84 replies to this topic

[phlegm]

Has anyone considered the possibility that the kid actually is gay?

[David_Sklansky]

This is an interesting thread. I was actually sort of 50/50 in this election until this story came out, and now I am back to being a reluctant Obama voter.

brvheart, on 10 May 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

I guess we might have different definitions of "picked on". I didn't ever hit, poke, tackle or bully anyone either. But I definitely teased people at some point from K-12. Did you not tease anyone either? Would you bet your life on that? Have you either done anything wrong? Are you a higher power? Is that why you're an athiest, because you KNOW the truth?

This is sort of what's so interesting about this topic. I never physically hurt anyone, and I certainly didn't attack people because they were weak or different. I was always a mouthy prick in school, so you can maybe say I am a bad person too, and I don't deny this. But I also don't think it's fair to look at our own history and personality, and then assume this is the way everyone should be, and expect no better from our leaders.There were tons of people in school, from all different outlooks, who were nice. Popular jock-type kids, abused nerds who easily could have been bitter, etc, none of whom would have beaten up a fag or a goth or whatever else, or even so much as talked shit about a cool kid. Because they were actual good people. These people do exist. We have no reason to assume Obama isn't one, and we know for sure that Romney isn't. If this is not a criteria that matters to you, I'm sure you'll vote for the team you have been rooting for, but I for one don't want someone like that making decisions that effect me.Side note: Brvheat, we are both shitty people. We laugh at ****ed up shit, have terrible values in general, etc. I don't know who here remembers, but I was a Christian until a few years ago, and acted even worse than I do now. I was a true, legit, born-again Christian. I remember in my phase of apostasy, I was pretty active here, and you made a post in a thread about It's Always Sunny that really hit home. Something about how it was funny, but you couldn't recommend it, because there was swearing or something totally meaningless to me. And I remember thinking how odd it was that we could admittedly like and laugh at a show that basically does nothing but display these absolutely atrocious humans and their atrocious, antisocial behavior and attitudes, but be turned off by some totally arbitrary neo-Christian bulletpoint complain. And it really hit me how shitty people like us -- strong Christians for so long -- were and always had been, and it was a really important moment for me recognizing fully how nonexistent the holy spirit really was for us.My point is, shitty people are shitty people, more or less. I wouldn't mind having a leader like Jimmy Carter or VB, and I would be terrified to have one like you, me or Mitt Romney. Just because we ourselves are terrible doesn't mean we shoulde excuse it in a position or power like that.

[FCP Bob]

http://therumpus.net...e-fallen-world/I don

Quote

I don’t mean to suggest that Romney is without compassion. I believe, for instance, that he loves his wife and his children, and that he believes in God and the flag. But there is something in his character that I am starting to get frightened about, an unwillingness, or an inability, to feel remorse, to simply own up to a moral failing, to apologize not just if “somebody was hurt” but because you know, deep down, that you hurt someone.Think about it: here are these half dozen men who took part in a savage act nearly fifty years ago. It has haunted all of them. And the ringleader, the guy who made the plan and led the mob and cut the victim’s hair off remembers … nothing?It’s just bullshit, total ****ing sociopathic bullshit. And it makes me sad that such an episode comes to light and all Romney can do—a guy who wants to be elected to our highest office—is nervously lie and make excuses, as if this were political problem. It’s not a political problem. It’s a moral problem. It’s a sin he committed for which any believer would seek atonement.

[Roll the Bones]

I agree with the viewpoint that it goes to further the idea that Romney came from an elitist background and is out of touch with most people and issues. Politicians flip-flopping on issues isn't such a big deal as they all do based on polling numbers. I fail to see how Obama's coming out in favor of gay marraige helps him all that much though and likely hurts him. The over 65 crowd, and they actually vote more than the youth that supports gay marraige, are overwhelming in Romney's corner on this. I simply don't come down on a single social issue with Republicans. They have become so far right and strident on the issues that I don't know how anyone could vote for them, even if you strongly believed in their economic policy.They have introduced and in many cases passed so many laws that are outright scary, bigoted, anti-secular, anti- separation of church state, theocratic, anti-science etc, that they remind me more of Saudi Arabia than the US.

[brvheart]

David_Sklansky, on 12 May 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

Side note: Brvheat, we are both shitty people. We laugh at ****ed up shit, have terrible values in general, etc. I don't know who here remembers, but I was a Christian until a few years ago, and acted even worse than I do now. I was a true, legit, born-again Christian. I remember in my phase of apostasy, I was pretty active here, and you made a post in a thread about It's Always Sunny that really hit home. Something about how it was funny, but you couldn't recommend it, because there was swearing or something totally meaningless to me. And I remember thinking how odd it was that we could admittedly like and laugh at a show that basically does nothing but display these absolutely atrocious humans and their atrocious, antisocial behavior and attitudes, but be turned off by some totally arbitrary neo-Christian bulletpoint complain. And it really hit me how shitty people like us -- strong Christians for so long -- were and always had been, and it was a really important moment for me recognizing fully how nonexistent the holy spirit really was for us.

Glad I could help.Expanded: I wasn't saying in that thread that Christians couldn't like IASIP, my point was that I have to be careful about other peoples issues. If I recommended that show to a Christian that had a problem with drinking and then the show triggered him to start drinking in some way, I would take that as my burden as well. Romans 14.

[Balloon guy]

Well I agree that one action 46 years ago should be enough to decide that you know a person enough to say what his core character is.43 years ago Barack Obama was attending a muslim school and eating dog meat.....

[vbnautilus]

phlegm, on 12 May 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

Has anyone considered the possibility that the kid actually is gay?

Why does that matter?

[AmScray]

timwakefield, on 10 May 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

First of all,Second of all,Third of all,

You're just garbage as a human being.

[Pot Odds RAC]

I think our society's treatment of the rights of the GLBT community is our generation's Slavery. Changes are occuring relatively rapidly in terms of how society changes. Just at the beginning of this Century only a fraction of Americans supports GLBT rights, specifically Gay Marriage. I expect that in less than another decade we will see nearly universal such rights. This doesn't mean that everyone will accept homosexuality any more than we have eliminated racism. Also, there is going to be at least as much historical social revisionism and judgement of decades old behavior that was "acceptable" in Society at the time but is now unacceptable.I do think that part of the problem is usage of the term "Marriage" as legal shorthand for granting partner rights. In my opinion the term "Marriage" should remain a religious term and be the decision of a given religion whether to allow certain marriages within their own religious definitions and interpretations. The legal rights (Gay and Straight) should be defined as Civil Union. However, there are centuries of Common and Actual law to consider.In general I don't believe in Social Policy as one of the roles of Government. I am just as uncomfortable with a Santorum using the Government to enforce individual behavior as I am Obama doing the same thing.I do think it is important to recognize that Romney has stated his personal view on this matter, but hasn't said that he wants the Federal Government to dictate the definition of Marriage - similar to Obama's "brave decision". While I already stated that I don't think the Government should be setting social policy, I do think this is a Constitutional issue that needs to be addressed at the Federal level.I hate that Santorum defines Obama's "decision" as a "weapon" of the GOP. I think it is more of an opportunity for the GOP to support individual rights and show true leadership on the issue, rather than be driven by religious special interest groups.No, someone didn't hijack Pot Odds' account.

[FCP Bob]

Pot Odds RAC, on 13 May 2012 - 07:55 AM, said:

II do think that part of the problem is usage of the term "Marriage" as legal shorthand for granting partner rights. In my opinion the term "Marriage" should remain a religious term and be the decision of a given religion whether to allow certain marriages within their own religious definitions and interpretations. The legal rights (Gay and Straight) should be defined as Civil Union. However, there are centuries of Common and Actual law to consider.

Marriage is not a religious term even if some religious instituions think that they own it.My wife and I aren't religious but we are have a marraige and are married. We don't have a civil union we have a marriage without any religious or spiritual organization being involved. The institution of marriage is not the property of any religion or group of religions.I do think that religious organizations have the right to decide what they recognize as marriage for their own members but they have no right to define the term for others.

[phlegm]

vbnautilus, on 12 May 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

Why does that matter?

Hopefully it doesnt. This kind of crap goes on all the time in prep schools, fraternities, sororities/ social clubs, etc.Would you all start hating barack if this was his stunt? I doubt it.This incident shpuld only change the vote of the most idiotic naive moron.

[phlegm]

FCP Bob, on 13 May 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

Marriage is not a religious term even if some religious instituions think that they own it.My wife and I aren't religious but we are have a marraige and are married. We don't have a civil union we have a marriage without any religious or spiritual organization being involved. The institution of marriage is not the property of any religion or group of religions.I do think that religious organizations have the right to decide what they recognize as marriage for their own members but they have no right to define the term for others.

It would be interesting to look up how marriage was first instituted. By a religion or state.

[hblask]

phlegm, on 13 May 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

It would be interesting to look up how marriage was first instituted. By a religion or state.

I suspect that what you would find is that at the time the two were so intertwined that it would be impossible to say.

[phlegm]

hblask, on 13 May 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

I suspect that what you would find is that at the time the two were so intertwined that it would be impossible to say.

Back when most civilizations worshipped heathen gods, or none at all, was there such a thing as mariage.

[FCP Bob]

phlegm, on 13 May 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

Back when most civilizations worshipped heathen gods, or none at all, was there such a thing as mariage.

http://www2.hu-berli...in_western.html

[timwakefield]

AmScray, on 12 May 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

You're just garbage as a human being.

Says the fat racist heroin addicted convicted felon. I know I'm doing it right when you hate me.

[mrdannyg]

brvheart, on 10 May 2012 - 08:27 PM, said:

No, of course not, I think there are plenty of "good" atheists. I just know kids, and kids are generally mean to someone at some point in their entire life... that's all.

Why are you treating this like he was a little kid? Sure, we all did things in kindergarten that wouldn't reflect well now. Bit kicked, called names, etc. But when we were 18? I can honestly say I did not refer to someone by a hateful name or physically assaulted anyone after the age of about 14 or so. And if I did, it was something I did with at least a fair amount of adult knowledge. Like I said, I don't think it should change anyone voting for the guy. It was almost 50 years ago, and most of us don't know what things were like in that environment. But I hold a rich, educated 18-year old violent offender to a higher standard than 'boys will be boys.'

David_Sklansky, on 12 May 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

This is an interesting thread. I was actually sort of 50/50 in this election until this story came out, and now I am back to being a reluctant Obama voter.This is sort of what's so interesting about this topic. I never physically hurt anyone, and I certainly didn't attack people because they were weak or different. I was always a mouthy prick in school, so you can maybe say I am a bad person too, and I don't deny this. But I also don't think it's fair to look at our own history and personality, and then assume this is the way everyone should be, and expect no better from our leaders.There were tons of people in school, from all different outlooks, who were nice. Popular jock-type kids, abused nerds who easily could have been bitter, etc, none of whom would have beaten up a fag or a goth or whatever else, or even so much as talked shit about a cool kid. Because they were actual good people. These people do exist. We have no reason to assume Obama isn't one, and we know for sure that Romney isn't. If this is not a criteria that matters to you, I'm sure you'll vote for the team you have been rooting for, but I for one don't want someone like that making decisions that effect me.Side note: Brvheat, we are both shitty people. We laugh at ****ed up shit, have terrible values in general, etc. I don't know who here remembers, but I was a Christian until a few years ago, and acted even worse than I do now. I was a true, legit, born-again Christian. I remember in my phase of apostasy, I was pretty active here, and you made a post in a thread about It's Always Sunny that really hit home. Something about how it was funny, but you couldn't recommend it, because there was swearing or something totally meaningless to me. And I remember thinking how odd it was that we could admittedly like and laugh at a show that basically does nothing but display these absolutely atrocious humans and their atrocious, antisocial behavior and attitudes, but be turned off by some totally arbitrary neo-Christian bulletpoint complain. And it really hit me how shitty people like us -- strong Christians for so long -- were and always had been, and it was a really important moment for me recognizing fully how nonexistent the holy spirit really was for us.My point is, shitty people are shitty people, more or less. I wouldn't mind having a leader like Jimmy Carter or VB, and I would be terrified to have one like you, me or Mitt Romney. Just because we ourselves are terrible doesn't mean we shoulde excuse it in a position or power like that.

I think this was well said in that it reflects the reason a lot of non-religious people are that way. We do not feel 'touched' enough by the religious spirit that doing anything for the sake of religion seems forced and unnatural. I think many of us feel that for religious people to act the way they do, they must simply feel what they believe more strongly than us, because we could never imagine acting the way they do without a more deep sense of reason to do so.

Balloon guy, on 12 May 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

Well I agree that one action 46 years ago should be enough to decide that you know a person enough to say what his core character is.43 years ago Barack Obama was attending a muslim school and eating dog meat.....

This was funny.

[aucu]

It seems that Romney did cross a line back in prep-school, but can this be used to judge how he will act going forward?Other than this the guy is far too squeaky clean which in itself may be problem because, there could be suppressed issues that may come to the surface.This election looks like another case of none of the above

[Balloon guy]

So if he's dirty..he's unfitAnd if he's clean..he's repressed and could ignite.Okay with me if we outlaw all people who want to be politicians.

[phlegm]

Balloon guy, on 10 May 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:

The ironic part of the story is that all the people coming forward telling about this are saying they regret this, but we are to assume of course that Mitt doesn't regret this at all.A guy in 1965 wears his hair really feminine and peroxide bleached blond....sounds like he wanted the negative attention.

This is where the story sounds fishy.I talked to my dad.and he is a big obama guy, but 18 year olds in 1965 woiuld never have bleqched their hair. The big hair statement back then was mohawks.Also isnt the supposed victim denying this story.