I bash sexism, racism and homophobia. I have every right in the world to bash and belittle backward beliefs.
And where has anyone demonstrated homophobia? Where has anyone showcased backward beliefs?
Traditional is different from backwards. One is against progression, the other (the former) may be for progression. Remember, I said I was for family values. In my view, that's progression compared to the mainstream culture of today, as fed by television nowadays.
Also, I can't help but to think you're insinuating that either I or OP has done any of which you're accusing. In such a case, for my case you'd be wrong. For OP, neither you nor I know since neither of us have any of the original comments or facts, so it's bad to jump to conclusions like you're doing, if you're talking about OP.
Again, opposing same-sex marriage denies human beings the same rights as everyone else. "Traditional" marriage doesn't exist anymore and hasn't existed in quite some time so I don't see why it can not be made more inclusive. Would Christ want people to deny same-sex marriage? Is that truly treating others as you would have them treat you? God forbid we have everybody receiving the same benefits, the same right to adopt, etc...
i suppose you hold the very backward belief in denying people the right to marry their sisters, marry 10 different people, marry a 14 year old, etc.
what a backward person, and un-christian person you are.
I'm not against people marrying ten others, but scientifically, incest is harmful and generally involves abuse, similarly with a 14 year old, who scientifically, is not mature enough to make life-affecting decisions, and is also prone to abusive relationships and manipulation.
and gay sex, is often harmful, gay people live significantly shorter than straight people.
and would you be so kind as to tell me the exact age, of when every person is scientificly proven to be "mature enough to make life affecting decisions"
as fro your other points its a bunch of what ifs and can be applied to any relationship, should we use that for grounds to deny "civil rights" to people.
unless of course you consider being in bed with democrats and the obama administration as being fair, and non-biased, down the middle reporting.
Let's clarify something here.
The "liberal bias" is republicans saying that liberal media is quick to defend liberals and quick to attack republicans.
The "republican bias" is Republican media like Fox BLATANTLY and SPECIFICALLY editting the words that come out of the president's mouth. Should we talk about the "you didn't build it" fiasco over at Fox? They LITERALLY editted what he said.
So on one hand we have the right 'complaining' that media is attacking them, and on the other we have obviously blind liberals defending slights that Republicans imagine the blind liberals have said.
Are we done playing the blame game now?
Also, are you for Romney? You do know he is a mormon, right. It's a religion that seeks to make 10-person marrying legally representable.
no im not for romney, and i think morminism is one of the most demented religions out there. luckily most mormom dont have an clue what their religion teaches, and also dont practice it.
they LITERALLY quoted exactly what he said, and no matter what "context" you claim it need to be in, it is worse when you actually play the whole thing
as for taking things out of context, here are just 5 things that your beloved impartial media have taken out of context for just Romney, let alone everything else.
DNC Executive Director Patrick Gaspard on Wednesday discussed with MSNBC Chuck Todd the president’s now-infamous “You didnt build that” speech, the Romney Campaign reaction to it, and Team Obama’s insistence that, like, the president never said that.
Gaspard and Team Obama believe the Romney campaign has been less-than-honest in presenting the president’s speech and have repeatedly accused conservatives of “twisting” what Obama said that night in Roanoke, Virginia.
“Have you ever taken Romney’s words out of context?” Todd asked.
“No, Chuck,” Gaspard responded. “We take Governor Romney at his word and we try to represent those views when we lay out the differences that exist between the President and that candidate.”
Oh, really? You know what, Mr. Gaspard? You’ve just given us a great idea for another “top whatever” list.
Without any further introduction, here are the top 5 moments where the DNC and the liberal media has taken former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney out of context:
ANDREA MITCHELL’S WAWA EDIT:
Commenting on the difference between private and public sector efficiency, Mitt Romney during a campaign stop in Pennsylvania used Wawa convenience store touchscreen computers as an example.
He noted that you can go into any Wawa, click on a screen, get what you want when you want, and be out the door. Now compare that to the public sector where it can sometimes take months to get anything done.
Okay, so how was this misrepresented?
Andrea Mitchell and her staff at MSNBC edited out Romney’s private vs. public sector comparison and focused only on the moments where he talked about Wawa computers. When they were done “touching up” Romney’s speech, it was less about efficiency and more about “Gee whiz! Look at that! A computer screen!”
Of course, after they got caught, MSNBC didn’t offer an apology.
I LIKE BEING ABLE TO FIRE PEOPLE
The DNC and the media went red in the face over these seven words.
“See? He is a corporate raider! He likes firing people!”
Of course, contrary to the media narrative, there was much more substance to what Romney actually said:
“I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means that if you don’t like what they do, you could fire them,” Romney said.
“I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone isn’t giving the good service, I want to say, I’m going to go get someone else to provide this service to [emphasis added],” he added.
Yeah, he wasn’t talking about firing employees. Nice try, though.
ROMNEY ‘AGREES’ THAT WE DEPEND ON GOV’T
After the Romney campaign jumped all over the “You Didn’t Build That” speech, Team Obama tried to fight back with an ad accusing Romney of twisting the president’s words. The video even argues that Romney agrees with President Obama’s claim that individual success is totally dependent on government:
However, contrary to what the ad would have you believe, this is what Romney actually said [emphasis added]:
And, of course, he [Obama] describes people who we care very deeply about, who make a difference in our lives: our schoolteachers, firefighters, people who build roads. We need those things. We value schoolteachers, firefighters, people who build roads. You really couldn’t have a business if you didn’t have those things.
But, you know, we pay for those things. Alright? The taxpayers pay for government. It’s not like government just provides those to all of us and we say, “Oh, thank you government for doing those things.” No, in fact, we pay for them and we benefit from them and we appreciate the work that they do and the sacrifices that are done by people who work in government.But they did not build this business.
That’s a little different from simply agreeing with the idea that we wouldn’t have anything without government, wouldn’t you agree?
ROMNEY TOTALLY ONCE SAID ‘YOU DIDN’T BUILD THAT’
After it became apparent President Obama’s “You Didn’t Build That” remark wasn’t going over very well, the media desperately searched for something to turn attention back on Romney.
Enter MSNBC:
“Now, before you start ripping the comparison apart, give MSNBC credit. This is a creative parallel. However, it’s also a fatally flawed one,”
“Romney very clearly gives the Olympians credit for their own attributes in this clip — something Obama actively disparages in the one floating around of him,” Holt adds.
He continues:
Moreover, even if you assume that both Obama and Romney have said peoples’ individual attributes take a back seat to the contributions of others and ignore what the quotes involved actually say about that, compare what the messages being sold here are. According to Obama, people achieve great things because of the government. According to Romney, people achieve great things because of their communities and families. It’s not a stretch to figure out which of those two messages is more likely to appeal to the majority of voters.
Needless to say, MSNBC’s Olympic discovery wasn’t very successful. The fact that Todd and Gaspard are still talking about “You Didn’t Build That” proves this.
I’M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE VERY POOR
Romney said this during an interview on CNN:
I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich. They’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90 to 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.
But never let what was actually said get in the way of a good partisan video:
So, is this what Gaspard mean when he said “We take Governor Romney at his word”?
and not that im saying FOX isnt biased, they are its just that they are the only news organization that actually have people that are biased from all political view points.
also you need to seperate their commentators from their news anchors, their commentators (Bill oreilly, sean hannity) obvious are biased in what ever way because its not their job to be non biased, its their job to give their opinion on the news, their reporters are actually quite good. somehow it seems you cant grasp that distinction.
and gay sex, is often harmful, gay people live significantly shorter than straight people.
and would you be so kind as to tell me the exact age, of when every person is scientificly proven to be "mature enough to make life affecting decisions"
as fro your other points its a bunch of what ifs and can be applied to any relationship, should we use that for grounds to deny "civil rights" to people.
It's already national established at 18, with some states allowing 16. This is the age at which it is scientifically believed that a person can make well informed decisions or at least are capable of fully understanding their decisions.
In fact, on teh federal level the age of 14 is probably not out of the question for marriage depending on circumstances, I'll bet.
A bunch of what if's? Clearly I'm arguing with a master debator. On the federal level it is likely possible that both of those marriages can take place, given the circumstances. And first cousins can marry in many states. In fact, Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin in Mississippi.
Thank you for your post, but I hadn't heard of half of that list, and the other two aren't even talked about by liberals in any shape or form. The firing people and the poor? Literally nobody cares that he said that. Again, the other three I've never even heard of. I guess Fox's greatest strength is getting everyone to hear about their crazy edits.
I bash sexism, racism and homophobia. I have every right in the world to bash and belittle backward beliefs.
And where has anyone demonstrated homophobia? Where has anyone showcased backward beliefs?
Traditional is different from backwards. One is against progression, the other (the former) may be for progression. Remember, I said I was for family values. In my view, that's progression compared to the mainstream culture of today, as fed by television nowadays.
Also, I can't help but to think you're insinuating that either I or OP has done any of which you're accusing. In such a case, for my case you'd be wrong. For OP, neither you nor I know since neither of us have any of the original comments or facts, so it's bad to jump to conclusions like you're doing, if you're talking about OP.
Again, opposing same-sex marriage denies human beings the same rights as everyone else. "Traditional" marriage doesn't exist anymore and hasn't existed in quite some time so I don't see why it can not be made more inclusive. Would Christ want people to deny same-sex marriage? Is that truly treating others as you would have them treat you? God forbid we have everybody receiving the same benefits, the same right to adopt, etc...
i suppose you hold the very backward belief in denying people the right to marry their sisters, marry 10 different people, marry a 14 year old, etc.
what a backward person, and un-christian person you are.
I'm not against people marrying ten others, but scientifically, incest is harmful and generally involves abuse, similarly with a 14 year old, who scientifically, is not mature enough to make life-affecting decisions, and is also prone to abusive relationships and manipulation.
If you want to play that card, gay sex is ten times more dangerous and harmful than heterosexual. They are much much more likely to get infested with AIDS (as well as other STDs) than heterosexual people, for example. I also heard they tend to live shorter
I'm not against people marrying ten others, but scientifically, incest is harmful and generally involves abuse, similarly with a 14 year old, who scientifically, is not mature enough to make life-affecting decisions, and is also prone to abusive relationships and manipulation.
If you want to play that card, gay sex is ten times more dangerous and harmful than heterosexual. They are much much more likely to get infested with AIDS (as well as other STDs) than heterosexual people
I think you make a good point, but let me show you where you're slightly off the argument.
Direct incest and marriage to early teens is very likely to be the product of abusive, or coercive relationships.
Obviously a kid can't match wits with an adult. That is the problem.
The issue I bring up is an issue of abuse between an abuser and a victim. You cite that gay people are more likely to get AIDs. This is not a counterargument. Gays are well aware of getting diseases and enter into relationships and sex freely. In fact, what is worse is a lot of single gay men wandering around from guy to guy, than a lot of married gay men. So I think your argument doesn't hold up.
I'm not against people marrying ten others, but scientifically, incest is harmful and generally involves abuse, similarly with a 14 year old, who scientifically, is not mature enough to make life-affecting decisions, and is also prone to abusive relationships and manipulation.
If you want to play that card, gay sex is ten times more dangerous and harmful than heterosexual. They are much much more likely to get infested with AIDS (as well as other STDs) than heterosexual people
I think you make a good point, but let me show you where you're slightly off the argument.
Direct incest and marriage to early teens is very likely to be the product of abusive, or coercive relationships.
Obviously a kid can't match wits with an adult. That is the problem.
The issue I bring up is an issue of abuse between an abuser and a victim. You cite that gay people are more likely to get AIDs. This is not a counterargument. Gays are well aware of getting diseases and enter into relationships and sex freely. In fact, what is worse is a lot of single gay men wandering around from guy to guy, than a lot of married gay men. So I think your argument doesn't hold up.
Look my point was, heterosexual relationship between adults is the best, safest and most natural way to go. Incest and homosexual sex have more faults and concerns each. If you want to defend one, defend the other too
I'm not against people marrying ten others, but scientifically, incest is harmful and generally involves abuse, similarly with a 14 year old, who scientifically, is not mature enough to make life-affecting decisions, and is also prone to abusive relationships and manipulation.
If you want to play that card, gay sex is ten times more dangerous and harmful than heterosexual. They are much much more likely to get infested with AIDS (as well as other STDs) than heterosexual people
I think you make a good point, but let me show you where you're slightly off the argument.
Direct incest and marriage to early teens is very likely to be the product of abusive, or coercive relationships.
Obviously a kid can't match wits with an adult. That is the problem.
The issue I bring up is an issue of abuse between an abuser and a victim. You cite that gay people are more likely to get AIDs. This is not a counterargument. Gays are well aware of getting diseases and enter into relationships and sex freely. In fact, what is worse is a lot of single gay men wandering around from guy to guy, than a lot of married gay men. So I think your argument doesn't hold up.
Look my point was, heterosexual relationship between adults is the best, safest and most natural way to go. Incest and homosexual sex have more faults and concerns each. If you want to defend one, defend the other too
But I'm contesting that argument. One involves possible abuse while the other is adults making decisions. I think you were trying to point out hypocracy where none exists, at least not in my thoughts. Furthermore, many states allow first cousins to marry, and many places allow 14 year olds to marry. So one group is already protected with rights, and the other is still not.
You do realize it's because this isn't news, right? He can't actually deny anyone a permit and would be sued. This is playing to his base.
Ok, I guess. It's not because someone is sued that it doesn't make the news. If something is scandalous, and trust me the other way around would have been more than scandalous, I believe it would have been viral.
Ok, let me rephrase this for you.
A governer denounced Chic-Fil-A's president's words, citing that he won't get a permit in some specific part of his jurisdiction. Governor's words are denounced by the ACLU. Liberals agree that denying permits would be unlawful, even Jon Stewart of the Daily Show (our God). Where exactly is your problem?
By "other way around" you're referring to Oreo, correct? How is it that one company is defended by Republicans in a statement, and Oreo is denounced, yet both time liberals are in the wrong. Tell me that. We really can never be right. You have no idea how frustrating it is that we're always in the wrong according to your party.
@bold. Lol, that's exactly how I feel. I feel like the Christian position is always in the wrong.
I'm not familiar with the Oreo case, I'm not sure what happened there all I know about it is that they promote gay rights. Other than that I have no idea so I haven't used any other info in my PoV.
@Where my problem is, it lies in the fact that in a hypothetical scenario, at step 1 (Governor's words are denounced by the ACLU), I would expect the news to be all over it had the Governor been Christian opposing a pro-gay agenda, that's really all I'm saying and I'm basing it off the sensationalism of the media when it comes to resistance to the pro-gay agenda.
It's all I'm saying, and correct me if I'm wrong but this far I have little reason to think so.
