GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 3 - Page 31 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-17-2012, 09:07 PM   #451
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
common sense, sageness, and intuition tell me that two people who really, really want to be parents and are willing to jump through any and all hoops necessary to do so, while at the same time likely being highly educated and having the means to pursue expensive things like adoption and/or AI, are going to be very, very, very good parents.
I don't expect you to remember all my points in past threads but I largely agree with this. I've said, on average, 2 parents will be better for children than 1 parent. But that does not concede the existence of the mother/father ideal. Just as acknowledging the importance of parents who adopt children does not diminish biological parents as the natural parenting arrangement.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-17-2012, 10:29 PM   #452
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,886
Local Time: 02:53 AM
I'm really trying to understand why the biological parents matter in the least. Just because of your gut, or "common sense"? What is so special about the biological parents? If a baby is born and adopted in infancy by two loving parents, gay or straight, how exactly will that baby know the difference?

Or do we just want everything to be natural because we like the way the word sounds?
__________________

__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 01-17-2012, 10:36 PM   #453
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 01:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500

Just as acknowledging the importance of parents who adopt children does not diminish biological parents as the natural parenting arrangement.
Poor Jesus... Do you think he suffered from not being raised by his biological father?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-17-2012, 10:42 PM   #454
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 01:53 AM
Good point .

It's sort of like when I see those parents throwing all their money into all these treatments to try and make themselves have a kid because they want a biological child. First off, forcing your body to do something that it apparently isn't wanting to do for one reason or another can't possibly be healthy, second, again, why is it so important this child MUST be biologically yours? Why not take all that money and put it towards taking in a child that needs a home?

Kids don't care about this shit, they just want to be taken care of. Why adults can't get this, I don't understand.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 01-17-2012, 10:49 PM   #455
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 11:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Poor Jesus... Do you think he suffered from not being raised by his biological father?
he had an idenity crisis
and it did not end well for him
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-18-2012, 12:14 AM   #456
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,730
Local Time: 11:53 PM
Pfft, Jesus' own father gave him a death sentence.

Some dad.
__________________
corianderstem is offline  
Old 01-18-2012, 04:59 AM   #457
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 08:53 AM
This fucking stupid debate about parenting - always completely irrelevant.

Same sex couples raise kids. They can, they do. Whether you think they're good at it, or whether it's right or not, is a completely different debate. If you think a kid having two dads or two mums is something lesser, or something wrong, that's a different debate. If you think there's just one jar of babies - it's a finite resource - and if the gays are sticking their hands in and taking some then there's going to be less for gods own heteros (which I think is part of what Santorum seems to think?) and thus some sort of holy defense needs to be mounted, then that's also a completely different debate.

Again... Same sex couples raise kids. They can, they do. The same sex marriage debate is just about whether or not that kids parents should be allowed to get married. Surely that's a conservative thing right? Better they get married? Given the stability (and sense of stability) and greater security that will provide the kid? Or to put it another way, whether or not they can get married has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they can have/raise kids together, it's just about allowing them to do so in the most stable, secure, conservative way, no?
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 01-18-2012, 09:04 AM   #458
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 02:53 AM
agreed. you really would think that conservatives would want as many people to be married and in committed relationships and having as boring sex as possible.

raising children is something separate from the marriage debate. one does not need to have children to be married, nor does one have to get married if one has children.

conservatives like Santorum, however, totally out of arguments, have posited the distortion of "kids do best with a mother and a father" and used it as an argument against same-sex marriage (not parenting). setting aside the fact that kids do better with 2 parents vs. 1, not hetero parents vs. homo parents, this is a distraction from the issue itself, which is the right to marry someone.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-18-2012, 09:26 AM   #459
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 02:53 AM
so how do we all feel about the fact that you likely paid much more of a percentage of your income last year than Mitt Romney did?

he paid about 15%.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-18-2012, 09:32 AM   #460
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 08:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
conservatives like Santorum, however, totally out of arguments
That's the point isn't it. They can't even find an argument - no matter how weak - that is actually on topic. It's all either completely irrelevant or completely illogical. And I think it's obvious that an ever increasing number of people are understanding exactly that, ie the anti's are actually selling the idea just as well (or better) than the pro's. So umm, keep it up Rick?
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 01-18-2012, 09:59 AM   #461
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 01:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511
so how do we all feel about the fact that you likely paid much more of a percentage of your income last year than Mitt Romney did?

he paid about 15%.
Warm and fuzzy inside, or maybe that's all the tea...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-18-2012, 10:06 AM   #462
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 02:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earnie Shavers View Post
That's the point isn't it. They can't even find an argument - no matter how weak - that is actually on topic. It's all either completely irrelevant or completely illogical. And I think it's obvious that an ever increasing number of people are understanding exactly that, ie the anti's are actually selling the idea just as well (or better) than the pro's. So umm, keep it up Rick?


instead of dressing it up with a patina of "social science," at least Margaret Court has the decency to tell your people that it's God's fault she's a bigot.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-18-2012, 10:20 AM   #463
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 08:53 AM
Yep. And I'm sure you can see the % in support in Australia rise a few points every time she opens her mouth, and again, the 'my god hates fags' argument is completely irrelevant outside of that particular church, and to anyone other than those who wish to be married under the eyes of that god. They'll still be able to deny it, as they were able to previously with divorcees, mixed race etc. Not a problem. So... next argument?
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 01-18-2012, 10:23 AM   #464
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 02:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
so how do we all feel about the fact that you likely paid much more of a percentage of your income last year than Mitt Romney did?
Considering he doesn't have an income and considering that 15% is the legal, government-set capital gains rate, I feel fine.
__________________
2861U2 is offline  
Old 01-18-2012, 10:48 AM   #465
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 02:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
Considering he doesn't have an income and considering that 15% is the legal, government-set capital gains rate, I feel fine.


oh, i agree. it's totally legal. never suggested it wasn't.

(his investments net him about $25m a year. he also pulls in about $350K from speeches, though he thinks that isn't that much, and it isn't, compared to $25m.)

how do we feel, though, about the nominee of the party being taxed at only 15%, when the bulk of the electorate -- say people making between $60k-90k -- are taxed at a higher rate?

how is that going to play?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Tags
gop, republican

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com