Politicspolitics

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 11:06 PM

About the Constitution...







104 replies, 783 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 104 replies Author Time Post
Reply About the Constitution... (Original post)
wonderwarthog Tuesday OP
357blackhawk Tuesday #1
wonderwarthog Wednesday #13
R. Cavu Friday #69
rondan Wednesday #2
Banshee 3 Actual Wednesday #4
GoldwatersSoul Wednesday #10
Banshee 3 Actual Wednesday #20
GoldwatersSoul Wednesday #31
wonderwarthog Wednesday #14
Charlie Mike Wednesday #29
Banshee 3 Actual Wednesday #3
Charlie Mike Wednesday #5
bfox74 Wednesday #6
wonderwarthog Wednesday #15
Charlie Mike Wednesday #17
wonderwarthog Wednesday #24
Charlie Mike Wednesday #26
wonderwarthog Wednesday #34
Charlie Mike Wednesday #38
wonderwarthog Wednesday #39
Charlie Mike Wednesday #44
Prismmonkey Thursday #53
Charlie Mike Friday #60
Prismmonkey Friday #63
Charlie Mike Friday #64
Prismmonkey Friday #66
Charlie Mike Friday #67
Prismmonkey Friday #68
Charlie Mike Friday #70
Prismmonkey Friday #73
Charlie Mike Friday #75
Prismmonkey Friday #77
Charlie Mike Friday #78
Prismmonkey Friday #82
Gunslinger201 Wednesday #7
GoodKraic Wednesday #8
Valishin Wednesday #28
wonderwarthog Wednesday #40
GoodKraic Wednesday #9
Bob the Bilderberger Wednesday #11
GoodKraic Wednesday #12
wonderwarthog Wednesday #16
GoodKraic Wednesday #19
Charlie Mike Wednesday #21
wonderwarthog Wednesday #23
Charlie Mike Wednesday #25
wonderwarthog Wednesday #46
_eek Friday #72
nolidad Wednesday #32
wonderwarthog Wednesday #41
GoodKraic Thursday #51
wonderwarthog Thursday #52
GoodKraic Thursday #57
wonderwarthog Thursday #59
GoodKraic Friday #61
wonderwarthog Saturday #96
GoodKraic Yesterday #97
wonderwarthog 23 hrs ago #98
Prismmonkey Thursday #54
KittyCatIdiots Thursday #56
GoodKraic Thursday #58
Carlos W Bush Wednesday #18
wonderwarthog Wednesday #22
Charlie Mike Wednesday #27
wonderwarthog Wednesday #35
Charlie Mike Wednesday #37
wonderwarthog Wednesday #42
Charlie Mike Wednesday #43
wonderwarthog Wednesday #45
Prismmonkey Thursday #55
Nostrings Friday #62
Prismmonkey Friday #65
Nostrings Friday #71
Prismmonkey Friday #74
Nostrings Friday #76
Prismmonkey Friday #79
Nostrings Friday #81
Prismmonkey Friday #83
Nostrings Friday #84
Prismmonkey Friday #85
Nostrings Friday #86
Prismmonkey Saturday #87
Nostrings Saturday #88
Prismmonkey Saturday #89
Nostrings Saturday #90
Prismmonkey Saturday #91
Nostrings Saturday #92
Prismmonkey Saturday #93
Nostrings Saturday #94
Prismmonkey 21 hrs ago #99
Nostrings 21 hrs ago #100
Prismmonkey 20 hrs ago #101
Nostrings 20 hrs ago #102
Prismmonkey 19 hrs ago #103
Nostrings 10 hrs ago #104
Salaam Wednesday #30
Carl Wednesday #33
wonderwarthog Wednesday #36
oflguy Wednesday #47
wonderwarthog Wednesday #48
oflguy Wednesday #49
wonderwarthog Wednesday #50
Kelley Friday #80
wonderwarthog Saturday #95

Response to wonderwarthog (Original post)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 11:13 PM

1. Wait, I thought

you were a progressive or Democrat. Do my eyes deceive me?
as for the OP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 357blackhawk (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 09:19 AM

13. Thanks!



No deception here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 357blackhawk (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 03:33 PM

69. Ill have what your having

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 01:19 AM

2. There is this:

Congress shall pass no laws regarding the establishment of religion nor the free practice there of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rondan (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 02:01 AM

4. ''establishment of religion''- IE Church of England

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #4)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 08:12 AM

10. It would have included...

Catholocism if we were being fair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #10)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 10:21 AM

20. IF we are going by history, catholics were being persecuted to some degree by English laws

The Papist Act of 1778 an attempt to reduce official discrimination and the Gordon Riots not happening until 1780

Roman Catholic Relief Act 1791 finally removed several layers of discrimination


If you were an Episcopalian in 1760 Colonies and married, your marriage was not recognized officially until done by a CoE Minister or a tithe paid to the CoE (Government religion)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #20)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 12:18 PM

31. Maryland....

was set up as a Catholic colony by Lord Baltimore but a short time later was the first place to create laws seeking to minimize or eliminate catholics in the Colonies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rondan (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 09:20 AM

14. Yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Reply #14)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 11:09 AM

29. Which why the government can't force Christians to fund abortion or bake cakes for gay "weddings."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 02:00 AM

3. Nor will you find Gun Control, Abortion, Separation Of Church and State......

And it is signed "In the year of our lord"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 03:12 AM

5. The constitution addresses the subject of religious liberty but doesn't acknowledge homosexuality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #5)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 03:21 AM

6. Nor impeaching the president because youre butthurt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #5)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 09:22 AM

15. It doesn't mention it.


But google this guy...


Baron Friedrich von Steuben

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Reply #15)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 09:30 AM

17. No need to look him up. It is also absolutely irrelevant to the subject.

But if your argument is: a gay man being integral to the conduct of the War for Independence brings gays special consideration under the auspices of the Constitution then Christians gain even more consideration because they far outnumbered homosexuals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #17)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 10:29 AM

24. they probably weren't as fervent

about their Christianity as he was about his homosexuality!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Reply #24)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 10:44 AM

26. Now you're just being idiotic again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #26)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 07:03 PM

34. It's my forte'!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Reply #34)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 07:10 PM

38. Then stop pretending your OP means anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #38)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 07:14 PM

39. No!




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Reply #39)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 07:30 PM

44. Then obviously anyone making the the argument presented in the OP is an unserious troll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #5)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 07:56 PM

53. Equal protection under the law is very much in the Constitution

So, you know, there's that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prismmonkey (Reply #53)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 05:10 AM

60. And?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #60)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 03:07 PM

63. Applies to gay people, too

I'm pretty pleased with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prismmonkey (Reply #63)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 03:10 PM

64. Only by judicial fiat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #64)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 03:23 PM

66. We have a judicial branch for a reason

Tyranny of the majority and all that jazz. Just because straight people don't like me doesn't mean I don't get rights. Took awhile, but eventually justice reaches the furthest corners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prismmonkey (Reply #66)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 03:28 PM

67. We have a Constitution to counter the tyranny of anyone.

How a person prefers to achieve sexual gratification is nowhere mentioned.

That's why a person's religious rejection of another person's sexual proclivity is protected but the proclivity is not.

And seeing as there is no small number of forms of sexual deviance, that is a good thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #67)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 03:31 PM

68. Yeaahhhh

I'm fairly certain you're set in your (highly wrong) understanding of sexual orientation, so I don't think there's much productive about us discussing it any further. But, I'm pretty happy with the judiciary in that regard. I have problems with some things and think the state and judiciary can overreach. For example, I don't think bakers should have to make wedding cakes. Artistic expression is protected speech. You cannot compel speech.

But equality under the law? Marriage, public accommodation, visiting a partner in the hospital, adoption, etc.

We won. There's no reversing it, not in the Right's wildest wishes, so I'm not too worried.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prismmonkey (Reply #68)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 03:39 PM

70. Sex is for procreation.

That's not a religion thing, that's a biological, evolutionary FACT.

Anything that deviates from that potential is deviant by definition.

Food isn't for taste, it is to provide calories for the work of survival (including procreation). Yes, we make eating enjoyable but we also recognize when someone suffers from the deviancy of an eating disorder no matter how much they may enjoy it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #70)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 03:55 PM

73. Because people only have sex for procreation

It's honestly a dumb argument. I'm not with my boyfriend simply out of my penchant for putting my pecker in places. There are deep emotional ties and attachments involved. Same as heterosexual people. No one today (at least no one well-adjusted) is declaring, "Just marrying her for the pooter, people!"

At least I hope not.

That would be weird.

Society changes as we learn more. That is a right and proper thing. We now know a lot more about orientation and how it informs emotional, romantic, and sexual attachments. This is a good thing.

People can scream at the wind, but I choose to deal with reality and the facts on the ground.

This is not the Middle Ages where people were contracting marriages for property and offspring. Be real and honest for ten seconds here. It hasn't been about that for quite some time in our society.

Being a decent person means one thing: Afford for other people what you would have afforded for yourself. You want to fall in love and get married and maybe have kids? Yeah, me too.

I think you're just going to have to get over this one. Or die knowing you lost on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prismmonkey (Reply #73)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 04:13 PM

75. "There are deep emotional ties..."

That rush of deep emotional ties a woman feels after giving birth (a decidedly heterosexual act)?

Endorphins.

Same thing as a runner's high.

People just prefer to call it "love." It helps them feel superior about themselves - like penance.



"This is not the Middle Ages..."

A meaningless statement because it lacks external, objective standards by which to measure its validity. One good virus outbreak or not-so-passing asteroid and we'll be looking up to the Middle Ages as a golden time to be alive.



"Being a decent person means one thing: Afford for other people what you would have afforded for yourself."

I believe gays should have equal protection under the law and the right to vote, etc.

I'm less convinced about marriage because marriage by definition is an exclusionary practice to protect women and children.

But being a *fit* human means being able to crush a competitor's skull because they threaten your self/resources/mate/offspring and as such threaten your chances of procreating and thus ensuring the survival of the species. No offense to you and yours but I can think of at least one aspect where you fail in that regard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #75)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 05:16 PM

77. This is a touch strange

"I believe gays should have equal protection under the law and the right to vote, etc. "

That was a weird chord to strike, lol. Why wouldn't we have the right to vote?

The understanding of marriage has evolved. It always evolves. I majored in history and my nightstand is nothing but history books. Particularly the Fall of Rome through the Twentieth Century. I'm fascinated by how the West evolved. You say, "For the protection of women and children." That is a component of it, yes. But there is also the component of a male knowing his genes are being propagated. I don't want to get too deeply into social evolutionary constructs throughout human history. You'd need an encyclopedia set to resolve that one. But males have just as vested interest as females in pairing in such a way. In the basest evolutionary terms, I mean. Males provide protection. Females provide males with offspring. It's the most basic of human social contracts.

Homosexuality is still being understood in an evolutionary context. For example, in various primate societies, aunts and uncles sometimes don't seek to procreate, but instead take care of the offspring of others in their group in order to push forward the general genes of the group.

I'm very similar in that I don't particularly care to have children. But I do have a niece and nephew. "The Little Ones." I do everything for them. I take joy in them. Do I care for having my own children? No, I do not. But that group bond exists.

But human sexuality is also a thing. So my drive goes towards a certain gender. And? The rest of my tribe is procreating. Does that mean I have no role? Does that mean what attachments I have mean nothing and shouldn't be recognized?

It feels like your thinking is very A to B. Not even animals are A to B. And humans are much more complex.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prismmonkey (Reply #77)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 05:22 PM

78. "Why wouldn't we have the right to vote?"

Guaranteeing such rights is why the 14th Amendment was enacted.

As far as your choice of reading material is concerned:

I love history, though more military minded. Still, I'd be happy to discuss anyssuch topic at length over beer and smoked brisket with you and yours but would you pay me the courtesy of first bringing the books out to the living room?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #78)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 06:21 PM

82. I assume you've read Victor Davis Hanson?

"Why The West Has Won."

Such a great read, and informative. How democratic institutions informed how the people felt about the causes they were fighting for, and how they were included in it. Loved it. Read it twice.

Tch. Silly guy. Most of my books are on my ipad anyway. My bookshelf is just there so I have shit for my cat to pull down out of spite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 06:20 AM

7. The Constitution doesnt protect the Government from Religion

It protects Religion from the Government



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 06:24 AM

8. This!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 10:51 AM

28. And thus you have

Last edited Wed Mar 13, 2019, 08:56 PM - Edit history (1)

The primary source of confusion around so called separation of church and state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Valishin (Reply #28)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 07:14 PM

40. Yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 06:30 AM

9. According to the Declaration of Independence

where do those natural rights come from? That’s right - our Creator! If you don’t understand this nation was founded on Christian values and traditions then you’re likely blinded by your bias.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoodKraic (Reply #9)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 08:19 AM

11. Here's a fun quiz:

The Declaration of Independence mentions God four times. Can you find them in that one-page document?



"... and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them ..."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions..."

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bob the Bilderberger (Reply #11)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 08:45 AM

12. Thanks for pointing that out!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoodKraic (Reply #9)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 09:24 AM

16. #notintheconstitution



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Reply #16)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 10:08 AM

19. Your point is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Reply #16)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 10:24 AM

21. Neither is Von Steuben, but you brought him up as evidence of some point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #21)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 10:27 AM

23. Openly gay


and we wouldn't have had an effective revolutionary army without him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Reply #23)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 10:43 AM

25. His being gay has no relevance. Being gay doesn't teach one D&C.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #25)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 07:53 PM

46. Thank you!


I agree his gayness is irrelevant to his military performance.

Wish more thought as sensibly as you do!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #25)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 03:47 PM

72. Probably helped him design better uniforms though

just sayin'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Reply #16)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 05:12 PM

32. Well if you go back to teh time the Constitution was written

and learn how they used language, and read things like the federalist papers- ytou would see the intent behind the words of the constitution.

While there were definite agnostics and deists amongst the founders. The majority were sound Christian men!

The founding charters of all the original states dedicated the land to the glory of God.

All the major colleges were established to train pastors and missionaries.

Religion as used here was defined as sectarianism. They wished to protect America from having a national sect like many European nations! They considered all Sects free to worship in peace. They also allowed the heathen and musselmen (Muslims) freedom here. but the nation printed bibles for th etroops, hired chaplains for the troops and for congress, and paid the churches to educate teh children- especially in the faith!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoodKraic (Reply #9)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 07:15 PM

41. Not discussing the Declaration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Reply #41)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 09:29 AM

51. Its one of our founding documents.

I’ll ask again. What’s your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoodKraic (Reply #51)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 07:52 PM

52. Yes but



not the one that sets down the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Reply #52)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 09:37 PM

57. One last time.

What’s the point you’re trying to make? I suspect you don’t want to admit that the point you’d like to make won’t hold water.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoodKraic (Reply #57)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 11:37 PM

59. 2 points of the op


1. The Constitution is a secular document

2. The Constitution is a restraining order against tyranny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Reply #59)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 12:04 PM

61. We agree on point 2 except that starting

with FDR’s perversion it’s not as effective of a buttress. The whole living/breathing philosophy is an excuse for tyranny.

Regarding point one, how do you interpret “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoodKraic (Reply #61)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 10:19 PM

96. My interpretation is


we shall have no "official American religion", and shall prevent no one from worshipping as they see fit.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Reply #96)

Sun Mar 17, 2019, 09:12 AM

97. Totally agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoodKraic (Reply #97)

Sun Mar 17, 2019, 11:07 AM

98. ...




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoodKraic (Reply #9)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 08:03 PM

54. Founded around Deism, more or less

That's not to say most of our founders weren't Christian or that their Christianity didn't inform their beliefs and actions - far from. But, our founding documents, works by Locke, Rousseau, and Montesquieue, etc. weren't exactly Bible thumping. Natural Law and the Creator were all Enlightenment ideas being kicked around at the time.

There's no denying America is a Judeo-Christian nation, founded on its ethics and values and moving forward from there. So, I'm not arguing that point one bit.

But the whole, "See? Creator! Ha! Means Christian!"

It really, really doesn't.

And even a slight education in history would reveal that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prismmonkey (Reply #54)


Response to Prismmonkey (Reply #54)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 09:40 PM

58. I didnt say thats what creator meant.

I agree with virtually everything you wrote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 09:40 AM

18. It doesn't mention free shit either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carlos W Bush (Reply #18)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 10:25 AM

22. Free shit


like the roads, navigable waterways, and other free shit corporations use that American workers pay for with their tax dollars?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Reply #22)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 10:46 AM

27. Those roads and waterways were built by corporations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #27)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 07:06 PM

35. Even roads



that were built by Roosevelts public works projects during the depression?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Reply #35)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 07:08 PM

37. That's some feeble shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #37)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 07:21 PM

42. The Hoover Dam is feeble?


From 1933-1936, The New Deal established a series of government agencies whose purpose it was to put the United States back to work and re-establish lost hope. Agencies like the Public Works Administration (PWA), the Works Progress Administration (WPA), and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) created jobs and in the process built many structures and landmarks still visible today. What follows is a list of the Top Five Public Works Projects during that important time in U.S. history. They are ranked according to their economic impact and their everlasting legacy to the United States.

5. The Lincoln Tunnel
As ambitious a construction project as you could ever hope to see, the Lincoln Tunnel stretches 1.5 miles underneath the Hudson River in New York, connecting New Jersey and Manhattan. The PWA funded this marvel of engineering from 1934-1936 at a cost of $85 million and it was the first major tunnel project completed without a fatality. Today nearly 120,000 vehicles use this tunnel daily making it one of the busiest tunnels in the world.

4. Overseas Highway
Connecting Miami to Key West, this 127.5-mile long roadway was opened for traffic in 1938. It follows an old railroad track that was originally built in 1912 and along the way, one passes over 42 bridges and enjoys scenery that is beyond belief.

3. Great Smoky Mountain National Park
Welcome to the most visited National Park in the United States, boasting nearly ten million visitors per year. Great Smoky Mountain National Park covers 814 square miles of wilderness, 36% of which is an old-growth forest. Constructed by the WPA and the CCC, this jewel of the Park System in 1976 was named an International Biosphere Reserve and in 1983 a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Constructed from 1934-1940 this park offers unparalleled vistas and is a must-see on any trip east.

2. Hoover Dam
Congress approved the building of Hoover Dam in 1928 and it was finally constructed from 1931-1936 with the help of the PWA. Spanning the Black Canyon of the Colorado River, this marvel provides electricity for Arizona, Nevada and Southern California. The dam is 726 feet tall and 600 feet at its base and originally cost $165 million. Interestingly the name was originally Hoover Dam but in 1933, at the urging of President Roosevelt, the name was changed to Boulder Dam. Bad blood and all that; some silly notion of blaming Hoover for the Great Depression. In the end public opinion proved too much of an obstacle for Roosevelt and the name of the dam reverted back to Hoover Dam.

1. Grand Coulee Dam
If ever there was a pet project of President Roosevelt’s it was the Grand Coulee Dam. Early on he became enamored with the idea of harnessing the power of the Columbia River and turning arid land in Eastern Washington into farmland. $63 million of funding from the PWA helped Roosevelt’s dreams become reality. Built from 1933-1942 the Grand Coulee is the largest dam in the United States and one of the largest in the world. It provides irrigation for over 600,000 acres and electricity for all or parts of eleven states. This mammoth structure stands 550 feet high and is 1.2 miles wide.

Honorable Mentions
Naming any top five list is difficult and purely subjective. I would be remiss if I didn’t also mention the following:

Timberline Lodge: A National Historic Landmark, this timber, and stone structure on Mt. Hood in Oregon is visited by over a million visitors each year.
LaGuardia Airport: 23 million passengers use this airport each year. It was built on Long Island for a cost of $2.3 million.
Fort Peck Dam: Built between 1933-1940, this dam provides hydroelectric power, flood control and water quality management along the upper Missouri River. It was a combined effort of the WPA and the CCC and it cost $100 million.
Triborough Bridge: Now called the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge, this is actually three bridges, a viaduct and fourteen miles of connecting roads, all of which connect Manhattan, Queens, and the Bronx in New York. It was completed in 1936 at a cost of $60 million and today is visited by 200,000 vehicles per day.
Blue Ridge Parkway; 469 miles long, stretching from Virginia to North Carolina, this roadway was funded in part by the WPA and is designated as an All-American Road.


https://owlcation.com/humanities/The-Great-Depressions-The-Top-Five-Public-Works-Projects-of-the-New-Deal


Damned socialists!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Reply #42)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 07:26 PM

43. You're too stoned to even remember what the hell your original point was, aren't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #43)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 07:51 PM

45. Not stoned at all.


Sober as Manafort's judge!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carlos W Bush (Reply #18)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 08:12 PM

55. The Homestead Act would like a word

In the 19th Century, the federal government was all up in giving away freebies in order to facilitate settlement and expansion. 160 acres and I just have to farm it for five years? Where the hell do I sign up for that one? Lincoln proposed paying for slaves as a form of reparations for whiny, slave-owning bitches who couldn't get over the idea that human bondage was, in fact, kind of a bad thing.

Actual conservators of liberty, back in the day, hated shit like a centralized banking system. Guess which political party does endless favors for it? Well, they both do. But if you're going to sit there and tell me the Republican Party doesn't deeply approve of our current centralized banking mess that is responsible for half of our economic problems, I'd ask to share whatever it is you just inhaled.

This, "the Constitution never said!" nonsense always goes in one direction - "Well, I don't like this thing, and this thing isn't specifically cited in the Constitution, so we shouldn't have this thing!"

Uh huh.

No one honestly, earnestly believes in that line of thinking, do they? I'm liberal in policy but conservative when it comes to institutions and how the republic is organized.

The Unitary Executive anyone? Don't see Republicans all het up about that one. Until Obama was in charge. Then they sudden noticed.

It's all nonsense. We all, both sides, know it's nonsense.

But for some reason, some people feel the need to keep masturbating to the fantasy of it all. I mean, whatever. Should be better uses of one's time. Conservativism hasn't been conservative in a very long time outside of social policy. And they're losing badly on social policy. So what, really, is left at the end of the day for them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prismmonkey (Reply #55)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 01:24 PM

62. Thats a bit of a straw man.

"This, "the Constitution never said!" nonsense always goes in one direction - "Well, I don't like this thing, and this thing isn't specifically cited in the Constitution, so we shouldn't have this thing!"

Uh huh.

No one honestly, earnestly believes in that line of thinking, do they? I'm liberal in policy but conservative when it comes to institutions and how the republic is organized."


The point isn't 'I don't like this', the point is that if words can mean anything, they mean nothing...and *I* do not like that or where it leads.

No thinking person does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #62)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 03:14 PM

65. Conservatives, in my experience, kind of overlook the Ninth Amendment constantly

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

That's what we're generally haggling over. What rights unlisted to we retain? Some say privacy. Others would say dignity, but that's such an amorphous word it could mean anything. Justice Kennedy was a big fan of that one.

But strict constitutionalists really wish that amendment didn't exist.

I'm not saying I'm for activist judges. I live in the Ninth Circuit. I have seen some of the wackiest shit come out of that court. And oftentimes it is very clearly when judges are politically motivated. On a conservative blog I read sometimes, he always refers to judges who oppose Trump's policies as Random Hawaiian Judge. It's kind of hilarious. And it's true sometimes. I recognize that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prismmonkey (Reply #65)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 03:47 PM

71. And liberals, in my experience, ask the wrong questions constantly

"That's what we're generally haggling over. What rights unlisted to we retain? Some say privacy. Others would say dignity, but that's such an amorphous word it could mean anything. Justice Kennedy was a big fan of that one."


Incorrect.

What we're haggling over is what rights we've already lost due to government stepping over multiple types of lines it should not have, of which constructionists generally do not approve. On the other side of those lines, is gray area where unelected beaurocrats tend to thrive and play, mostly at the behest of leftists.


The question isn't "what rights do we retain". By definition, in America, ALL rights belong to the people, unless and until legitimately interfered with via due process.

A proper understanding of the 9th amendment and its implications which you were so kind to introduce into the argument, is proof positive that government should only be doing that which it is explicitly authorized to do.


"but that's such an amorphous word it could mean anything."

Thats why its the wrong form of argument to begin with. The right form is "is government explicitly authorized to interfere with this right"?

THAT is the correct question, but we've moved far from government living within genuine constitutional constraints, again, mostly at the behest of the left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #71)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 04:06 PM

74. We have some thoughts in common here

In the middle of something, so I'm going to bullet point quickly.

- I agree the regulatory bureaucracy - and the bureaucracy in general - is completely out of hand. They get real fucking creative in "interpreting" the express intent of the legislature to reach personal or political preferences. I'm very much not a fan of it. The federal government has a way of steamrolling people in egregious ways. I can think of a thousand instances where you'd object, and I'd object right along with you.

- Re: 9th. One of the things that's long bothered me is how everything falls under the interstate commerce clause. Does it? I mean, honestly, does it? The use of the interstate commerce clause by the judiciary to reach for the interpretation they prejudicially desire is a problem for me. It feels egregious, and it's been going on for eons.

- I'm not sure where our point of departure from our arguments are. I don't agree with interference with rights. But I also strongly argue that not all rights have been granted or recognized equally. That's all I desire.

I think where I and the Right part is they don't want to recognize my inherent rights. They strongly argue against, early and often, and well, that makes us oppositional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prismmonkey (Reply #74)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 04:28 PM

76. So it would seem.

Indeed, the tendency has been to work the commerce clause both ways, which is obviously not what the framers had in mind.


"I think where I and the Right part is they don't want to recognize my inherent rights. They strongly argue against, early and often, and well, that makes us oppositional."

What specifically does this mean?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #76)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 05:26 PM

79. I'm a gay man

Me and the Right do not get along on that one. Which is an idle moral exercise for them, and deeply foundational consequences for my life and family for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prismmonkey (Reply #79)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 06:13 PM

81. It depends what you mean by 'do not get along'.

And, are any of their reasons for the positions they take legitimate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #81)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 08:20 PM

83. Should I be able to get married to the person I love and want to build a life with?

Simple question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prismmonkey (Reply #83)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 09:06 PM

84. No, you should not.

If you want a civil union, I do not object.

You aren't a child producing traditional male-female couple.

What makes you think you're entitled to be seen the same way as one?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #84)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 10:56 PM

85. Because we can have kids

We're sneaky sorts like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prismmonkey (Reply #85)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 11:43 PM

86. The term was 'child producing', and no, two gay men can't do that.

Neither can two gay women.

And none of that answers the question.

You aren't a child producing traditional male-female couple.

What makes you think you're entitled to be seen the same way as one?


If you can't address that, maybe you're the problem rather than the conservatives you're so quick to point the finger at.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #86)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 12:01 AM

87. You're being left behind

We can have kids, and we do, whether biological or adoptive.

Just kind of how we live our lives. It doesn't actually need explaining to you. I do it out of consideration. Because I would rather discuss rather than berate.

I'm fortunate enough in self-possession where I don't actually care whether or not you or anyone else approves of me. Not rebelliously so. Just doesn't apply to my life what you think. Your opinion is a non-entity for me on this matter. But I do engage, because I wonder if some people will ever just get it, or if they're going to follow the death of their ideas into the ground.

I'm not entitled. I have rights. The right to be equal as endowed by my Creator. I am how I am. I didn't ask for it. Didn't particularly want it. But here I am. Fully human, fully sane, fully cognizant. God, for good or for ill, managed this one.

Blame Him.

Leave me the fuck out of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prismmonkey (Reply #87)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 12:31 AM

88. No, you're equivocating.

"We can have kids, and we do, whether biological or adoptive."

I used the words 'child producing' for a reason. You don't get to redefine them to suit your purpose.

No, gay couples can not, by themselves, produce children.


"I'm fortunate enough in self-possession where I don't actually care whether or not you or anyone else approves of me."

Now that you and your movement have pushed the envelope and blurred the line between accept and approve, I should imagine that you don't. Once upon a time all you folks wanted was acceptance, just like you 'only want the same legal rights' as married hetero couples. We all know how that played out, and like it or not, you own a part of that.

The fact of the matter is I couldn't care less what you do with your bodies behind closed doors, however...

I had at least a modicum of respect for you and yours before you got pushy. You just wanted the same rights legally as married hetero couples then...Now...the influence of gay everywhere is disproportionately oversized and loud mouthed.

"But I do engage, because I wonder if some people will ever just get it, or if they're going to follow the death of their ideas into the ground."

Since you're unwilling to engage and actually discuss ideas, and instead choose to represent those ideas in your own mind as something you can not know they are without discussing them, and by your own words no less, you're just whining.










Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #88)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 12:49 AM

89. Society changed on you when you weren't looking

Gay couples cannot produce children on their own. Yes, and? Many straight couples cannot procreate on their own. My best friend from childhood, who is in a heterosexual marriage, actually asked me to be a sperm donor for her and her husband's child. They both have the recessive gene for cystic fibrosis. So any biological child they have would have a 25% chance of inheriting it. I got tested and, neat, I have pretty good genes. I thought very long and very hard on that one and decided not to. For many reasons that I won't explain here. They desperately want children. They have to go through outside means to get them.

Are you bothering about them? Would you deny them that joy? Are you going to get up in their face and pass laws to bar them from seeking their happiness? I suspect not somehow.

So that argument is a complete nonstarter, and you well know it. You're feigning ignorance to keep your structure intact. I'm not impressed.

My movement. What is my movement? Define it. You seem to know me. And despite all my posts here, where I'm generally sympathetic to many conservative arguments and blast the SJW Left such as it is, what, exactly is it that is my movement? You seem to know. Explain to me what I believe.

What we do with our bodies. I slow-cooked and ground up a bunch of steak because they were BOGO at the market, made burritos, and we watched two episodes of the Leftovers. Then we both played video games for awhile. And now I'm here. Scandalous as that all is. Do you really think where my dick goes defines me and my life? Stop being ignorant. For just ten seconds.

Pushy. Just saying truth. Pushy. Munchkin, I haven't begun to be pushy around here. I'm polite to a dead fault, even though actual white supremecists wander the site unchecked. I always default into discussion because I prefer common ground to just calling everyone names. I try to figure out what I have in common with conservatives rather than scream at them like a bad Twitter feed.

But my family and my life are non-negotiable. I won't apologize for it, and I won't be dishonest in how I feel about it. Pushy. Yeah. If you're defending your wife and kids, would you care if someone called you a titch pushy? Yeah, that's how I feel. I care exactly that little.

I'm discussing and arguing just fine, thanks. You're the one who isn't accepting any of it. That's on you. Not me. I respect people's beliefs. But respecting beliefs doesn't mean I have to pretend they're true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prismmonkey (Reply #89)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 01:27 AM

90. In your view.

"Gay couples cannot produce children on their own. Yes, and? Many straight couples cannot procreate on their own."

Yes but straight couples are designed to. Gay couples aren't.

"Are you bothering about them? Would you deny them that joy? Are you going to get up in their face and pass laws to bar them from seeking their happiness? I suspect not somehow."

Where have *I* said that *I* would deny anyone any joy?



"So that argument is a complete nonstarter, and you well know it."

You'll have to be specific as to what argument you're talking about, and we'll see if I actually made that argument, or you're just claiming that I did.

"My movement. What is my movement? Define it. You seem to know me. And despite all my posts here, where I'm generally sympathetic to many conservative arguments and blast the SJW Left such as it is, what, exactly is it that is my movement? You seem to know. Explain to me what I believe."


The movement that wouldn't and couldn't be happy with civil unions and insisted on changing the definition of the word marriage. Are you saying you aren't a part of that?


"Do you really think where my dick goes defines me and my life?"

We weren't discussing you or your life, we were discussing gay which is everything to do with where a dick goes, or doesn't go. Don't presume to think about lecturing me about being ignorant when you can't even stay on topic. Munchkin.


"I haven't begun to be pushy around here."

Nobody said "around here". Societally, yeah, the gays have pushed things way way too far.


"actual white supremecists wander the site unchecked."

Now you're veering into nutjob territory. No actual white supremacists are here at Di. There are just people who get labelled that because they have the unmitigated gall to say uncomfortable truths in public, or because its easy to spin it that way.

"If you're defending your wife and kids, would you care if someone called you a titch pushy?"

Demanding marriage instead of civil unions wasn't defending your wife or your kids. It was a demand not just to be accepted by the mainstream, but to be accepted AS mainstream, which gay is not.

Where I come from, that is rightly called pushy.


You've never answered the question. Why should a gay couple be seen as being the same as a hetero couple when they aren't in fact the same?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #90)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 02:56 AM

91. This is tired

But I'll go through the motions. I'll pretend to argue, you'll pretend to listen.

- Designed by whom? Evolutionary designed? Yes. Evolution allows for many a thing. As I said before, social societies, in humans and other species, are designed for different roles. Which you'll not address. Moving well on.

- If you're arguing against gay marriage and gay families, you're arguing against your own joy. Just generally by default. Because you'll have to pick apart your own construct in order to be valid.

- Changing the definition of marriage. Well, gay marriage is here. The institution is handling just fine. So what's your practical argument against now. We didn't ruin the whole thing, as was foretold. We just wanted our simple lives under the law. Weird that. It's almost as if we'd been arguing that for several decades. We won, so you'll have to get over that one.

- Nutjob territory? I just responded to a guy with several thousand posts who said New Zealand was secretly majority Muslim. Nutjob territory? And I've seen that and more here. (New Zealand is 1.1% Muslim by the way). I am all about uncomfortable truths. My post history will prove that. But insane is insane. I don't indulge it. If you don't like insane, maybe speak out against it a touch more when it falls on your side. I certainly call out my own side plenty for both of us.

- Gay is mainstream now. Pushy. Sorry. My life and family are so pushy against you. Well, you'll just have to cope. Like I said. Some people will go into the ground with their beliefs. You're being buried now. Gasp for that last air. It's all gone. You, and your like, will never threaten my family ever again. Tough. We won. Deal.

I hate being that absolute, but, like I said, I never compromise with the people I love. You wouldn't either, were you in my place.

You're just a segregationist in your way. They thought blacks and whites mixing weren't the natural order of things then either. Have you ever read segregational arguments? You certainly hum to the tune. Maybe think on that one, and understand the legacy you're invoking.

Self-awareness is . . . kind of a thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prismmonkey (Reply #91)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 03:18 AM

92. Overly.

"Nutjob territory? I just responded to a guy with several thousand posts who said New Zealand was secretly majority Muslim. Nutjob territory? And I've seen that and more here. (New Zealand is 1.1% Muslim by the way). I am all about uncomfortable truths. My post history will prove that. But insane is insane. I don't indulge it. If you don't like insane, maybe speak out against it a touch more when it falls on your side. I certainly call out my own side plenty for both of us."

Yes, nutjob territory. Muslim isn't a race, cupcake.

" Gay is mainstream now. Pushy. Sorry. My life and family are so pushy against you. Well, you'll just have to cope. Like I said. Some people will go into the ground with their beliefs. You're being buried now. Gasp for that last air. It's all gone. You, and your like, will never threaten my family ever again. Tough. We won. Deal."


No, gay is accepted by the mainstream, rather than being mainstream itself. Theres a difference, and its from the failure of you and those like you to understand this difference where all the trouble comes from. *Me* and MY like never threatened you and yours to begin with, and couldn't have given two shits less about you or what you did until you decided to get pushy about it beyond the bounds of reason. Thats not on me, thats on you and yours.

"You're just a segregationist in your way. They thought blacks and whites mixing weren't the natural order of things then either. Have you ever read segregational arguments? You certainly hum to the tune. Maybe think on that one, and understand the legacy you're invoking. "

I'm not the one that pushes for teevee channels tailored to a race, or pushes for groups and unions of all kinds for all races except one. Thats your leftist cohorts, and presumably to some degree, its you as well.

The natural order of things is males and females in the human species reproducing and propagating the species irrespective of ethnicity, so don't presume to go there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #92)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 03:49 AM

93. I'm not sure you even know what the arguments you're making

This feels like flailing. Let's see if you hit a target!

No one said Muslim is a race. So that's kind of nothing. I actually said in another post on this board that I thought the liberal presumption that Muslims are all brown was patronizingly racist. So, you've no truck there.

Gay is mainstream. No one actually cares. And wasn't the Right all about Milo for a time? No? I hallucinated that bit about his free speech? While he bragged about being regularly plowed by big black cock? Must've hallucinated it. First off, pick your speakers. (BTW, I was in person, on the UCB campus, while those riots against him went down. So tell me your version of events)

You never threatened us. Really? Never? So we just hallucinated Stonewall. I was threatened by law enforcement based on my sexuality. Cuffed up to a bench and everything. I was close to gay bars, needed to piss in an alley, and I got cuffed and brought to the station. Why? Suspicion of prostitution. Really? I was taking a leak because I dead needed to. They were loitering around looking for anyone. They got me. Then they taunted me. The actual cops taunted me. "Is your boyfriend going to come get you so he can buttfuck you?" I was cuffed and taunted and threatened based on, I just really needed to pee. Yes, public loitering is a crime. You think I deserved that one? And I remember it specifically because he said "buttfuck", which is a hilarious word to me.I asked for a lawyer. "You don't need a lawyer." Er, kind of do. "No, you don't." What the ever living fuck was that. They denied me a lawyer. They didn't want to charge me with anything. They just wanted to teach me to not be gay in their space.

Are you ok with that?

So don't tell me.

You don't get to tell me what's ok. I have a mind for the Constitution. I think I've proven it from my posts. You do not get to tell me how I was treated was how you'd be treated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prismmonkey (Reply #93)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 02:01 PM

94. I know quite well the arguments I'm making.

"This feels like flailing. Let's see if you hit a target! "

Is that you, william j morningstar?


"No one said Muslim is a race. So that's kind of nothing."

You produced and introduced the muslim mantra being referenced, after being called on the notion of actual white supremacists here on DI. Moving the goalposts isn't a way to provide evidence. Thats what 'muslim isn't a race' means in this particular context.


" I actually said in another post on this board that I thought the liberal presumption that Muslims are all brown was patronizingly racist. So, you've no truck there. "

A morningstar tangent?


"Gay is mainstream."

Incorrect. Gay is 3ish percent of the population and by definition can not be mainstream. Gay is accepted by the mainstream. Those are two different things.

"You never threatened us. Really? Never?"

Thats correct. NEVER.


"So we just hallucinated Stonewall."

If you think it had anything to do with me, you're absolutely correct.


"I was threatened by law enforcement based on my sexuality."

I'm not in law enforcement.

"Cuffed up to a bench and everything. I was close to gay bars, needed to piss in an alley, and I got cuffed and brought to the station. Why?"

Because you were pissing in an alley instead of using the bathroom like a civilized human being.


" Then they taunted me. The actual cops taunted me. "Is your boyfriend going to come get you so he can buttfuck you?"

Oh no, the bloody horror, someone picked on you because you engage in behavior which 95 plus percent of the population doesn't. Cry me a river.

"Are you ok with that?"

In my perfect world, no, I'm really not ok with that.

But in this one, where white people - a much larger percentage of the population than gays - are openly discriminated against and attacked for the color of their skin, and gun owners and second amendment supporters - again a much larger percentage of the population than gays - are attacked for simply supporting a constitutional right...

I see your crying as crying, your influence and presence in media and entertainment as outsized and grossly disproportionate, and your political choices and choices of allies, damning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #94)

Sun Mar 17, 2019, 12:29 PM

99. Oh, there's no crying

But I also know my side is winning.

So, I'm not even sure what the object of the exercise is anymore.

And if you think someone taking it in the ass is merely a gay thing, you must have a very boring sex life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prismmonkey (Reply #99)

Sun Mar 17, 2019, 12:47 PM

100. It sure looked like crying to me.

I'm sure it feels like your side is winning. That's how it is when you've been pushy and have cowed others into not legitimately pushing back.

That won't last forever. You're seeing PC dying a slow death right now.

When the jihadists are at your throats and throwing you off buildings, maybe then you'll rethink things and have some regret for the bridges you stupidly burned.

But then it will be too late.


Taking it in the ass is generally a gross thing. Poop comes out of that hole. It's meant as an exit, not an entry, unlike a vagina. It does not get wet when it's owner gets turned on.

The vagina is something no genuine man gets fired of or bored with, assuming it's owner is desirable.

This is something that you, as a gay man, will sadly never understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #100)

Sun Mar 17, 2019, 01:36 PM

101. Well, you interpret things as you will.

I don't whine. I just get shit done in my life. Fairly easily. Discussing things online, like I said. It's an exercise. I know this site leans very hard Right. But I try to engage and learn. I try to see if there's a line of thinking different from my own that I'd benefit from. That's all.

It's a little odd you and I seem oppositional, because we actually probably agree on quite a bit. You don't think I'm keeping on eye on jihadism? I have more to lose than you from them. I am fucking rapt when it comes to radical Islam.

Yeah. So. I don't really want to explain general human sexuality to you. Certainly not on this message board. It's a thing. I have plenty of heterosexual women in my life who enjoy that sort of thing. You've apparently never met any of them. That, to me, says you're coming from a fairly narrow place. Well, you do you, man. I'm the opposite of narrow. I almost know too much about human sexuality, both gay and straight. The wages of the path, I suppose.

But your version of normal? Isn't that normal. And I don't think you even realize that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prismmonkey (Reply #101)

Sun Mar 17, 2019, 01:57 PM

102. You don't know what my version of normal is.

You only know what I've told you it isn't, which is getting shit on my dick.

If that by itself means narrow (my wife would tell you otherwise lol) then I'll wear that as a badge of honor.

The reason for our opposition, is due almost entirely to the outsized representation and influence the gay movement has in media and politics and everywhere else.

This might shock you to learn, but normal red blooded hetero men wretch when they see two men kiss. It is disgusting to us. The thought of it, the sight of it, all of it.

That is normal and natural and there is nothing wrong with us for that reaction, and we do not need to be changed for it.

You said "we are winning" in a previous post. You don't seem to understand...the state of things today isn't because you are 'winning', it's because a great many people have been cowed into not pushing back while you and yours aren't just winning, you're dancing in the end zone and spitting on the star in the middle of our home field.

And you feel entitled to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #102)

Sun Mar 17, 2019, 03:06 PM

103. I know one simple thing about you

You think "butt stuff" is weird and gay.

Well, ok. It's not, but ok. Just own it. Own your own path. It's ok. I'm just saying, you are exactly who I don't want in a decision making space when it comes to my life. And plenty of straight people wouldn't care for it either. Sexual martinets never go down well with society. Can you think of a single one of them who came down in history, and we're all thinking, "He was a nice man!" Newp. They are always categorically awful and recognized as such.

Shit on dick doesn't happen if you know what you're about. Bang my boyfriend on the regular. Never get shit on my dick. This seems like TMI for this board. But your idea of what anal sex is is outdated. I'm glad you and your wife get along. That's awesome. If you both know what you're about and provide for it. Awesome! I mean that earnestly. I'm genuinely happy you have a good marriage that works for both of you.

If red-blooded hetero men wretch seeing me kiss my boyfriend goodbye every morning, that's on you. Are you that insecure and broken? You do realize lesbian porn is an utterly disproportionate thing, right? Straight men watch women kiss on the regular. What's wrong with their heterosexuality? I mean, is that wretch-worthy? Or is it that men kissing is especially icky?

You're losing, man. You've lost. And this is your thing. Not mine. I'm going to merrily pursue the rest of my life whether or not you're glowering at me. Just this morning, my boyfriend had to go do a thing, and I needed to shop for corned beef and things (am Irish, and today is a day). I kissed him goodbye and said, "Love you," in a parking lot! In public! In front of actual people! I think children were around even. The scandal of it all. And yet, no one actually vomited, did they?

No one actually cares anymore. "People are changing society." Yeah, we kind of do that sometimes, don't we.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prismmonkey (Reply #103)

Sun Mar 17, 2019, 11:10 PM

104. So you say.

"I'm just saying, you are exactly who I don't want in a decision making space when it comes to my life."

And someone who chooses to live a lifestyle which self-selects them from continuing on in the gene pool should be making decisions for whos life, exactly, cupcake?

"Sexual martinets never go down well with society."

Heres how extreme you are, and you aren't even aware of it:

Someone like me who correctly says gay couples are different than hetero couples and should be treated equally but differently (civil unions), is branded a " sexual martinet".

Look in the mirror, thats all on you, not me. My position is reasonable, yours is extreme.

YOU own it.



"But your idea of what anal sex is is outdated. "

Oh? Is there some modern version of anal where you don't stick your dick up the poop chute?



"If red-blooded hetero men wretch seeing me kiss my boyfriend goodbye every morning, that's on you."

Nope. JUST like you, I was born the way I am. Male affection is repulsive to me, and *I* am the mainstream. Look at all the shows that are pushing the gay shit and getting cancelled.




"Are you that insecure and broken?"

No more insecure and broken than you are for liking dick instead of pussy. Did you think the biological argument worked only one way? I'll just bet you did, entitlement is like that.


"You do realize lesbian porn is an utterly disproportionate thing, right? Straight men watch women kiss on the regular. What's wrong with their heterosexuality?"

Um, not to point out the obvious, but apparently this is not obvious to you: Strait men are programmed biologically to fuck women. Every woman they can. As much as they can, as often as they can. More potential mates is more potential mates, whether they're more than one woman or not. It is UTTERLY hetero for a hetero man to want multiple women...but you would have to be one to understand that.

"You're losing, man. You've lost.":

You still have yet to answer the question, so I haven't lost shit, and you're running away from it.

Why should gay couples be treated the same (marriage) as non-gay couples, instead of equally to non-gay couples (civil unions)?

Until you can discuss that question and make some good faith attempt to answer it, I haven't lost shit.


" I kissed him goodbye and said, "Love you," in a parking lot! In public! In front of actual people! I think children were around even. The scandal of it all. And yet, no one actually vomited, did they? "

But you had to make a spectacle of yourself just to check, right?

It would be a hoot if you actually had to spend some time around strait couples outside of leftists circles, to see how they actually behave in public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 11:19 AM

30. the Constitution deals with legal rights,

and how the government is to work.

It is not a religious document.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Salaam (Reply #30)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 05:17 PM

33. So wrong on so many levels.

Enumerated rights and restricting government from abridging them while also limiting government to basic functions of a sovereign entity such as protecting our borders.

Another lefty that needs to take a middle grade civics class.

Of course we have to get you clear on the Europe is not a country thing first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Salaam (Reply #30)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 07:06 PM

36. Yup!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 10:19 PM

47. What about?

Socialism?

Share the wealth?

Income equality?

Guaranteed Income?

Koran?

Allah?

Islam?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #47)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 10:25 PM

48. Yep, socialism sucks...



except for when capitalism fails the country and leaves millions unemployed and starving with no safety net...

From 1933-1936, The New Deal established a series of government agencies whose purpose it was to put the United States back to work and re-establish lost hope. Agencies like the Public Works Administration (PWA), the Works Progress Administration (WPA), and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) created jobs and in the process built many structures and landmarks still visible today. What follows is a list of the Top Five Public Works Projects during that important time in U.S. history. They are ranked according to their economic impact and their everlasting legacy to the United States.

5. The Lincoln Tunnel
As ambitious a construction project as you could ever hope to see, the Lincoln Tunnel stretches 1.5 miles underneath the Hudson River in New York, connecting New Jersey and Manhattan. The PWA funded this marvel of engineering from 1934-1936 at a cost of $85 million and it was the first major tunnel project completed without a fatality. Today nearly 120,000 vehicles use this tunnel daily making it one of the busiest tunnels in the world.

4. Overseas Highway
Connecting Miami to Key West, this 127.5-mile long roadway was opened for traffic in 1938. It follows an old railroad track that was originally built in 1912 and along the way, one passes over 42 bridges and enjoys scenery that is beyond belief.

3. Great Smoky Mountain National Park
Welcome to the most visited National Park in the United States, boasting nearly ten million visitors per year. Great Smoky Mountain National Park covers 814 square miles of wilderness, 36% of which is an old-growth forest. Constructed by the WPA and the CCC, this jewel of the Park System in 1976 was named an International Biosphere Reserve and in 1983 a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Constructed from 1934-1940 this park offers unparalleled vistas and is a must-see on any trip east.

2. Hoover Dam
Congress approved the building of Hoover Dam in 1928 and it was finally constructed from 1931-1936 with the help of the PWA. Spanning the Black Canyon of the Colorado River, this marvel provides electricity for Arizona, Nevada and Southern California. The dam is 726 feet tall and 600 feet at its base and originally cost $165 million. Interestingly the name was originally Hoover Dam but in 1933, at the urging of President Roosevelt, the name was changed to Boulder Dam. Bad blood and all that; some silly notion of blaming Hoover for the Great Depression. In the end public opinion proved too much of an obstacle for Roosevelt and the name of the dam reverted back to Hoover Dam.

1. Grand Coulee Dam
If ever there was a pet project of President Roosevelt’s it was the Grand Coulee Dam. Early on he became enamored with the idea of harnessing the power of the Columbia River and turning arid land in Eastern Washington into farmland. $63 million of funding from the PWA helped Roosevelt’s dreams become reality. Built from 1933-1942 the Grand Coulee is the largest dam in the United States and one of the largest in the world. It provides irrigation for over 600,000 acres and electricity for all or parts of eleven states. This mammoth structure stands 550 feet high and is 1.2 miles wide.

Honorable Mentions
Naming any top five list is difficult and purely subjective. I would be remiss if I didn’t also mention the following:

Timberline Lodge: A National Historic Landmark, this timber, and stone structure on Mt. Hood in Oregon is visited by over a million visitors each year.
LaGuardia Airport: 23 million passengers use this airport each year. It was built on Long Island for a cost of $2.3 million.
Fort Peck Dam: Built between 1933-1940, this dam provides hydroelectric power, flood control and water quality management along the upper Missouri River. It was a combined effort of the WPA and the CCC and it cost $100 million.
Triborough Bridge: Now called the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge, this is actually three bridges, a viaduct and fourteen miles of connecting roads, all of which connect Manhattan, Queens, and the Bronx in New York. It was completed in 1936 at a cost of $60 million and today is visited by 200,000 vehicles per day.
Blue Ridge Parkway; 469 miles long, stretching from Virginia to North Carolina, this roadway was funded in part by the WPA and is designated as an All-American Road.


https://owlcation.com/humanities/The-Great-Depressions-The-Top-Five-Public-Works-Projects-of-the-New-Deal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Reply #48)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 10:33 PM

49. Sure does

Last edited Wed Mar 13, 2019, 11:14 PM - Edit history (1)

The New Deal deepened the Depression and hurt poor people.


Capitalism did not cause the Depression

Greed did

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/how-fdrs-new-deal-harmed-millions-poor-people

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #49)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 10:59 PM

50. O.K.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Reply #48)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 05:28 PM

80. Not a single government employee exerted one day of sweat

building any of those projects. They were built by private employee contractors working under contract.
To be a "socialist" projects, the Government would have had to hire thousands of workers, organized the operation, bought the materials, and supervised the projects. None of which Government could do very well.
As far as one of the top 5, Grand Coulee Dam was built to provide power to Hanford, you know, that great socialist project to make enough plutonium to obliterate Japanese cities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelley (Reply #80)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 10:17 PM

95. And they did


a wonderful job -

both on the dam and on obliterating Japanese cities!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspolitics