• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Powerful GOP lobbyist drafts bill to ban gay athletes from playing in the NFL

There is a difference between disagreeing and ugly name calling.

That is EXACTLY what I said. "Criticizing your political opponent is pretty much normal IMHO. Using terms like "subhuman mongrel" is uniquely insulting and disgusting" so unless you want to compensate me for copyright violation, please explain why when I say it, you overlook it and then you say the same thing and expect the chamber to break into applause.

Is there a possibility that you are misreading my posts? :doh What do you think I said?

(I consider this to be good natured banter, nothing more. But really, you should at least try to find the great wisdoms of my declarations so you don't end up with a huge bill)
 
that is exactly what i said. "criticizing your political opponent is pretty much normal imho. Using terms like "subhuman mongrel" is uniquely insulting and disgusting" so unless you want to compensate me for copyright violation, please explain why when i say it, you overlook it and then you say the same thing and expect the chamber to break into applause.

Is there a possibility that you are misreading my posts? :doh what do you think i said?

(i consider this to be good natured banter, nothing more. But really, you should at least try to find the great wisdoms of my declarations so you don't end up with a huge bill)
here is my point about the party. If somerepublicans do not rule out having nugent as their spokeperson on the campaign trail is appalling.
 
All those countries you imply are uncivilized are ruled by laws and treaties too. You're just parrotting soupy nonsense. And yes, Russia for instance. No doubt it's civilized and ruled by laws and treaty AND they do indeed discriminate against homosexuals.

They are not civilized, that is my point. The USA however is a civilized country that actually respects human rights and want to live according to those values. Russia is not a civilized country, Russia proves that just about every day/week. They might have rules and treaty ratification but they do not embody or respect civil rights.

No to that last. And the UN's kumbayah meaningless in reality speech aside you really don't know much about the US do you? The Jim Crow laws were struck down by the SCOTUS because they violated CONSTITUTIONAL rights.

Yes to the last, the US did ratify that treaty https://www.aclu.org/human-rights/faq-covenant-civil-political-rights-iccpr from what I understand. And as the US has ratified this, it goes far beyond the UN kumbayah meaningless etc.

The Jim Crow laws were struck down by the SCOTUS so why would all these anti-gay laws not be found just as unconstitutional? There are already several federal rulings naming anti-gay wedding laws unconstitutional.
 
I was looking for more along the lines of something that acts as a foundation of a chain of reasoning, of which, under all circumstances, necessarily fixed, determines, defines and governs the civil rights of men. The law really doesn't work towards those ends, sorry.

The law is for me a foundation, the original views might come from a different sources but for me it is the first law out of our constitution.

CHAPTER 1 Fundamental rights

Article 1

All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be
permitted.

That is a code I like to live by and want to promote.
 
America fought a Civil War to end Forced Association in the form of slavery. Perhaps you're not as sensitive to the issue of forced association as some Americans. You see, in America there is no such Right as Forced Association. What does exist is the Right to Free Association. Liberals hate this right and have been waging war on it and now they've also turned on Free Speech too, with their hate speech laws and speech codes at universities.

There seems to be something dark in the heart of liberals.

No, there is something dark in the heart of some people, they can be both republican and democrats/liberal and conservatives. They think they have the right to be bigoted and point back to ancient history as a justification for their bigoted beliefs. Beliefs that have no place anymore in this century IMHO.
 
That is a code I like to live by and want to promote.

Too bad that it's an incoherent code. It is the incoherence which makes it unworkable.

The Left is already at work trying to cook up a "right" to be not be offended. This is the handmaiden to the "right" to not be discriminated against. The "right" to not be offended is exercised within the realm of speech and the "right" to not be discriminated against is exercised within the realm of associations.

For both rights to exist, they require that actual rights, those of free speech and free association, be abandoned. For a person to not be offended by me requires that I privilege their feelings over my own right to speak my mind. For a person to not be discriminated against by me requires that I associate with this person when my own preference is not to associate with that person.

Women are really going to be pissed off when you liberal totalitarians start forcing them to see male gynecologists instead of female gynecologists because you object to the sexual discrimination that they direct at male physicians.
 
here is my point about the party. If some republicans do not rule out having nugent as their spokeperson on the campaign trail is appalling.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. There is one GOP candidate who has embraced Nugent and even then, with a disclaimer. "All Republicans" do not have the authority to tell a candidate what they may or may not do. So, what is this point you are trying to make?

" If some republicans do not rule out having nugent as their spokeperson on the campaign trail is appalling " is not a structurally functional sentence. Did I not document that not just some, but many Republicans have disclaimed Nugent?
 
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. There is one GOP candidate who has embraced Nugent and even then, with a disclaimer. "All Republicans" do not have the authority to tell a candidate what they may or may not do. So, what is this point you are trying to make?

" If some republicans do not rule out having nugent as their spokeperson on the campaign trail is appalling " is not a structurally functional sentence. Did I not document that not just some, but many Republicans have disclaimed Nugent?

How about republican presidential hopefuls. Have they condemned this blatant blasphemy
 
How about republican presidential hopefuls. Have they condemned this blatant blasphemy

IDK. Have they? Did anyone ask them? What was their response?

Apparently you give Nugent more credibility than most do. Most people think he's nuts - you seem to think he's important. What is that all about?
 
IDK. Have they? Did anyone ask them? What was their response?

Apparently you give Nugent more credibility than most do. Most people think he's nuts - you seem to think he's important. What is that all about?

Here is my take. Remember when McCain addressed the woman who claimed that Obama was not an American. Do you think that will happen in 2014 elections? I don't
 
Here is my take. Remember when McCain addressed the woman who claimed that Obama was not an American. Do you think that will happen in 2014 elections? I don't

If you're trying to confuse me - you've succeeded. How did McCain get into this conversation? How did Obama get in this conversation?

Q. How about republican presidential hopefuls. Have they condemned this blatant blasphemy
A. IDK.
Q. Have they? Q.Did anyone ask them? Q. What was their response?
A. "Here is my take. Remember when McCain addressed the woman who claimed that Obama was not an American. Do you think that will happen in 2014 elections? I don't"

In 2014 I predict that a woman will claim that Obama is not an American. Of course, I could be wrong. Women are so unpredictable.
 
If you're trying to confuse me - you've succeeded. How did McCain get into this conversation? How did Obama get in this conversation?

Q. How about republican presidential hopefuls. Have they condemned this blatant blasphemy
A. IDK.
Q. Have they? Q.Did anyone ask them? Q. What was their response?
A. "Here is my take. Remember when McCain addressed the woman who claimed that Obama was not an American. Do you think that will happen in 2014 elections? I don't"

In 2014 I predict that a woman will claim that Obama is not an American. Of course, I could be wrong. Women are so unpredictable.

I think we are on different posts. Have a nice evening
 
Too bad that it's an incoherent code. It is the incoherence which makes it unworkable.

The Left is already at work trying to cook up a "right" to be not be offended. This is the handmaiden to the "right" to not be discriminated against. The "right" to not be offended is exercised within the realm of speech and the "right" to not be discriminated against is exercised within the realm of associations.

For both rights to exist, they require that actual rights, those of free speech and free association, be abandoned. For a person to not be offended by me requires that I privilege their feelings over my own right to speak my mind. For a person to not be discriminated against by me requires that I associate with this person when my own preference is not to associate with that person.

Women are really going to be pissed off when you liberal totalitarians start forcing them to see male gynecologists instead of female gynecologists because you object to the sexual discrimination that they direct at male physicians.

There is nothing incoherent about that code, discrimination is forbidden, there can be nothing more crystal clear.

You and I have very differing opinions about freedom of speech. I think that there can be limits to freedom of speech. For example that church that disturbs funerals of US soldiers that have fallen in Afghanistan is allowed to do so based on freedom of speech. For me that goes too far, that is not freedom of speech but their right impedes the rights of those at the funeral ground.

In my opinion freedom of speech should not be absolute when it break the more dominant rights of others. And I am not talking about someone in the privacy of their own house spewing the most awful racist or bigoted opinions, not my cup of tea but if someone wants to do that so be it. At an meeting of like minded people they can spew that opinion too as far as I care. But, when they call for violence or go onto the streets and confront the "victims of their bigotry" and start insulting and threatening them, then the freedom of speech should have it's limits.

But that is my opinion for my country and other countries that have the same basic views on this. In the US the "left" can cook up what they want they cannot get past the SCOTUS.

And the right to choose your own doctor has nothing to do with sexual discrimination. There is a personal preference if a woman prefers a female gynecologist rather than a male one. Sexual discrimination would only come into play if a hospital refuses to hire male gynecologists purely for the reason that they are male rather than female.
 
Not really, its the reason don't ask don't tell worked so well to ease the concerns of straight soldiers

DADT didn't work. It made some servicemembers remain willfully ignorant of the reality around them. We all knew who was gay and who wasn't. Heck, my department could identify them right off. Guess what? No one cared. Even my husband's Marine units could identify who was gay most of the time, and still went out in the field with them. Why? Because you can't prove someone is gay by simply looking at them. In fact, even if they look at you when you are naked doesn't prove they are gay. And harassment is harassment, no matter if a person is gay or straight, and can happen to and from anyone, gay or straight.
 
What a stupid idea! Pretty sure it isn't even close to being constitutional. DADT for the NFL. Please. If DADT was repealed for the military, there is no way that Congress can or will enact it for a private league. It is in no way the government's place to do such a thing. I don't care how the guy wants to push it, it is not the government's place to do it. I'm not even sure it would be okay for the teams/league to do the proposed on their own. Private showers/stalls would be one thing, but separate facilities that single out/separate players by sexuality is discrimination.
 
if this is not a joke, its very troubling as usual, of politicians who believe they have power to control things which are not a delegated power.

It'll never pass. Stop with the fear mongering.
 
What a stupid idea! Pretty sure it isn't even close to being constitutional. DADT for the NFL. Please. If DADT was repealed for the military, there is no way that Congress can or will enact it for a private league. It is in no way the government's place to do such a thing. I don't care how the guy wants to push it, it is not the government's place to do it. I'm not even sure it would be okay for the teams/league to do the proposed on their own. Private showers/stalls would be one thing, but separate facilities that single out/separate players by sexuality is discrimination.

It won't pass. What's the big deal?
 
It won't pass. What's the big deal?

Expression of opinion. And I feel people like Jack Burkman (the guy who wrote this stupid legislation) need to be called out for their stupidity in doing stupid things like this. Doesn't matter if the only ones who see it know that it won't pass. The fact that he does apparently hold some political influence means that things like this should be brought up whenever he tries to flex that influence in other ways.
 
Expression of opinion. And I feel people like Jack Burkman (the guy who wrote this stupid legislation) need to be called out for their stupidity in doing stupid things like this. Doesn't matter if the only ones who see it know that it won't pass. The fact that he does apparently hold some political influence means that things like this should be brought up whenever he tries to flex that influence in other ways.

Its one clown, who drafted a bill that will never pass. Deal with it.
 
Its one clown, who drafted a bill that will never pass. Deal with it.

I'm expressing my opinion of that "one clown" in a thread directly related to it. Maybe you are the one who needs to "deal with it".
 
What a stupid idea! Pretty sure it isn't even close to being constitutional. DADT for the NFL. Please. If DADT was repealed for the military, there is no way that Congress can or will enact it for a private league. It is in no way the government's place to do such a thing. I don't care how the guy wants to push it, it is not the government's place to do it. I'm not even sure it would be okay for the teams/league to do the proposed on their own. Private showers/stalls would be one thing, but separate facilities that single out/separate players by sexuality is discrimination.

just more fear

i love it

equal rights is winning so bigots and those that support illegal discrimination are desperate

the best part is it HELPS establish equal rights, normal people look at this stuff and the vetoed AZ bill and see how mentally retarded bat**** insane it is and it helps
 
I'm expressing my opinion of that "one clown" in a thread directly related to it. Maybe you are the one who needs to "deal with it".

You're hysteria mongering. "Poor me! Poor me!"
 
Back
Top Bottom