CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 390
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:02 pm
 


simjanes2k simjanes2k:
scarecrowe scarecrowe:
hwacker hwacker:

gay couples should not have kids.
There are a lot of straight couples that should not have kids. Would you rather have a state run orphanage and have a society with "The People's Children" as in Commieland?


Okay that's totally accurate. I really hate some people having kids for the hell of it, while my fiance and I save money and prepare to buy a house, make sure we can pay for college, etc...

I actually had a friend say "I'm gonna be a great dad, man."

He was at the time turning into one lousy piece of trash, and I told him. It would have been REALLY great if there were a law in place, so maybe I could make a citizens' arrest and turned him in for something.

"Procreating while Influenced by Retardation" or something.

My kids are now men, on their own and doing very well, not only for themselves but also for others through their volunteering efforts.
Some people need assistance in raising their kids and they should be assisted to a greater extent than the system provides currently, BUT not to the point where we get a new brand of freeloader who looks at cashing in by procreating like a rabbit. I am just fed up with all those weenies out there who want to get married for the monetary benefits and characterize their plight with slogans related to "rights" and "religion" when in reality, they are just selfish.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 72
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:09 pm
 


Eisensapper Eisensapper:
We all know why it happened, we were just debating on how wrong it was for this being allowed to go for a vote. I just have trouble seeing why you think its ok that this was put to a vote.


It's okay because that's the way laws are generally made. Either we the people vote on an issue, or we elect people who share our views on the issue to vote for us. It doesn't make sense to say that the majority gets to decide most things but only if they benefit you.

Moral issues have always, ALWAYS been hot button topics for government regulation. The question of whether or not they are specifically RELIGIOUS moral issues should not make a difference.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 5164
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:12 pm
 


Again it confuses me you dont want religion to influence your life, but have no problem religious laws governing your life.

Some things should not be a law, if a voted for and passed saying that a woman who drove is to be stoned to death would you support this?


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 72
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:12 pm
 


scarecrowe scarecrowe:
My kids are now men, on their own and doing very well, not only for themselves but also for others through their volunteering efforts.
Some people need assistance in raising their kids and they should be assisted to a greater extent than the system provides currently, BUT not to the point where we get a new brand of freeloader who looks at cashing in by procreating like a rabbit. I am just fed up with all those weenies out there who want to get married for the monetary benefits and characterize their plight with slogans related to "rights" and "religion" when in reality, they are just selfish.


I've heard of people doing just that. Women who get pregnant due to laziness, not unavailability of birth control. Then they have the baby, since they can get not only their health care for free, but they get additional money if they have to support themselves and a baby. Plus child support, if they can find a guy dumb enough to not have a DNA test done.

On the other hand, deadbeat dads who accidentally knock up a broad, due again to laziness or stupidity, and then run off to leave her on her own are not only assholes, but also negatively impacting that area economy by sucking down local resources.

God the more I think about it, the more I am really terrified of Obama the Socialist as a president.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 72
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:14 pm
 


Eisensapper Eisensapper:
Again it confuses me you dont want religion to influence your life, but have no problem religious laws governing your life.

Some things should not be a law, if a voted for and passed saying that a woman who drove is to be stoned to death would you support this?


If it was voted in, yes. Basically I believe in democracy (barely), and if the people are allowed to hand the reins of the most powerful nation on the face of the earth to a man with no experience but talks pretty, they should be allowed to determine issues of law as well.

I'm not sure where YOU'RE coming from, however. If not democracy, what would be your preference?


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 5164
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:20 pm
 


I shall say it again, some things should not be put to a vote. If you dont like the decisions made by a representative dont vote him in next term, that is democracy.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 72
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:24 pm
 


Eisensapper Eisensapper:
I shall say it again, some things should not be put to a vote. If you dont like the decisions made by a representative dont vote him in next term, that is democracy.


How then do we determine what gets put to a vote, vs. what you get to tell us is "just right?"


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
Profile
Posts: 13928
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:28 pm
 


$1:
If it was voted in, yes. Basically I believe in democracy (barely), and if the people are allowed to hand the reins of the most powerful nation on the face of the earth to a man with no experience but talks pretty, they should be allowed to determine issues of law as well.

So what you are saying is that if something you strongly believed in was but to a vote and squashed you would lie down and take it as creed?


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 72
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:29 pm
 


TattoodGirl TattoodGirl:
$1:
If it was voted in, yes. Basically I believe in democracy (barely), and if the people are allowed to hand the reins of the most powerful nation on the face of the earth to a man with no experience but talks pretty, they should be allowed to determine issues of law as well.

So what you are saying is that if something you strongly believed in was but to a vote and squashed you would lie down and take it as creed?


No, I'm an American, not a sissy. I would accept it as the majority vote this time around, and try my damndest to get it changed the next time it's possible.

Exactly like Obama being elected...


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 5164
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:30 pm
 


You help elect someone who you feel best represents who you think should govern your constituency. He as well as his peers decide what is best for your constituency. They decide if a referendum should be called.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 72
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:32 pm
 


Okay. So we don't actually get a voice per se, but a representation of a voice? How is that superior to literally counting how many people want what? It seems silly to dillute the will of the people like that.

You sound like you're encouraging semi-democratic dictatorship...


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 72
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:34 pm
 


A what?!

If all you can do is resort to personal attacks rather than contribute to a debate, isn't the standard rule to stay out of it? I've had the courtesy of being respectful as is reasonable here, I don't think it's too much to ask the same.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 5164
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:40 pm
 


simjanes2k simjanes2k:
Okay. So we don't actually get a voice per se, but a representation of a voice? How is that superior to literally counting how many people want what? It seems silly to dillute the will of the people like that.

You sound like you're encouraging semi-democratic dictatorship...


Welcome to Canada!

ImageImage


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 72
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:57 pm
 


lily lily:

If you seriously felt personally attacked because you were called a sheeple, you clearly need to step away from the computer. Or find another site to hang at.

Do you know what a sheeple even is? It's someone who can't think for himself.

You've been arguing for the ban on SSMs because you believe that your country is a Christian one based on Christian laws. You're wrong, but you quite happily ignored that.

Tell you what. I'll take it back if you can show me you can indeed think for yourself. Once last time - give me one *good* reason that SSMs should be banned.

Please note I'm not asking for your *opinion* on why Prop 8 passed in Cali. That's a separate issue.


First, I have never heard the term sheeple, although I suppose it makes sense now that I've thought about it. Second, stepping away from a discussion to use a derogatory term is the definition of a personal attack. If that sort of thing is common here, perhaps you're correct, I should find another site. It seems like I am the only conservative here anyway.

Nevertheless, I will attempt to continue for now.

The Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, our National Anthem, and the Pledge of Allegiance all reference our being "under god" or with some reference to God. I would think that even Canadians would understand that the Protestant vs. Catholic thing was one of the major reasons for separation in the first place. So we are a Christian country.

We have had laws for over 200 years that are based on Christian morals, and just yesterday we enacted bans on events that we consider wrong for whatever reason, and I think we've established that religion is that reason. So we have Christian laws.

The good reason that you keep asking for is right here and does not require that ANY of us think for ourselves. It is too obvious. SSMs should be banned in California because the people voted on it and don't want them. That's it! That is called democracy. If you don't like the laws in an area, find another area or campaign to have the laws changed. That's how the system works, and that's how we like it, for the most part.

That was the same system that eventually gave us women and blacks voting, through the Supreme Court. That is the same system that decides how we would interpret Roe vs. Wade in our localities. It is literally the most fair system to a majority of people that can possible exist at this time.

Lastly, I have not stated any of this for your approval, or to make sure I get in on that "last chance" you offered. In fact the more we talk the more I lose respect for anyone's ability to discuss something serious without pulling hair or throwing spitballs.

That is my opinion, based on my observations, from where I am in the world. I do what I can to absorb other people's beliefs and determine if I agree with them before I dismiss them out of hand. To expect any different is silly. But if you are all not willing to share your own thoughts on it, rather than attack those who can explain their beliefs, how can I learn anything and change my mind?


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 72
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:09 pm
 


I feel very sorry for your limited mind and whatever poor children may be exposed to it. I tried my best to make the communication happen.

At any rate, I hope I've fully explained myself to everyone else, the "nuh-uh!" notwithstanding.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 278 posts ]  Previous  1 ... 6  7  8  9  10  11  12 ... 19  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.