IGX

http://www.people-press.org/2009/10/09/ ... il-unions/

And I found this. It was support for civil unions, not marriage. Which, to me, is a distinction without much of a difference.
But that's what I get going by memory.

Turdacious wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

Turdacious wrote:You guys are also forgetting that the Reagan free trade push was also an instrument of foreign policy, and a very effective one.

Yeah. That's great. The neocons absolutely fucked everything up.

How is enticing countries out of the Soviet sphere fucking everything up?

Countries like China? Or Japan? Please. Globalist Free Trade didnt get off the ground until The USSR was dead.

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:http://www.people-press.org/2009/10/09/ ... il-unions/

And I found this. It was support for civil unions, not marriage. Which, to me, is a distinction without much of a difference.
But that's what I get going by memory.

Then why didn't gays accept it?

bennyonesix wrote:

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:http://www.people-press.org/2009/10/09/ ... il-unions/

And I found this. It was support for civil unions, not marriage. Which, to me, is a distinction without much of a difference.
But that's what I get going by memory.

Then why didn't gays accept it?

You're asking the wrong guy.

bennyonesix wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

Turdacious wrote:You guys are also forgetting that the Reagan free trade push was also an instrument of foreign policy, and a very effective one.

Yeah. That's great. The neocons absolutely fucked everything up.

How is enticing countries out of the Soviet sphere fucking everything up?

Countries like China? Or Japan? Please. Globalist Free Trade didnt get off the ground until The USSR was dead.

We gave china most favored nation status in 1980.

Turdacious wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

Turdacious wrote:You guys are also forgetting that the Reagan free trade push was also an instrument of foreign policy, and a very effective one.

Yeah. That's great. The neocons absolutely fucked everything up.

How is enticing countries out of the Soviet sphere fucking everything up?

Countries like China? Or Japan? Please. Globalist Free Trade didnt get off the ground until The USSR was dead.

We gave china most favored nation status in 1980.

Yes. Exactly. It ruined us. They mock us. Walmart got to sell shit tier trinkets and clothes to citizens who had their quality of living destroyed by the process while also eliminating local manufacturers and retailers.

And it wasn't half as bad as Mexico and immigration in the 90's. It wasn't even Globalism yet.

And for what? To keep China away from USSR? To Japan from going Communist? Ridiculous. China was their rival. And Japan had the only pro China politician assasinated and the guy is a hero.

bennyonesix wrote:

Boris wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

Boris wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

Boris wrote:F-ing F*ggot.

Yes, I heard it myself. If I didn't does that mean it's made up?

People lie. People are lying a lot more about these things now than they did before. I know of at least two elaborately faked incidents involving homophobia. So yes, it matters to me if you heard it yourself.

Okay, so now do you believe me? Or, do you think I'm lying too?

Does it change your thinking at all?

I wouldn't have asked you if I thought you were dishonest.

No. It doesn't. It is ridiculous to claim that open homosexuals receive more abuse today than they did even last year, let alone 10 or even 20 years ago. The liberal reaction to this election result is hysterical and completely unwarranted.

You seem a reasonable man and I am not interested in fighting you. But if that is what you want, we can do it. But you'll have to be more direct and drop the pretense we are discussing issues.

I'm not fighting anyone. I disagree that it is all hysterical overreaction. I'm being as direct as I can without typing out some kind of dissertation. Of course we are not comparing 2016 to the 50s, 60s, 70s, or 80s, but are there people that think things have not escalated over the past three or so years?

Both sides of the divide are saying enough is enough, and both sides have very reasonable arguments.

"Campbell and Manning describe how this culture of dignity is now giving way to a new culture of victimhood in which people are encouraged to respond to even the slightest unintentional offense, as in an honor culture. But they must not obtain redress on their own; they must appeal for help to powerful others or administrative bodies, to whom they must make the case that they have been victimized. It is the very presence of such administrative bodies, within a culture that is highly egalitarian and diverse (i.e., many college campuses) that gives rise to intense efforts to identify oneself as a fragile and aggrieved victim."

http://righteousmind.com/where-microagg ... come-from/

I wonder, how many will unfriend me, after i start train pistol-squats, will see.

TerryB wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

Boris wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

Boris wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

Boris wrote:F-ing F*ggot.

Yes, I heard it myself. If I didn't does that mean it's made up?

People lie. People are lying a lot more about these things now than they did before. I know of at least two elaborately faked incidents involving homophobia. So yes, it matters to me if you heard it yourself.

Okay, so now do you believe me? Or, do you think I'm lying too?

Does it change your thinking at all?

I wouldn't have asked you if I thought you were dishonest.

No. It doesn't. It is ridiculous to claim that open homosexuals receive more abuse today than they did even last year, let alone 10 or even 20 years ago. The liberal reaction to this election result is hysterical and completely unwarranted.

You seem a reasonable man and I am not interested in fighting you. But if that is what you want, we can do it. But you'll have to be more direct and drop the pretense we are discussing issues.

I'm not fighting anyone. I disagree that it is all hysterical overreaction. I'm being as direct as I can without typing out some kind of dissertation. Of course we are not comparing 2016 to the 50s, 60s, 70s, or 80s, but are there people that think things have not escalated over the past three or so years?

Both sides of the divide are saying enough is enough, and both sides have very reasonable arguments.

"Campbell and Manning describe how this culture of dignity is now giving way to a new culture of victimhood in which people are encouraged to respond to even the slightest unintentional offense, as in an honor culture. But they must not obtain redress on their own; they must appeal for help to powerful others or administrative bodies, to whom they must make the case that they have been victimized. It is the very presence of such administrative bodies, within a culture that is highly egalitarian and diverse (i.e., many college campuses) that gives rise to intense efforts to identify oneself as a fragile and aggrieved victim."

http://righteousmind.com/where-microagg ... come-from/

That's really good, bruv. Nice poast. I especially like the part about administrative culture v duelling v juridical culture. And how one must not only take offense at the slightest "offense" but the "offense" must be one that is rectified by an administrative body.

About a dozen or so - but it could be because of any number of things I do that annoy people - FB or otherwise....

And the creation of administrative grievance-resolving bodies increases the number, and reduces the bar, for such complaints.

It's almost like job security. Capitalism.

TerryB wrote:And the creation of administrative grievance-resolving bodies increases the number, and reduces the bar, for such complaints.

It's almost like job security. Capitalism.

Yeah. Exactly right. And like I've said before, ownership and upper mgmt love this stuff. The atomization and inter-personal animosity and lack of trust it sows prevents workers from organizing and also makes them more dependent on the company.

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/16 ... s-20120716
This is from 2012. I'll concede that gay marriage has come from the courts, but I suspect it would eventually have come about through legislation.
I haven't found it yet, but I could swear I read all the way back in 2008 that a poll had show that a slight majority of registered republicans supported gay marriage. I'll keep looking.
Or maybe I'm just in a Brooklyn bubble.

I don't know if you're wrong or right. I live in an area (DC metro) where the people in favor of gay marriage are out front about it, but those who oppose it tend to be quiet. My guess is that most of the immigrant population in the area is opposed, as is most of the African-American population-- and I would guess that those groups tend to vote Democrat. How does this play out in poll numbers? I have no idea. One thing this election cycle did was make all polls suspect.

bennyonesix wrote:

TerryB wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

Boris wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

Boris wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

Boris wrote:F-ing F*ggot.

Yes, I heard it myself. If I didn't does that mean it's made up?

People lie. People are lying a lot more about these things now than they did before. I know of at least two elaborately faked incidents involving homophobia. So yes, it matters to me if you heard it yourself.

Okay, so now do you believe me? Or, do you think I'm lying too?

Does it change your thinking at all?

I wouldn't have asked you if I thought you were dishonest.

No. It doesn't. It is ridiculous to claim that open homosexuals receive more abuse today than they did even last year, let alone 10 or even 20 years ago. The liberal reaction to this election result is hysterical and completely unwarranted.

You seem a reasonable man and I am not interested in fighting you. But if that is what you want, we can do it. But you'll have to be more direct and drop the pretense we are discussing issues.

I'm not fighting anyone. I disagree that it is all hysterical overreaction. I'm being as direct as I can without typing out some kind of dissertation. Of course we are not comparing 2016 to the 50s, 60s, 70s, or 80s, but are there people that think things have not escalated over the past three or so years?

Both sides of the divide are saying enough is enough, and both sides have very reasonable arguments.

"Campbell and Manning describe how this culture of dignity is now giving way to a new culture of victimhood in which people are encouraged to respond to even the slightest unintentional offense, as in an honor culture. But they must not obtain redress on their own; they must appeal for help to powerful others or administrative bodies, to whom they must make the case that they have been victimized. It is the very presence of such administrative bodies, within a culture that is highly egalitarian and diverse (i.e., many college campuses) that gives rise to intense efforts to identify oneself as a fragile and aggrieved victim."

http://righteousmind.com/where-microagg ... come-from/

That's really good, bruv. Nice poast. I especially like the part about administrative culture v duelling v juridical culture. And how one must not only take offense at the slightest "offense" but the "offense" must be one that is rectified by an administrative body.

We just elected a President who, every time someone says something mean and hurtful to him, threatens to sue.

nafod wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

TerryB wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

Boris wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

Boris wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

Boris wrote:F-ing F*ggot.

Yes, I heard it myself. If I didn't does that mean it's made up?

People lie. People are lying a lot more about these things now than they did before. I know of at least two elaborately faked incidents involving homophobia. So yes, it matters to me if you heard it yourself.

Okay, so now do you believe me? Or, do you think I'm lying too?

Does it change your thinking at all?

I wouldn't have asked you if I thought you were dishonest.

No. It doesn't. It is ridiculous to claim that open homosexuals receive more abuse today than they did even last year, let alone 10 or even 20 years ago. The liberal reaction to this election result is hysterical and completely unwarranted.

You seem a reasonable man and I am not interested in fighting you. But if that is what you want, we can do it. But you'll have to be more direct and drop the pretense we are discussing issues.

I'm not fighting anyone. I disagree that it is all hysterical overreaction. I'm being as direct as I can without typing out some kind of dissertation. Of course we are not comparing 2016 to the 50s, 60s, 70s, or 80s, but are there people that think things have not escalated over the past three or so years?

Both sides of the divide are saying enough is enough, and both sides have very reasonable arguments.

"Campbell and Manning describe how this culture of dignity is now giving way to a new culture of victimhood in which people are encouraged to respond to even the slightest unintentional offense, as in an honor culture. But they must not obtain redress on their own; they must appeal for help to powerful others or administrative bodies, to whom they must make the case that they have been victimized. It is the very presence of such administrative bodies, within a culture that is highly egalitarian and diverse (i.e., many college campuses) that gives rise to intense efforts to identify oneself as a fragile and aggrieved victim."

http://righteousmind.com/where-microagg ... come-from/

That's really good, bruv. Nice poast. I especially like the part about administrative culture v duelling v juridical culture. And how one must not only take offense at the slightest "offense" but the "offense" must be one that is rectified by an administrative body.

We just elected a President who, every time someone says something mean and hurtful to him, threatens to sue.

or tweets a whiny "not nice."

nafod wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

TerryB wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

Boris wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

Boris wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

Boris wrote:F-ing F*ggot.

Yes, I heard it myself. If I didn't does that mean it's made up?

People lie. People are lying a lot more about these things now than they did before. I know of at least two elaborately faked incidents involving homophobia. So yes, it matters to me if you heard it yourself.

Okay, so now do you believe me? Or, do you think I'm lying too?

Does it change your thinking at all?

I wouldn't have asked you if I thought you were dishonest.

No. It doesn't. It is ridiculous to claim that open homosexuals receive more abuse today than they did even last year, let alone 10 or even 20 years ago. The liberal reaction to this election result is hysterical and completely unwarranted.

You seem a reasonable man and I am not interested in fighting you. But if that is what you want, we can do it. But you'll have to be more direct and drop the pretense we are discussing issues.

I'm not fighting anyone. I disagree that it is all hysterical overreaction. I'm being as direct as I can without typing out some kind of dissertation. Of course we are not comparing 2016 to the 50s, 60s, 70s, or 80s, but are there people that think things have not escalated over the past three or so years?

Both sides of the divide are saying enough is enough, and both sides have very reasonable arguments.

"Campbell and Manning describe how this culture of dignity is now giving way to a new culture of victimhood in which people are encouraged to respond to even the slightest unintentional offense, as in an honor culture. But they must not obtain redress on their own; they must appeal for help to powerful others or administrative bodies, to whom they must make the case that they have been victimized. It is the very presence of such administrative bodies, within a culture that is highly egalitarian and diverse (i.e., many college campuses) that gives rise to intense efforts to identify oneself as a fragile and aggrieved victim."

http://righteousmind.com/where-microagg ... come-from/

That's really good, bruv. Nice poast. I especially like the part about administrative culture v duelling v juridical culture. And how one must not only take offense at the slightest "offense" but the "offense" must be one that is rectified by an administrative body.

We just elected a President who, every time someone says something mean and hurtful to him, threatens to sue.

Zing!

TerryB wrote:

nafod wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

TerryB wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

Boris wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

Boris wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

Boris wrote:F-ing F*ggot.

Yes, I heard it myself. If I didn't does that mean it's made up?

People lie. People are lying a lot more about these things now than they did before. I know of at least two elaborately faked incidents involving homophobia. So yes, it matters to me if you heard it yourself.

Okay, so now do you believe me? Or, do you think I'm lying too?

Does it change your thinking at all?

I wouldn't have asked you if I thought you were dishonest.

No. It doesn't. It is ridiculous to claim that open homosexuals receive more abuse today than they did even last year, let alone 10 or even 20 years ago. The liberal reaction to this election result is hysterical and completely unwarranted.

You seem a reasonable man and I am not interested in fighting you. But if that is what you want, we can do it. But you'll have to be more direct and drop the pretense we are discussing issues.

I'm not fighting anyone. I disagree that it is all hysterical overreaction. I'm being as direct as I can without typing out some kind of dissertation. Of course we are not comparing 2016 to the 50s, 60s, 70s, or 80s, but are there people that think things have not escalated over the past three or so years?

Both sides of the divide are saying enough is enough, and both sides have very reasonable arguments.

"Campbell and Manning describe how this culture of dignity is now giving way to a new culture of victimhood in which people are encouraged to respond to even the slightest unintentional offense, as in an honor culture. But they must not obtain redress on their own; they must appeal for help to powerful others or administrative bodies, to whom they must make the case that they have been victimized. It is the very presence of such administrative bodies, within a culture that is highly egalitarian and diverse (i.e., many college campuses) that gives rise to intense efforts to identify oneself as a fragile and aggrieved victim."

http://righteousmind.com/where-microagg ... come-from/

That's really good, bruv. Nice poast. I especially like the part about administrative culture v duelling v juridical culture. And how one must not only take offense at the slightest "offense" but the "offense" must be one that is rectified by an administrative body.

We just elected a President who, every time someone says something mean and hurtful to him, threatens to sue.

Zing!

You still got it, Bruv.