would be out of government hands.

Death_of_Pathos
Deinonychus

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 351

11 Dec 2008, 3:03 pm

Cyanide wrote:

That might just be an acceptable substitute to what this country should do.

And can we please stop talking about Minitrue's head b***h? I get nauseated every time I think about her. Not to mention the migraine I get when confronted with irrational-right-wing propaganda like Minitrue.

No, really.

silentbob15
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 802

11 Dec 2008, 3:49 pm

Cyanide wrote:

That is my opinion too, I don't really believe in the institution of marriage, but if a couple find each
other compatible I see nothing wrong that they be joined in a civil union, regardless of gender.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

11 Dec 2008, 4:28 pm

Cyanide wrote:

you'd have to add a new term to replace the current civil union system, then. civil unions don't have the same benefits as marriage right now and is more of a state to state deal and not necessarily recognized nationally.

if it's simply a semantic change that'll get people over the mental roadblock, i'd go for that.

_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson

Fraya
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,337

11 Dec 2008, 5:07 pm

skafather84 wrote:

if it's simply a semantic change that'll get people over the mental roadblock, i'd go for that.

I propose a familial merger contract. Gives the same rights and benefits as marriage but just a legal thing without religious meaning.

_________________
One pill makes you larger
And one pill makes you small
And the ones that mother gives you
Don't do anything at all
-----------
"White Rabbit" - Jefferson Airplane

makuranososhi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 May 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,805
Location: Banned by Alex

11 Dec 2008, 10:56 pm

Fraya wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

if it's simply a semantic change that'll get people over the mental roadblock, i'd go for that.

I propose a familial merger contract. Gives the same rights and benefits as marriage but just a legal thing without religious meaning.

Sure, and here's your bathroom and drinking fountain - my apologies in the advance, as that isn't meant offensively, but to demonstrate the futility of creating "separate but equal" niches under the law for a specific group. Marriage is marriage - if a religion chooses not to observe the validity of one, that is up to it, but under the law there should not be niches carved out to approximate what another receives freely. Let the churches sort out their own issues; they're not my concern in the least.

Cyanide - you're still changing definitions, which is what Huckabee is fighting against. And it doesn't resolve the fact that many if not most people want to have the same opportunities under the law, not special treatment. As long as there are tax breaks, insurance opportunity, familial requirements for FMLA and other benefits for those married, there is an astounding disparity between what exists and what is right under our proclaimed form of government.

Marriage. Two people, one love, no interference.

M.

_________________
My thanks to all the wonderful members here; I will miss the opportunity to continue to learn and work with you.

For those who seek an alternative, it is coming.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

ToadOfSteel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,157
Location: New Jersey

11 Dec 2008, 11:25 pm

makuranososhi wrote:

Cyanide - you're still changing definitions, which is what Huckabee is fighting against. And it doesn't resolve the fact that many if not most people want to have the same opportunities under the law, not special treatment. As long as there are tax breaks, insurance opportunity, familial requirements for FMLA and other benefits for those married, there is an astounding disparity between what exists and what is right under our proclaimed form of government.

I would say that under Cyanide's idea (which I support), all the benefits of marriage would still be present in the civil union, and the civil union would be the sole legal contract, and any two people of any gender/race/religion/whatever could apply for this. Marriage would be able to be dispensed by religious organizations at will. That way, gay people could still choose to get married in a church that would support that. Separation of church and state...

makuranososhi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 May 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,805
Location: Banned by Alex

12 Dec 2008, 12:06 am

ToadOfSteel wrote:

makuranososhi wrote:

ToS, I don't think that Cyanide's suggestion is poor - however, you will have an uproar about taking marriage out as much as you will adding to definition. One can almost hear the uproar over the "assault of tradition and values" that would arise. In the eyes of the government, a marriage and a civil union are different things, which would take its own changes to make work. Generally speaking, I think it makes more sense to provide the rights of marriage to any two people who desire to wed, and leave it to the churches to figure themselves out instead of throwing money at lobbyists.

M.

Eggman
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,676

12 Dec 2008, 2:01 am

its not like it decreses the amount of marrible peopel by allowing it

Transcention
Raven
Raven

Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 117

12 Dec 2008, 4:59 am

Just out of curiousity, this isn't actually Dox, from Australia, or New Zealand, who used to play Tribes, the computer game, and used to make maps for it, is it?

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

12 Dec 2008, 10:08 am

I think the traditional family unit is sacred and I think every child should have both a mother and a father, HOWEVER .... just because something is different does not make it inferior or unhealthy. The family unit has all all sorts of permutations, and every situation is unique.

makuranososhi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 May 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,805
Location: Banned by Alex

12 Dec 2008, 1:03 pm

slowmutant wrote:

I have no problem with it being sacred - that's up to the church you belong to, for them to decide. It has no relevance to the matter of legality.

Acknowledgment appreciated, SM.

M.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

12 Dec 2008, 3:09 pm

Death_of_Pathos wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

called libertarians boarderline anarchists and basically said he knows best for everyone.

it's not out of context to be concerned that political figures take a superiority stance of "we know better than you do". that's fascism. they're our servant; this supposed to be a representative democratic republic, not an oligarchy.

it's not well rationalized either, it's just backed up with bunk righteousness. and that's not the republican stance...bigger government is the democrat/liberal stance*. if they're going to move in the same direction, then a nation-wide police state and fascism isn't too far behind (give it a couple decades).

*case in point: california. very liberal state...probably also the most vivid example of a police state within the country that i've seen (and i've lived in a few different places across the country).

Page 2 of 3 [ 35 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Jump to:

The Daily Show 12/09 Post Reply New Topic

The Daily Show 12/09