BF2S Forums Slave Bitches

Drakef wrote:

Pigskinn wrote:

Gay marriage is an oxymoron, the definition of marriage is that it’s between a man women... look it up. Sorry, they don't have the hardware nor do they have the software to be part of the clan.

-Peace Out

Not in Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Massachusetts, and South Africa. Oh, and 36% of Americans, among the millions worldwide in support of it.

But otherwise, this topic has turned into a debate wholly without anything to debate about, except to attack each other's credibility by characterizing entire political factions as immoral. Fantastic. Well, I'd love to continue, but since I'm a hippie left-wing pinko commie, I don't work and I'm having some terrorists over for dinner. They're gay, by the way, so I'm trying to hide this from my neighbour, a redneck farmer with a whole rack of guns, who hates anyone except white people.

I support it for 1 reason, a gay marriage does not affect my persuit of life liberty or happiness at all. But I will not support special rights legislation for them either.

ATG wrote:

If we give them equal rights can we also pass a law that says men have to dress like men and no butch cuts on He/she's?
That's the only thing about gender challenged people.

...I swear, I thought he was a chick....... I had no idea..... I mean, did you see that ass??!?!

Pigskinn wrote:

Bubbalo ~

So what you're saying; if i hear you correctly. You're equating a moral equivalence  with all conservatives. 
LOL
Thats like saying because you recycle you're an EchoWacko. 

-Peace Out

No, I'm saying that your accusations that liberals wear bomb vests is ludicrous.  Then again, so are all your posts................................

Turquoise wrote:

and if conservatives remembered that paranoia and nation-building only give the government an opportunity to steal our freedoms and waste our money on nations that don't deserve it.

If I had to guess, I'd say that your conservatives, and ours, do realise that.  In fact, I'd say they're relying on it.

Bubbalo wrote:

Actually, tolerance must be enforced.

This strikes me as a little bit odd...

Tolerance must be encouraged, except in situations where it works against the common good.  That's my opinion, anyway.

Bubbalo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Basically, some liberals forget that even tolerance must be limited in order to have a functioning and mostly free society.  In other words, we can't tolerate extremists.

Actually, tolerance must be enforced.  Suicide bombing shows a lack of tolerance.

If you're saying what I think you are, then yes, we need to enforce tolerance by preventing suicide bombings.  So yes, the terrorists are definitely very intolerant.

Turquoise wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Basically, some liberals forget that even tolerance must be limited in order to have a functioning and mostly free society.  In other words, we can't tolerate extremists.

Actually, tolerance must be enforced.  Suicide bombing shows a lack of tolerance.

If you're saying what I think you are, then yes, we need to enforce tolerance by preventing suicide bombings.  So yes, the terrorists are definitely very intolerant.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Pigskinn wrote:

Bubbalo ~

So what you're saying; if i hear you correctly. You're equating a moral equivalence  with all conservatives. 
LOL
Thats like saying because you recycle you're an EchoWacko. 

-Peace Out

No, I'm saying that your accusations that liberals wear bomb vests is ludicrous.  Then again, so are all your posts................................

LOL, but there is no denying the fact that the people wearing the bomb vests favor liberals. So, what does that say about liberals?

That they piss people in bomb vests off less?

UON wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

No, I'm saying that your accusations that liberals wear bomb vests is ludicrous.  Then again, so are all your posts................................

LOL, but there is no denying the fact that the people wearing the bomb vests favor liberals. So, what does that say about liberals?

That they piss people in bomb vests off less?

Yup, exactly, through appeasement, negotiating, cowering and down and out right running away.

UON wrote:

lowing wrote:

UON wrote:

That they piss people in bomb vests off less?

Yup, exactly, through appeasement, negotiating, cowering and down and out right running away.

So pissing less people off is a bad thing, in lowing-land?

No burying your head in the sand and hoping you don't piss someone off so they don't hurt you is.

lowing wrote:

UON wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yup, exactly, through appeasement, negotiating, cowering and down and out right running away.

So pissing less people off is a bad thing, in lowing-land?

No burying your head in the sand and hoping you don't piss someone off so they don't hurt you is.

In a way, I agree.  Nonetheless, you may claim that terrorists prefer less aggressive liberals in power, but the terrorists themselves are extremely conservative.

Radical Islamism should be a reminder to everyone that religion can be twisted to promote ultraconservative agendas, and when that happens, it usually ends up being very violent (like how radical Christians have blown up abortion clinics).

So, ultimately, moderation is the key.  We shouldn't be so liberal as to allow extremists to continue spreading chaos unabated, but at the same time, we shouldn't be so conservative and militant to jump at every opportunity to intervene.

Secular government and free trade allow us to be a mostly free nation, but there would appear to be people even in our own society that seem to desire the union of religion and government.  Ironically, this Religious Right group is among the strongest backers of the neocon agenda of secularizing Middle Eastern governments.  You would think conservative Christians might turn inward to realize that Christianity has the potential to be just as corrupting of government as Islam has been for the Middle East, but I guess that's a lesson yet to be learned by America.

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-02-05 16:35:01)

That isn't the topic of debate, but then you can't actually be expected to try and comprehend what you read can you