U.S. Politics

Page 152 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 18, 2010
221
0
0
auscyclefan94 said:
Nope - your problem, not mine.
whoops! perhaps i was not clear or, more likely, something was lost in the translation. :D

i was kidding about "you aussies have a lot to learn!!" regarding aussie/american english and re-dfined word meanings sensitivity. i was not and am not offended by your use of "you GUYS" (my caps). however, i know more than a few people who are or would be offeneded by "you guys" because they would insist that "you guys" is NOT a gender neutral term - that it is a male, gendercentric term which immediately excludes all females.

mind boggling, isn't it?

i was and am not kidding about the 2016 presidential campaign beginning the day after the election.

to be precise: the camaign for the party that loses the election begins the day after the election. the campaign for the party of a sitting, term-limited president begins *before* the current election.

in prior post clarification conclusion, i say "no problems, mate! :)
 
May 11, 2009
1,188
0
0
shakeshakeshake said:
............republican neo-cons: ******bags obsessed with money
..........................
And apparently forcing their social beliefs on all US citizens.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,325
0
0
etymology said:
whoops! perhaps i was not clear or, more likely, something was lost in the translation. :D

i was kidding about "you aussies have a lot to learn!!" regarding aussie/american english and re-dfined word meanings sensitivity. i was not and am not offended by your use of "you GUYS" (my caps). however, i know more than a few people who are or would be offeneded by "you guys" because they would insist that "you guys" is NOT a gender neutral term - that it is a male, gendercentric term which immediately excludes all females.

mind boggling, isn't it?

i was and am not kidding about the 2016 presidential campaign beginning the day after the election.

to be precise: the camaign for the party that loses the election begins the day after the election. the campaign for the party of a sitting, term-limited president begins *before* the current election.

in prior post clarification conclusion, i say "no problems, mate! :)
Ok, fair enough. But if someone is actually offended by that and can not understand the gender neutral context it was meant in, then they really need to grow up.

Thanks for answering my questions.
 
The Hitch said:
The whole idea of any movie star getting so much power makes me sick. What exactly has clint eastwood do to get a convention speech?
Clint is the former mayor of Carmel, a small town in California.

I'm avoiding both conventions, but saw a clip. I really like Clint a lot, but that was one strange, rambling moment. Not good.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
Ryan's marathon crisis has been averted. He pulled a Romney flip-flop and is no longer claiming a sub three hour marathon.

No guarantees on what times he will claim next week or the week after that or the week after that.
 
etymology said:
acf - actually, there are TWO actors (publicly) supporting the republicans - jon voight is the "other."

there is one - and only one - answer to "how long have you guys had ads on your tv's for the election?"

HOWEVER: prior to revealing that answer, you must (a) rephrase your insensitive, sexist, androcentric question OR (b) report *immediately* to the nearest english usage sensitivity retraining center. i mean, any post-neandertal english speaking person should know the term "you guys" is horribly offensive to all modern english speaking persons here in the united overly sensitive states of america.

while i know aussie english is not the same as american english, i cannot NOT advise that where speaking english designed for/evolved to enlightened non-offensiveness is concerned, you aussies "have a lot to learn!! :rolleyes:

that bit of english language pomposity aside:

the answer to "how long have you guys had ads on your tv's for the election is: too long....and the mud slinging has barely begun!...
When feminism, in the english speaking world, gets caught up in such semantics and when today there are real concerns to face, it has only lost all sight of the rediculous.
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Not unique onto R's. Gay marriage as an example.
Wrong.

A certain group of people are trying to prevent another group of people from having the same rights as they do.
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
rhubroma said:
Every once in a while ChrisE comes up with something enlightened and uncontestable.
The only reason you would not think everything I write is enlightened and uncontestable is because of your lack of perception. :cool:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ChrisE said:
Wrong.

A certain group of people are trying to prevent another group of people from having the same rights as they do.

It is easily argued that one side is attempting to change a centuries old definition of an institution, thereby forcing A social belief on, if not the majority of the population, a very large segment.

But then you knew this already.
 
Scott SoCal said:
It is easily argued that one side is attempting to change a centuries old definition of an institution, thereby forcing A social belief on, if not the majority of the population, a very large segment.

But then you knew this already.
Sure, except what you are calling a centuries old institution has not had a stable or consistent set of meanings and rights across those centuries. It has always served different political functions. Compare, for example, the nature of that institution during the Roman republic, the middle ages and the 19th century.
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
It is easily argued that one side is attempting to change a centuries old definition of an institution, thereby forcing A social belief on, if not the majority of the population, a very large segment.

But then you knew this already.
Then allow legal unions, or whatever. The term 'marriage' here is not the crux. The point is that people who want to be together can be afforded the same rights in terms of the benefits that provides.

But, you hit the nail on the head with "forcing a social belief on...". Nobody is forcing anything on anybody; people have free will to determine what they feel is right or wrong. I am sure any eternal torment some bigot gets when the gays down the street marry can be worked out with their cloud buddy.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
aphronesis said:
Sure, except what you are calling a centuries old institution has not had a stable or consistent set of meanings and rights across those centuries. It has always served different political functions. Compare, for example, the nature of that institution during the Roman republic, the middle ages and the 19th century.
For the sake of the point made I'll go ahead and limit the discussion to the history of the US if that's ok with you.

Let's remember what I responded to;

And apparently forcing their social beliefs on all US citizens.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ChrisE said:
Then allow legal unions, or whatever. The term 'marriage' here is not the crux. The point is that people who want to be together can be afforded the same rights in terms of the benefits that provides.

But, you hit the nail on the head with "forcing a social belief on...". Nobody is forcing anything on anybody; people have free will to determine what they feel is right or wrong. I am sure any eternal torment some bigot gets when the gays down the street marry can be worked out with their cloud buddy.
There will always be the bible thumpers that literally define hypocrisy.

The Right tries to impose Social beliefs on society. Nobody is arguing that. My point is the Left is no different in this regard. Pretty simple.
 
Scott SoCal said:
For the sake of the point made I'll go ahead and limit the discussion to the history of the US if that's ok with you.

Let's remember what I responded to;
Well, the US is a couple of centuries old, but that's not really how you meant to invoke that old chestnut. And certainly, that's not the limitation placed on that phrase when it's aimed at the pack fodder who want to fight this battle.

Near as I can tell, what your response consisted of is that only the members of an exclusive social institution can be allowed to define that institution. Quite original.
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
There will always be the bible thumpers that literally define hypocrisy.

The Right tries to impose Social beliefs on society. Nobody is arguing that. My point is the Left is no different in this regard. Pretty simple.
Fair enough, but you used an example that is easily shot down. The bible is ripe with BS that becomes discarded over the years, as aphronesis alluded to. I won't toss out multiple examples else you will lable it as strawmen. There are also many laws in place enabling others to partake in things other people do not agree with.

The point is that I believe people don't choose to be gay, thus depriving them of these same benefits is cruel. As I say, if somebody doesn't like gays or them being together that is their internal problem.

As for the left, alot of what is proposed socially by them has to do with the individual, and how it effects the right is how the right chooses to feel about it. Gays marrying has zero impact on the life of a religious nut except in how they choose to feel about it.

The stuff from the right impacts others, such as outlawing abortion in all cases and making school children pray to the cloud being before class.

There are big differences here if you choose to realize it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
aphronesis said:
Well, the US is a couple of centuries old, but that's not really how you meant to invoke that old chestnut. And certainly, that's not the limitation placed on that phrase when it's aimed at the pack fodder who want to fight this battle.

Near as I can tell, what your response consisted of is that only the members of an exclusive social institution can be allowed to define that institution. Quite original.
Thanks for telling me what I meant.

Near as I can tell, what your response consisted of is that only the members of an exclusive social institution can be allowed to define that institution
You mean these members?

It is easily argued that one side is attempting to change a centuries old definition of an institution, thereby forcing A social belief on, if not the majority of the population, a very large segment.
Eh, your world I suppose.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ChrisE said:
Fair enough, but you used an example that is easily shot down. The bible is ripe with BS that becomes discarded over the years, as aphronesis alluded to. I won't toss out multiple examples else you will lable it as strawmen. There are also many laws in place enabling others to partake in things other people do not agree with.

The point is that I believe people don't choose to be gay, thus depriving them of these same benefits is cruel. As I say, if somebody doesn't like gays or them being together that is their internal problem.

As for the left, alot of what is proposed socially by them has to do with the individual, and how it effects the right is how the right chooses to feel about it. Gays marrying has zero impact on the life of a religious nut except in how they choose to feel about it.

The stuff from the right impacts others, such as outlawing abortion in all cases and making school children pray to the cloud being before class.

There are big differences here if you choose to realize it.
Oh boy... Chris, there's not enough time in the day to write about the social **** each side wants to force on the US population.

That was my only point.
 
Scott SoCal said:
It is easily argued that one side is attempting to change a centuries old definition of an institution, thereby forcing A social belief on, if not the majority of the population, a very large segment.

But then you knew this already.
But we also know that allowing gays to marry would not somehow change the social belief of the majority, or infringe upon the heterosexual population's rights. In short foster its disemination throughout the species. Nor would it somehow promote a moving away from that "centuries old definition of an instruction" by the majority, which most human beings evidently can't do without and which apparantly you find so threatened and at risk. So fear not my dear Scott SoCal, the heterosexual population will continue to embrace such an "institution," even as the divorce rates rise exponentially, and continue to further the species as they always have done in the past. Thus it isn't about negation, but inclusion and moving beyond such atavistic concerns in a historical moment that, if anything, needs population downsizing. Even if this isn't what the issue is about democratically.

Though it must be recalled that the social belief you mention arose in much more primitive times, when it was seen by the religious institutions and priesthoods (who also held sway over the State) as necessary to ensure the stability of population growth through the sanctification and unviability of a heterosexual union, in addition to their own positions as law makers .

At any rate those that feel threatened by an extension of rights to a minority, are merely suffering from a pathological insecurity and of course being narrow-minded and reactionary. Though this is so typical of conservatives like yourself.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Thanks for telling me what I meant.



You mean these members?



Eh, your world I suppose.
Unlike some members of this forum, I didn't tell you what you meant or meant to write. I suggested how it came across and qualified it as my interpretation

Please do then tell me what you meant when you invoked the centuries old definition of an institution. Which centuries would those be? As to the last, I'm not sure what you mean about "my world" since you're not quoting me.

Are you saying that if the definition of that "institution" is changed then it won't be worth as much to the heteronormative? That it won't be a club that gives them good bang for their buck and a basic measure of domesticated security. What should they care?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
rhubroma said:
But we also know that allowing gays to marry would not somehow change the social belief of the majority, or infringe upon the heterosexual population's rights. In short foster its disemination throughout the species. Nor would it somehow promote a moving away from that "centuries old definition of an instruction" by the majority, which some human beings evidently can't do without and which apparantly you find so threatened and at risk. So fear not my dear Scott SoCal, the heterosexual population will continue to embrace such an "institution," even as the divorce rates rise exponentially, and continue to further the species as they always have done in the past. Thus it isn't about negation, but inclusion and moving beyond such atavistic concerns in a historical moment that, if anything, needs population downsizing. Even if this isn't what the issue is about democratically.

Though it must be recalled that the social belief you mention arose in much more primitive times, when it was seen by the religious institutions and priesthoods (who also held sway over the State) as necessary to ensure the stability of population growth through the sanctification and unviability of a heterosexual union, in addition to their own positions as law makers .
At any rate those that feel threatened by an extension of rights to a minority, are merely suffering from a pathological insecurity and of course being narrow-minded and reactionary. Though this is so typical of conservatives like yourself.
All insults aside, you don't even know where I stand on the issue. There's a certain irony there but it would surely be lost on you.
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Oh boy... Chris, there's not enough time in the day to write about the social **** each side wants to force on the US population.

That was my only point.
And I don't want to go thru a whole list. Admittedly I am talking in generalities for the reason I stated.

I stand by my opinion about how what one side wants effects the others. I am sure there are exceptions. If you can give one specific blatant example coming from the left that physically impacts the right then maybe we can debate that.

I stand by my example of rape/abortion, exemplified by the loons in your party such as Akin (not to mention the hypocrites when it comes to nut-cutting about this issue such as Dan Quayle). Your turn.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 1
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS