Thanks Obama

[phee]

It was funny.

It sums up both viewpoints quite well.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I still fail to see a dismissal because they are a minority.... I only see stating a fact that they are a minority.

TRy reading my respones. I've explained it already. Or you could just read the whole paragraph it's in.

Personally, I think you are failing to see it because you dont want to.

[phee]

TRy reading my respones. I've explained it already. Or you could just read the whole paragraph it's in.

Personally, I think you are failing to see it because you dont want to.

You are entitled to your opinion.

[torn asunder]

11% is not one or anyone. It's 11%. It's a group. A group of people. Anytime you dismiss a group of people, you are discriminating.

so you're saying that any time a vote is taken, we're discriminating against anyone who wasn't a part of the "winning" group? so every election we have is discriminatory? the entire nation, and everyone in it, is prejudiced, due to "majority rules"?

that's fucking stupid.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I agree, that is fuckign stupid. God thing thats not what I said at all.

[torn asunder]

I agree, that is fuckign stupid. God thing thats not what I said at all.

thing is, you did say it.

Anytime you dismiss a group of people, you are discriminating.

11% was the amount of people in the poll who disagreed with whatever was asked. if that poll had been a vote, they would have been "dismissed" as you put it, because the majority would have won. by your own logic quoted above, you're saying that the losing populace was discriminated against. (unless, of course, you're saying it's discrimination in a poll, but not in a vote!?) show me how that's not true, because i don't see it.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth?

When people say that we should lets the states decide the issue of Gay marrige... they are told, by people on the left, that doing so is allowing discrimination. Because some states MIGHT bar Gay marrige.

In the example given above... we are told that 11% of the population want more options to pay for healthcare out of pocket rather than be in the Federal system. We were told, that the provinces should be the ones deciding that, not the Fed.

How is it discrimination in one case but not the other? In both cases a small percentage of the population want something the majority does not. Both cases have people who do not want the benefit for themselves but do support the people wanting it.

If you don;t understand my position.. I'm sorry. I can only guesse that you are trying to find something to disagree with me about. I've explained it as plainly as I can.

[phee]

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth?

These are your words.... he did not put them in your mouth.

11% is not one or anyone. It's 11%. It's a group. A group of people. Anytime you dismiss a group of people, you are discriminating.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

These are your words.... he did not put them in your mouth.

I don't deny that.

I did not say this:

"so you're saying that any time a vote is taken, we're discriminating against anyone who wasn't a part of the "winning" group? so every election we have is discriminatory? the entire nation, and everyone in it, is prejudiced, due to "majority rules"?"

I did nto say anything close to that.

[phee]

I don't deny that.

I did not say this:

"so you're saying that any time a vote is taken, we're discriminating against anyone who wasn't a part of the "winning" group? so every election we have is discriminatory? the entire nation, and everyone in it, is prejudiced, due to "majority rules"?"

I did nto say anything close to that.

Well if you notice.... he did not put those words in your mouth.... he asked a question as to what you meant... hence the "?"

I am just trying to figure it out your position.... Are you saying that any minority 11% or otherwise is discriminated against just by the nature of majority vs minority?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Well if you notice.... he did not put those words in your mouth.... he asked a question as to what you meant... hence the "?"

I am just trying to figure it out your position.... Are you saying that any minority 11% or otherwise is discriminated against just by the nature of majority vs minority?

OMFUCKINGGOD.

When people say that we should lets the states decide the issue of Gay marrige... they are told, by people on the left, that doing so is allowing discrimination. Because some states MIGHT bar Gay marrige.

In the example given above... we are told that 11% of the population want more options to pay for healthcare out of pocket rather than be in the Federal system. We were told, that the provinces should be the ones deciding that, not the Fed.

How is it discrimination in one case but not the other? In both cases a small percentage of the population want something the majority does not. Both cases have people who do not want the benefit for themselves but do support the people wanting it.

[phee]

OMFUCKINGGOD.

When people say that we should lets the states decide the issue of Gay marrige... they are told, by people on the left, that doing so is allowing discrimination. Because some states MIGHT bar Gay marrige.

This is a valid point but it only goes so far...

Civil rights and healthcare are not (IM humble O) quite on the same page.... One is asking to be treated equally as a human being, the other is stating how you want to pay for healthcare.

[torn asunder]

OMFUCKINGGOD.

When people say that we should lets the states decide the issue of Gay marrige... they are told, by people on the left, that doing so is allowing discrimination. Because some states MIGHT bar Gay marrige.

In the example given above... we are told that 11% of the population want more options to pay for healthcare out of pocket rather than be in the Federal system. We were told, that the provinces should be the ones deciding that, not the Fed.

How is it discrimination in one case but not the other? In both cases a small percentage of the population want something the majority does not. Both cases have people who do not want the benefit for themselves but do support the people wanting it.

OMFUCKINGGOD.

you're trying to equate a cross-section of the general population, with a minority. in a generalized sense (which is how the world works) it's not discrimination if the cross-section encompasses all of the general population (or at least, doesn't specifically exclude certain groups). gay rights, or trans-gendered rights, or black rights, or latino rights, etc. all deal with the rights of a specific minority in relation to the general populous. a minority percentage of a cross-sectional population simply is not discriminatory. your argument is invalid.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

This is a valid point but it only goes so far...

Civil rights and healthcare are not (IM humble O) quite on the same page.... One is asking to be treated equally as a human being, the other is stating how you want to pay for healthcare.

I do beleive that people have been argueing that Healthcare is a Civil Right. Infact, trying googleing Hearlthcare and Right.

Torn...

treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit."

The world disagrees with you. You don't have to belong to a racial or sexual minoroty to be disriminated against. According to the UN.. here is a list of the major types of discrimination:

• Age discrimination
• Appearance discrimination
• Birth status discrimination
• Cultural discrimination
• Disabilities, discrimination based on
• Ethnic discrimination
• Gender discrimination
• Language discrimination
• National minority, discrimination
• Nationality discrimination
• Political discrimination
• Property, discrimination based on
• Race discrimination
• Religious discrimination
• Sexual orientation discrimination
• Social origin discrimination

[phee]

I do beleive that people have been argueing that Healthcare is a Civil Right. Infact, trying googleing Hearlthcare and Right.

This is interesting.... if healthcare is a right, do you think that there should have been a public option?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

This is interesting.... if healthcare is a right, do you think that there should have been a public option?

As long as there is no mandate to go with it but I think we already have two public options... Medicaid and Medicare.

I did not say I agree with it being a Right though.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Gaf The Horse With Tears

[Slogo]

But once again....Nobody is actually discriminating. They don't have to use separate facilities.

18% of Americans believe the Sun revolves around the Earth. Now I would dismiss them. But I wouldn't require separate facilities for them or attack them.

American pop. that believes the Sun goes round the Earth

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

But once again....Nobody is actually discriminating. They don't have to use separate facilities.

18% of Americans believe the Sun revolves around the Earth. Now I would dismiss them. But I wouldn't require separate facilities for them or attack them.

American pop. that believes the Sun goes round the Earth

The discrimination comes in when they are treated differently than any other group in the debate about what should be done. In this case... when they are told that thier grief can be handled at the state level while veryone elses can be handled at the federal level. When this same thing is said to gay when fighting for the right to marry, it's discrimination. It's still is here.

and thank you Slogo for actually seeing where I cam coming from.

[torn asunder]

I do beleive that people have been argueing that Healthcare is a Civil Right. Infact, trying googleing Hearlthcare and Right.

Torn...

treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit."

The world disagrees with you. You don't have to belong to a racial or sexual minoroty to be disriminated against. According to the UN.. here is a list of the major types of discrimination:

• Age discrimination
• Appearance discrimination
• Birth status discrimination
• Cultural discrimination
• Disabilities, discrimination based on
• Ethnic discrimination
• Gender discrimination
• Language discrimination
• National minority, discrimination
• Nationality discrimination
• Political discrimination
• Property, discrimination based on
• Race discrimination
• Religious discrimination
• Sexual orientation discrimination
• Social origin discrimination

you know, i don't really care how many definitions you throw at me to try and win your claim that, semantically, you're right. i mean, fuck, i prefer to wear t-shirts over button-down shirts. by your definition, that's discrimination based on the fact that "button-down shirts" is a group. sure, it may be correct by the strictest of definitions, but it's not a practical application of the argument.

by your argument, everyone that's ever voted in anything, and been on the losing side of said vote, has been discriminated against. that makes us an entire nation of discriminators. are you trying to say that everyone who votes and is on the winning side is prejudiced? or better yet, are you saying that discrimination based on political views is a human rights violations? are you seriously equating differences in political opinion with segregation, racism, etc.?

i mean yes, discrimination can stand for what you're describing, but so can categorizing, discerning, delineating, etc. what you're apparently saying/advocating is that if one wishes to not be labeled a discriminator, one can't have an opinion, or must be forced to accept others' opinions. i guess we should completely throw out the whole voting process for fear of offending someone!? this whole argument is ridiculous...

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

you know, i don't really care how many definitions you throw at me to try and win your claim that, semantically, you're right. i mean, fuck, i prefer to wear t-shirts over button-down shirts. by your definition, that's discrimination based on the fact that "button-down shirts" is a group. sure, it may be correct by the strictest of definitions, but it's not a practical application of the argument.

by your argument, everyone that's ever voted in anything, and been on the losing side of said vote, has been discriminated against. that makes us an entire nation of discriminators. are you trying to say that everyone who votes and is on the winning side is prejudiced? or better yet, are you saying that discrimination based on political views is a human rights violations? are you seriously equating differences in political opinion with segregation, racism, etc.?

i mean yes, discrimination can stand for what you're describing, but so can categorizing, discerning, delineating, etc. what you're apparently saying/advocating is that if one wishes to not be labeled a discriminator, one can't have an opinion, or must be forced to accept others' opinions. i guess we should completely throw out the whole voting process for fear of offending someone!? this whole argument is ridiculous...

Wow, thats a whole lot of "not what I said at all". Are you done kicking that horse yet? Really, it's dead. Why don't you focus on what I have actually said rather than some wild far out interpritaion you have come up with all on your own.

OK, I'll try one more time... there is a differance bewteen discounting one persons vies and discounting the views of a significant portion of the population.

What we are talking about is not discriminating against people for how they vote.. but discriminating against them by never giving them a voice at all.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Gaf The Horse With Tears

[phee]

Wow, thats a whole lot of "not what I said at all". Are you done kicking that horse yet? Really, it's dead. Why don't you focus on what I have actually said rather than some wild far out interpritaion you have come up with all on your own.

OK, I'll try one more time... there is a differance bewteen discounting one persons vies and discounting the views of a significant portion of the population.

What we are talking about is not discriminating against people for how they vote.. but discriminating against them by never giving them a voice at all.

To be fair you did say "Obama is better than Jesus" which is pretty hard to not be thought of as wild and far out... just saying.

But on the topic you stated.... You are saying that in Siren's original statement, she was specifically saying that the 11% "have no voice at all." That is what I disagree with... I don't think she said that.

[torn asunder]

What we are talking about is not discriminating against people for how they vote.. but discriminating against them by never giving them a voice at all.

jesus fucking christ, gaf - they had a voice - otherwise, how the fuck would we know that 11% disagreed? you can't possibly be this fucking ignorant unintentionally...

i'm done with this. slamming a door on my hand repeatedly would be a more productive use of my time.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

jesus fucking christ, gaf - they had a voice - otherwise, how the fuck would we know that 11% disagreed? you can't possibly be this fucking ignorant unintentionally...

i'm done with this. slamming a door on my hand repeatedly would be a more productive use of my time.

Perhaps instead of all the crap you have been responding to that I didn't say you should have read what I did say.

I know they had a voice for the poll but our esteemed friend wrote thier concerns off as not worthy of consideration in any national reform. That is a form of discrimination. As soon as she said it should be decided by the provinces without any legal reasoning she was practicing political discrimination.

I'm glad you are finally done with this topic. You are starting to get irrantional.

[torn asunder]

*gaf logic*

i frustrated someone into submission with my illogical, circular, and/or nitpicky semantic debating style= "i win again! YaY!"

fyi, gaf, i wasn't putting words in your mouth, i was posing possible scenarios (both for clarification, and as an example of how the logic you were using could be construed in other, sometimes ridiculous ways) in order to try to better understand what you were getting at, and to give you a chance to explain. you conveniently neglected to do so *each and every time*. you could have easily explained yourself, but stubbornly refused to, which indicates a decided lack of will to be congenial or diplomatic. you're an impossible boor, and i should have known better than to even bother to use deductive logic with you, as it clearly is beyond your comprehension. i would love to see every single person on this board refuse to discuss anything with you politically again, until you figure out how to debate/discuss in a productive manner.

Edited December 21, 2010 by torn asunder

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

*gaf logic*

i frustrated someone into submission with my illogical, circular, and/or nitpicky semantic debating style= "i win again! YaY!"

fyi, gaf, i wasn't putting words in your mouth, i was posing possible scenarios (both for clarification, and as an example of how the logic you were using could be construed in other, sometimes ridiculous ways) in order to try to better understand what you were getting at, and to give you a chance to explain. you conveniently neglected to do so *each and every time*. you could have easily explained yourself, but stubbornly refused to, which indicates a decided lack of will to be congenial or diplomatic. you're an impossible boor, and i should have known better than to even bother to use deductive logic with you, as it clearly is beyond your comprehension. i would love to see every single person on this board refuse to discuss anything with you politically again, until you figure out how to debate/discuss in a productive manner.

Dude... I explained myself repeatedly in this "debate". Your refusal to accept my explination is not the same thing as me not explaining.