6,867 Forum Posts by "SadisticMonkey"
this is absolutely fucking priceless
god bless you for posting this
At 11/5/14 10:23 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Point to the words that say that. Oh wait, those words are only yours.
You believe that certain groups of people shouldn't be allowed to vote. Now either you bizarrely want this done in an an unrealistic way which doesn't affect political outcomes (rendering it entirely pointless) or this will result in different political outcomes.
No. Efforts needed to get to the voting station have nothing to do with the effort needed to actualy vote as a citizen. The ffort entails attempting to familiarize onesself with the issue enough to vote on it on the proper lines.
If you can't be bothered voting (not the same as being politically nihilistic) then chances are you aren't going to be well-informed about anything.
Aside from your poorly veiled racism stating the minorities are automatically dumb,
You'd be fooling yourself to think that minorities wouldn't be disproportionately affected by a voting test.
It's racist to think minorities can't get IDs. "Oh lawdy dese government paperworks is too hard for my simple self to be udnerstandin' "
I have to ask you a question. Does the word intent mean anything to you? An incidental consequence and an intended consequence are very different, even f they have the same result. I don't believe that the voter ID movement is anything but a bald attempt to keep the other voters away.
What does it matter if the result is still the same?
More of this bizarre liberal logic. Thing isn't bad because of its consequences, thing is bad because it's bad.
From a practical perspective, if it's okay for blacks to vote less as an unintentional consequence of something then it's okay for them to vote less through deliberate policies aimed at such.
At 11/5/14 07:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote: and the convenient disenfranchising of those who belong to the other party,
i.e. what you've been advocating for this whole thread
I call total garbage on their sincerity. Because their stated goal is a total load and they benefit greatly from the blocking of minorities, it's extremely difficult to believe they didn't do voter IDs just to block a bloc that won't vote for them. That block being minorities.
I would imagine that getting off your ass and securing an ID so you can vote would fall under the criterion of 'effort' as you explained it earlier
Even more often people vot eon issues they couldn't find if it were the only thing with them in an empty room.
So voter ID laws leading to less black people voting = bad, political knowledge tests leading to less black people voting = perfectly okay.
Of course, democrats would absolutely not stand for minorities losing voting power through such tests and even if they were introduced by themselves, they would claim that they were 'hijacked' by racist republicans or something and the tests would be changed so that nobody besides the legitimately mentally disabled could fail them.
At 11/5/14 03:58 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Extreme religious freaks would believe anything they claim ... All I know for a fact is that many people got really sick around me that took the koolaid in the form of a vaccine ... Some people even died.
Thank you for proving his point.
At 11/5/14 03:47 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 11/4/14 09:15 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: It would mean a whole lot less black and hispanic people voting, you do realize.Don't try to use disparate impact on me. I don't buy into that concept.
really, so you don't buy into voter ID laws being a conspiracy to stop minorities voting?
At 11/5/14 04:26 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Catholicism has more blood on it's hands then all religions combined.
I'm talking about the threat posed by modern day adherents of a religion
killing catholics for the supposed crimes of catholics passed would not make the world safer. it would almost certainly make it less safe.
but fuck me for expecting you to to actually think about something before posting, right.
At 10/23/14 10:31 AM, morefngdbs wrote: I think all religious people are mentally challenged
Black people are more religious than whtie people therfore you sir are a racist
& should be treated/taxed just like any other business.
Churches are not businesses.
But if you killed every muslim because of the extreme acts of just a few. Then you should then kill all the Christians because of the murderous acts of a few,
i don't see any christian groups attempting armed takeovers of countries to establish theocratic rule
And no, the Untied States armed forces is not a christian group.
Dems shouldn't be entirely unhappy about this. It means that Obama will be remembered less as the medicore/awful president that he is and more in terms of a 'republican senate didn't let him pass anything' narrative.
At 11/4/14 10:18 AM, Camarohusky wrote: If voting was limited to those with knowledge and/or a stake in the game, the outcomes would be much better.
It would mean a whole lot less black and hispanic people voting, you do realize.
At 11/4/14 12:27 AM, SansNumbers wrote: All I've read about Australian politics points to the conclusion that it is a horrifying clusterfuck.
Then you read the works of a bunch of hyperbolic cry babies (or you are one yourself).
What don't you like about him?
Try putting a modicum of effort into your threads if you want them to remain open.
At 11/2/14 10:33 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Pretty sure those have very much worn off by now. But, hey, whatever makes it easier for you to blame this one on black people again.
Voter ID laws would lead to large numbers of low-IQ people not voting. Does that make it good in your book then Camaro?
No, of course not, because they'll vote for the same candidates as you.
At 11/2/14 07:38 PM, Camarohusky wrote: However, when you have political ads seriously saying that illegals with driver IDs will lead to dramatically increased terrorism on airplanes, you can't exactly trust the system to the average person who isn't smart or willing enough to put that claim to the test.
"Voting laws should be determined by what will lead to more people supporting the policies/candidates that I support."
At 11/1/14 12:55 PM, Feoric wrote: I'm convinced she has zero appeal to liberals except for her last name.
There's also the enormous warm-fuzzies aspect of electing another non-white/male president.
At 10/31/14 12:57 PM, Feoric wrote: This is also literally the only reason why anyone will vote for Hillary.
pfffft, you're giving liberals far too much credit there
At 10/29/14 09:34 PM, cga-999 wrote: It's not a matter of debate. He is definitely not Zambian, but does the race matter a lot? It's nice to see some progress here, but race probably wasn't a deciding factor in his election, nor does it matter. But you have a point.
No, I'm saying that the Zambian constitution stipulates that one's parents must be born in Zambia in order to become president.
At 10/7/14 12:17 AM, The-Great-One wrote: Where have we heard that before?
Scott's parents being born outside of Zambia is not a matter of debate.
At 10/24/14 10:34 AM, Ranger2 wrote: This may come as a shock, but based off of your response you are most likely just as racist as the white pieces of shit you hate so much.
im saying that hating islamic extremists doesn't make you a "racist", contrary to what the average progressive claims, and who in this scenario would be more upset over the "racist" reaction to the attacks (i.e. the feelings of muslims) than they would about the actual attacks themselves.
Secession is for loonies. One humanity, one government. Bring on the United Nations global rule.
Thank goodness for decolonization.
At 10/25/14 10:41 PM, meapie wrote: What do you guys think?
I know it's not a popular opinion but I think doxing is bad and I'm not afraid to admit it.
probably imprison all the racist white pieces of shit who would no doubt be spewing their furiously hatred over everything by that stage
Don't worry guys, this man's a pro.
At 10/16/14 12:09 PM, Feoric wrote: The administration would actually love it if Assad could just kill everyone and restore order
They would love it if Assad could kill IS but become so weakened in the process that the rebels (who are definitely not at all no way no-sirree not islamic extremists) could overthrow him.
and have a wonderful revolution just like Libya and Egypt did :)
At 10/20/14 07:21 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: There goes that deflation I mentioned. Here's the thing: Excluding ANYONE from ANY legally recognized institution for NO GOOD LEGAL REASON is always an evil in a country which prides itself on equality and justice.
Except nobody's actually excluded, gay people are welcome to get married, just not to people of the same sex. It's not about allowing gay people to marry, it's about changing what marriage means i.e. from man and woman to any two adults.
I don't understand why we need to completely revamp the system on everyone, just so that a few people who hate the idea of gays getting in on the whole marriage concept can feel good about themselves. It's friggin stupid. Why are we changing the laws about marriage just so this nasty little group can feel good?
I'm not saying we should, I'm merely saying that gay marriage has very little at all to do with actual rights and that its an almost entirely symbolic thing.
Something being ruled unconstitutional doesn't make it right? So....according to you then the Constitution can be "wrong"? Careful now.
No, I'm saying the fact that gay marriage is "winning" politically doesn't make it right.
Also making constitutional arguments for gay marriage is really dumb considering 99% of people (actual statistic lolz) who support gay marriage either ignore or outright oppose the constitution on just about every other issue.
I would if I had no legal standing to oppose it under the law.
Okay, great, now tell that to every liberal who opposes every issue they disagree with that is supported by the constitution.
Yeah, screw them equal rights! It's so silly to demand everyone gets the same treatment under the law!
Like I said, they do get the same treatment under the law, this is about changing what marriage means.
Anyway, even if you think that they should have equality, I don't see how it's worth spending any time on when there's actual problems in the world. Gay marriage means a bunch of middle-class white homosexuals are granted a few unimportant rights (no, the fact that this applies to all american homosexuals is besides the point). Absolutely fucking trivial considering how worked up and self-righteous progressives act about it. I honestly can't think of a more breath-takingly trivial issue that has been subject to such widespread progressive activism.
This just illustrates how progressives have this fucked up sense of morality that is divorced with consequences. Gay marriage is not evil because it causes any actual harm, it's evil because EQUALITY. Man making a private joke about dongles that nobody heard deserves to lose his job not because it actually harmed any women but because it's SEXISM and that makes it evil. Celebrity said the n-word in private 10 years ago to another white person deserves to have their career ruined not because any black people were actually hurt by it but because it's RACIST and that makes it evil.
Also, if you support equality under the law why don't you support the abolition of marriage entirely?Unmarried people have less rights than married people and that's an injustice. What if the government DID abolish marriage though? It means that the total number of rights people have has decreased, but there's also "equality". So logically speaking the progressive position must be that less rights is okay as long as they're equal? It's like how progressives oppose businesses being able to exclude people of a certain race from entering their store, but if as a result the business owner closes his business and thereby excludes everyone from entering their store is okay even though the black people still can't access the store (which was apparently a terrible thing) but now everyone else is subjected to this terrible thing (and that's ok).
Alllllllsssssso, if unmarried people can live perfectly FINE without the laws afforded to them by marriage then it means marriage rights really are unfucking important.
Clearly that's a ridiculous notion that should never ever be mentioned! Oh right....then there's that whole MLK thing...
Considering that Saint King supported stuff like affirmative action i.e. NOT equal treatment....
Straw men are made of straw, no one brought race into this topic until you just did.
It's not a straw man. I literally never hear progressives, in all their huffing and puffing about gay's being """oppressed""" in america, complain about the fact that gays are killed and imprisoned in 70+ countries in the world.
Which means either:
1. They're ignorant morons.
2. They hold white countries to higher standards than non-white countries.
3. They care more about the relatively trivial rights of western homosexuals than they do of
Further proof of my argument: progressives losing their collective shit about russia's anti-gay laws and not making a fucking peep about the 70+ non-white countries with much worse anti-gay laws.
If you've got nothing (and like all people arguing against gay marriage, you clearly don't) why even respond?
If I've got nothing? Your post was basically "gay marriage is going to win and there's nothing you can do about nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh!"
At 10/20/14 10:48 AM, Korriken wrote: ISIS are more civilized than that.. usually.
No, they really aren't.
At 10/20/14 06:12 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: The problem has always been that "marriage" LEGALLY means something different then "domestic partnership" and the like. That's been the real argument that gays have stood on and have been shouted down by ignorant people saying "you're arguing over a word" no, they aren't. They've arguing over the fact that, like other forms of segregation, we have a situation where the people denying them rights are saying "it's separate but equal" but in reality it is not.
What percentage of people who support """marriage equality""" know or genuinely care about the differences between marriage and partnerships?
From what I've seen it's nearly exclusively about the perception of "equality" and that excluding gays from something is "discrimination" and is therefore the highest of all possible evils. For many of them I'd contend that they would not be satisfied with domestic partnerships being afforded all the same legal rights as actual marriage but not actually being called 'marriage'.
In the end, the move to making gay marriage the law of the land is snowballing. More and more states all the time are performing ceremonies and granting licenses as the courts continue to strike down any law stopping it is struck down as unconstitutional. It's coming, it's happening, left or right, for or against....it doesn't matter, this IS HAPPENING.
That doesn't make it right. You wouldn't say "Oh, okay then" if it were something you were strongly opposed to.
It's also a sad indictment on progressives considering it's an awfully trivial thing to put so much effort into given that just about every political issue in the world is more important in its impacts.
heck, it's even also sort of racist too considering that progressives hold white people to a higher standard of behavior than non-white people. White people are evil HOMOPHOBES for opposing changes in ultimately minor rights afford to same-sex couples (rights which aren't awfully important since single people are entitled to most of them), but rarely if ever make any noise about the actually terrible treatment of gays in the 77 or so countries where homosexuality is punishable by imprisonment or death.
At 10/20/14 01:13 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: I completely agree with your premise, which is reducing government involvement in marital affairs.
No, that's a stupid idea. How else are we going to force churches and ministers to host gay weddings or put bakeries out of business for not wanting to make a cake for a lesbian wedding?
Does it matter if it's offensive? A lot of things are offensive to a lot of people.
