What do Republicans have to do to become relevant again?

[Redmage]

If i am gay, and I find out that pastor whohaw believes that it is wrong. And I call him bigoted for it, wouldn't that make me bigoted.

I am gay, and I call anyone who looks down on me for it a bigot, I don't really care what that makes me.

[corebit]

This thread is pointless. I guess some people here find the idea of winning a second term as overwhelming evidence that the opposition party is doomed or something. Where were these people when Bush won his second term?

Ridiculous statements like getting rid of the Christian base (which is one of the bigger voting blocs and a core platform) from the GOP, just make me chuckle. Look just because some of you hate religion, doesn't mean you applying your view to everything makes it true. If the GOP did everything these whackos suggest, it would just become Democrat Party Lite, and who wants to vote for the imitation when they can vote for the real thing?

Obama won with a little over 50%. Statistically this means only half the population support Obama, understand? There is no mandate, there is no overwhelming support for him. The populace is already starting to get fatigue from this administration. Any single fuck-up by him will only accelerate his ratings down and drag his Party with him (just like every President before).

I guess people forget about election cycles when they simply want to ram their political agenda onto others.

[Kraenen]

If i am gay, and I find out that pastor whohaw believes that it is wrong. And I call him bigoted for it, wouldn't that make me bigoted.

---------- Post added 2013-02-25 at 05:51 AM ----------



Oh I see it only applies to Conservatives and "OMG THOSE POOR GAYS"

No, it wouldn't.

[THE Bigzoman]

Just for clarity's sake; Leviticus literally translates as "of the Levites". It's a book that serves only as a guide for Jews of the tribe of Levi who serve as wandering priests. Even Orthodox Jews ignore it unless they're Levites, for this reason. It's not relevant to anyone else for that reason, not because it's Old Testament (which is a false argument, according to Christian theology, anyway).

There's only a couple relevant passages against homosexuality in the Bible, both made by Paul, in the New Testament. Every other reference is a mistranslation that is corrected in modern versions that aren't the ridiculously badly translated mess that is the KJV. Sodom and Gomorrah, for instance, was explicitly not about any sexual sins whatsoever, let alone homosexuality specifically. Anyone claiming otherwise simply has not read the Bible.

There's far, far more in the Bible condoning and approving of slavery, and in far more specific and explicit terms, than there is that's anti-gay.

Couldn't find one btw. You guys are essentially in Berlin now and I am taking my cyanide pills

---------- Post added 2013-02-25 at 05:54 AM ----------

I am gay, and I call anyone who looks down on me for it a bigot, I don't really care what that makes me.

It makes you a hypocrite if I am reading the definition right. And also counterproductive. As long as they don't bother you or make it affect public policy, you should be tolerant of their views the same way you want them to be of yours.

[lupii]

Aye, the Republican party does need to kick out the social conservatives.

But, they also need to get back to actually being the fiscally conservative party. The Democratic party is actually more fiscally conservative than the Republican party apparently (I know someone said something about that earlier, though I wouldn't mind seeing the sources, if they could provide them).

And agreed, in its current state, I would never vote for the Republican Party, not just because I'm LGBT or a student, but because I don't agree with them trying to debase, and take the rights away from certain groups of people who don't fit in the certain mold that the majority of the Republican party accepts (Not all are bigoted, just wanting to state that, though I think they get called a RINO if they aren't...). And yeah, the way Republicans view womens' rights definitely factor into me not wanting to vote them in as well. Not allowing contraceptives....sheesh, and that's only the start of it.


Also, I hope I didn't come across as harsh in my post (The one you replied to), I didn't mean too.

You made your valid and legitimate point. =P

It makes you a hypocrite if I am reading the definition right. And also counterproductive. As long as they don't bother you or make it affect public policy, you should be tolerant of their views the same way you want them to be of yours.

The problem is that being gay isnt a view, its more of a condition (not saying that it is a mental disorder worthy of having people thrown in a hospital or jail). We don't take kindly to those that mess with the mentally disabled, but it would be like having someone think that all of the mentally disabled are people who are just faking it for attention. Yes, long as they aren't pushing views on other people its something of their own personal view, but to say that their 'view' that they are gay is pitted against the view that gay is fake or a sin isn't contextual to what it actually is.

[Kraenen]

Couldn't find one btw. You guys are essentially in Berlin now and I am taking my cyanide pills

---------- Post added 2013-02-25 at 05:54 AM ----------



It makes you a hypocrite if I am reading the definition right. And also counterproductive. As long as they don't bother you or make it affect public policy, you should be tolerant of their views the same way you want them to be of yours.

Then no one can call anyone a bigot. Classic "he who is without sin" fallacy.

[Rukentuts]

If i am gay, and I find out that pastor whohaw believes that it is wrong. And I call him bigoted for it, wouldn't that make me bigoted.

Bigotry is the hatred of certain classifications of people, not individuals.

[LilSaihah]

And yeah, the way Republicans view womens' rights definitely factor into me not wanting to vote them in as well. Not allowing contraceptives....sheesh, and that's only the start of it.

I just had the best idea. If they illegalised condoms, how would they smuggle them in? Would they put condoms inside condoms that they swallow?

[Endus]

ok you give me one i will give you 13

Once Believers, Now Skeptics

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles

Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists,

Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government

Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife

Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z.,

Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences,

Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm

Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa

Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw,

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa,

Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa,

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...b-dccb00b51a12
i have given enough information to prove there isn't enough scientist to believable in man made climate change for it to be considered a consensus

Most of those guys have vested interests in disputing the current views, since their fields of study are in climate change, but not anthropogenic climate change. Jan Veizer, for instance, has done a lot of study into the impact cosmic rays have made. Ian Clark is a paleohydrogeologist. They have vested interests in trying to ensure their life's work isn't simply discarded.

If that's your "evidence", it's not exactly conclusive.

[Redmage]

Couldn't find one btw. You guys are essentially in Berlin now and I am taking my cyanide pills

---------- Post added 2013-02-25 at 05:54 AM ----------



It makes you a hypocrite if I am reading the definition right. And also counterproductive. As long as they don't bother you or make it affect public policy, you should be tolerant of their views the same way you want them to be of yours.

I'm being intolerant of someone who is being intolerant.

Think of my logic this way:

Harming someone for no reason = bad.
Harming someone trying to harm you (self defense) = okay.

Make more sense?

[starlord]

If i am gay, and I find out that pastor whohaw believes that it is wrong. And I call him bigoted for it, wouldn't that make me bigoted.

---------- Post added 2013-02-25 at 05:51 AM ----------



Oh I see it only applies to Conservatives and "OMG THOSE POOR GAYS"

no, you just think "disagree" is the same as "violate rights".

[THE Bigzoman]

Bigotry is the hatred of certain classifications of people, not individuals.

So how is the person that believes that being gay is morally wrong bigoted again? If it isn't for the other way around, what makes it different. Taken, there are people that take it to absurd extremes but they certainly not the majority

[Rukentuts]

So how is the person that believes that being gay is morally wrong bigoted again?

Because it has no basis in reality?

[Wells]

So how is the person that believes that being gay is morally wrong bigoted again? If it isn't for the other way around, what makes it different. Taken, there are people that take it to absurd extremes but they certainly not the majority

One person is hating on gay people for being what they are.

The other person is calling them out for holding hate riddled positions.

[THE Bigzoman]

I'm being intolerant of someone who is being intolerant.

Think of my logic this way:

Harming someone for no reason = bad.
Harming someone trying to harm you (self defense) = okay.


Make more sense?

Because all Republicans/pastors are out to get you? Some churches are embracing it now as well as remaining steadfast against it.

[Wells]

Because all Republicans/pastors are out to get you? Some churches are embracing it now as well as remaining steadfast against it.

Its like you make a hobby out of jumping all over the place.

[THE Bigzoman]

Because it has no basis in reality?

If not written in old text isn't some hint of reality. What if people just don't like the idea without religious base but go about their way?

[lupii]

One person is hating on gay people for being what they are.

The other person is calling them out for holding hate riddled positions.

This exact statement can be replaced with the words; black and KKK. =P

[Kraenen]

Because all Republicans/pastors are out to get you? Some churches are embracing it now as well as remaining steadfast against it.

When, in that post, did he say that? He simply put forth his logic, with no mention of any republicans or pastors.
Freudian slip perhaps?

[THE Bigzoman]

Its like you make a hobby out of jumping all over the place.

Just don't agree with the label that all Republicans are getting in the voter base right now.