• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Charlie Daniels unloads 'dag-blamed truth' on Obama

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,530
271
136
I love it when you guys tie yourselves into knots trying to equate bigotry with intolerance of bigotry.

So cute!
Yeah, but I think it's seriously sad too. Because we know exactly how their political viewpoints are going to look in 30 or 40 years the same way we know how 65+ year old retirees today look when they talk about why the 1965 Civil Rights Act shouldn't have passed or how interracial marriage should have been left up to the states. As if states rights should ever extend that fucking far.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,530
271
136
I've certainly never said that ALL intolerance is a bad thing. I've never seen anyone else post it either. At least you've found an argument you can win. Too bad it's against a straw man.
lol, bump.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,530
271
136
Uh, prohibited by what exactly? Oh, by an interpretation of the constitution, which can be changed. If the people want to they can change the constitution in whatever way they want, there is a framework for doing so.

Further, regardless of what the government can or can't do in terms of legislation, people are free to push for whatever changes they want, as long as they don't break any laws in doing so. What you think of their goals and whether they would be constitutional is irrelevant. You need to take a course in civics 101, you clearly don't have even a basic understanding of how things work.



There doesn't need to be any secular argument. In fact, there doesn't need to be any argument at all. Legislation is passed, end of story. The courts then get to decide if that legislation is constitutional or not. Since the constitution itself can also be changed, there is literally nothing that is set in stone in terms of legislation. Also, you don't seem to understand the concept of a framework for change. Again, civics 101.
You tokin' again? Try forming a coherent sentence once in a while instead of useless drivel.

lol. Oh the ironing.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,613
3,406
126
You tokin' again? Try forming a coherent sentence once in a while instead of useless drivel.
Pleaase see my sig. I am a very deep, sophisticated, and evolved individual and often leave simpler folk behind. I became that way becauyse I suffered alot when young, by accident or design, I have no idea, but, while I regret my ship can't sail in your shallow waters, I an glad you haven't had to feel my pain.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
All men are denied entry to women's rooms and all women are denied entry to men's rooms. Everyone is treated equally. Fail on your part. Curves is a private establishment and their policies do not violate existing laws. Fail on your part. The day men can carry children inside them is the day I will say they should be allowed to have abortions. Epic fail on your part and a quite desperate attempt IMO.
Men are denied marrying men, women are denied marrying women. Everyone is treated equally. Fail on your part.

Ah, so you support discrimination in a private business now? Interesting, I will have to remember that for later.

You just changed what I said about abortions. I did not say men can abort a child inside them, but rather their offspring. Men have offspring, you know...just like women. However, women are allowed to abort their offspring, men are not. Why do you hate men?


Oh, so you agree that liberals are correct when do that?
Simly using standards I know you accept. Do you no longer accept these standards?


No, that is your failed interpretation of what they are saying. They did not tell him to 'shut up' or tell him that 'he has to agree with them.' In their minds, I suppose they feel that they are doing what's right or representing their voters. For the record, I do not agree with them, but that doesn't justify you saying they said something that they did not say. That is spreading misinformation.
They said "stop saying what you are saying or we will stop you from doing business in our cities"...of course, we both know if he had said what the dems wanted to hear they would not be trying to abuse their power to punish him.

You lost this one...even Jon Stewart made fun of them for trying to violate the Constitution. Give it up already and put down the shovel.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
You're welcome to start your own thread about public nudity laws.
Thanks, but I would rather continue to ensure you do not pretend laws are not created to enfore religious institutions.

Marriage only has meaning to the two people who are married and to no one else.
This is just about one of the most stupid statments I have read on this forum.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,145
6,184
136
Men are denied marrying men, women are denied marrying women. Everyone is treated equally. Fail on your part.
That might be an issue if there were groups of men demanding entry to women's rooms and groups of women demanding entry to men's rooms. AFAIK, there are not such groups because it would be retarded, just like you. If a man wants to go into a women's room, he can walk right in. He'd have to commit some other crime as well before law enforcement would get involved. On top of that, what would a man gain from using a women's room instead of a men's room? Nothing. Just a dumb ass attempt of false equivalence on your part.

Ah, so you support discrimination in a private business now? Interesting, I will have to remember that for later.
In the case of Curves, it's not discrimination. Show me the group of men who really really want to be able to join Curves. I do believe that men's clubs and women's clubs should be able to restrict access based on sex. It doesn't harm anyone, unlike restricting same sex marriage. Just a dumb ass attempt of false equivalence on your part.

You just changed what I said about abortions. I did not say men can abort a child inside them, but rather their offspring. Men have offspring, you know...just like women. However, women are allowed to abort their offspring, men are not. Why do you hate men?
The reason men don't have the right to abort their offspring is because the fetus is not inside them. If you really think this is unjust, which I don't believe you do, too fucking bad. The Supreme Court says you are wrong. The reason men are not treated equally in this case is because they don't share equally in the risk. Everyone knows this. Just a dumb ass attempt of false equivalence on your part.




Simly using standards I know you accept. Do you no longer accept these standards?
Produce a quote of me accepting this standard or admit you are lying. Those are your two choices in this case.




They said "stop saying what you are saying or we will stop you from doing business in our cities"...of course, we both know if he had said what the dems wanted to hear they would not be trying to abuse their power to punish him.

You lost this one...even Jon Stewart made fun of them for trying to violate the Constitution. Give it up already and put down the shovel.
They did not say what you have quoted in bold. That is a blatent lie. You lost this one, you have to fabricate quotes to win your argument. Give it up already and put down the shovel.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,861
2
0
Thanks, but I would rather continue to ensure you do not pretend laws are not created to enfore religious institutions.



This is just about one of the most stupid statments I have read on this forum.
Really? So what does my marriage mean to you? Inquiring minds want to know.

By the way its enforce and statements.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
In the case of Curves, it's not discrimination. Show me the group of men who really really want to be able to join Curves. I do believe that men's clubs and women's clubs should be able to restrict access based on sex. It doesn't harm anyone, unlike restricting same sex marriage. Just a dumb ass attempt of false equivalence on your part.
It depends on the state, most states do not allow discrimination based on gender for gyms.

http://clubindustry.com/mag/fitness_access_denied/

Some states do allow gender discrimination in gyms (PA is one of them).


The reason men don't have the right to abort their offspring is because the fetus is not inside them. If you really think this is unjust, which I don't believe you do, too fucking bad. The Supreme Court says you are wrong. The reason men are not treated equally in this case is because they don't share equally in the risk. Everyone knows this. Just a dumb ass attempt of false equivalence on your part.
No false equivalency found. The offspring is just as much his as hers...as proven by child support payments. You just do not want to hold an even standard of equality. That is understandable, most abortion supporters hold discriminatory views like yours.

They did not say what you have quoted in bold. That is a blatent lie. You lost this one, you have to fabricate quotes to win your argument. Give it up already and put down the shovel.
They effectively said it. Ok, I will explain it in a way I know you understand:

A black man wants to open a business in an 100% white town. The town says something like "His values are not our town's values. They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents. This would be a bad investment, since it would be empty." and then they deny him building permits.

Would you say they are denying the permits because they do not want a black man in their town? They never said it, so if we use your failed logic, you cannot make this claim, even though it would be the obviously correct claim to make.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Really? So what does my marriage mean to you? Inquiring minds want to know.
Ah, you are playing the "I am going to change what I claimed" game and hope no one notices. You claimed this:

Marriage only has meaning to the two people who are married and to no one else.
Now you are changing it to be "what is the meaning of my specific marriage"...which is not the same thing.

A nice try, but one which failed.


By the way its enforce and statements.
By the way, you used your sentence fragment improperly. It surely sucks to make a grammar mistake in the very post you show yourself to be a spelling Nazi, doesn't it?
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,861
2
0
Ah, you are playing the "I am going to change what I claimed" game and hope no one notices. You claimed this:



Now you are changing it to be "what is the meaning of my specific marriage"...which is not the same thing.

A nice try, but one which failed.




By the way, you used your sentence fragment improperly. It surely sucks to make a grammar mistake in the very post you show yourself to be a spelling Nazi, doesn't it?
Okay, I'll bite. My original statement from post # 94 was "Marriage only has meaning to the two people who are married and to no one else."

You countered in post # 107 that "This is just about one of the most stupid statments I have read on this forum."

I was using my marriage as an example; I'm sure you're aware of the definition of example. If you're not though you can use the marriage of one of your neighbors as an example.

So what exactly about my original post was "stupid"?

Well if I were a grammar or spelling Nazi you might have a point. You seemed like you needed a little help with your spelling.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY