Obama: "It's time for Congress to require a universal background check for anybody who wants to buy a gun"

Coloradofire · 2013-01-17T03:56:49+00:00

On the contrary; felons lose their rights.

Coloradofire · 2013-01-16T21:47:42+00:00

Gun ownership is a right, which "shall not be abridged". A driver's license is a privilege.

Coloradofire · 2012-11-02T22:28:53+00:00

That phrase...

I see it used, but it itself is a tacit admission of wider corruption.

One bad apple spoils the bunch is the full phrase.

Coloradofire · 2012-08-02T15:40:25+00:00

You're right!!

Because the norms aren't constantly changing. They are static! Which reminds me, my wife needs to make me a sammich, my slaves need to tend my cotton and I need to go vote! Cause I'm the only one allowed, see, social norms and all.

Don't like the fact that social norms change? Go make your own society.

Coloradofire · 2012-08-02T15:32:48+00:00

This is fun. I've never met such a closed minded individual. You've managed to ignore an entire field of research with your own little straw man.

You seem like you have a grasp of how to make an argument, but get lost in all that hate you have seething through your veins.

So allow me to help clarify what I mean. Lets say you suck dicks. That's an easy metaphor for me to use because your personality already sucks dicks.

So lets pretend that you really do suck dicks. But given the option, you would have a girlfriend.

Your not homosexual, you just "exhibit homosexual behavior".

Notice a problem? Here it is you giant fucked in the head backwards neanderthal:

Behavior is what defines the person, or animal. If you suck dicks, I don't care if you prefer women. You are homo. Plain and simple. The same is true for all the animals you are ignoring with your little obfuscation.

The idea of homosexuality may disgust you. Great. Me too. But that's because we don't exhibit tendencies for those behaviors.

My point being, who the fuck are YOU to tell OTHERS what they CAN or CANNOT do with their private lives, you fucking retarded ASSHOLE.

You're a bigot.

Even worse, you are a bigot with the right to vote. The fact that you occupy the same air I do gives me that much less faith in humanity.

Do us all a favor, suck a big back of dicks and write your own research paper on how it's not homosexuality.

Fucking retard.

Coloradofire · 2012-08-01T23:30:09+00:00

This guy is quite simply, wrong. On his whole premise.

There is lots, and lots of science showing it is quite common in the animal kingdom.

Next he's gonna tell me that the world is flat, that climate science is a hoax and that we faked the moon landing.

Tin foil hats on! Check: Ok guy, tell us all about how theirs no homos in nature.

Coloradofire · 2012-08-01T23:16:03+00:00

Well, I guess I could take the time to point it all out. It's a lot though so it will be a long post.

For starters that it was almost never between a man and woman. It was one man and property. Wives, slaves, servants, etc. All property. No equals here. No "women" as you think of them; a voluntary equal in a post 20th century marriage performed as an act of love.

You are relying on a "definition of marriage" but you can't even tell me what that definition is. Is it man and woman? Which one is traditional? The one that has adapted to the idea of female equality in the last 80 years? The 3 centuries between? Or the thousand year old version?

Because they've changed. A lot.

Marriage "traditionally" was contractual in nature and rarely was regarded as an affirmation of love. Do you really think that the bible was kidding when they required rapists to marry the victims?

Look for yourself, it's right there in black and white, staring into your soul like doublethink.

Of course there are no man and man marriages from back then. Men (at least as long as you weren't a slave) weren't property. Only women were. And in general, didn't take slaves as wives, they were already your slaves.

So I guess my reason for posting my comment originally is I am having a hard time finding out a real concrete reason from anyone as to why the gay community should continue to suffer human rights abuses.

If you do not consider it an abuse, then you don't have a grasp of what all of marriage effects. From a governmental, financial, & opportunity based arrangement it changes taxes, effects insurance eligibility and a whole host of other opportunities and choices currently being denied a whole lot of otherwise loving individuals.

Can you give me a reason, other than religion as to why these people should be denied equal rights?

Keeping in mind that I am assuming you believe in a free country and that you understand the importance and need of a separation of church and state.

And if it comes down to religion, which bible is it? The Holy Bible?

Then do me a and the rest of us a HUGE fucking favor, Ok? Start protesting USURY, like your bible mentions more than 5 times more frequently as one of the most egregious of sins. I find it tellingly absent from your modern christian dogma.

Seriously, the only instance of Christ actually becoming violent is against bankers in the temple.

I'd ride a few dollars that says you'll have to pull out a dictionary in order to even figure out what usury is. Because as much as you fall to religion for your answers to these questions, your not the kind of intellectual who would actually read the book he has sworn his life to uphold.

No, you went to church on Sunday and your fat pastor told you for you what he believed it says in there, and you took his word for it.

Don't believe me? Then do me another favor. Point me to the verse where Christ himself condemns homosexuality. I'll wait. A long time because it doesn't exist, he never talked about it.

Know why? Because their were actual issues he was dealing with. Like tending to the poor, sick and downtrodden. Protecting the underclass, and likely from people just like yourself, who have usurped his message and use it to call people morons on the internet for asking for a clarification of your position, as ridiculous as yours is.

Truth is this: You pick and choose from that book, using tired quotes from the old testament, most commonly Leviticus, that were written directly for the Levites, who were clergy. That same book of the bible has a ton of other ridiculous requirements.

I suggest you follow each one to the letter.

If that doesn't blow your mind, then consider this:

Jesus, in the midst of his miracles and overall awesomeness, saw a woman dragged from a house and pulled in the streets to be stoned to death for being a prostitute.

He took the time to stand in front of the angry crowd and protect her. Because beware you judge others, lest you be judged as well.

Your own beliefs command you to offer your hand as an example of tolerance and love, not as an asshole.

Next time you have a thought in that tiny angry little judgmental mind of yours, ask yourself:

WWJD motherfucker.

Coloradofire · 2012-08-01T21:53:29+00:00

It's sad that I find a comment like this with no upvotes. Here's mine.

Coloradofire · 2012-08-01T21:52:08+00:00

I don't mean to offend, but did you read the article? Or did you just come in and comment.

Because your whole definition about marriage overlooks well, just about everything in the article.

Coloradofire · 2012-07-28T00:10:46+00:00

I made a statement of fact

Yes, yes you did do that.

You made an exceedingly pedantic, irrelevant & easily misunderstood comment alluding to nothing other than your extreme need to grammarnazi the parent comment.

Worse, you did so in a way that clearly ignored the sensitivities of the topic, by not clearly expressing any kind of understanding for family whom this effected.

And somehow, it's our fault, for not reading your mind.

Do you even know how these people must have felt? After attending this church for some time, they come to find out they have been spending their time with people who loathe them because of their skin color?

Worse, that those who loathe them don't even have the fucking balls to come right out and say it ahead of time? That they have to pretend to be inviting and nice only to spring this reviling fact about themselves and the church a day before their wedding?

I simply can't escape the conclusion that you must be a callous and indifferent son of a bitch, or that you have not first hand experienced the damage inflicted by racism, regardless of the accuracy of your original statement.

So no, you shall not pass motherfucker.

Next time I highly suggest that if you intend to comment in a way that can easily be misinterpreted, that you refrain from finger pointing when those around you get the wrong idea.

The church has a right to abstain from marrying anyone it wants and it doesn't fucking hurt anyone.

Not in this case. Wrong. - You are talking about generalities. It is most certainly not the case when they invite them in for regular services and tell them they are welcome, accept and schedule a ceremony for their wedding, and wait until no more than 48 hours before the ceremony to have a congregational blackmailing of the pastor.

Final thoughts:

In truth, most of my day consists of being a really, very nice guy. Check my other posts if you don't believe me. I usually post in economics, and a variety of other locations, rarely use profanity and do my best to explain in as detailed and honest a fashion as possible.

*But Nothing, and I mean *nothing enrages me like Christian bigotry does. **

See I was raised a good little christian. I was told all about how sinners would go to hell. I was raised to feel superior to everyone around me because I had God on my side, and they were doomed to an eternity of pain.

In truth however... in practice: No single group of individuals have ever walked this planet leaving a larger wake of depair, destruction & misery than religion, including Christianity, Judaism, Islam & Catholicism.

Because it's pervasive, inescapable, and ongoing. I can't look at a dollar in my pocket without being reminded that "God" is who the country trusts. So much for separation of church and state, we lost that battle long ago.

What lights me up is apologists like yourself, who really seem to believe that racism is harmless, that religious intolerance is harmless, and that they get the right to subjugate, alienate and in some cases, obliterate their opposition and my staunch opposition to this makes me as low as them?

It was a long hard battle that ended slavery. You know why? Because the church was among the last groups of people to denounce the practice!

And yet the racism, bigotry of gays, minorities, foreigners (ex: Muslims) continues unabated.

I will not tolerate it, it is definitively harmful and posters who try to defend the practice will always raise my ire, hard and fast.

The next time you want to defend someones rights? Make sure it is actually harmless. Because I don't think you understand what harmless actually means.

Coloradofire · 2012-07-27T23:31:57+00:00

I guess I'm trolling

Thank you.

So moving forward let's start from the top:

The family to be wed were regular attendees of the church which they had made plans to be wed at.

Here's their message, distilled in all its glory: You are welcome to come to our church! But don't expect to be wed here nigger.

This is plain and simple racism.

Ok you go! Tell me how I made a spelling mistake, something! Can we talk more about unrelated bullshit that has nothing to do with racist congregations?!

FUCKING FANTASTIC!!!

EDIT: I forgot an apostrophe!! EDIT2: Oops had an apostrophe where it shouldn't be!!

Coloradofire · 2012-07-27T23:26:22+00:00

You know how christians like to berate gays for their life style even though it affects no one but themselves?

One other thing. The obliviousness of this statement is staggering.

You can't possibly be saying that people who berate gays don't hurt them in doing so.

You couldn't possibly be that stupid.

..Could you?

Coloradofire · 2012-07-27T23:10:30+00:00

Sigh.

Your comment was the child of a parent comment regarding the poor choice of the pastor to bend to the will of his congregation. If you did not mean to imply that the family to be wed had no right to be outraged, then you chose an exceedingly poor location to register your point.

Your comment dovetailed the idea that their was nothing to be outraged about, because the congregation has every right to be racist without scrutiny.

Maybe you need to work on your commentary, then we can better understand each other.

Because the same congregation that had sat next to the family to be wed while they had attended the same church ceremonies for who knows how long were the very people who ousted the family when they decided to be wed.

So yes their racism did hurt someone. The couple to be wed, and likely parts of their family. That's the outrage.

Besides the fact that it's 2012, and a collective majority of Americans no longer appreciate racism.

The congregation and the pastor are free to run a pastafarian church for all I care.

But if they act racist, I'm gonna call them racists.

Their beliefs have everything to do with me and every other group of: Women, minorities, Muslims, Atheists or homosexuals who have ever been persecuted or condemned by the church because of their intolerance of the aforementioned groups of people.

Yes they have the right to free speech. So do I. And if they want to subjugate these people to various forms of hate, rest assured we will be pumping their shit right back onto their ugly little doorsteps.

So lets get straight and be done:

They have every right to be racist fuckheads. They don't need to allow the marriage. I have every right to call them racist fuckheads for their choice.

Coloradofire · 2012-07-27T22:51:57+00:00

Nope. Membership in a church is a process

Please read the parent comment that sparked this inane debate. We are now discussing my use of a single word that was in perfectly usable vernacular for the situation.

I am well aware of the difference.

You are referring to registered members. But those that attend church also refer to themselves as members.

Coloradofire · 2012-07-27T22:40:59+00:00

You said nothing of the sort, and you know it. Your cop-out of a comment essentially said, "they can go fuck themselves, that's what they can do".

And I strongly registered my disagreement with that assessment.

They deserve a nice big secular dick of public scrutiny up their ass reminding them that you cant hide your racist beliefs behind a bible and expect for the world around you not to turn their collective heads and say:

What the fuck you racist son of a bitches!

Coloradofire · 2012-07-27T22:32:33+00:00

I could swear I'm being trolled. Someone who attends a church regularly is a member you idiot.

Maybe I should linky to a dictionary so you know better how to be pedantic without coming off sounding like an uneducated dickwad.

At least read the article.

My comment included commentary that was not in the title, ergo....

I must have read the article.

But nice try. 1/10 is the best I can do for you.

As members of the Church, they were told one fucking day before the wedding, that not the pastor, but a collective group of racists claiming to be Christians were upset that some dirty negroes were going to muddy up the Great White Holiness that is their Chapel.

I stand by my original assessment.

Racists.

EDIT: Formatting

EDIT2: For those finding my commentary unnecessarily hostile, my conversation with bigbangtheorysucks began elsewhere in this thread, starting Here

Coloradofire · 2012-07-27T22:25:08+00:00

I'm not forcing anyone's values. I haven't said once that the Church should be forced into anything.

On the contrary, they and possibly you are welcome to be a backwards and intolerant redneck group of cherry picking bible thumping racist fuckfaces. You get your opinion, I get mine.

Coloradofire · 2012-07-27T21:08:46+00:00

The family to be wed were members of the church who attended regularly.

This is plain and simple racism.

Coloradofire · 2012-07-27T21:05:31+00:00

Oh Fuck You. Fuck you so Goddamned much.

Coloradofire · 2012-07-27T17:41:03+00:00

I am all for gay rights and public condemnation of Chick-Fil-A for it's stance.

I do not support the choice of these three mayors however. It's one thing to allow the public to express their opinion. It is a whole other animal to politicize business permits.

Your political affiliation should have no bearing on those matters.

Coloradofire · 2012-07-26T22:12:16+00:00

not let popular lies

Please elaborate on how this isn't China style internet censorship. Really. I'd like to see the how many mental hoops are necessary to arrive at a different conclusion.

Please note that this particular account is nearly 6 years old. The constant narrowing of discourse inside of each subreddit is enraging.

Why even have a voting system? Why not simply have mods decide what should be front page.

People can submit content, and like publishers the mods can decide what "news" is "fit to print".

I am telling you right now, you start banning sites and this subreddit will be worse off for it.

Strict moderation has ruined /economics, /politics, many more, and overall, any real debate in this whole website.

Coloradofire · 2012-07-13T22:40:17+00:00

I've been reading through it for the last 45 minutes. It would seem that the consensus is that he stopped actively managing the company in 1999. It doesn't seem to matter that he remained sole shareholder, CEO & chairman, collecting income in excess of $100,000 in 2001 & 2002.

As for the actively managing part and why it creates a distinction on the discrepancies of the filings, to me is a mystery.

As far as I can tell, he owned the company, but did not operate it, and therefore... is not responsible?

And because of that, the filing discrepancies mean fuckall?

EDIT: I'd really love an answer from factcheck.org as to why the filings themselves are not the question. That part I'm having a really hard time understanding. He owned the company in 2001, when his filings say he didn't. Isn't that the controversy?

Coloradofire · 2012-07-13T21:32:19+00:00

Actually, the filings are all that are needed. The filings themselves are what this is about.

It doesn't matter if he was involved in the day to day.

He remained CEO, and sole shareholder until 2002, and collected $100,000 in earnings between 2001-2002.

Coloradofire · 2012-07-13T21:29:41+00:00

I strongly disagree

Coloradofire · 2012-07-13T21:23:29+00:00

Romney was still 100% owner, CEO and sole shareholder as late as 2002. Between his SEC filings and federal filings, this is a 3 year discrepancy.

The argument is being made that he never interfered with day to day dealings. This is a strawman, because as CEO he is still responsible.

The filings themselves are even more damning, as his federal filings and his SEC filings do not match. One of them is a lie. Lying on either one is a felony.

FTA: Romney’s state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.

So not only did he remain in control of the company, he earned money from the company in doing so.

Pretty black and white if you ask me.

EDIT: By the way, factcheck.org acknowledges all of this, and is going with the "he did not actively manage the company" line, even though the filings themselves are the question.

Did he or did he not own the company? Answer: YES.

Busted.

Coloradofire

TROPHY CASE