Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kilkrazy wrote:

dogma wrote:

TheHammer wrote:
I don't think anyone that is upset at Romney for what he did is really upset at teenaged Romney being an entitled spanker: they're upset because he managed to grow into an adult who is still an entitled spanker.

Keep in mind he bullied someone that was also probably an entitled little spanker. Cranbrook is expensive.

Is that an early victim blame?

Just pointing out that whether or not Romney is self-entitled doesn't really matter with respect to the incident, which is itself a political sideshow.

Melissia wrote:Obama had supported civil unions almost all of his political career. At the start of his presidential term, he said his position was "evolving."

What you're saying then, is that Obama was supporting a homophobic position until about two days ago for political purposes?

I'm pretty sure that's what I said.

You can call it "evolving," I'll call it flip-flopping.

Melissia wrote:And here we see what it has evolved in to-- valuing personal freedoms over religious extremism.

Obama has never valued personal freedoms, and gay marriage is not a "personal freedoms" issue. It might be an equal protection issue, or an equal benefits issue, but it's not personal freedom.

Melissia wrote: A pity he takes a federalist view, but then again, it's not like he could actually do anything to change it anyway with congress essentially being stonewalled in to doing little to nothing outside of emergencies.

You don't get out much, do you? Or pay attention to anything other than your liberal talking heads?

Obama instructed the DOJ to stop defending the constitutionality of DOMA quite a while ago. That position is wholly inconsistent with his "states should be able to decide" assertion a few days ago.

One could ask: was he lying then, or is he lying now? But I think a good answer to that question is "yes."

biccat wrote:
What you're saying then, is that Obama was supporting a homophobic position until about two days ago for political purposes?

I'm pretty sure that's what I said.

When he ran for Illinois Senate in '96 he openly supported gay marriage.

biccat wrote:
You can call it "evolving," I'll call it flip-flopping.

Ah, I see we've finally devolved to that level of "criticism".

biccat wrote:What you're saying then, is that Obama was supporting a homophobic position

Obvious trolling is obviouuuuuus.

biccat wrote:gay marriage is not a "personal freedoms" issue.

Live in denial all you want, but it still remains to be an issue of personal freedom.

biccat wrote:
Obama has never valued personal freedoms, and gay marriage is not a "personal freedoms" issue. It might be an equal protection issue, or an equal benefits issue, but it's not personal freedom.

Equal protection is a civil liberty, and civil liberties are often referred to as "personal freedoms" in colloquial discourse.

biccat wrote:
You don't get out much, do you? Or pay attention to anything other than your liberal talking heads?

Pot. Kettle. Black. etc.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:gay marriage is not a "personal freedoms" issue.

Live in denial all you want, but it still remains to be an issue of personal freedom.

How is it a personal freedom issue? Lawrence was a personal freedom issue; this is about getting the government to confer benefits on a certain group of individuals.

mattyrm wrote: I'm always happy to hate on Romney, but this is a storm in a teacup.

At the end of the day, you do daft gak when your a kid. So he called someone a cigarette and cut his hair.. big deal.

Surely even the most dyed in democrat wouldn't think its a big mark against him?

Hang on ill ask the missus..

...

Yeah she said its stupid gak, and there are thousands of other actual decent reasons not to vote for him.

Matty cuts to the chase.
Go to see Matty has his own She Who Must Be Obeyed.

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:gay marriage is not a "personal freedoms" issue.

Live in denial all you want, but it still remains to be an issue of personal freedom.

How is it a personal freedom issue?

The same reason that miscegenation is considered a personal freedom.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

biccat wrote:
You don't get out much, do you? Or pay attention to anything other than your liberal talking heads?

Obama instructed the DOJ to stop defending the constitutionality of DOMA quite a while ago. That position is wholly inconsistent with his "states should be able to decide" assertion a few days ago.

One could ask: was he lying then, or is he lying now? But I think a good answer to that question is "yes."

Not defending DOMA is good decision though. Why waste time and money defending a discriminatory piece of legislation?

Leaving everything up to the states is not always the best answer, especially when it comes to some states wanting to discriminate against minorities.

Marriage equality is going to happen sooner or later, all you do fighting against it is make yourself look like a bigot.

Melissia wrote:The same reason that miscegenation is considered a personal freedom.

You don't have a personal freedom to government provided benefits.

Anti-miscegenation laws were an issue of personal freedom because they actually criminalized behavior. Like I said, Loving was a personal freedom issue (leaving aside whether it was correctly decided or not) because it involved criminalizing certain behavior. If you did X you were punished.

There are no criminal penalties for referring to a same-sex union as a "marriage".

Note that polygamy and incest are actual personal freedom issues.

biccat wrote:Anti-miscegenation laws were an issue of personal freedom because they actually criminalized behavior.

Pretty much just like gay marriage is outlawed.

Marriage is a personal freedom in the US.

Melissia wrote:Pretty much just like gay marriage is outlawed.

Name one state where you will be incarcerated for "gay marriage"

I'll wait.

Such a yawn fest.

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:Pretty much just like gay marriage is outlawed.

Name one state where you will be incarcerated for "gay marriage"

Irrelevant.

The fact remains that personal freedoms are outlawed. Just because one isn't jailed for it doesn't mean that the restriction isn't there. If the racist conservatives who opposed integration and miscegenation had not included criminal punishments to interracial marriages it would still have been a violation of personal freedoms, as stated in the above court case.

I quote again:

Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Marriage is a matter of individual rights-- personal freedoms.

Well I came for my daily dose of internet rage and hyperbole, and didn't leave disappointed.

I'll just throw in my $.02 with the people that say we shouldn't judge political candidates based on the goofy things they did in High School.

biccat wrote:Romney gave a gay guy a haircut. Obama hit a woman. Prioritize appropriately.

While I agree this is a bunch of nonsense, this post in particular made me laugh.

Slight shove = "hit a woman"

6 guys holding someone down = "gave a gay guy a haircut"

Glad to see we're keeping an even perspective

streamdragon wrote:

biccat wrote:Romney gave a gay guy a haircut. Obama hit a woman. Prioritize appropriately.

While I agree this is a bunch of nonsense, this post in particular made me laugh.

Slight shove = "hit a woman"

6 guys holding someone down = "gave a gay guy the time of his life"

Glad to see we're keeping an even perspective

Did you ever think "haircut" was a codeword for an orgy, come on people be open minded! Sheesh.

So you're saying that Romney is actually a hair dresser from sanfran?

streamdragon wrote:

biccat wrote:Romney gave a gay guy a haircut. Obama hit a woman. Prioritize appropriately.

While I agree this is a bunch of nonsense, this post in particular made me laugh.

Slight shove = "hit a woman"

6 guys holding someone down = "gave a gay guy a haircut"

Glad to see we're keeping an even perspective

I recently told Biccat he went down in my estimation...

As I said, I don't think badly of Romney for this incident cos its just kids stuff, but slight shove has to be less of an assault than "forcibly pinned to the ground and shaved by a gang" and its painfully obvious unless your just sickeningly partisan.

Hes like a knackered elevator today!

Melissia wrote:So you're saying that Romney is actually a hair dresser from sanfran?

Erm...sure why not. (is he from San Fran?)

AustonT wrote:

Melissia wrote:So you're saying that Romney is actually a hair dresser from sanfran?

Erm...sure why not. (is he from San Fran?)

It was a joke.

I would vote for a hair dresser to be president...
Would be a nice change...

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Melissia wrote:So you're saying that Romney is actually a hair dresser from sanfran?

Erm...sure why not. (is he from San Fran?)

It was a joke.

Tease.

streamdragon wrote:

biccat wrote:Romney gave a gay guy a haircut. Obama hit a woman. Prioritize appropriately.

While I agree this is a bunch of nonsense, this post in particular made me laugh.

Good, because that was the point.

streamdragon wrote:Glad to see we're keeping an even perspective

The Washington Post put out a story the day after Obama announced his 'support' for gay marriage that obliquely accuses Romney of torturing a gay student. They conclude the article by tying an award Romney received in 2005 to the death of that student (by natural causes) forty years later. The guy the WaPo interviewed for the story? Never heard about the incident until the WaPo told him about it. The family of the 'victim'? Upset that WaPo would politicize the story.

The idea of "even perspective" was thrown out the window a long time ago.

As I said, I don't think badly of Romney for this incident cos its just kids stuff,

No. Justin Beiber is kids stuff, starting a garage band after school is kids stuff, cutting class to smoke a joint your friend got from his brother is kids stuff.

Assaulting someone and violently violating their person is not "Kids Stuff". It's gross, hateful and (if true), done at an age when he was certainly aware of what he was doing. The kinds of beliefs that motivation by this kind of behaviour are deep-rooted and I wouldn't assume for one second they went away just because the person has grown up. I certainly believe they could have, but they'd have to somehow demonstrate how their current person is different (in that respect) from their younger self.

biccat wrote:The Washington Post put out a story the day after Obama announced his 'support' for gay marriage that obliquely accuses Romney of torturing a gay student.

Which he did.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:The Washington Post put out a story the day after Obama announced his 'support' for gay marriage that obliquely accuses Romney of torturing a gay student.

Which he did.

I know it's around here somewhere...



Ah, here we go.

Melissia wrote:Obvious trolling is obviouuuuuus.

biccat wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

biccat wrote:Romney gave a gay guy a haircut. Obama hit a woman. Prioritize appropriately.

While I agree this is a bunch of nonsense, this post in particular made me laugh.

Good, because that was the point.

I must applaud you on your ability to toe that fine line that keeps me wondering "Is he being serious here, or making another joke?".

biccat wrote:

streamdragon wrote:Glad to see we're keeping an even perspective

The Washington Post put out a story the day after Obama announced his 'support' for gay marriage that obliquely accuses Romney of torturing a gay student. They conclude the article by tying an award Romney received in 2005 to the death of that student (by natural causes) forty years later. The guy the WaPo interviewed for the story? Never heard about the incident until the WaPo told him about it. The family of the 'victim'? Upset that WaPo would politicize the story.

The idea of "even perspective" was thrown out the window a long time ago.

I agree 100% that the WAPO article was beyond ludicrous, and that this is being blown supremely out of proportion. I actually groaned at the award/death thing, because it was so absolutely stupid.

streamdragon wrote:

biccat wrote:Romney gave a gay guy a haircut. Obama hit a woman. Prioritize appropriately.

While I agree this is a bunch of nonsense, this post in particular made me laugh.

Slight shove = "hit a woman"

6 guys holding someone down = "gave a gay guy a haircut"

Glad to see we're keeping an even perspective

How about this clarification
1. Romney hazed a kid in prep school.
2. Obama did felony level heavy narcotics in college.

Frazzled wrote:he ran around in white sheets with a torch leading the Klan on a crusade against the Tenderloin district?

That was my grandmother and she told me to post that she's sorry about that. She was young and REALLY liked (Likex10) margaritas back in the day.