Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > I am not welcome in New York.

I am not welcome in New York.
Thread Tools
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2014, 06:00 PM
 
Gov. Cuomo: Pro-life people not welcome in New York | Fox News

I guess, for supporting the bill of rights (namely, in this case, the second amendment), I am not welcome in New York. America! Land of the Free! Electing idiots like this will put our country on a path to civil war. There will be those of us who support the 1st amendment, and the freedom to express our viewpoints without the IRS....err government targeting us for our beliefs and there will be morons like this, who believe their preferred ideology is the only way. This rhetoric is beyond repulsive for its close-mindedness and lack of respect for opposing viewpoints. What the hell happened to our country? When did our elected officials lose the ability to see past ideological differences and respect one-another regardless of our political beliefs?

Go F*ck yourself, New York. if I wanted to visit a city full of criminals and facists, I'd just go to DC. And yes, I mean all of New York for electing someone who thinks the Bill of Rights only applies to him and his people. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2014, 06:15 PM
 
Since abortion is the headline, I'm going to take that first.

I think abortions should be legal. Full stop.
I believe the relationship between a doctor and a patient is sacrosanct, and find government interference in it to be intolerable. Full stop.

I understand why others might not hold these same positions, and it's my duty to be a ****ing grown-up about it. Full stop.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2014, 07:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Since abortion is the headline, I'm going to take that first.

I think abortions should be legal. Full stop.
I agree.

I believe the relationship between a doctor and a patient is sacrosanct, and find government interference in it to be intolerable. Full stop.
I agree.

I understand why others might not hold these same positions, and it's my duty to be a ****ing grown-up about it. Full stop.
The issues he's raising aren't as important as the fundamental corruption of the office to tell a particular group of people they "are not welcome here" for expressing their political views under the 1st amendment. The office should always be above the person, not the other way around. I find it extremely disturbing that the governor of New York would tell people they are not welcome based upon their political views. It is literally the opposite of the values represented by the constitution of the United States, and exactly the reason America fought for independence in the first place.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2014, 07:58 PM
 
I see that part as somewhat self-correcting. He just torpedoed himself amongst thinking individuals.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2014, 08:02 PM
 
And you have it right BTW in terms of focusing on the 2nd Amendment in the OP. Up-front pissing on the Constitution like that... my mind is pretty much full of **** on that one.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2014, 01:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think abortions should be legal. Full stop.
I believe the relationship between a doctor and a patient is sacrosanct, and find government interference in it to be intolerable. Full stop.
Are you also in favor of allowing assisted suicide, under the same rationale?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2014, 04:20 AM
 
You aren't missing much, most of NYC is a noisy, nasty, overcrowded s***hole, anyway, and the rest of NY is the same as Vermont, go there instead.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2014, 08:01 AM
 
I will judge the state of NY based on how they react to the blathering Gov.
NYC has it's own problems electing "AH"s time after time.

What is it with north eastern Gov's anyway? Are all of them blazing idiots?
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2014, 08:32 AM
 
Zero tolerance. NY should make pro-life opinion illegal. That'll teach 'em.

-t
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2014, 08:48 AM
 
And this my friends, is the difference between classic liberalism and Progressivism. Classic liberals might cringe at the notion of hampering free speech in such an overt way, but Progressives thrive on it. Classic liberalism may be skeptical of the establishment whereas Progressives absolutely require it and deploy it at whim against any contrarian movement.

This ain't your Grandpa's Democratic party.
ebuddy
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2014, 09:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Are you also in favor of allowing assisted suicide, under the same rationale?
Yes.
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2014, 11:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
And this my friends, is the difference between classic liberalism and Progressivism. Classic liberals might cringe at the notion of hampering free speech in such an overt way, but Progressives thrive on it. Classic liberalism may be skeptical of the establishment whereas Progressives absolutely require it and deploy it at whim against any contrarian movement.

This ain't your Grandpa's Democratic party.
This.
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2014, 11:55 AM
 
What i find weird about the list is

right-to-life - less rights / more interference
pro-assault-weapon - more rights / less interference
anti-gay - less rights / more interference

then again no-one said they were logical
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2014, 12:04 PM
 
To be fair, there are a bunch of people who take the same stance but with everything flipped.

Lack of consistency is common.
     
macforray
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Central New York
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2014, 01:15 PM
 
I live in New York, and I am not welcome here either!
I am a Constitutional and Fiscal Conservative, but for those other issues that really should be personal and individual rights, I am a Centrist. I don't believe in abortion "personally", but if a woman wishes to have one, under the guidance of a qualified physician, you won't find me picketing outside the doctor's office.
My Second Amendment rights as defined by the constitution, well that is another issue.
BTW, I did not vote for him!
macforray
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2014, 01:26 PM
 
I wonder if there is anyone who's actually the inverse of right-to-life, aka mandatory abortions? The closest I can think of would have been the Shakers.

Is that a litmus test for reasonable arguments?
anti-gay - everyone must be gay
no-one can have guns - everyone must have guns
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2014, 01:30 PM
 
Well, if there's anything the US needs, its more intolerance and arrogance from its politicians.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2014, 02:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
This.
I am glad I am not the only one that recognizes the danger this type of rhetoric represents coming from elected officials.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2014, 04:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
And this my friends, is the difference between classic liberalism and Progressivism. Classic liberals might cringe at the notion of hampering free speech in such an overt way, but Progressives thrive on it. Classic liberalism may be skeptical of the establishment whereas Progressives absolutely require it and deploy it at whim against any contrarian movement.

This ain't your Grandpa's Democratic party.
+1. I'm sick of the Progressives and Neocons destroying this country.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2014, 04:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
To be fair, there are a bunch of people who take the same stance but with everything flipped.

Lack of consistency is common.
Yep, pot meet kettle.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2014, 11:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Since abortion is the headline, I'm going to take that first.

I think abortions should be legal. Full stop.
I believe the relationship between a doctor and a patient is sacrosanct, and find government interference in it to be intolerable. Full stop.

I understand why others might not hold these same positions, and it's my duty to be a ****ing grown-up about it. Full stop.
Some numbers to ponder

≈56 million abortions in the US since Roe V Wade/Doe V Bolton ≈1.37million abortions a year and ≈2 babies a minute since 1973.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2014, 08:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
What i find weird about the list is
This is what happens when you attempt to legislate your own morality. Some senses however, are more universal.

right-to-life - less rights / more interference
If one has the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, one must have a fundamental right to life. The field of medicine has boards of ethics for a reason; some procedures should be challenged at their most fundamental level. What we find too often is not only the fact that the procedure has been legalized, but woefully under-regulated. One cannot buy a pack of cigarettes without printed warning labels or watch a commercial for viagra without 7 paragraphs of side-effect disclaimer and we might issue thousands of dollars in fines and penalty up to imprisonment for killing a type of bird while debating at what point it's acceptable to legally take the life of a human being within a clinic rivaling that of a Third World. We do indeed have a weird list, but if the government cannot act here, there is absolutely no justification at all for its existence.

pro-assault-weapon - more rights / less interference
There's no such thing as an "assault weapon". Machine guns have been banned since 1986 and what is now deemed an assault rifle by activists are responsible for fewer fatalities than baseball bats and golf clubs. Otherwise, "guns" remain legal because they are a great equalizer; rendering grandma on the same footing as a 6'2" thug. The government cannot act here because it is not adequately outfitted to protect you from others. Gun ownership is not a right to kill someone else, but a right to protect one's self; a fundamental right.

anti-gay - less rights / more interference
Anti-gay is a sentiment and no law, regulation, or interference can address that. The debate has been for the right of those of the same sex to wed. Marriage has never been a fundamental right and it wasn't until the Centralized Authority wanted to track minorities that the practice required certification to begin with. This is gays wanting the same government interference as straights. Many here including myself have argued for civil unions for all, an opportunity for the government to acknowledge contractual bonds in general, having nothing to do with defining "love" or "marriage". Otherwise, at an approximate 40+% failure rate, all we're doing today is perpetuating a failed institution by expanding the interference.

then again no-one said they were logical
That's human-kind for ya.
ebuddy
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2014, 01:57 PM
 
@ebuddy,

Are you pro-marriage? I'm talking in general.

You don't really sound it.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2014, 08:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
@ebuddy,

Are you pro-marriage? I'm talking in general.

You don't really sound it.
That's a strange question. I love the idea that two people would meet, fall in love, and wed. My wife and I met, we fell in love, andlotsoflust and2wonderfulkids andthenahouse &marriage... We've been together for 20 years. I hope I didn't give you the impression I was anti-love or something. To me, marriage is so much more than how a State defines it and I think too many are mired in minutia.

I mean, what evidence should I look for to gauge whether or not you're generally, pro-marriage?
ebuddy
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2014, 08:34 PM
 
What triggered the question was your seeming distaste with government legitimization of it.

You and I agree it would be better if the government wasn't in the job of legitimizing it, but it's not enough for me to begrudge the people who desire it.

Judging by the amount of people who go down to court and do it, it's clearly desired, whether rationally or not... and I'm just talking heterosexuals here.

One can argue whether homosexuals are seeking some other form of legitimization (they are, IMO) but I think you have to assume the baseline desire to have a marriage legally recognized is equivalent in both the heterosexual and homosexual communities. IOW, large.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2014, 10:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What triggered the question was your seeming distaste with government legitimization of it.
It's more so the act of the government conferring benefits upon the relationship that seems unnecessary to me. The sanctity of marriage is not something that occurs through government action and at a 55% failure rate, I dare say whatever it was the government was hoping to achieve by preferring that relationship is earning a failing grade, that's all. I'd like to see a paradigm shift with how folks regard marriage and what the State has to do with any of that other than ensuring the proper paperwork is filed so you can visit a loved one in the hospital or be availed of their estate upon death.

You and I agree it would be better if the government wasn't in the job of legitimizing it, but it's not enough for me to begrudge the people who desire it.
I don't begrudge the people who desire it, but IMO the government should merely certify the relationship as necessary (if it must be so) for satisfying a decennial census; civil unions.

Judging by the amount of people who go down to court and do it, it's clearly desired, whether rationally or not... and I'm just talking heterosexuals here.

One can argue whether homosexuals are seeking some other form of legitimization (they are, IMO) but I think you have to assume the baseline desire to have a marriage legally recognized is equivalent in both the heterosexual and homosexual communities. IOW, large.
I wouldn't deny that at all nor begrudge the people seeking the relationship. I just think folks championing the need for marriage and those attempting to defend the sanctity of it are mired in minutia. In short from my perspective; YAYY! We're adding 12 more questions to the exam we're going to score a 45% on. We're missing the big picture IMO.
ebuddy
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2014, 04:58 PM
 
Put on your gay shoes and walk in them for a bit.

You look fabulous, BTW.

Now that you've done that, can you see not being allowed to get married as kind of a boot in your eye?

I'm sure the failure rate of marriage has something to do with how low a bar the government has set. The only requirements are to be consenting adults who aren't closely related.

Wouldn't "even though you meet those qualifications, you aren't deigned worthy enough to be let past" torque you off? Even if you held the exact same position on the role of government as you do now?

I hold the same position, and it torques me of, and I don't even have any nice shoes.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2014, 02:37 AM
 
So, you want the bar lowered even more?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2014, 04:09 AM
 
The sexual orientation of the people involved isn't what makes the bar low.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2014, 09:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Put on your gay shoes and walk in them for a bit.

You look fabulous, BTW.

Now that you've done that, can you see not being allowed to get married as kind of a boot in your eye?
Not really a boot in the eye. I'm not sure that my hypothetical homosexuality would define me any more than my real heterosexuality defines me. I can go downtown and get all the paperwork I need to be with whomever I want in virtually any capacity I want. If that's indeed what I wanted. I'd be perfectly fine with civil unions to simplify matters for me or give me an avenue of equal protections under law. Otherwise, I probably wouldn't give the matter all that much thought.

Wouldn't "even though you meet those qualifications, you aren't deigned worthy enough to be let past" torque you off? Even if you held the exact same position on the role of government as you do now?
I probably wouldn't put all that much thought into it to be honest. Life is unfair. I'd be happy regardless.

I hold the same position, and it torques me of, and I don't even have any nice shoes.
I couldn't get this torqued about marital privilege or I think I'd be going batshit crazy at all the other, much more egregious injustices going on around me.
ebuddy
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2014, 01:30 PM
 
There's no sense of irony in the preceding arguments all coming from someone who has a state sanctioned marriage?

If you were eating your own dog food, I'd be more inclined to buy the arguments.

Perhaps Mrs. ebuddy is forcing you into it against your will. Maybe it torques her off.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2014, 09:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Perhaps Mrs. ebuddy is forcing you into it against your will. Maybe it torques her off.
What the?

I've said absolutely nothing that should be indicative of my dedication to marriage, specifically my own. This isn't the first time you've brought up Mrs. ebuddy, subego and it's a little awkward.
ebuddy
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2014, 10:07 PM
 
I was invited to a fundraising event in NYC, but had to tell them I wasn't welcome in NY and they needed to take it up with their governor.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2014, 11:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
What the?

I've said absolutely nothing that should be indicative of my dedication to marriage, specifically my own. This isn't the first time you've brought up Mrs. ebuddy, subego and it's a little awkward.
My apologies. No intent to make things awkward. It was a joke I didn't realize could have multiple readings.

I wasn't questioning your dedication to your actual marriage, I was referring to your dedication to the legal entity your marriage entails. IIUC, we both feel marriage shouldn't be a legal entity.

However, it can't help but be noticed, these arguments against the legal entity are being made by someone who is participating in said legal entity.

I was jokingly suggesting the explanation for this disconnect is due to the other person participating in the legal contract being the one who argues for it.

And again, by "it" I strictly mean the legal entity.

Even if I thought there were issues with dedication to the real thing (which I don't), I wouldn't bring it up. I can be a dick, but I'm not that big of a dick.
( Last edited by subego; Jan 27, 2014 at 01:25 AM. )
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2014, 08:15 AM
 
I think it's really much simpler than all this, subego. You asked me a direct question and didn't appreciate the answer.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2014, 08:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I was invited to a fundraising event in NYC, but had to tell them I wasn't welcome in NY and they needed to take it up with their governor.
How much longer before the People's Republic of NYC begins to look like Detroit?
ebuddy
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2014, 11:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
How much longer before the People's Republic of NYC begins to look like Detroit?
When banking goes the way of car manufacturing, maybe.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2014, 01:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
When banking goes the way of car manufacturing, maybe.
Are you saying it hasn't already?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2014, 02:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Are you saying it hasn't already?
I'm not sure how you're looking at it.

When I think of Detroit, I think of the moving of manufacturing to other locations and the decreased profitability of the Big Three. As far as I know, there's no mass exporting of Wall Street jobs, but more importantly the profits are not dropping, they're recording some of the highest ever.

(Also, unlike Detroit, NYC isn't a one-trick pony. "Hey, let's go visit Detroit and see the sights!" said no one ever.)
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2014, 02:15 PM
 
The "manufacturing" in NYC is smart people doing things. Compared to large amounts of manufacturing equipment. You can ship manufacturing equipment overseas, it's allot harder to ship allot of smart people overseas. Especially at a pay cut. Believe me they tried it in the software industry and it only works in very narrow situations were you don't actually need the people to be smart.
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2014, 02:37 PM
 
I live in this weird state, specifically NYC, Manhattan. It's the least free place in the entire country - though I can't show you every rule and law, I can tell you we pay through every opening of our bodies the fees and taxes to keep this monstrosity moving. To get a concealed carry permit costs around 3K because you need a lawyer to do it. To park a car here costs at least $350 a month. Rent and food - forget it…. A store near me now pays $50k a month in rent. It's $5 for a half gallon of milk, $12 for smokes. You got the idea.

But damn, there is more opportunity here than any one single place in the world. The American Dream lives here.
It's a candy store for those able to work it. The abortion thing- I really don't care. I am not a woman, and though I feel it is morally wrong to get one, I will not stop a woman from getting one. cheers, guys
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2014, 02:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Gov. Cuomo: Pro-life people not welcome in New York | Fox News

I guess, for supporting the bill of rights (namely, in this case, the second amendment), I am not welcome in New York. America! Land of the Free! Electing idiots like this will put our country on a path to civil war. There will be those of us who support the 1st amendment, and the freedom to express our viewpoints without the IRS....err government targeting us for our beliefs and there will be morons like this, who believe their preferred ideology is the only way. This rhetoric is beyond repulsive for its close-mindedness and lack of respect for opposing viewpoints. What the hell happened to our country? When did our elected officials lose the ability to see past ideological differences and respect one-another regardless of our political beliefs?

Go F*ck yourself, New York. if I wanted to visit a city full of criminals and facists, I'd just go to DC. And yes, I mean all of New York for electing someone who thinks the Bill of Rights only applies to him and his people. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.
Criminals and fascists? Flattery will get you nowhere.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2014, 04:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
(Also, unlike Detroit, NYC isn't a one-trick pony. "Hey, let's go visit Detroit and see the sights!" said no one ever.)
Unless you're a petrolhead.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2014, 04:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
How much longer before the People's Republic of NYC begins to look like Detroit?
When the dollar stops becoming the world fiat currency.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2014, 04:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Unless you're a petrolhead.
Touché
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2014, 04:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I think it's really much simpler than all this, subego. You asked me a direct question and didn't appreciate the answer.
It is simpler.

You refuse to eat your own dog food. While shoving it really hard down other people's throats.


Someone tells you how your sticking a boot in their eye, your response is to tell them that boot they're feeling must be imaginary.

Yeah. That's awkward.

I'll remember not to try levity next time I'm faced with that.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2014, 04:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You refuse to eat your own dog food.
I'm not sure I follow the logic here. I assume ebuddy got married before gay marriage became the topic du jour so what is he supposed to do in your eyes? Get a divorce?

Though this is where I point out I constantly say that until people repeal civil marriage (or even make a modicum of noise for such a thing to occur), homos get to have the same rights. Only fair.

It occurs to me if removing marriage was considered a real option, those redder states where gay marriage just got overturned will be submitting legislation to do just that, right?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2014, 04:44 PM
 
This is where I again assert that the gov't shouldn't be involved in marriage, at all, ever.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2014, 04:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'm not sure I follow the logic here. I assume ebuddy got married before gay marriage became the topic du jour so what is he supposed to do in your eyes? Get a divorce?

Though this is where I point out I constantly say that until people repeal civil marriage (or even make a modicum of noise for such a thing to occur), homos get to have the same rights. Only fair.

It occurs to me if removing marriage was considered a real option, those redder states where gay marriage just got overturned will be submitting legislation to do just that, right?
I think if you needed gay marriage to be the argument of the day to realize government shouldn't be involved in marriage, that shows the strength of the argument, right there.

Ironically, it was gay marriage being the subject which led me to the same conclusion as ebuddy. I didn't really think about it until then.

Even though I think there should be civil unions, that doesn't stop the marriage inequality from being a boot in the eye. Not giving people the boot in the eye is more important than my libertarian philosophy.

You can consider that a declaration on the strength of my own argument.
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2014, 04:53 PM
 
For reasons that have nothing to do with politics, I hate New York...
1. The smell.
2. The crowds.
3. The noise.
4. The pretension.
5. Broadway.

On-topic:

Saying pro-lifers aren't welcome in New York is like Bobby Jindal saying supporters of gay marriage aren't welcome in Louisiana. They might be the minority (29% in 2013), but the day that people are driven out of a region for having a dissenting view is that day that America ceases to exist.

I'm a conservative, but I need people around me that disagree with me. I need people to challenge me. What I certainly don't need is an echo chamber to reinforce my arrogance.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum 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
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:17 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,