No, I genuinely wanted to know if you were full of .
I have my answer.
You asked me to get my attention, weird stranger on the internet with 70,000+ posts.
No, I genuinely wanted to know if you were full of .
I have my answer.
I've discussed mine many a time on here.... not sure how one can have a political debate without sharing any personal opinions on issues, but okay then![]()
So this means socially conservative![]()
I deserve because I scoff people who equate bestiality to sexuality. I'll let that speak for itself.
People are allowed to have their views, just like I'm allowed to scoff them and belittle them for basing their views off a book that they can't even prove isn't fiction.
I would be indifferent except religious people try to force their beliefs down the throats of gay people and women.
Religion in general also distorts logic and thinking. The more religious a population is, the easier it is to manipulate it.
If Mitt Romney wants to think his underwear is magical, he can, I can also judge that belief when evaluating him politically.
Then they should distance themselves from prominent Republican politicians like Rick Santorum. I still consider myself liberal because it's a way of thinking, but the likes of Obama and Harry Reid have destroyed what a democrat is.
Yeah you'd be right, I make it no secret I view neocons, theocons, and people who believe in supply side economics as stupid people.
Why do conflicting views matter? Seriously, if I think my views are right, then I'm going to have an issue with views I think are wrong.
Yup. I freely admit I have bigoted views against Jeebo s against people who worship a mythical man in the sky. The big problem with religion in this country is people respect it too much and view scoffing religion as some extremely horrific act.
Wild Cobra
DarrinS
spursncowboys
I expect you to start scoffing those Repub s. The reason you don't think they're re ed is because you agree with their views.
yes you would, hence why you're refusing to say what your views are.
Any kind of relationship among consentual adults should be legal, imho. That means straight couples, gay couples, poligamy, incest. This doesn't include beastiality and pedophilia.
I agree, except that polygamy, like the Warren Jeffs case, seems to involve the guy screwing ALL the females, of any age, including his own kids.
But we must heed Scalia's slippery slope warning that if we become "insensitive" to same-sex marriage, we could become "insensitive" to murder.
gotta love the impeccable logic and judicial credibility of these Repug-stacked JINO SCOTUS flaming assholes.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 04-05-2013 at 08:53 AM.
Excellent thread. High fives all around.
I'm not sure how Teysha dragged that argument (over thread le semantics) for 3 pages. More than one mention of beastiality qualifies as "so much."
The fact that I've typed the word one time today means I've already done it too many times.
TBreally hates it when we slap his Repug politicians and bubba inflamers.
bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality bestiality
boutons_deux likes bestiality
so much?
see, y'all don't like feces gettin your faces.
and of course y'all can't refute bestiality as one of the the Repugs and "Christians" favorite, repeated slippery slope fear-mongering tactics.
You need help, coward.
I like to argue, Schmuck.
It's not rocket science.
I also enjoy busting on ideologues. This forum is a target rich environment. I don't get to dance with DOK often, but when I do, I drink lots of beer.
TB strikes me as a moderate Republican who doesn't agree with the quotes in the OP at all but won't admit how much the GOP relies on people with those views.
For all the talk of the GOP moving to the left on social issues and immigration, it'll never happen. Issues like gay marriage, abortion, Obama's birth certificate, illegal immigration (yes, I'm calling that insignificant given illegals are leaving this country faster than they're coming in because of how much our economy sucks), planned parenthood, etc., keep dirt poor Jeebo s in the South distracted from their best economic interest. Social issues are what enable Republicans to win elections as a party that refuses to believe supply-side economics doesn't work.
Yeah, it's an uncomfortable conflation that invites overgeneralizations by non-thinkers like boutons. I don't think the social strategy, such as it is, is paying off anymore, with the possible exception of gubernatorial elections. The waffle stomping Obama put on the GOP should be ample proof of the failure of the GOP strategies on the national stage.
I'm actually a fiscal conservative with pretty liberal social views. But, there's no party for that. lol
"I'm actually a fiscal conservative with pretty liberal social views. But, there's no party for that. lol"
Somebody dumb this down for boutons, please.
"fiscal conservative" nearly always mean pro-austerity that s the 99% to pay for the tax cuts for the 1%.
on which views is TB"pretty liberal social"
ing re . Fiscal conservatism is not related to any of your thinkprogress buzz words.
Social views? Since you're too ing stupid to recall anything that's not in your confrimation bias RSS feed:
Gay marriage? I'm good.
Universal Healthcare? I'm good.
Living minimum wage? I'm good.
Now, go hide behind the coward's skirts of your blogs, ing coward.
c'mon boutons. post a smiley and pretend you didn't get slapped again.
The GOP's ample failure at winning elections really doesn't matter when you look at their ample success at which policy gets through. Defense spending is still high, the rich still pay historic lows in taxes, the war on drugs is alive and well, labor unions have been shredded to pieces, everything is deregulated, and our last two Democratic presidents have sold out to the same corporations Reagan and Bush sold out to (just to a slightly lesser degree). The modern day Democrats might win meaningless elections that don't change anything, but right wing politics won the war. I'm glad he beat Romney because he's still better, but@ liberals who think Obama is gonna change in this country prior to 2016.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)