i'll support gay marriage as long as they dont force people of the church to throw there faith out the window to do something thier faith tells them not to do ^^.. if a christian preacher marry two dudes they just went against their own faith and should void them a pastor of what ever church they are at. if a buddist guy marry two dudes and its ok in thier religion well i guess its ok as long as they wasnt forced by the govnt because then its a violation of the 1st amendment.
"The majority of Americans don't support gay marriage". LOL, you couldn't be more wrong. a gallup poll (which I can't link here cause YouTube doesn't allow it but you can easily find it in google) shows that the younger the American the more likely he is to be a supported of gay marraige, meaning that about ten years from now even more people in American will be supportive of SSM. And lets not forget about all the people who civil unions (gay marriage in all but name).
i routinely have to call tea partiers out for using the n-word, for refusing to give rights to the brown people who work their farms, and for blatant homophobic remarks such as "if a gay person looks at me funny i'll cut off his boner and shove it up his ass". i seriously doubt that the majority of americans are against gay marriage. however, if the majority of americans ARE against gay marriage the obvious reason is that the majority of americans are DUMB. AS. SHIT.
The tea party has given itself a bad name as it has been infiltrated by illuminati agents. As for the whole homophobia thing. I beleive as a christian that as it says in the bible homosexuality is an abomination. That does not mean however people should be horrible to any humans gay or straight. Jesus loves everyone. And the illuminists are working directly for their master lucifer.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
More than meets the eye here...if most Democrats were Southerners at the time (which, both Southern Dems & Repubs opposed Civil Rights) then it appears that Repubs were the overwhelming majority of the vote in favor, however, of Northern Dems & Repubs, Dems backed the Civil Rights Act by a larger margin in the House vote. It was the Kennedy & Johnson administration that passed that legislation, effectively costing the Democrats the South. Agreed, and well said regarding "majority opinion!" (obv)
? Is being in step with the majority of Americans being recommended? Civil Rights activists must have been seen as leftist kooks as well. Quite an arguement, as if being "in step" ever helped Rosa Parks, for example. And who is the kook touting his private school education? Really? Was it Catholic school, because humility is a virtue. QuartuvLarry, very PC. Please educate yourself.
@fine4001 Not very likely they were called leftist kooks, since most of them were Republican. So kooks maybe, its weird to because polls show that most of the minority groups who are usually associated with the left wing are generally against gay marriage. So either the left doesn't listen to its minority supporters or it has fewer than it states. However I have to admit that I don't oppose gay marriage & majority opinion shouldn't outweigh minority rights, that's why we have a Republic.
When this unwanted conversation is brought to your face, just pull out your cell phone and call the cops, (if walking aways has not worked, of course!) You don't have to answer to anyone about any bumper sticker that you may have on your car. My car is way too nice for bumper stickers anyway lol!
Gays and women have the same rights of everyone else, so if you're a gay person or Woman and you feel like you want more privileges so you bitch about it, then go fuck yourself.
I am regularly spanking leftards who are desperate to cling to their idealized hatred of us on my channel. But one or two insists on remaining stupid as hell.
Maybe they should have a Retard Pride Parade! LOL!
LARRY: Retard Pride Parade, great idea. I assume the "one or two" you're talking about--one of them is a convicted felon who has no room to criticize people for being "immoral" or "hateful."
@lordwindowlicker Uh, you already HAVE. If not me, then any one of my predecessors you refused to recognize for his/her intelligence.
However, if I actually AM your first, it's only because my private schooling lends me a certain...intellectual superiority to the masses of publicly educated ignoramuses (or perhaps it's "ignorami") that the monopolized racketeering of teachers unions refuses to account for.
Molotov...I like you, but you hit this from the wrong direction. It all boils down to whether or not the government has any authority to regulate marriage in the first place. They don't! Congress was not given that authority in Article 1, Section 8. You'll NEVER get gay marriage illegal by fighting it on moral standards because the courts have none. It's a constitutional matter. I don't need government's permission to marry my wife. It's between God and me.
Marriage is an essentially religious ceremony, whether you believe God actually instituted it or not (Gen. 2:18-24). The government has no right to change institutions like these (I refer you to the First Amendment). It's fact that homosexuals do not reproduce (therefore, they do not help the advancement of the human race), their sexual relations are against natural law (Plato recongized that) and they spread AIDS and anal cancer, etc.
@AnHonestChristian First of all, no, it's not a exclusivly religious ceremony, it's a legal contract between two people, non-religious couples can get married by a Justice of the peace in a town hall, or by someone who can legally marry two people (Notary public, judge, etc.) Also, it's a blantant contradiction on your part to cite the Bible as if it holds power over the government, and then cite the First Amendment, which doesn't allow for any such thing. (con't)...
@FilmStudentWannabe Izatso? When did the State create/establish marriage? I'm talking about the origins of Marriage, which you can find in the Bible. The Establishment Clause was meant to protect the Church from the State (even Thomas Jefferson knew that). That includes her ceremonies/sacraments, which the government has no right to define. You need to listen to NPR a bit more carefully; your talking points are falling apart! :-D
@AnHonestChristian Marriage has been a part of many cultures, not just Christian ones. Regardless, whoever came up with marriage first is entirely irrelevent, it doesn't cahnge the fact that there are still modern secular marriages, and for the state to force them to a religious standard is unconstitutional, '"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". And you're thinking of the free exercise clause. I don't listen to NPR.
@FilmStudentWannabe And yet religious people of many diverse cultures have agreed that Marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman: witness The Protection of Marriage: A Shared Commitment, signed by members of the Christian faith (Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox), as well as adherents to Judaism and Sikhism. Why, it sounds positively American!
@AnHonestChristian Dude, you're still pretending that there aren't religious sects that allow gay marriage and secular ways of getting married, whether or not property owners have the right to discriminate is a completely different issue. We're arguing about if the government should restrict marriage from homosexuals.
@FilmStudentWannabe You say, "We're arguing about if the government should restrict marriage from homosexuals." Okay, fine. You're looking at this issue from entirely the wrong angle. It's not about what the government restricts; the government is meant to protect the rights of the people, and that includes TRUE Marriage. Marriage has ALREADY been defined. And as this video says, the majority of Americans are AGAINST "gay" marriage anyway...the democratic thing to do is protect Marriage.
@AnHonestChristian When did I say I didn't want the government to protect the rights of straight marriage aswell? You seem to imply that somehow letting gays get married causes straights to lose their right to marriage, how? There is no objective definition for something like marriage. Hell, the Greeks and Romans allowed same-sex marriage. If you have your own definition of marriage, fine, why do you have to force that definition on others? Democracy is all debating ideas, what we are doing.
@FilmStudentWannabe "There is no objective definition for something like marriage." Well, now we've gotten to the heart of the matter. You are completely unqualified to comment on this issue. And as an aside, the Greco-Roman philosophy is inherently flawed, as it erroneously claims, in the tradition of humanism, that "man is the measure of all things." Entirely false--and it's a very telling revelation of what sort of animal you are! :-)
@AnHonestChristian Why am I not qualitfied? Who are fuck are you to decide what marriage is for everyone? I'm not saying I'm a proponant of greco-roman philosophy. I'm saying that they are a culture that allowed gays, to marry, you pretend like gay marriage is a new thing. I'm not sure if you're actually this dense or a troll.
@FilmStudentWannabe You say there's no "objective definition" of Marriage. The real question is, who are YOU to "decide what marriage is." I see that you enjoy stigmatizing those who do not share your views (you could really learn from this video, by the way) and resort to profanity, which is extremely childish and unsophisticated. But go ahead--troll on! :-D
@AnHonestChristian I don't! I let people decide for themselves what marriage means to them. Because it's not my decision what goes on their personal lives. If someone thinks marriages is between man and women, fine by me. If someone thinks marriage is for everyone, fine aswell. It's frustrating when someone ignores everything their opponant is saying, and keeps arguing the same debuked point over and over again.
@FilmStudentWannabe You haven't debunked anything I've said. I've rebutted every one of your counterpoints. I believe that Marriage is between a man and a woman. Practice what you preach and let it be.
@AnHonestChristian I'll repeat the same argument that you'll probably continue to ignore for the last time. There are intitutions who believe that gay marriage is okay, they're rights are protected by the first amendment, thus, the government has no right to force these intitutions to change they're definition of marriage to fit the opinion of the majority. If you think that marriage is between a man and a women, fine, don't marry another guy, leave everyone else alone.
@FilmStudentWannabe Haha, well, I've repeated the same argument for quite some time now, and chances are you'll probably continue to ignore it too. You say we should leave the definition of Marriage up to religious institutions, but the LGBT community/liberals are loudly demanding THE GOVERNMENT enact legislation to define Marriage. These pro-"gay rights" supporters are inconsistent in what they're advocating!
@AnHonestChristian I never ignored it. I simply informed you that institutions exist that believe in gay rights, and finally, you seem to have stopped denying their existence. Actually, most states already have legislation to define marriage, which they define as between a man and a women, which is why gays can't get married through secular means. I don't think the state should define marriage for everybody, individuals should.
@FilmStudentWannabe I never denied the existence of liberal religious institutions that endorse/practice "gay" marriage. Many in my family are members of those denominations. What I have said from the get-go is that that is not what true Marriage, as it was originally established, is.
@AnHonestChristian I meant that you denied them in the context of your argument. Why do you get to decide what marriage is for the rest of the population? Sure, think whatever marriage means to you, but don't get daddy government to come in and restrict what other people do just because you don't agree with it. You're no better than anyone else, and your religous denomination doesn't deserve more of a voice than anyone else. Marriage has differed from culture to culture, from time to time.
@FilmStudentWannabe I've already covered that ground...and by the way, it's not just "my denomination" and our "voice" is part of this republic. Now you're just being redundant.
Marriage isn't about reproduction, it's about two people loving eachother. I assume you're against an old couple far pass menopause married aswell then? No. You know what's against 'natural law' for humans? Flapping our arms and flying, because if it's in our behaviour, it's obviously naturally occuring. Lot's of things spread diseses, and that's irrelevent to weather or not they're married while they're bumming.
@FilmStudentWannabe "Marriage...is about two people loving eachother." Nope, that's not the definition of Marriage. Did you even bother to read the passage from Genesis? Marriage is the unity of a man and a woman. And as to the rest of your fallacious points: my argument was meant to be taken holistically.
@AnHonestChristian it doesn't matter what Genesis says, America is NOT a theocracy, people have the right to practice whatever religion they choose, having a state religion is unconstitutional, it is a social contract, usually binded by two people who love one another. So, why do you care if two people of the same sex are marriaged in a secular ceremony or by a more moderate church or religion?
@FilmStudentWannabe 1. I never claimed the USA was a theocracy. I said Marriage is a religious institution; 2. I never said the USA had a state religion. I have logically relayed my argument to you, yet you continually persist in your misconceptions and/or misunderstandings of what I keep reiterating.
@AnHonestChristian 1. A theocracy is where religious figures have power over citizens, you think that morality of religions is the reason to restrict the rights of homosexuals, that is theocracy. 2. You seem to think there is. Your arguments have not shown any logic, but blatant circular logic and contradictions.
@FilmStudentWannabe 1. By "religious figures" you mean...? Look, I apologize there aren't more atheistic humanists in office. That's what it seems you're advocating. Homosexuality is unnatural and therefore homosexuals don't have the rights you're talking about. 2. No, I think the State shouldn't interfere with the Church by defining a religious ceremony. If we weren't talking about Marriage, you would readily agree with that sentiment and be cheerleading for "separation of church & state."
@AnHonestChristian 1. Nope. You were saying that fundamentalist religions get to decide what marriage is. So you're giving power legislative power to eligious groups, theocracy. I don't car what religion a politician has. Homosexuality is not unnatural, if something is unnatural then we wouldn't be compelled or be able to do it, which many people are. "No, I think the State shouldn't interfere with the Church by defining a religious ceremony." I agree, and that includes pro-gay religions.
@FilmStudentWannabe *Rubs temples.* I am not a fundamentalist. I know plenty of them and don't care much for 'em, to tell you the truth. Without fail, you continually show your inability to comprehend the difference between protecting an institution and defining it. Do you not see that redefining Marriage is trifling with an institution the government has no right to mess with?
@AnHonestChristian Okay, you're a conservative Christian, I'm not an expert on christian terminology. So I'm not quiet clear ont he differences between a fundamnetalist, evangelical, etc. And you, without fail and without condesending snootiness, keep pretending that there aren't religious groups who support gays and secular marriages. I'm not saying that certain instiutions can't be against gays, but other institutions can, support gays, and marry gays if they choose to.
@FilmStudentWannabe I am a Confessional Lutheran Christian and I accept the Holy Scripture as the only norm of faith and practice. What you call "condes[c]ending snootiness" is my mirroring the sarcasm I'm getting from you. Jesus was not opposed to rebuking the Pharisees and I have no reservations about rebuking you. These "religious groups" that support "gay" marriage are making the same error, trying to redefine an institution that already exists.
@AnHonestChristian That's okay for you to believe. But not everyone does, and their rights are protected under the first amendment. Let them be who they are.
@FilmStudentWannabe No, that's obviously not okay for me to believe, according to you. Saying, "Well, this is what I think, and I think people should do whatever they want" is a cop-out.
It isn't the racism or homophobia or being the arm of a lobbyist group being polarized with the GOP that makes me dislike the TEA party. it is the simple fact that Tea party reps have proven they have no ability in office.
continued: But I cannot recall a Tea Party spokesperson (some like Palin or Bachman) publicly denounce those terrible signs, it (to me) seems like fellow tea party members encourage it. I may be wrong, please let me know which videos/speeches to watch where they denounce those racist people.
Also the distrust of muslims, while not "racist" is xenophobic.
When you see a bumper sticker like it SHOULD be understood that they are not referring to all Tea Partiers. Obviously the owner of that sticker doesn't know you, and cannot prove you are/are not racist.
What they are probably referring to is the fact that some members of the Tea Party (or at least those who pretend to be) like to make signs with racist inclinations. You've probably seen people at rallies like that too. You may have told those people to take down their signs.
@A0DBOB Ah so I can call liberals baby killers even though they probably are in fact not abortion doctors? Or even better I was robbed by a black man once so it's ok for me to publicly generalize that all black men will or have robbed me? Wait no that's racism...or is it? If you make a general statement like that and then try and use the argument that well it applies to some of them...then you are still wrong
If you were robbed by a black man, and the general populace of black people would look on and not do anything/call cops/etc then YES you may.
My point is that these signs are NOT rare, they are not one-in-a-million. When was the last time one of the high-named figures in the Tea party came out and denounced all these signs? When was the last time someone with disgusting signs was kicked out of a rally?
I'll try to find it for you.. but there was a great video of some obviously crazy guy yelling crazy statements.. while the crowd around him either cheered or did nothing. Are those people NOT part of the Tea Party? If so then the real tea party members need to SAY SOMETHING, Stand up and kick the loonies that make you look bad out, don't cheer them on.. don't let people walk around with "Death Panels" and other nonsense.
If my reasoning is unclear just let me know and I'll try to explain better. I am aware that you can't denounce everyone everywhere, but it would be an amazing breathe of fresh air if the next time Bachmann or someone else talks at a rally that they first demand all those signs to be destroyed.. or publicly denounce their messages. Maybe people will listen that way.
Meh, I don't mind homosexuals, what I do mind is being called a racist when I myself am not white but instead brown. I wonder why those type of people never pick on me.....
Progressives do not really believe we Tea Party people are psychotic. They see us as real threats because we are on to their game. Our message of small government, personal responsibility and personal strength is a huge threat to their doctrine of personal dependence upon government -- therefore, they call us names.
@USAsoldier1955 Interesting that I ran into you here. Even more interesting is that you use such harsh language to folks that are homosexual....this coming from a Lutheran Pastor????
Sad truth is way to many people in this country have come to be reliant upon government for their complete happiness. Therefore government has become a god , a sugar daddy , a way of life.
This video was great, BUT, honestly, liberals come up with all kinds of cute quotes or proof and since I can't substantiate what they're saying and I certainly don't want to deny what I have no knowledge about (they WILL say that "so and so said this and that), I have no reasonable defense. I know it's mostly babble anyway, so is it really worth our time to debate with someone who will become hostile when he or she can't win the argument when you DO prove them wrong? Sorry, this doesn't work.
Just saying, the majority of Americans DO support gay marriage. Its like neck and neck though. I think its 52 or 53% of Americans support gay marriage.
Yep this approach works nearly every time. Its extremely rare to speak to the kind of lefty who would endorse such a sweeping statement and then know how to back it up. Peeps these people just repeat what they get told to say by other lefty in the media. Call them out on it and they fold :-)
@DeityofStuff No.. I've debated many liberals in my private life, That was a pretty accurate depiction of liberal reasoning. The truth is simple, progressives can not compete in the arena of ideas, so they attack anyone who thinks differently with insults and name calling. I debated a woman once at work over how much profit is fair. She decided that a 10% mark up was fair to her. I pointed out that big oil makes 8% profit and she changed the subject, she didn't change her mind, she still hates.
@intrepidorator Of course your friend didn't change her mind, no one is convinced by non sequiters. & progressives usually win in the arena of ideas as evident from the fact the majority of Americans support gay marriage, uni healthcare, progressive taxation, heck almost all social democratic policies have the majority. Out of curiosity, why did you switch between talking about liberals to talking about progressives?
@yellowkrux Not true, on any count. Your completely misinformed. The majority do NOT support gay marriage, Most OPPOSE Obamacare, and progressive taxation is a result of jealousy propagated by the liberal (progressive) media. Your final question is nonsensicle. A liberal is a progressive and a progressive is a liberal. I am using the terms in their current definition, not in the old 1900-1910 meanings. Liberals and progressives are just different names for the same thing.. such as soda and pop.
@intrepidorator Me & the Gallop polling agency disagree with you on the majorities view on gay marriage. I never mentioned Obamacare formerly known as Republicare (non sequiter). & Progressive taxation has been supported by pretty much every society in history, on the moral grounds that those whom benefit most from a system should be the ones whom pay the most to support it. & No liberal is not a synonym of progressive. You've never actually debated anyone have you?
@yellowkrux CBS polling and I disagree with you on the majority supporting gay marriage. Yes liberal and progressive are the same thing in todays lexicon. I debate many people, well actually it could be better described as (schooling) people. Unlike Progressives aka Liberals I research my ideas before I form opinions.
The majority of americans do support gay marriage, you're wrong not Gallup, Obamacare is a non sequiter, as I said universal health care, in fact the majority would actually approve of single payer(far to the left of Republicare), You Stance on progressive taxation is an ad hominem, & You don't understand the difference between a progressive (one in favor of gradual change) & a liberal (on in favor of liberty). See this is why you lose every "debate".
@yellowkrux True almost every american hates obama-care, but the only ones that truly don't want homosexual rights is the right wing. Though even the left wing has their bad sides. I mean look at what we got for our commander and chief. I might get taken away for this, but I got to. Both sides are wrong. There is a middle ground to stand on and to be honest. I think that public office should be a non-paying job, and in fact a job where the corrupt and evil ones should have life in prison.
@shinjiikari911 Part two: No exceptions on what office you held or what you did wrong. You think that it is a good example to the younger people in america when the people in office show themselves on twitter or steal money from state accounts? How about being a world wide laughing stock? Saying on the behalf of america that we are sorry for things we shouldn't be sorry for. Then coming back and being a dictator to all who oppose his will, and childish wants. Either side is bad, not just right.
@shinjiikari911 IN other words you are a corporatist,& You call the potus left wing, while claiming we need to meet in the middle? The POTUS is a moderate right winger, you are almost as far right as a fascist, & You believe we should meet in the middle? The middle of what? The moderate right & extreme rightwing? No we should meet where the solutions to serious problems are.
@yellowkrux I'd like to address your use of the word fascist. Do you mean it in the classical sense of the word, as in Mussolini? or are you using the left wing definition? Fascism is the marriage of corperations and government. An example of this would be Obamas interference with General motors. Anytime the government takes control of a company, that is fascism in the classic definition. look at Italy 1922–43. Progressives seem to only look at the oppression and not at the actual philosophy.
@intrepidorator Yes. Washington, some say Lincoln as he expanded liberty for some (slaves) but he suspended habeas corpus & was really a tyrant (a benevolent tyrant but still), FDR has been said to be liberal in the a a necessitous man is not a freeman sense, but he imprisoned the Japanese Americans at the beginning of WWII. Any President who seeks to expand &/or preserve liberty is liberal.
@yellowkrux Lincoln was.. of course you know.. the first Republican president. Expanding liberty is not a liberal function. Liberals have produced slaves in modern times through entitlement programs that make the recipient a slave to the government handout. Afraid to improve their station in life because it would mean the end to the welfare check. You really have no idea what your talking about, you merely assign every positive attribute to liberals regardless of the truth.
@intrepidorator It was mostly progressives that created entitlement programs. If you think anyone actually lives on federal welfare you're an idiot Clinton gutted it (it now pays $142/month to someone single w/o children). That being said in some states the welfare trap is a serious problem in states w/ welfare, which is why many people prefer guaranteed minimum income. & No I assign the definition of liberal to liberals. Yes Lincoln was Republican back when Republicans were a far left party.
@yellowkrux If you think that people do NOT live on entitlements, you are delusional. Welfare is not just an entitlement anymore, it is a way of life. Families live on WIC, welfare, food stamps, and the myriad of other programs that keep them slaves to the govt. I can see by your inability to learn that you were educated in a government school. I provided you with a link that explained the modern definition of liberal, you either can't figure out how to follow the link. or can't learn.
@intrepidorator Uhuh, Again federal welfare is all but nonexistent & again the welfare trap is why many people support the Friedmanite position of GMI. I Know people on food stamps , they're more slaves to their bosses than to the government. If you're against such programs actually argue against them, calling food stamps slavery is a non sequiter. & You provided me no link at all. & Seriously you don't even know what conservatism or liberal means.
@yellowkrux Listen "non sequiter" means that it "does not follow" You need to either use the word correctly or stop using it. Do I need to explain it in simpler terms? Dependence on the government for survival is a form of slavery.
Im just glad that you didn't use your other favorite debating term "Ad Hominem" which means attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Hmmm maybe it was another person that didn't understand what Liberal and Conservative means..
@intrepidorator That's right non sequiter does mean does not follow. Saying food stamps are slavery is a non sequiter. & Yes you don't know what liberal or conservative mean, it's kind of obvious, for one you said liberalism has nothing to do with liberalism, & you called libertarianism a conservative ideology, when libertarianism is radical, not conservative in any way,
@yellowkrux OMG, I gave you more credit than this.. OK I'll explain it in even simpler terms. If a person is RELIANT" on the govt for his or her survival, he is a slave to the govt, can you understand this VERY simple concept?
No I did not say liberalism has nothing to do with liberalism, I said that liberalism has nothing to do with liberty. Liberals want oppressive regulations.
LIBERALS believe in big government. CONSERVATIVES and LIBERTARIANS in very small government? get it?
@intrepidorator Yes I can understand, you're an idiot. According to you I'm a slave to the government because I rely on the governments oppressive regulations to keep greedy fucktards from poisoning my water & air. Again you just stated liberalism has nothing to do with liberalism. "Big government" & "small government" are meaningless terms, as there is no metric. In summery food stamps are not slavery & you're so retarded you think being ignorant makes you smart.
@yellowkrux Your almost able to understand, I guess thats as close to understanding as you are capable of getting. No you must be dislexic. Liberalism is not about liberty. Is this truth beyond your brains ability to grasp. Modern liberalism is about slavery. You are a slave to the govt. Because you rely on it for your daily existence. But being a slave, you are unable to understand.
Do I really have to explain big and small govt.. wow you're dumber than I thought. Small govt is constitutional.
Yes I understand, you're an idiot. According to you I'm a slave to the government because I rely on the governments oppressive regulations to keep greedy fucktards from poisoning my water & air. Again you just stated liberalism has nothing to do with liberalism. "Big government" & "small government" are meaningless terms, as there is no metric. In summery food stamps are not slavery & you're so retarded you think being ignorant makes you smart.
@intrepidorator I understand totally you're a moron, & you think being ignorant makes you smart. & Liberalism is literally only about liberty, that's why it's called Liberalism, you can look this up if don't believe me. Yes I already said I am a "slave" because I really on the government to insure that my water & air aren't poisoned by some greedy fucktard. & Yes please give me a metric for measuring the size of government, go ahead, come on you can('t) do it.
@yellowkrux First of all, my IQ is not in question. Mine is above average. Look at it this way. Liberal ideology equals a liberal amount of government interference in your daily life.Conservatism equals a conservative amount of government interference in your life.
I did explain the difference between big and small government. Small govt is a constitutionally limited govt. Do you understand what I mean when I say that? No power beyond what the constitution enumerates. I hope you can see this.
@yellowkrux Do you recall my first post, I pointed out that when I debated a woman at work, and proved her liberal ideas to be wrong, she did exactly what you're doing, you fall back to your name calling and insults. I provided you with a link that corrects your mistaken definition of liberalism. Modern day liberalism believes in more govt interference with your daily life. More regulations to control your daily life, does that sound like liberty to you? I hope that you at least understand this.
@intrepidorator No, I do recall your actual first post where you told a story about how you gave a non sequiter argument . & You still haven't given me a metric for measuring government, which I assume means that the term is as vacuous to you as it is to me. Also you keep switching talking about liberalism (the goal of preserving or expanding liberty) & Liberalism ( the the political theory that western society is based on). &it's you authoritarians who actual seek to control my daily life.
@yellowkrux Thats funny, first you call my point that being reliant on govt is a form of slavery a non sequitor, than 2 comments later you admit that you are a "slave" to the govt. You're unable to understand that the world does not conform to your twisted ideas of what liberalism is. I explained it to you. I even provided a link to a website that give the correct definition of liberal and conservative. Either you are unable to learn, or you are lying to everyone about your understanding.
@intrepidorator What's funny is you seem to think me giving a reductio ad absurdium to your argument magically means I didn't put the words "according to you" & thus agree with your retarded statement. It's also funny that you seem to think liberalism is authoritarianism when you are an authoritarian. & It's funny that you think being pigheaded & ignorant makes you qyualified to give lectures on topics you neither understand nor care to.
@yellowkrux Are you capable of finding the website that I provided? I'm starting to think that you are not capable of using the internet effectively. Liberalism and liberty are antonyms. I find no evidence of reductio ad absurdium in my comment. You are ignorant of the true definition of liberal. I'm sure that liberals wish that your definition was still accurate, however it is not. Liberals want to control your life. They support smoking bans, gun bans, etc.. this is the opposite of liberty...
@intrepidorator When I say "I gave you a reductio ad absurdium" that would mean it's in my comment, you know the one you were trying to paint as me agreeing with you & not pointing out that you're an idiot.
Why is it you authoritarians only give a shit about small petty rights? & Why is it that even though you don't have more than a 3rd grade education (as you're reading comprehension & lack of knowledge signifies) you expect me to take you seriously?
@yellowkrux OH. I see, my mistake, You're a fool and you're beyond individual thought. Did you go to the website that I provided twice now? It shows you the correct definition of liberal and conservative. I have done all I can do to educate you. The rest is up to you. I can't teach a fool who is unwilling to learn. Have a good life.
@shinjiikari911 I am neither side. I am true neutral. Both sides have good points. I support gay marriage. I think it is okay for those that are in love to marry. But I am not a fan of other things in the left and I am a supporter of state's rights like the right wants, and having the ability to make a life for yourself. Not like the left who wants everyone dependent on the government to live. If capitalist is what you want to call me fine. That just means I am for earning money for myself. Thx.
@shinjiikari911 Middle ground is for unimportant issues. Let me use an analogy to explain. A man enters town and states that he wants to kill every person in town. The Sherriff tells the man, No you can not kill 1 person much less everyone. An arbitrator comes in and settles the debate, the man will be allowed to kill half of the population. After all this is meeting in the middle. This is an extreme analogy but you can understand how it applies to very important issues.
@yellowkrux Umm no, a recent CBS poll shows thar 42% support gay marriage. So you can believe your poll and I can beleive mine. Your insistence on differentiating Obamacare and universal healthcare shows your inability to deal with real world problems. An imaginary universal healthcare sounds great in theory, but then reality pokes its ugly head in. Obamacare shows the problems with UHC. Your use of the typical terms (non sequiter and ad hominem is platitudinal. I win every debate, like I am now
@yellowkrux And to address your inability to understand the current definitions of "progressive" and "liberal".
In modern times these words are interchangable. Liberals do not support liberty, This role now belongs to libertarians. Progressives aren't really for progress, unless you define progress to mean progressing towards their goals. And if you want to use that definition then any ideology could be called progressive. i hope I have explained it clearly enough for you to understand.
@yellowkrux i disagree because marriage can only lead to kids and gay marriages don't have kids cause its not normal and it leads you nowhere i rest my case.
@silenthill123321 That would be a no. Marriage can lead to lifelong relationships, hardship ,divorce, suicidal depression, soul crushing monotony & a tax break & gay marriage can lead to kids (adoption & in vitro). SO next time some one asks if you can give an argument without proving yourself to be either idiotic or bigoted, just say "No I can't, I'm just a bigoted homophobic idiot" It will keep you from looking as stupid.
@yellowkrux ooh big bad liberal got his gay marriage argument in a knot, explain why im homophobic? when for one i dont have a phobia about gays give me a break a phobia is having a fear of something and i clearly am not fearful of gays i just don't think gay or lesbian marriages don't count or work, 2 guys can't make a baby 2 girls can't make a baby what dont you get? no one cares about adoption its the fact that opposites attract and any magnet will vouch for me
@silenthill123321 "explain why im homophobic?" I ain't no shrink. "when for one i dont have a phobia about gays " Hatred always stems from fear. " i just don't think gay or lesbian marriages don't count or work" You think they count or work toward what? "2 guys can't make a baby 2 girls can't make a baby " &? "what dont you get? " I don't get why you fear? "no one cares about adoption" So you hate orphanes? "its the fact that opposites attract and any magnet will vouch for me" Who's magnet?
@yellowkrux don't talk like you know everything then if your not a shrink. where at any point in this argument do i show hatred? just because i said i disagree? they don't count and or work toward anything tangible like idk kids? lol so now you say i hate orphans yet you can't dispute that im not homophobic and gays and lesbians aren't natural
Please make more videos, dude, you are the man, I deal with these libs all the time, they are Freakin ridiculous and irrational and usually incoherent.
@KeybladeMaster33 Serious, it's almost like if you tell them your not gay, by default your a homophobe!! WTF????!! I'ma start calling them heterophobes out of the blue.
@KeybladeMaster33 It's a made up psycho babble term used to shut people up who oppose thier views if ever called one I would just shrug it off just like they try to say that a person with "homophobic" views is a closet fag it show where the people who come with stuff head's are at
@KeybladeMaster33 It's a made up psycho babble term used to shut people up who oppose thier views if ever called one I would just shrug it off just like they try to say that a person with "homophobic" views is a closet fag it show where the people who come with this stuff head's are at
lol the party system is whats wrong with this country. George Washington was right.
Letitallfuckingburn 1 month ago
i'll support gay marriage as long as they dont force people of the church to throw there faith out the window to do something thier faith tells them not to do ^^.. if a christian preacher marry two dudes they just went against their own faith and should void them a pastor of what ever church they are at. if a buddist guy marry two dudes and its ok in thier religion well i guess its ok as long as they wasnt forced by the govnt because then its a violation of the 1st amendment.
krzintegraboi 1 month ago
"The majority of Americans don't support gay marriage". LOL, you couldn't be more wrong. a gallup poll (which I can't link here cause YouTube doesn't allow it but you can easily find it in google) shows that the younger the American the more likely he is to be a supported of gay marraige, meaning that about ten years from now even more people in American will be supportive of SSM. And lets not forget about all the people who civil unions (gay marriage in all but name).
Yeger666 2 months ago
also... did anyone tell him most of America now supports SSM? It is not my cup of tea but whatever...
miaknecht 2 months ago
second video of this guy I watched... still confused if it is real or troll....? is he claiming to be a good at debating??. fail?
miaknecht 2 months ago
Hi, I'm a liberal who can debate and exist in the realm of ideas for long and I don't cuss people out. Can you tell me why you think that?
DarkEmergence 3 months ago in playlist More videos from illuminatitv
i routinely have to call tea partiers out for using the n-word, for refusing to give rights to the brown people who work their farms, and for blatant homophobic remarks such as "if a gay person looks at me funny i'll cut off his boner and shove it up his ass". i seriously doubt that the majority of americans are against gay marriage. however, if the majority of americans ARE against gay marriage the obvious reason is that the majority of americans are DUMB. AS. SHIT.
OpakeArawra2 4 months ago in playlist More videos from illuminatitv
@OpakeArawra2 haha, very funny, the reason most Americans are against gay marriage is because it is an oxymoron.
101crazys 4 months ago
gays have always tried to ride on the coat-tails of legitimate groups like blacks...
jbooks888 4 months ago
@jbooks888 coat-tails? I would have said something else but totally agree with you. And before anyone starts having fits I WAS JOKING.
mrrossn 2 months ago
After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's (Plume) is the gay manifesto
onearmsteve4192 4 months ago
The tea party has given itself a bad name as it has been infiltrated by illuminati agents. As for the whole homophobia thing. I beleive as a christian that as it says in the bible homosexuality is an abomination. That does not mean however people should be horrible to any humans gay or straight. Jesus loves everyone. And the illuminists are working directly for their master lucifer.
peterbromleychallen1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
Maybe we call them racist homophobes because every single candidate they endorse turns out to be one.
frellthat 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul says neo-cons are NOT CONSERVATIVES!
Definition and names of neo-cons: /watch?v=nuefjIYKkjE
Tea Party Split: Sarah Palin and Ron Paul discuss Israel/drugs/more
/watch?v=VEl5r1aHWP4
Chinese invade Texas: /watch?v=BHrkc6EB6h0
Ron Paul supports gay marriage: /watch?v=l1gzs27HswQ
vechorik 4 months ago
More than meets the eye here...if most Democrats were Southerners at the time (which, both Southern Dems & Repubs opposed Civil Rights) then it appears that Repubs were the overwhelming majority of the vote in favor, however, of Northern Dems & Repubs, Dems backed the Civil Rights Act by a larger margin in the House vote. It was the Kennedy & Johnson administration that passed that legislation, effectively costing the Democrats the South. Agreed, and well said regarding "majority opinion!" (obv)
fine4001 5 months ago
? Is being in step with the majority of Americans being recommended? Civil Rights activists must have been seen as leftist kooks as well. Quite an arguement, as if being "in step" ever helped Rosa Parks, for example. And who is the kook touting his private school education? Really? Was it Catholic school, because humility is a virtue. QuartuvLarry, very PC. Please educate yourself.
fine4001 5 months ago
@fine4001 Not very likely they were called leftist kooks, since most of them were Republican. So kooks maybe, its weird to because polls show that most of the minority groups who are usually associated with the left wing are generally against gay marriage. So either the left doesn't listen to its minority supporters or it has fewer than it states. However I have to admit that I don't oppose gay marriage & majority opinion shouldn't outweigh minority rights, that's why we have a Republic.
BillyJoe1305 5 months ago
ROFL @ "I'm a leftist kook who's out of step with the majority of Americans!!" :)
ironclad452 5 months ago in playlist Videos from illuminatitv
When this unwanted conversation is brought to your face, just pull out your cell phone and call the cops, (if walking aways has not worked, of course!) You don't have to answer to anyone about any bumper sticker that you may have on your car. My car is way too nice for bumper stickers anyway lol!
taptap69tap 5 months ago
Argumentum ad populem, eh? If the majority of Americans supported slavery, would that make it valid, or not WRONG? You're a tool.
lordwindowlicker 6 months ago
or they're not talking about you they're talking about certain people very largely involved in "tea party stuff" just sayin.
mickmuncher1 6 months ago
Gays and women have the same rights of everyone else, so if you're a gay person or Woman and you feel like you want more privileges so you bitch about it, then go fuck yourself.
ThatHaloGuy117 6 months ago
I am regularly spanking leftards who are desperate to cling to their idealized hatred of us on my channel. But one or two insists on remaining stupid as hell.
Maybe they should have a Retard Pride Parade! LOL!
QuartuvLarry 6 months ago
LARRY: Retard Pride Parade, great idea. I assume the "one or two" you're talking about--one of them is a convicted felon who has no room to criticize people for being "immoral" or "hateful."
UTubekookdetector 6 months ago
@QuartuvLarry
I've yet to meet a social conservative that isn't a drooling moron.
lordwindowlicker 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Since when does Andre Carson, portraying your political opponents as a lynch mob, create jobs?
Since when did Maxine Waters telling the Tea Party to go straight to hell create jobs?
vechorik 6 months ago
@lordwindowlicker Uh, you already HAVE. If not me, then any one of my predecessors you refused to recognize for his/her intelligence.
However, if I actually AM your first, it's only because my private schooling lends me a certain...intellectual superiority to the masses of publicly educated ignoramuses (or perhaps it's "ignorami") that the monopolized racketeering of teachers unions refuses to account for.
QuartuvLarry 6 months ago
Molotov...I like you, but you hit this from the wrong direction. It all boils down to whether or not the government has any authority to regulate marriage in the first place. They don't! Congress was not given that authority in Article 1, Section 8. You'll NEVER get gay marriage illegal by fighting it on moral standards because the courts have none. It's a constitutional matter. I don't need government's permission to marry my wife. It's between God and me.
RestoreLatterHouse 6 months ago
"I don't hate gays! I just want the state to restrict their rights!" HURRRR DURRRR.
FilmStudentWannabe 6 months ago
@FilmStudentWannabe You must ACTUALLY be retarded if you don't understand the argument against institutionalized Sodomy. :-D
AnHonestChristian 6 months ago
@AnHonestChristian That's a cute name for gay marriage, sounds extra scary. I have yet to hear a single argument against it. Please, provide one.
FilmStudentWannabe 6 months ago
@FilmStudentWannabe Assuming that you're sincere....
Marriage is an essentially religious ceremony, whether you believe God actually instituted it or not (Gen. 2:18-24). The government has no right to change institutions like these (I refer you to the First Amendment). It's fact that homosexuals do not reproduce (therefore, they do not help the advancement of the human race), their sexual relations are against natural law (Plato recongized that) and they spread AIDS and anal cancer, etc.
AnHonestChristian 6 months ago
@AnHonestChristian First of all, no, it's not a exclusivly religious ceremony, it's a legal contract between two people, non-religious couples can get married by a Justice of the peace in a town hall, or by someone who can legally marry two people (Notary public, judge, etc.) Also, it's a blantant contradiction on your part to cite the Bible as if it holds power over the government, and then cite the First Amendment, which doesn't allow for any such thing. (con't)...
FilmStudentWannabe 6 months ago
@FilmStudentWannabe Izatso? When did the State create/establish marriage? I'm talking about the origins of Marriage, which you can find in the Bible. The Establishment Clause was meant to protect the Church from the State (even Thomas Jefferson knew that). That includes her ceremonies/sacraments, which the government has no right to define. You need to listen to NPR a bit more carefully; your talking points are falling apart! :-D
AnHonestChristian 6 months ago
@AnHonestChristian Marriage has been a part of many cultures, not just Christian ones. Regardless, whoever came up with marriage first is entirely irrelevent, it doesn't cahnge the fact that there are still modern secular marriages, and for the state to force them to a religious standard is unconstitutional, '"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". And you're thinking of the free exercise clause. I don't listen to NPR.
FilmStudentWannabe 6 months ago
@FilmStudentWannabe And yet religious people of many diverse cultures have agreed that Marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman: witness The Protection of Marriage: A Shared Commitment, signed by members of the Christian faith (Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox), as well as adherents to Judaism and Sikhism. Why, it sounds positively American!
AnHonestChristian 6 months ago
@AnHonestChristian Bravo, Brother Timothy! :)
All the world religions have recognized that marriage is between a man & a woman....for many thousands of years! :)
USAsoldier1955 6 months ago
@AnHonestChristian Dude, you're still pretending that there aren't religious sects that allow gay marriage and secular ways of getting married, whether or not property owners have the right to discriminate is a completely different issue. We're arguing about if the government should restrict marriage from homosexuals.
FilmStudentWannabe 6 months ago
@FilmStudentWannabe You say, "We're arguing about if the government should restrict marriage from homosexuals." Okay, fine. You're looking at this issue from entirely the wrong angle. It's not about what the government restricts; the government is meant to protect the rights of the people, and that includes TRUE Marriage. Marriage has ALREADY been defined. And as this video says, the majority of Americans are AGAINST "gay" marriage anyway...the democratic thing to do is protect Marriage.
AnHonestChristian 6 months ago
@AnHonestChristian When did I say I didn't want the government to protect the rights of straight marriage aswell? You seem to imply that somehow letting gays get married causes straights to lose their right to marriage, how? There is no objective definition for something like marriage. Hell, the Greeks and Romans allowed same-sex marriage. If you have your own definition of marriage, fine, why do you have to force that definition on others? Democracy is all debating ideas, what we are doing.
FilmStudentWannabe 6 months ago
@FilmStudentWannabe "There is no objective definition for something like marriage." Well, now we've gotten to the heart of the matter. You are completely unqualified to comment on this issue. And as an aside, the Greco-Roman philosophy is inherently flawed, as it erroneously claims, in the tradition of humanism, that "man is the measure of all things." Entirely false--and it's a very telling revelation of what sort of animal you are! :-)
AnHonestChristian 6 months ago
@AnHonestChristian Why am I not qualitfied? Who are fuck are you to decide what marriage is for everyone? I'm not saying I'm a proponant of greco-roman philosophy. I'm saying that they are a culture that allowed gays, to marry, you pretend like gay marriage is a new thing. I'm not sure if you're actually this dense or a troll.
FilmStudentWannabe 6 months ago
@FilmStudentWannabe You say there's no "objective definition" of Marriage. The real question is, who are YOU to "decide what marriage is." I see that you enjoy stigmatizing those who do not share your views (you could really learn from this video, by the way) and resort to profanity, which is extremely childish and unsophisticated. But go ahead--troll on! :-D
AnHonestChristian 6 months ago
@AnHonestChristian I don't! I let people decide for themselves what marriage means to them. Because it's not my decision what goes on their personal lives. If someone thinks marriages is between man and women, fine by me. If someone thinks marriage is for everyone, fine aswell. It's frustrating when someone ignores everything their opponant is saying, and keeps arguing the same debuked point over and over again.
FilmStudentWannabe 6 months ago
@FilmStudentWannabe You haven't debunked anything I've said. I've rebutted every one of your counterpoints. I believe that Marriage is between a man and a woman. Practice what you preach and let it be.
AnHonestChristian 6 months ago
@AnHonestChristian I'll repeat the same argument that you'll probably continue to ignore for the last time. There are intitutions who believe that gay marriage is okay, they're rights are protected by the first amendment, thus, the government has no right to force these intitutions to change they're definition of marriage to fit the opinion of the majority. If you think that marriage is between a man and a women, fine, don't marry another guy, leave everyone else alone.
FilmStudentWannabe 6 months ago
@FilmStudentWannabe Haha, well, I've repeated the same argument for quite some time now, and chances are you'll probably continue to ignore it too. You say we should leave the definition of Marriage up to religious institutions, but the LGBT community/liberals are loudly demanding THE GOVERNMENT enact legislation to define Marriage. These pro-"gay rights" supporters are inconsistent in what they're advocating!
AnHonestChristian 6 months ago
@AnHonestChristian I never ignored it. I simply informed you that institutions exist that believe in gay rights, and finally, you seem to have stopped denying their existence. Actually, most states already have legislation to define marriage, which they define as between a man and a women, which is why gays can't get married through secular means. I don't think the state should define marriage for everybody, individuals should.
FilmStudentWannabe 6 months ago
@FilmStudentWannabe I never denied the existence of liberal religious institutions that endorse/practice "gay" marriage. Many in my family are members of those denominations. What I have said from the get-go is that that is not what true Marriage, as it was originally established, is.
AnHonestChristian 6 months ago
@AnHonestChristian I meant that you denied them in the context of your argument. Why do you get to decide what marriage is for the rest of the population? Sure, think whatever marriage means to you, but don't get daddy government to come in and restrict what other people do just because you don't agree with it. You're no better than anyone else, and your religous denomination doesn't deserve more of a voice than anyone else. Marriage has differed from culture to culture, from time to time.
FilmStudentWannabe 6 months ago
@FilmStudentWannabe I've already covered that ground...and by the way, it's not just "my denomination" and our "voice" is part of this republic. Now you're just being redundant.
AnHonestChristian 6 months ago
Marriage isn't about reproduction, it's about two people loving eachother. I assume you're against an old couple far pass menopause married aswell then? No. You know what's against 'natural law' for humans? Flapping our arms and flying, because if it's in our behaviour, it's obviously naturally occuring. Lot's of things spread diseses, and that's irrelevent to weather or not they're married while they're bumming.
FilmStudentWannabe 6 months ago
@FilmStudentWannabe "Marriage...is about two people loving eachother." Nope, that's not the definition of Marriage. Did you even bother to read the passage from Genesis? Marriage is the unity of a man and a woman. And as to the rest of your fallacious points: my argument was meant to be taken holistically.
AnHonestChristian 6 months ago
@AnHonestChristian it doesn't matter what Genesis says, America is NOT a theocracy, people have the right to practice whatever religion they choose, having a state religion is unconstitutional, it is a social contract, usually binded by two people who love one another. So, why do you care if two people of the same sex are marriaged in a secular ceremony or by a more moderate church or religion?
FilmStudentWannabe 6 months ago
@FilmStudentWannabe 1. I never claimed the USA was a theocracy. I said Marriage is a religious institution; 2. I never said the USA had a state religion. I have logically relayed my argument to you, yet you continually persist in your misconceptions and/or misunderstandings of what I keep reiterating.
AnHonestChristian 6 months ago
@AnHonestChristian 1. A theocracy is where religious figures have power over citizens, you think that morality of religions is the reason to restrict the rights of homosexuals, that is theocracy. 2. You seem to think there is. Your arguments have not shown any logic, but blatant circular logic and contradictions.
FilmStudentWannabe 6 months ago
@FilmStudentWannabe 1. By "religious figures" you mean...? Look, I apologize there aren't more atheistic humanists in office. That's what it seems you're advocating. Homosexuality is unnatural and therefore homosexuals don't have the rights you're talking about. 2. No, I think the State shouldn't interfere with the Church by defining a religious ceremony. If we weren't talking about Marriage, you would readily agree with that sentiment and be cheerleading for "separation of church & state."
AnHonestChristian 6 months ago
@AnHonestChristian 1. Nope. You were saying that fundamentalist religions get to decide what marriage is. So you're giving power legislative power to eligious groups, theocracy. I don't car what religion a politician has. Homosexuality is not unnatural, if something is unnatural then we wouldn't be compelled or be able to do it, which many people are. "No, I think the State shouldn't interfere with the Church by defining a religious ceremony." I agree, and that includes pro-gay religions.
FilmStudentWannabe 6 months ago
@FilmStudentWannabe *Rubs temples.* I am not a fundamentalist. I know plenty of them and don't care much for 'em, to tell you the truth. Without fail, you continually show your inability to comprehend the difference between protecting an institution and defining it. Do you not see that redefining Marriage is trifling with an institution the government has no right to mess with?
AnHonestChristian 6 months ago
@AnHonestChristian Okay, you're a conservative Christian, I'm not an expert on christian terminology. So I'm not quiet clear ont he differences between a fundamnetalist, evangelical, etc. And you, without fail and without condesending snootiness, keep pretending that there aren't religious groups who support gays and secular marriages. I'm not saying that certain instiutions can't be against gays, but other institutions can, support gays, and marry gays if they choose to.
FilmStudentWannabe 6 months ago
@FilmStudentWannabe I am a Confessional Lutheran Christian and I accept the Holy Scripture as the only norm of faith and practice. What you call "condes[c]ending snootiness" is my mirroring the sarcasm I'm getting from you. Jesus was not opposed to rebuking the Pharisees and I have no reservations about rebuking you. These "religious groups" that support "gay" marriage are making the same error, trying to redefine an institution that already exists.
AnHonestChristian 6 months ago
@AnHonestChristian I don't see why your intitutions get to dictate how others live their lives. :/
FilmStudentWannabe 6 months ago
@FilmStudentWannabe I didn't establish Marriage. God established that institution.
AnHonestChristian 6 months ago
@AnHonestChristian That's okay for you to believe. But not everyone does, and their rights are protected under the first amendment. Let them be who they are.
FilmStudentWannabe 6 months ago
@FilmStudentWannabe No, that's obviously not okay for me to believe, according to you. Saying, "Well, this is what I think, and I think people should do whatever they want" is a cop-out.
AnHonestChristian 6 months ago
@AnHonestChristian I never said it's not okay for you to believe. Believe what you want, just don't force your beliefs on other people. :D
FilmStudentWannabe 6 months ago
It isn't the racism or homophobia or being the arm of a lobbyist group being polarized with the GOP that makes me dislike the TEA party. it is the simple fact that Tea party reps have proven they have no ability in office.
colitisscope 7 months ago
What does the majority of Americans being against gay marriage really have to do with the issue? We are a republic, not a democracy after all.
Although, yes liberals are very much out of step with the rest of the country.
turdferguson9725 7 months ago
But how do you explain some of those signs that depict Obama with a bone through his nose or similar sorts of thing?
biggamerjh1 7 months ago
continued: But I cannot recall a Tea Party spokesperson (some like Palin or Bachman) publicly denounce those terrible signs, it (to me) seems like fellow tea party members encourage it. I may be wrong, please let me know which videos/speeches to watch where they denounce those racist people.
Also the distrust of muslims, while not "racist" is xenophobic.
A0DBOB 7 months ago
When you see a bumper sticker like it SHOULD be understood that they are not referring to all Tea Partiers. Obviously the owner of that sticker doesn't know you, and cannot prove you are/are not racist.
What they are probably referring to is the fact that some members of the Tea Party (or at least those who pretend to be) like to make signs with racist inclinations. You've probably seen people at rallies like that too. You may have told those people to take down their signs.
A0DBOB 7 months ago
@A0DBOB Ah so I can call liberals baby killers even though they probably are in fact not abortion doctors? Or even better I was robbed by a black man once so it's ok for me to publicly generalize that all black men will or have robbed me? Wait no that's racism...or is it? If you make a general statement like that and then try and use the argument that well it applies to some of them...then you are still wrong
jdwohlers 7 months ago
@jdwohlers
If you were robbed by a black man, and the general populace of black people would look on and not do anything/call cops/etc then YES you may.
My point is that these signs are NOT rare, they are not one-in-a-million. When was the last time one of the high-named figures in the Tea party came out and denounced all these signs? When was the last time someone with disgusting signs was kicked out of a rally?
A0DBOB 7 months ago
@jdwohlers
I'll try to find it for you.. but there was a great video of some obviously crazy guy yelling crazy statements.. while the crowd around him either cheered or did nothing. Are those people NOT part of the Tea Party? If so then the real tea party members need to SAY SOMETHING, Stand up and kick the loonies that make you look bad out, don't cheer them on.. don't let people walk around with "Death Panels" and other nonsense.
A0DBOB 7 months ago
@jdwohlers
If my reasoning is unclear just let me know and I'll try to explain better. I am aware that you can't denounce everyone everywhere, but it would be an amazing breathe of fresh air if the next time Bachmann or someone else talks at a rally that they first demand all those signs to be destroyed.. or publicly denounce their messages. Maybe people will listen that way.
A0DBOB 7 months ago
Meh, I don't mind homosexuals, what I do mind is being called a racist when I myself am not white but instead brown. I wonder why those type of people never pick on me.....
Arceumon 7 months ago
hahaha, very funny, but informative.
dannon18 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Progressives do not really believe we Tea Party people are psychotic. They see us as real threats because we are on to their game. Our message of small government, personal responsibility and personal strength is a huge threat to their doctrine of personal dependence upon government -- therefore, they call us names.
vechorik 7 months ago
This is a GREAT CHRISTIAN VIDEO....
By a GREAT CHRISTIAN PRODUCER....
for GREAT CHRISTIANS....
and a SIN SICK WORLD! :)
USAsoldier1955 7 months ago
You homosexuals live your life NOT TO PREPARE FOR ETERNITY....but instead, you HOMOSEXUALS LIVE FOR SELF GRATIFICATION. Sin=Death.
offerendsthursday 7 months ago
LOVE THIS VIDEO....
The Homofascists are....GUTTED! :)
USAsoldier1955 7 months ago
@USAsoldier1955 Interesting that I ran into you here. Even more interesting is that you use such harsh language to folks that are homosexual....this coming from a Lutheran Pastor????
bobbyke31 7 months ago
Sad truth is way to many people in this country have come to be reliant upon government for their complete happiness. Therefore government has become a god , a sugar daddy , a way of life.
computerpurple 7 months ago
OK I found the old comment, the link was
3w(dot)balancedpolitics(dot)org/ideology(dot)htm
I write it this way because youtube doesnt let me post links, for 3w use w w w, and for (dot) use .
intrepidorator 7 months ago
This video was great, BUT, honestly, liberals come up with all kinds of cute quotes or proof and since I can't substantiate what they're saying and I certainly don't want to deny what I have no knowledge about (they WILL say that "so and so said this and that), I have no reasonable defense. I know it's mostly babble anyway, so is it really worth our time to debate with someone who will become hostile when he or she can't win the argument when you DO prove them wrong? Sorry, this doesn't work.
ijzerkoekie 7 months ago
God bless this man! He brings us hope!!
P.S. Was that liberal Rachael Madow in the video. lol.
Armornone 7 months ago
your so f***ing stupid!!!!
Sashamanxyz 7 months ago
Keep 'em comin' Molotov! Good stuff!
DrTerminus 7 months ago
First of all, what are "Gay Rights"? You mean, they have rights, that the rest of us don't? Can we get additional rights, if we are gay?
And why do gays, get additional rights? WTH?
DD826 7 months ago
Lets face it,.... Liberals that can't win an argument, ALWAYS pul the "Racist" card.
THAT in it self tells me think "Hmmmmm!"
catnkaboodle 7 months ago
Just saying, the majority of Americans DO support gay marriage. Its like neck and neck though. I think its 52 or 53% of Americans support gay marriage.
chocolatedonut31 7 months ago
Yep this approach works nearly every time. Its extremely rare to speak to the kind of lefty who would endorse such a sweeping statement and then know how to back it up. Peeps these people just repeat what they get told to say by other lefty in the media. Call them out on it and they fold :-)
leeSouthend 7 months ago
But the majority of Americans DO support gay marriage! :)
Stigmatikk 7 months ago
AWESOME!
hope4change2012 7 months ago
FANTASTIC video
CTSBeast 7 months ago
@DeityofStuff No.. I've debated many liberals in my private life, That was a pretty accurate depiction of liberal reasoning. The truth is simple, progressives can not compete in the arena of ideas, so they attack anyone who thinks differently with insults and name calling. I debated a woman once at work over how much profit is fair. She decided that a 10% mark up was fair to her. I pointed out that big oil makes 8% profit and she changed the subject, she didn't change her mind, she still hates.
intrepidorator 7 months ago
@intrepidorator Of course your friend didn't change her mind, no one is convinced by non sequiters. & progressives usually win in the arena of ideas as evident from the fact the majority of Americans support gay marriage, uni healthcare, progressive taxation, heck almost all social democratic policies have the majority. Out of curiosity, why did you switch between talking about liberals to talking about progressives?
yellowkrux 7 months ago
@yellowkrux Not true, on any count. Your completely misinformed. The majority do NOT support gay marriage, Most OPPOSE Obamacare, and progressive taxation is a result of jealousy propagated by the liberal (progressive) media. Your final question is nonsensicle. A liberal is a progressive and a progressive is a liberal. I am using the terms in their current definition, not in the old 1900-1910 meanings. Liberals and progressives are just different names for the same thing.. such as soda and pop.
intrepidorator 7 months ago
@intrepidorator Hear hear!
1afrowolf 7 months ago
@intrepidorator Me & the Gallop polling agency disagree with you on the majorities view on gay marriage. I never mentioned Obamacare formerly known as Republicare (non sequiter). & Progressive taxation has been supported by pretty much every society in history, on the moral grounds that those whom benefit most from a system should be the ones whom pay the most to support it. & No liberal is not a synonym of progressive. You've never actually debated anyone have you?
yellowkrux 7 months ago
@yellowkrux CBS polling and I disagree with you on the majority supporting gay marriage. Yes liberal and progressive are the same thing in todays lexicon. I debate many people, well actually it could be better described as (schooling) people. Unlike Progressives aka Liberals I research my ideas before I form opinions.
intrepidorator 7 months ago
@intrepidorator Lety me rephrase my post.
The majority of americans do support gay marriage, you're wrong not Gallup, Obamacare is a non sequiter, as I said universal health care, in fact the majority would actually approve of single payer(far to the left of Republicare), You Stance on progressive taxation is an ad hominem, & You don't understand the difference between a progressive (one in favor of gradual change) & a liberal (on in favor of liberty). See this is why you lose every "debate".
yellowkrux 7 months ago
@yellowkrux True almost every american hates obama-care, but the only ones that truly don't want homosexual rights is the right wing. Though even the left wing has their bad sides. I mean look at what we got for our commander and chief. I might get taken away for this, but I got to. Both sides are wrong. There is a middle ground to stand on and to be honest. I think that public office should be a non-paying job, and in fact a job where the corrupt and evil ones should have life in prison.
shinjiikari911 7 months ago
@shinjiikari911 Part two: No exceptions on what office you held or what you did wrong. You think that it is a good example to the younger people in america when the people in office show themselves on twitter or steal money from state accounts? How about being a world wide laughing stock? Saying on the behalf of america that we are sorry for things we shouldn't be sorry for. Then coming back and being a dictator to all who oppose his will, and childish wants. Either side is bad, not just right.
shinjiikari911 7 months ago
@shinjiikari911 Also. Sorry for the mini-rant. I had a lot that I haven't touched yet.
shinjiikari911 7 months ago
@shinjiikari911 IN other words you are a corporatist,& You call the potus left wing, while claiming we need to meet in the middle? The POTUS is a moderate right winger, you are almost as far right as a fascist, & You believe we should meet in the middle? The middle of what? The moderate right & extreme rightwing? No we should meet where the solutions to serious problems are.
yellowkrux 7 months ago
@yellowkrux OMG,, you think that Obama is a moderate right winger?? LOL wow that explains alot.
Let me help you to understand,
3w(dot)balancedpolitics(dot)org/ideology(dot)htm
You need to replace (dot) with . and the 3w with www
intrepidorator 7 months ago
@yellowkrux I'd like to address your use of the word fascist. Do you mean it in the classical sense of the word, as in Mussolini? or are you using the left wing definition? Fascism is the marriage of corperations and government. An example of this would be Obamas interference with General motors. Anytime the government takes control of a company, that is fascism in the classic definition. look at Italy 1922–43. Progressives seem to only look at the oppression and not at the actual philosophy.
intrepidorator 7 months ago
@yellowkrux Just for fun.. If you don't consider Obama left wing, what president in our history would you call a liberal progressive left winger?
intrepidorator 7 months ago
@yellowkrux Moderate right winger would be like John McCain or maybe G.W.Bush. Extreme right would be Ron Paul for example.
intrepidorator 7 months ago
Comment removed
yellowkrux 7 months ago
@intrepidorator McCain would probably be moderate right, Bush is to stupid to tell, & Ron Paul would be far left, not far right.
yellowkrux 7 months ago
@yellowkrux I don't think that we agree on what left and right means. In what way would you rate Paul as a leftist?
intrepidorator 7 months ago
@intrepidorator Paul a market libertarian, that would be left wing as it would only allow for a natural class system.
yellowkrux 7 months ago
@yellowkrux lol.. libertarian is a conservative viewpoint. Communism is a left wing ideology not libertarinism.
intrepidorator 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@intrepidorator " lol.. libertarian is a conservative viewpoint. Communism is a left wing ideology not libertarinism."
No it is not, last I checked we have not been a libertarian society in recent history.
yellowkrux 7 months ago
@yellowkrux So tell me, have we ever had a liberal president?
intrepidorator 7 months ago
@intrepidorator Yes. Washington, some say Lincoln as he expanded liberty for some (slaves) but he suspended habeas corpus & was really a tyrant (a benevolent tyrant but still), FDR has been said to be liberal in the a a necessitous man is not a freeman sense, but he imprisoned the Japanese Americans at the beginning of WWII. Any President who seeks to expand &/or preserve liberty is liberal.
yellowkrux 7 months ago
@yellowkrux Lincoln was.. of course you know.. the first Republican president. Expanding liberty is not a liberal function. Liberals have produced slaves in modern times through entitlement programs that make the recipient a slave to the government handout. Afraid to improve their station in life because it would mean the end to the welfare check. You really have no idea what your talking about, you merely assign every positive attribute to liberals regardless of the truth.
intrepidorator 7 months ago
@intrepidorator It was mostly progressives that created entitlement programs. If you think anyone actually lives on federal welfare you're an idiot Clinton gutted it (it now pays $142/month to someone single w/o children). That being said in some states the welfare trap is a serious problem in states w/ welfare, which is why many people prefer guaranteed minimum income. & No I assign the definition of liberal to liberals. Yes Lincoln was Republican back when Republicans were a far left party.
yellowkrux 7 months ago
@yellowkrux If you think that people do NOT live on entitlements, you are delusional. Welfare is not just an entitlement anymore, it is a way of life. Families live on WIC, welfare, food stamps, and the myriad of other programs that keep them slaves to the govt. I can see by your inability to learn that you were educated in a government school. I provided you with a link that explained the modern definition of liberal, you either can't figure out how to follow the link. or can't learn.
intrepidorator 7 months ago
@intrepidorator Uhuh, Again federal welfare is all but nonexistent & again the welfare trap is why many people support the Friedmanite position of GMI. I Know people on food stamps , they're more slaves to their bosses than to the government. If you're against such programs actually argue against them, calling food stamps slavery is a non sequiter. & You provided me no link at all. & Seriously you don't even know what conservatism or liberal means.
yellowkrux 7 months ago
@yellowkrux Listen "non sequiter" means that it "does not follow" You need to either use the word correctly or stop using it. Do I need to explain it in simpler terms? Dependence on the government for survival is a form of slavery.
Im just glad that you didn't use your other favorite debating term "Ad Hominem" which means attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Hmmm maybe it was another person that didn't understand what Liberal and Conservative means..
intrepidorator 7 months ago
@intrepidorator That's right non sequiter does mean does not follow. Saying food stamps are slavery is a non sequiter. & Yes you don't know what liberal or conservative mean, it's kind of obvious, for one you said liberalism has nothing to do with liberalism, & you called libertarianism a conservative ideology, when libertarianism is radical, not conservative in any way,
yellowkrux 7 months ago
@yellowkrux OMG, I gave you more credit than this.. OK I'll explain it in even simpler terms. If a person is RELIANT" on the govt for his or her survival, he is a slave to the govt, can you understand this VERY simple concept?
No I did not say liberalism has nothing to do with liberalism, I said that liberalism has nothing to do with liberty. Liberals want oppressive regulations.
LIBERALS believe in big government. CONSERVATIVES and LIBERTARIANS in very small government? get it?
intrepidorator 7 months ago
@intrepidorator Yes I can understand, you're an idiot. According to you I'm a slave to the government because I rely on the governments oppressive regulations to keep greedy fucktards from poisoning my water & air. Again you just stated liberalism has nothing to do with liberalism. "Big government" & "small government" are meaningless terms, as there is no metric. In summery food stamps are not slavery & you're so retarded you think being ignorant makes you smart.
yellowkrux 7 months ago
@yellowkrux Your almost able to understand, I guess thats as close to understanding as you are capable of getting. No you must be dislexic. Liberalism is not about liberty. Is this truth beyond your brains ability to grasp. Modern liberalism is about slavery. You are a slave to the govt. Because you rely on it for your daily existence. But being a slave, you are unable to understand.
Do I really have to explain big and small govt.. wow you're dumber than I thought. Small govt is constitutional.
intrepidorator 7 months ago
Yes I understand, you're an idiot. According to you I'm a slave to the government because I rely on the governments oppressive regulations to keep greedy fucktards from poisoning my water & air. Again you just stated liberalism has nothing to do with liberalism. "Big government" & "small government" are meaningless terms, as there is no metric. In summery food stamps are not slavery & you're so retarded you think being ignorant makes you smart.
yellowkrux 7 months ago
@intrepidorator I understand totally you're a moron, & you think being ignorant makes you smart. & Liberalism is literally only about liberty, that's why it's called Liberalism, you can look this up if don't believe me. Yes I already said I am a "slave" because I really on the government to insure that my water & air aren't poisoned by some greedy fucktard. & Yes please give me a metric for measuring the size of government, go ahead, come on you can('t) do it.
yellowkrux 7 months ago
@yellowkrux First of all, my IQ is not in question. Mine is above average. Look at it this way. Liberal ideology equals a liberal amount of government interference in your daily life.Conservatism equals a conservative amount of government interference in your life.
I did explain the difference between big and small government. Small govt is a constitutionally limited govt. Do you understand what I mean when I say that? No power beyond what the constitution enumerates. I hope you can see this.
intrepidorator 7 months ago
@yellowkrux Do you recall my first post, I pointed out that when I debated a woman at work, and proved her liberal ideas to be wrong, she did exactly what you're doing, you fall back to your name calling and insults. I provided you with a link that corrects your mistaken definition of liberalism. Modern day liberalism believes in more govt interference with your daily life. More regulations to control your daily life, does that sound like liberty to you? I hope that you at least understand this.
intrepidorator 7 months ago
@intrepidorator No, I do recall your actual first post where you told a story about how you gave a non sequiter argument . & You still haven't given me a metric for measuring government, which I assume means that the term is as vacuous to you as it is to me. Also you keep switching talking about liberalism (the goal of preserving or expanding liberty) & Liberalism ( the the political theory that western society is based on). &it's you authoritarians who actual seek to control my daily life.
yellowkrux 7 months ago
@yellowkrux Thats funny, first you call my point that being reliant on govt is a form of slavery a non sequitor, than 2 comments later you admit that you are a "slave" to the govt. You're unable to understand that the world does not conform to your twisted ideas of what liberalism is. I explained it to you. I even provided a link to a website that give the correct definition of liberal and conservative. Either you are unable to learn, or you are lying to everyone about your understanding.
intrepidorator 7 months ago
@intrepidorator What's funny is you seem to think me giving a reductio ad absurdium to your argument magically means I didn't put the words "according to you" & thus agree with your retarded statement. It's also funny that you seem to think liberalism is authoritarianism when you are an authoritarian. & It's funny that you think being pigheaded & ignorant makes you qyualified to give lectures on topics you neither understand nor care to.
PS
Still waiting for that metric.
yellowkrux 7 months ago
@yellowkrux Are you capable of finding the website that I provided? I'm starting to think that you are not capable of using the internet effectively. Liberalism and liberty are antonyms. I find no evidence of reductio ad absurdium in my comment. You are ignorant of the true definition of liberal. I'm sure that liberals wish that your definition was still accurate, however it is not. Liberals want to control your life. They support smoking bans, gun bans, etc.. this is the opposite of liberty...
intrepidorator 7 months ago
@intrepidorator When I say "I gave you a reductio ad absurdium" that would mean it's in my comment, you know the one you were trying to paint as me agreeing with you & not pointing out that you're an idiot.
Why is it you authoritarians only give a shit about small petty rights? & Why is it that even though you don't have more than a 3rd grade education (as you're reading comprehension & lack of knowledge signifies) you expect me to take you seriously?
yellowkrux 7 months ago
@yellowkrux OH. I see, my mistake, You're a fool and you're beyond individual thought. Did you go to the website that I provided twice now? It shows you the correct definition of liberal and conservative. I have done all I can do to educate you. The rest is up to you. I can't teach a fool who is unwilling to learn. Have a good life.
intrepidorator 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@intrepidorator I will, now go back to school & learn how to read.
yellowkrux 7 months ago
@shinjiikari911 I am neither side. I am true neutral. Both sides have good points. I support gay marriage. I think it is okay for those that are in love to marry. But I am not a fan of other things in the left and I am a supporter of state's rights like the right wants, and having the ability to make a life for yourself. Not like the left who wants everyone dependent on the government to live. If capitalist is what you want to call me fine. That just means I am for earning money for myself. Thx.
shinjiikari911 7 months ago
@shinjiikari911 Middle ground is for unimportant issues. Let me use an analogy to explain. A man enters town and states that he wants to kill every person in town. The Sherriff tells the man, No you can not kill 1 person much less everyone. An arbitrator comes in and settles the debate, the man will be allowed to kill half of the population. After all this is meeting in the middle. This is an extreme analogy but you can understand how it applies to very important issues.
intrepidorator 7 months ago
@yellowkrux Umm no, a recent CBS poll shows thar 42% support gay marriage. So you can believe your poll and I can beleive mine. Your insistence on differentiating Obamacare and universal healthcare shows your inability to deal with real world problems. An imaginary universal healthcare sounds great in theory, but then reality pokes its ugly head in. Obamacare shows the problems with UHC. Your use of the typical terms (non sequiter and ad hominem is platitudinal. I win every debate, like I am now
intrepidorator 7 months ago
@yellowkrux And to address your inability to understand the current definitions of "progressive" and "liberal".
In modern times these words are interchangable. Liberals do not support liberty, This role now belongs to libertarians. Progressives aren't really for progress, unless you define progress to mean progressing towards their goals. And if you want to use that definition then any ideology could be called progressive. i hope I have explained it clearly enough for you to understand.
intrepidorator 7 months ago
Homosexuals getting married is a disgrace to America.
ismaelillo3 7 months ago
@ismaelillo3 Yeah, FUCk personal liberty & equal rights, that shits for fags & liberals.
yellowkrux 7 months ago
yeah im pretty sick of being called homophobic just because i disagree with gay marriage
silenthill123321 7 months ago
@silenthill123321 So you're sick of being called homophobic for being homophobic?
yellowkrux 7 months ago
@yellowkrux no for disagreeing duh don't get my words twisted
silenthill123321 7 months ago
@silenthill123321 I'm not twisting your words. Can you tell me why you disagree without showing yourself to be a bigot &/or idiot?
yellowkrux 7 months ago
@yellowkrux i disagree because marriage can only lead to kids and gay marriages don't have kids cause its not normal and it leads you nowhere i rest my case.
silenthill123321 7 months ago
@silenthill123321 That would be a no. Marriage can lead to lifelong relationships, hardship ,divorce, suicidal depression, soul crushing monotony & a tax break & gay marriage can lead to kids (adoption & in vitro). SO next time some one asks if you can give an argument without proving yourself to be either idiotic or bigoted, just say "No I can't, I'm just a bigoted homophobic idiot" It will keep you from looking as stupid.
yellowkrux 7 months ago
@yellowkrux ooh big bad liberal got his gay marriage argument in a knot, explain why im homophobic? when for one i dont have a phobia about gays give me a break a phobia is having a fear of something and i clearly am not fearful of gays i just don't think gay or lesbian marriages don't count or work, 2 guys can't make a baby 2 girls can't make a baby what dont you get? no one cares about adoption its the fact that opposites attract and any magnet will vouch for me
silenthill123321 7 months ago
yellowkrux 7 months ago
@yellowkrux don't talk like you know everything then if your not a shrink. where at any point in this argument do i show hatred? just because i said i disagree? they don't count and or work toward anything tangible like idk kids? lol so now you say i hate orphans yet you can't dispute that im not homophobic and gays and lesbians aren't natural
silenthill123321 7 months ago
Please make more videos, dude, you are the man, I deal with these libs all the time, they are Freakin ridiculous and irrational and usually incoherent.
weseyedwalk 7 months ago
The overused term of "homophobic" gets really annoying. Disagreeing with gays does not make a person afraid of them.
KeybladeMaster33 7 months ago 9
@KeybladeMaster33 Serious, it's almost like if you tell them your not gay, by default your a homophobe!! WTF????!! I'ma start calling them heterophobes out of the blue.
weseyedwalk 7 months ago
@KeybladeMaster33 It's a made up psycho babble term used to shut people up who oppose thier views if ever called one I would just shrug it off just like they try to say that a person with "homophobic" views is a closet fag it show where the people who come with stuff head's are at
ladiesman27813 7 months ago
@KeybladeMaster33 It's a made up psycho babble term used to shut people up who oppose thier views if ever called one I would just shrug it off just like they try to say that a person with "homophobic" views is a closet fag it show where the people who come with this stuff head's are at
ladiesman27813 7 months ago
@KeybladeMaster33 Homocoitus Odium is the actual term.
ThatHaloGuy117 7 months ago
@KeybladeMaster33
We're all human beings. Why are people against gays? Its their choice...they know that you says the Bible says a certain thing. Its up to them.
ultimatecritic100 7 months ago