CommentsDisplaying KStret's 10 most recent comments.

• CNN Article: Republican Voters are ‘White, Aging and Dying Off,’ And the Party Could, Too

  May 25, 2012 at 4:16pm

  In reply to KStret.

  AChameleon,
  Liberals attempted to use the same argument in 06 and 08 and then were obliterated in 2010. They are correct that the republican party needs to change. However, they are incorrect that that the republican party needs to go even more to the left. The reason republicans lost in 06-08 was because of progressive republicans and their policies.

• CNN Article: Republican Voters are ‘White, Aging and Dying Off,’ And the Party Could, Too

  May 25, 2012 at 1:15pm

  Halimah Abdullah, “Even though I don’t like republicans,I am going to give them some advise about how to save the republican party. Are you ready? OK…here it goes…… Republicans you need to embrace all the political views of the democrats or your party will become extinct…… really…….I ‘m serious…hey….. why are you walking away?”

• CNN Article: Republican Voters are ‘White, Aging and Dying Off,’ And the Party Could, Too

  May 25, 2012 at 1:07pm

  Halimah Abdullah, “Even though I don’t like republicans,I am going to give them some advise about how to save the republican party. Are you ready? OK…here it goes…… Republicans you need to embrace all the political views of the democrats or your party will become extinct…… really…….I ‘m serious…hey….. why are you walking away?……”

• Porn Stars Explain How They Ended Up in Picture With Bill Clinton: He Had the Secret Service Call Us Over

  May 25, 2012 at 12:47pm

  There willl be another story about Bill Clinton in a few days questioning the strange rash on hs lips and why he is profusely itching his groin.

• This Is Where the American People Stand on Legalizing Gay Marriage

  May 13, 2012 at 1:40am

  In reply to LibertyorDie2011.

  This is a constitional argument. You are citing equal protection as your constitutional rationale to impose your view by judicial tyranny. What law is not being implemented across the board? Marriage.

  Every man can man any women he wants and vice versa. It is inaccurate to say that same sex couples want to get married. The accurate phraseology would be to say same sex couples want the “basic human right” to redefine marriage. If redefining marriage is a “basic human right” that the equal protection clause applies to, everyone has the right to redefine marriage not just homosexuals.

  Again, you would also have to go to the original intent of the founders. Would they believe that redefining marriage is a right? If you answered that question honestly, you would have to concede that they would have laughed at that notion. Once you admit that the founders would not support your position, the legal justification is in the toilet. The constitution argument fails on two points.

  1. Redefining marriage would have to be a right for everyone.
  2. The founders would not have believed that redefining marriage was a right.

• This Is Where the American People Stand on Legalizing Gay Marriage

  May 13, 2012 at 1:32am

  In reply to LibertyorDie2011.

  “I never said any of these groups don’t have, or don’t have equal rights to challenge DOMA.”

  I never asked you that or said anything about that. Again, I asked you if homosexuals are being discriminates because they can not get married, do you believe that polygamist are being discriminated because they can’t get married.

  “All of these groups are being discriminated against by a narrow definition of marriage, but, for the umpteenth time, if their view of marriage imposes on the civil rights of those involved, it shouldn’t be allowed, in my opinion.”

  Once again, you can say that exact same thing about marriage or any redefinition of marriage and for the umpteenth time, your argument are logical fallacies.

  It is transparently obvious that you are avoiding the central issue and you still have not answered my question. Why because you’re either:

  1. A hypocrite because you believe that redefining marriage is a basic human right but only for homosexuals.
  or
  2. You are forced to admit that you want the total deconstruction of the institution of marriage.You believe that any number of consenting adults can enter into the contract of marriage but at the same time polygamy has a history of violating the civil rights of those involved, so that should be illegal?You are contradicting yourself. Unfortunately it is very hard to make a case and/ or prosecute a case against that and you can say about any arrangement.

• This Is Where the American People Stand on Legalizing Gay Marriage

  May 13, 2012 at 1:22am

  In reply to LibertyorDie2011.

  ” The civil rights laws guaranteed all citizens equivalent rights that were previously denied to one group.”

  If that is true you must believe redefining marriage is right that is guaranteed all citizens.

  “consenting adults are being denied the freedoms of estate planning, death benefits, employer benefits, etc that hetero couples enjoy now.”

  You must also believe that a tax paying polygamist who has three different wives and three different homes is also being denied the freedoms of estate planning, death benefits, employer benefits, etc that hetero couples enjoy now too. Is that correct?

  “These couples are in loving relationships and are as committed to one another as hetero couples,”

  There is the red herring fallacy again…..

  “but the rights are denied to them based on the religious objections of the majority. This should not be allowed in the US.”

  Religion is also a red herring fallacy. The issue is whether redefining marriage is a right. This is a constitutional argument. Do you think the founders of this country would believe that redefining marriage is a right?

• This Is Where the American People Stand on Legalizing Gay Marriage

  May 13, 2012 at 1:19am

  In reply to LibertyorDie2011.

  “Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution for anyone, hetero or homosexual. States have chosen to take a religious based definition of marriage and impose that view on all Americans with the exceptions of a handful of states.”

  Marriage has had the same definition since the begin of this country and a long time before that. If you want to change the definition of marriage you have the burden to explain why we should change the definition. You do not get to go ahead and change the definition just because you think that it is a good idea and force it on everyone. That is what you are doing and that is called fascism.

  Why don’t you put it on a ballot referendum? Because you know it will not pass. You need to do something else to get around that. They played the standard progressive fascist X is a right card. If X is a right, a judge can implement and impose your political agenda.

• This Is Where the American People Stand on Legalizing Gay Marriage

  May 13, 2012 at 1:04am

  In reply to LibertyorDie2011.

  V.Salt
  “I said this is not necessarily true because any of the steps between B and Z could be invalidated due to their individual merits.”

  There are certain fallacies that are always illogical and some that are not. The slippery slope is not always illogical. In some cases A may not lead to Z and other cases it does. You can not simply dismiss the slippery slope on the grounds that it is a logical fallacy. In the case of same sex marriage your own logic chain dictates a slippery slope. I have explained why it is a slippery slope several times and you have not addressed the substance of my argument.

  “But, in the case of polygamy, their challenge may not be validated based on the civil rights violations of historical polygamist relationships. If so, the slippery slope has been avoided. It won’t be me making this decision, but the courts.”

  You are using the red herring fallacy and the non sequitur fallacy to side step the problem with your own argument. You did not aviod the slippery slope by citing historical civil rights violations of polygamist. Again, the issue is whether redefining marriage is a right.If redefining marriage is a right for gays, it has to be a right for everone.

  “I also said that all these groups have the right to challenge a definition of marriage that didn’t exist until 1996.”

  I didn’t ask you if groups have a right to challenge the definition of marriage. I asked you if you believe polygamist are being discriminated because th

• This Is Where the American People Stand on Legalizing Gay Marriage

  May 12, 2012 at 4:08am

  In reply to LibertyorDie2011.

  “Also, to use your logic that recognizing homosexuals (or polygamists, if approved) rights to marriage is “imposing” something upon our culture is the equivalent of saying that the civil rights laws of the 60′s “imposed” a black view of what being an American means on white folks.”

  Once again, you are making a category error. Telling someone that they can’t vote,can’t eat in certain restaurants, and must live in their own segregated communities is unconstitutional. That is different from not being able to redefine marriage. On top of that, it is a total insult and slap in the face to the civil right movement to compare the two.

  Getting lynched is not the same as redefining marriage.

  You own logic dictates that voting is a right for black people but not a right for Mexicans. If voting is a right, everyone gets to vote. If redefining marriage is a right, everyone gets to redefine marriage.