E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-01-2013, 04:58 PM   #21
bimmerfan08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Eastern VA
Posts: 4,897
My Ride: E46 M3
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer View Post
If popular option shifted to say interspecies marriage is ok, liberals would evolve to claim they supported it from the beginning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'busa View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer View Post
Hyperbole and sarcasm, but yes, a strawman as well.
__________________


"My philosophy as a businessman has always been to take care of the people who make me successful. It has always been "we" in my business conversations with others. At a certain point in a successful business it behooves one to make sure those doing a good job of supporting you are not struggling to make ends meet."
bimmerfan08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2013, 05:25 PM   #22
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 975
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by phrozen06 View Post
I didn't discredit him. He did it to himself by apologizing. He's not an elected official so why is he apologizing if that is how he sees it? He cited his religious beliefs right? So stick to what you believe in.
He didn't apologize for what he believes. He apologized if anyone was offended by what he said and how he said it.

Maybe he apologized because he wished he would've "calibrated those words differently" to poach a phrase from Obama. Or because he has political aspirations and he's learning to whore himself out to public opinion, regardless of what's right. Or because he's worried about how these kinds of things could affect his foundation's fundraising efforts.
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Quote:
I'm tolerant of everything, except intolerance. I simply can't tolerate that. :eeps:
----------------------------------------------
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2013, 05:45 PM   #23
rdsesq
ouroboros autorotica
 
rdsesq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cali...the only state that matters
Posts: 1,452
My Ride: 2002 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
Not an entirely false point, though. At one point homosexuality was looked upon the same as things like pedophilia, incest, etc. Pedophiles have a mental disorder, look at their recidivism rate. It isn't a choice, just like homosexuality isn't a choice. As a society we could have easily ended up cheering for equal rights for brothers and sisters if things went differently and hollywood pushed it.

Hell, who are we to say that homosexuality should be celebrated but polygamists are gross? Now we're nitpicking what is ok and what isn't? smh
And let us not forget that before homosexuality was looked "down upon", tt was held in as much regard as hetrosexuality. Lest we forget those civilizations that came before islam, christianity and judaism. As for interspecies marriage, as long as one can prove that the species involved actually consent and are above the age of consent. I am OK with it.


As for Mr. Carson. He believes that "nobody should have more rights than anybody else." I guess that doesn't include the right to words like "marriage" to define relationships. If nobody should have more rights than anybody else, why should straights have exclusive "use rights" to the word marriage.


And the GOP is NOT a "walking/talking hate crime". Just a goodly amount of their members.
__________________
"The existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon."
-- Dr Manhattan

quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Last edited by rdsesq; 04-01-2013 at 05:46 PM.
rdsesq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2013, 05:56 PM   #24
2000_328CI
DK Jack Sparrow
 
2000_328CI's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Isla de Muerta | DC/VA
Posts: 29,039
My Ride: 328Ci | Range Rover
Send a message via AIM to 2000_328CI Send a message via MSN to 2000_328CI
Clinton and Obama were both against gay marriage... Back when it wasn't politically advantageous.

Anything for a vote
__________________

| 435 HP 328Ci | Mechanical Work : RRT Racing | Vinyl Work : Designer Wraps | Vorsteiner | STATUS Racing |
Timeless Motor Group
2000_328CI is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2013, 06:05 PM   #25
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: Beach Cruiser
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdsesq View Post
And let us not forget that before homosexuality was looked "down upon", tt was held in as much regard as hetrosexuality. Lest we forget those civilizations that came before islam, christianity and judaism. As for interspecies marriage, as long as one can prove that the species involved actually consent and are above the age of consent. I am OK with it.


As for Mr. Carson. He believes that "nobody should have more rights than anybody else." I guess that doesn't include the right to words like "marriage" to define relationships. If nobody should have more rights than anybody else, why should straights have exclusive "use rights" to the word marriage.


And the GOP is NOT a "walking/talking hate crime". Just a goodly amount of their members.
I don't recall any civilizations from ages ago holding homosexuality in the same regard as hetero, but I'm not above learning about it if you'd like to point me in the right direction.

You really want to start a discussion as to why certain groups of people have the right to use certain words?

I don't care if you want to marry your sister, a dude, or 10 girls. It is none of my business, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend that one of those things is ok and the other two are abominations.
__________________
“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin

“I wanted [Jimmy] Carter in and I wanted [Ford] out,” comedian Chevy Chase would later admit of his mocking Ford impersonation on "Saturday Night Live", “and I figured look, we're reaching millions of people every weekend, why not do it."
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2013, 06:41 PM   #26
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 754
My Ride: is a ///M
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2000_328CI View Post
Clinton and Obama were both against gay marriage... Back when it wasn't politically advantageous.

Anything for a vote
Same goes for republican pandering...anything for a vote. Example: Romney saying one thing one day, then something else the other - flip flopping so to speak.

Or how about your favorite politician: Newt Gingrich claiming to bring back $2.50 gas?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2000_328CI View Post
"Occupy a shower and then occupy a job interview" - Newt fking Gingrich, the 45th president of the United States of fking America
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2000_328CI View Post
Yeup. Here's why. The guy ISN'T a pillar of morality within his personal life, but his political shortcomings are far exceeded by his accomplishments. And, along the lines of morality, his failures in the past will REQUIRE that he take a Laissez-faire approach towards issues like gay marriage and women's rights. After all, he can't turn around and proclaim moral high ground to defend pro-life or the religious right and their push to minimize gay rights in this country... So, what will happen? He will end up being a fiscally conservative social moderate which is EXACTLY what our country needs...

If Newt gets up and, when asked about his personal life and social issues, stands firm and states "THAT SHOULDN'T MATTER NOW. We have far more important things to address like unemployment, energy, and the deficit", he will absolutely win the nomination. And when he does, he will SLAUGHTER Obama in the debates. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. So what will we then have? A democratic president running with a piss poor record against an extremely confident, well spoken political mastermind. There will be NO WAY to vote Obama and sincerely believe you are voting towards a better America.

You may ask yourself, "well what about the far right that demands a social conservative?" .. here is the beauty of it all. Obama is SOOOOOO bad in the eyes of almost ANY conservative, that it won't matter. The "lesser of two evils" will win and Newt's fiscal policy will win out. Game. Set. Match. Gingrich.
.
I love Chase-isms




Last edited by MDydinanM; 04-01-2013 at 06:47 PM.
MDydinanM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2013, 06:56 PM   #27
2000_328CI
DK Jack Sparrow
 
2000_328CI's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Isla de Muerta | DC/VA
Posts: 29,039
My Ride: 328Ci | Range Rover
Send a message via AIM to 2000_328CI Send a message via MSN to 2000_328CI
I love how people deflect shortcomings of their elected officials by retorting "well your side......"

Jesus people hold your politicians accountable and stop praising them for their flip flopping if it now fits the popular opinion.
__________________

| 435 HP 328Ci | Mechanical Work : RRT Racing | Vinyl Work : Designer Wraps | Vorsteiner | STATUS Racing |
Timeless Motor Group
2000_328CI is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2013, 06:57 PM   #28
2000_328CI
DK Jack Sparrow
 
2000_328CI's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Isla de Muerta | DC/VA
Posts: 29,039
My Ride: 328Ci | Range Rover
Send a message via AIM to 2000_328CI Send a message via MSN to 2000_328CI
Aa
__________________

| 435 HP 328Ci | Mechanical Work : RRT Racing | Vinyl Work : Designer Wraps | Vorsteiner | STATUS Racing |
Timeless Motor Group

Last edited by 2000_328CI; 04-01-2013 at 06:57 PM.
2000_328CI is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2013, 06:59 PM   #29
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 754
My Ride: is a ///M
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2000_328CI View Post
I love how people deflect shortcomings of their elected officials by retorting "well your side......"

Jesus people hold your politicians accountable and stop praising them for their flip flopping if it now fits the popular opinion.
would you do the same for a Republican incumbent? Or would you defend and rationalize like others do? Yep, thought so.

Last edited by MDydinanM; 04-01-2013 at 07:01 PM.
MDydinanM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2013, 07:09 PM   #30
2000_328CI
DK Jack Sparrow
 
2000_328CI's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Isla de Muerta | DC/VA
Posts: 29,039
My Ride: 328Ci | Range Rover
Send a message via AIM to 2000_328CI Send a message via MSN to 2000_328CI
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDydinanM View Post
would you do the same for a Republican incumbent? Or would you defend and rationalize like others do? Yep, thought so.
If I agreed with his position, I'd support it. If I disagreed, I'd NOT support it (much as I did with W)...

If they had a position and switched to one I preferred, I'd be glad.. If it were earnest. Otherwise, regardless of the outcome, I would be saddened by the lack of integrity. This is precisely what O'Reilly and others have attacked... It's not the "newly formed" position Obama and Clinton have arrived at that upset me... It's the fact that it isnt, in any capacity, genuine. It's all to buy votes.

Wasn't it liberals who said they could get behind Ron Paul because he at least has genuine positions rather than politically formulated ones? Where are those people and why aren't they equally upset with the lack of honesty? Or is it simply that they are so wrapped up in the "we won" me Mentality that everything else can go to the wayside?
__________________

| 435 HP 328Ci | Mechanical Work : RRT Racing | Vinyl Work : Designer Wraps | Vorsteiner | STATUS Racing |
Timeless Motor Group
2000_328CI is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2013, 08:22 PM   #31
Lair
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Liberal Paradise
Posts: 344
My Ride: e90,e90, $5k Boxster
I don't know any liberals who got behind Ron Paul - except maybe his boyfriend.
__________________
Lair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2013, 09:09 PM   #32
rdsesq
ouroboros autorotica
 
rdsesq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cali...the only state that matters
Posts: 1,452
My Ride: 2002 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
I don't recall any civilizations from ages ago holding homosexuality in the same regard as hetero, but I'm not above learning about it if you'd like to point me in the right direction.
You could start with the ancient Greece.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
You really want to start a discussion as to why certain groups of people have the right to use certain words?
Bring it on. Ok by me. I believe hate speech laws are a crock. Beyond yelling fire in a crowded movie house and directly inciting violence, I don't believe speech should be restricted. (and frankly I am not even sure I concur with those two limits on it.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
I don't care if you want to marry your sister, a dude, or 10 girls. It is none of my business, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend that one of those things is ok and the other two are abominations.
And just which two are they. This is the amusing thing to me. The first and third items were standard practice for centuries. Polygamy was common place prior to the west conversion to christianity. One of the most revered biblical figures is Solomon, who had multiple wives. As for sisters...well...for all the Book of Genesis folks, Chapter 4 Verse 16. "Cain went out from the presence of the lord and dwelt in the east of eden and there Cain knew his wife." (King James, from memory so don't sue me if its not letter perfect)

If you only have Adam and Eve to start with, well.....that makes Cain's wife also his sister or his daughter and his sister if she were to come from the union of Cain with Eve.

Not to mention the various European and Egyptian monarchies that kept the family line in the family through inter-marriage of virtually all incestual types.

Lets face facts. The concept of marriage is between one male and one female only (DOMA language) is a highly western, judeo-christian, view of the term. To use it as the sole yardstick for measurement of actions throughout history is rather silly, don't you think. Now, if we were living in some place like the UK, where there is a state religion (CofE) which is defined by protestant christian rules. So much so that the monarch is the head of the church. I can in that govt structure the myopic use of the term and definition of marriage. However, in a country which prides itself on not being that. Where the govt "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" are the first words of the first amendment to its constitution. To be bound by such precepts is abhorrent.
__________________
"The existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon."
-- Dr Manhattan

quis custodiet ipsos custodes
rdsesq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2013, 09:58 PM   #33
NOVAbimmer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 12,986
My Ride: 14 Impala FXST M796
Then remove any governmentally provided benefits to any kind of marriage or civil union, let whoever wants to call themselves a couple do it, let churches marry or refuse marriage to whomever they want, and be done with it.
__________________
NOVAbimmer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2013, 10:05 PM   #34
NOVAbimmer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 12,986
My Ride: 14 Impala FXST M796
The idea, though, that we need to take every historical perspective into account when determining what's right and wrong, though, is ludicrous. Why is the Greek or roman concept of wild orgies with men and women fvcking whatever they want more valid than the judeo-Christian viewpoint that sexual relationships exist between one man and one woman in a committed monogamous relationship?

Maybe we should look at the Romans for their concept of international relations, and the Chinese for their gender relations? How about ancient African cultures for modeling our family structures.

Bottom line: we don't need to do things the Greek way, or the roman way, or the Chinese way, or the middle eastern way, or the Mexican way, or the Canadian way. Not should we. We need to do things the American way.

Whatever that may mean.
__________________
NOVAbimmer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2013, 10:26 PM   #35
rdsesq
ouroboros autorotica
 
rdsesq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cali...the only state that matters
Posts: 1,452
My Ride: 2002 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer View Post
The idea, though, that we need to take every historical perspective into account when determining what's right and wrong, though, is ludicrous. Why is the Greek or roman concept of wild orgies with men and women fvcking whatever they want more valid than the judeo-Christian viewpoint that sexual relationships exist between one man and one woman in a committed monogamous relationship?

Maybe we should look at the Romans for their concept of international relations, and the Chinese for their gender relations? How about ancient African cultures for modeling our family structures.

Bottom line: we don't need to do things the Greek way, or the roman way, or the Chinese way, or the middle eastern way, or the Mexican way, or the Canadian way. Not should we. We need to do things the American way.

Whatever that may mean.
And that things change is the American way. Take X, where we once believed one way and now, due to the changes within our society, we believe something different. Slavery, women's rights, jim crow, pornography, reds under the bed, etc.

Perhaps we should look at the perspectives of Greece and Rome more than we do Judeo-Christianity. After all, our system of government is based on the ideas of ancient Greece and Rome, not the bible. Ancient Greece and Rome had democracy and republics. Judaism and Christianity are monarchies.
__________________
"The existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon."
-- Dr Manhattan

quis custodiet ipsos custodes
rdsesq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2013, 10:43 PM   #36
NOVAbimmer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 12,986
My Ride: 14 Impala FXST M796
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdsesq View Post
And that things change is the American way. Take X, where we once believed one way and now, due to the changes within our society, we believe something different. Slavery, women's rights, jim crow, pornography, reds under the bed, etc.

Perhaps we should look at the perspectives of Greece and Rome more than we do Judeo-Christianity. After all, our system of government is based on the ideas of ancient Greece and Rome, not the bible. Ancient Greece and Rome had democracy and republics. Judaism and Christianity are monarchies.
Ancient Greece and Rome had slaves. The roman republic was replaced by a dictatorship when Caesar crossed the rubicon. The "Greeks" were a loose collection of city states at best. The Athenian democracy that some people look so fondly upon only really flourished for about 75 years before Athens was conquered by Sparta. Oh, and both cultures were driven by religion.

And all of those cultures used slavery for cheap labor.

So yeah, great, homosexuality was a perk for rich people who could afford slave boys. What a great group of people for us to emulate.
__________________
NOVAbimmer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2013, 10:53 PM   #37
rdsesq
ouroboros autorotica
 
rdsesq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cali...the only state that matters
Posts: 1,452
My Ride: 2002 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer View Post
Ancient Greece and Rome had slaves. The roman republic was replaced by a dictatorship when Caesar crossed the rubicon. The "Greeks" were a loose collection of city states at best. The Athenian democracy that some people look so fondly upon only really flourished for about 75 years before Athens was conquered by Sparta. Oh, and both cultures were driven by religion.

And all of those cultures used slavery for cheap labor.

So yeah, great, homosexuality was a perk for rich people who could afford slave boys. What a great group of people for us to emulate.
Sorry if I your knickers got in twist by somebody actually pointing out that this country got more from "pagan" civilization than it ever did from judeo-christian civilization.
Who said xerox copy? None of them are perfect.
Christian Rome was sacked by pagans multiple times as well. And those christians had slaves too.
__________________
"The existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon."
-- Dr Manhattan

quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Last edited by rdsesq; 04-01-2013 at 10:55 PM.
rdsesq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 01:14 AM   #38
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 975
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdsesq View Post
And just which two are they. This is the amusing thing to me. The first and third items were standard practice for centuries. Polygamy was common place prior to the west conversion to christianity. One of the most revered biblical figures is Solomon, who had multiple wives. As for sisters...well...for all the Book of Genesis folks, Chapter 4 Verse 16. "Cain went out from the presence of the lord and dwelt in the east of eden and there Cain knew his wife." (King James, from memory so don't sue me if its not letter perfect)

If you only have Adam and Eve to start with, well.....that makes Cain's wife also his sister or his daughter and his sister if she were to come from the union of Cain with Eve.

Not to mention the various European and Egyptian monarchies that kept the family line in the family through inter-marriage of virtually all incestual types.

Lets face facts. The concept of marriage is between one male and one female only (DOMA language) is a highly western, judeo-christian, view of the term. To use it as the sole yardstick for measurement of actions throughout history is rather silly, don't you think. Now, if we were living in some place like the UK, where there is a state religion (CofE) which is defined by protestant christian rules. So much so that the monarch is the head of the church. I can in that govt structure the myopic use of the term and definition of marriage. However, in a country which prides itself on not being that. Where the govt "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" are the first words of the first amendment to its constitution. To be bound by such precepts is abhorrent.
Christians didn't invent nor do they get to claim ownership over monogamous heterosexual marriage. I think a few billion Hindus and Buddhists, not to mention a few gabajillion non-Abrahamic people alive today and back through millennia would back me on that.

It's pretty much a moot argument, though.

Let's say modern US Christians could prove they invented marriage or have usurped ownership of it to the degree that they get to "set the rules" for the govt's recognition of it. That leaves one group in the position of imposing their religious views upon another group, which is an egregious violation of a founding principle of this country.

If modern US Christians don't own marriage, then where do they get off denying other groups access to the civil institution simply because the other groups don't do it the way the Christians want them to?

Either way it's viewed, giving Christianity absolute authority over the civil institution of marriage is unacceptable.
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Quote:
I'm tolerant of everything, except intolerance. I simply can't tolerate that. :eeps:
----------------------------------------------
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 06:37 AM   #39
mistrzmiasta
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,001
My Ride: GLK350,ML63, Duc1098
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdsesq View Post
You could start with the ancient Greece.

well if the ANCIENT greeks did it
mistrzmiasta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 07:27 AM   #40
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: Beach Cruiser
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdsesq View Post
You could start with the ancient Greece.
Married men to men? First I've heard of this, I was under the impression that it was just people run by ther id and banging whatever comes their way. Either way, your point is insipid as usual. You're trying to mold the law to effect your values and personal tastes and proclivities which is no better than people trying to mold it to theirs.

Oh yea, how does the Jewish religion view homosexuals? How about Islam? Yes, this is just a Christian thing. Right on
__________________
“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin

“I wanted [Jimmy] Carter in and I wanted [Ford] out,” comedian Chevy Chase would later admit of his mocking Ford impersonation on "Saturday Night Live", “and I figured look, we're reaching millions of people every weekend, why not do it."

Last edited by Act of God; 04-02-2013 at 10:55 AM.
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Censor is ON





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use