martin wrote:Yeah man, agreed. We are a stupid country. How Palin and the like can still be on TV and have followers is beyond me.

I know! Stuff like this has nothing to do with how educated someone is but everything to do with basic common sense and rationale. The whole situation would've been comedic if it wasn't so painfully real. I frequently blame those in power for the deterioration of our society but it wouldn't be working if there was not so many ignorant people that get hung up on issues like gay marriage, while ignoring legitimate issues e.g. Meals on Wheels.

playa2 wrote:How do you think Rome was destroyed...... from within

Political corruption and an over-extension of their military on unnecessary wars. We've got those two issues in spades but I'm not sure how they factor into this discussion.

You see, for the enlightened intelligentsia, common sense is simple: morality is personal and secondary, money is a social issue and primary.
Homosexuality isn't as simple as "how someone validates their love". It's the redefinition of words, like marriage and family and child rearing. Oh yeah, and free speech and religious freedom. Little meaningless issues like that.

I understand that the redefinition of words is something Stupid People should leave to the common sense posse.

I suppose abortion is in the same vein in your common sense eyes, right? Feed the homeless, kill the babies nobody wants. Simple common sense.

Funny someone mentioned Rome. Any idiot who takes 5 minutes studying the fall of civilizations is concerned with the moral decay of this country. But then who really should care?

We can always move to Sweden. Or Denmark.

jrodmc wrote:Amen! So if the common sense posse here could just tell all us Stupid People (read: conservative) what the actual important issues are that we should:
A) agree with and vote for
B) concentrate on
C) fund with our effing tax dollars

If you paid attention to the happenings of the world, gay marriage is quickly moving away from being a "liberal vs. conservative" issue and to one of basic human/civil rights. Prominent GOP figures in the party, such as George H.W. Bush (41), Dick Chaney, Steve Schmidt, Michael Steele and Bob Dole (indirectly) have voiced there support in favor of marriage equality. Amongst young Republicans, it isn't even an issue. So, what are you talking about?

jrodmc wrote:You see, for the enlightened intelligentsia, common sense is simple: morality is personal and secondary, money is a social issue and primary.
Homosexuality isn't as simple as "how someone validates their love". It's the redefinition of words, like marriage and family and child rearing. Oh yeah, and free speech and religious freedom. Little meaningless issues like that.

Why is gay marriage a "morality" issue? When was it decided that the basis of law should be limited to enforcing morality? I've jaywalked multiple teams in my life, so I guess that makes me an immoral person, lol.

As for the "redefinition of words", who the **** cares? Precedent is not inherently equitable to fairness or righteousness. Black people were once prohibited from marriage and as recent as 1991, prohibited from interracial marriage. Was the "redefinition of words" in this instance an "immoral" thing?

jrodmc wrote:I understand that the redefinition of words is something Stupid People should leave to the common sense posse.

In an ideal world, this would be the case. Our country would certainly have been the better for it.

jrodmc wrote:I suppose abortion is in the same vein in your common sense eyes, right? Feed the homeless, kill the babies nobody wants. Simple common sense.

I have no idea of what you're trying to imply here but I'll play your game. Would I want my significant other to have an abortion as a man? No but it certainly would be her decision. Do I support the right for anyone to seek an abortion? Yes, I support abortion in any and every case that merits it. Why? Because if someone isn't capable of being a parent AND has the humility to recognize this fact about themselves, they should proceed in a manner that prevents their burden from becoming the burden of the system. Right wing idiots will rile against that but they will also support legislation to destroy any infrastructure/program designed to provide services for children born from this situation. Go figure. Then again, as everyone knows, Jesus hates the poor and the needy.

jrodmc wrote:Funny someone mentioned Rome. Any idiot who takes 5 minutes studying the fall of civilizations is concerned with the moral decay of this country. But then who really should care?

We can always move to Sweden. Or Denmark.

The fall of Rome had nothing to do with morality and everything to do with a squandering of resources on nearsighted ventures e.g. war. Two men or two women loving each other has nothing to do with that.

playa2 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

playa2 wrote:How do you think Rome was destroyed...... from within

Political corruption and an over-extension of their military on unnecessary wars. We've got those two issues in spades but I'm not sure how they factor into this discussion.

Rome was also destroyed from within MORALLY, everybody began to do in their own eyes what they thought was right. No moral compass !

So what you're saying is that gay marriage is a stepping stone to the destruction of the nation?

NardDogNation wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Amen! So if the common sense posse here could just tell all us Stupid People (read: conservative) what the actual important issues are that we should:
A) agree with and vote for
B) concentrate on
C) fund with our effing tax dollars

If you paid attention to the happenings of the world, gay marriage is quickly moving away from being a "liberal vs. conservative" issue and to one of basic human/civil rights. Prominent GOP figures in the party, such as George H.W. Bush (41), Dick Chaney, Steve Schmidt, Michael Steele and Bob Dole (indirectly) have voiced there support in favor of marriage equality. Amongst young Republicans, it isn't even an issue. So, what are you talking about?

Please explain how a particular sexual preference is equated to a basic human/civil right. Use examples along the same lines.

NardDogNation wrote:

jrodmc wrote:You see, for the enlightened intelligentsia, common sense is simple: morality is personal and secondary, money is a social issue and primary.
Homosexuality isn't as simple as "how someone validates their love". It's the redefinition of words, like marriage and family and child rearing. Oh yeah, and free speech and religious freedom. Little meaningless issues like that.

Why is gay marriage a "morality" issue? When was it decided that the basis of law should be limited to enforcing morality? I've jaywalked multiple teams in my life, so I guess that makes me an immoral person, lol.

Please explain how being a "decent human being" includes the wholesale acceptance of homosexuality? Suppose consenting adults commit adultery? Or incest? Or necrophelia? And why wouldn't a "decent human being" mean accpetance of all sorts of human activity, not just selected sexual preferences?

And your concept of morality can equate human sexuality with minor traffic laws? Common sense and enlightened, indeed.

Like I said, your common sense comments concede putting morality behind money. As just a matter of course. Interesting.

NardDogNation wrote:As for the "redefinition of words", who the **** cares?

NardDogNation wrote:
Precedent is not inherently equitable to fairness or righteousness. Black people were once prohibited from marriage and as recent as 1991, prohibited from interracial marriage. Was the "redefinition of words" in this instance an "immoral" thing?

And while you're at it, Perry Mason, what is inherently equal to fairness or righteousness? From who, what or where are your standards derived from?

NardDogNation wrote:

jrodmc wrote:I understand that the redefinition of words is something Stupid People should leave to the common sense posse.

In an ideal world, this would be the case. Our country would certainly have been the better for it.

NardDogNation wrote:

jrodmc wrote:I suppose abortion is in the same vein in your common sense eyes, right? Feed the homeless, kill the babies nobody wants. Simple common sense.

I have no idea of what you're trying to imply here but I'll play your game. Would I want my significant other to have an abortion as a man? No but it certainly would be her decision. Do I support the right for anyone to seek an abortion? Yes, I support abortion in any and every case that merits it. Why? Because if someone isn't capable of being a parent AND has the humility to recognize this fact about themselves, they should proceed in a manner that prevents their burden from becoming the burden of the system. Right wing idiots will rile against that but they will also support legislation to destroy any infrastructure/program designed to provide services for children born from this situation. Go figure. Then again, as everyone knows, Jesus hates the poor and the needy.

You spout these pontifications about what you support on the basis of what? Why is killing an unborn baby supportable by you "in any and every case that merits it"? Let's see, what "merits it" in your estimation here:
1) Someone's (or anyone's) assessment of parenting capability. [Who gets to set that scale?]
2) Having the humility to realize that killing the unborn is more responsible then dealing with the consequences of your actions (in this case, sex) [and please spare me your insipid liberal chanting of "what about incest? what about rape? what about tubal preganancy and the death of the mother? special pleading] and the humility to realize that no matter what dopey latin or greek term you use to descibe the life in the womb, that that life has just as much a right to exist as you humbly do.
3) Burden to the system. I feel truly sorry for you, Nard. I hope and pray to the Jesus you obviously know little to nothing about that you're never in the situation of having an OB/GYN sit in front of you and tell you that the baby you've fathered is only going to be a burden to the system. You see, I've actually been there. I've had the top high-risk pregnancy doctor on the East Coast of the USA tell my wife and I that it would be better for us to abort, because in his vaunted opinion, our child would only be a "tax burden to society". And that "tax burden" fetus is now a 13 year old honor student.

And you'll rail against "right wing idiots" who won't fund services to support the poor and needy, but you'll support legislation to destroy those children before they get a chance to become poor and needy. Yes, as we all know, better dead than in the red, right?

Money over morality. See how that works in real life?

NardDogNation wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Funny someone mentioned Rome. Any idiot who takes 5 minutes studying the fall of civilizations is concerned with the moral decay of this country. But then who really should care?

We can always move to Sweden. Or Denmark.

The fall of Rome had nothing to do with morality and everything to do with a squandering of resources on nearsighted ventures e.g. war. Two men or two women loving each other has nothing to do with that.

Yes, right, when all else fails, blame the military. Excuse me, but how did the Roman Empire come to be an empire to begin with?

Some day, when you grow up or wake up, you might find out that "loving each other" as you use the term, is a bit more than what you currently think. But as you say, word definitions, who gives a ****, right?

martin wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

martin wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Amen! So if the common sense posse here could just tell all us Stupid People (read: conservative) what the actual important issues are that we should:
A) agree with and vote for
B) concentrate on
C) fund with our effing tax dollars

You see, for the enlightened intelligentsia, common sense is simple: morality is personal and secondary, money is a social issue and primary.
Homosexuality isn't as simple as "how someone validates their love". It's the redefinition of words, like marriage and family and child rearing. Oh yeah, and free speech and religious freedom. Little meaningless issues like that.

I understand that the redefinition of words is something Stupid People should leave to the common sense posse.

I suppose abortion is in the same vein in your common sense eyes, right? Feed the homeless, kill the babies nobody wants. Simple common sense.

Funny someone mentioned Rome. Any idiot who takes 5 minutes studying the fall of civilizations is concerned with the moral decay of this country. But then who really should care?

We can always move to Sweden. Or Denmark.

You are the only one here who grouped/equated Conservatives and Stupid people, right? Just wanted to see if I am right on that.

Seriously martin, the OP doesn't infer that right? GoshDarnLiberalNation here isn't pontificating from the Enlightened Left wing pulpit, right?

And you are correct; please find me some other conservatives in here, boss.

not one bit, just you inferring something that is not there.

Please ask the thread author about the inferrence. I think you're just not seeing what's plainly and obviously there.

Bonn1997 wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

martin wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Amen! So if the common sense posse here could just tell all us Stupid People (read: conservative) what the actual important issues are that we should:
A) agree with and vote for
B) concentrate on
C) fund with our effing tax dollars

You see, for the enlightened intelligentsia, common sense is simple: morality is personal and secondary, money is a social issue and primary.
Homosexuality isn't as simple as "how someone validates their love". It's the redefinition of words, like marriage and family and child rearing. Oh yeah, and free speech and religious freedom. Little meaningless issues like that.

I understand that the redefinition of words is something Stupid People should leave to the common sense posse.

I suppose abortion is in the same vein in your common sense eyes, right? Feed the homeless, kill the babies nobody wants. Simple common sense.

Funny someone mentioned Rome. Any idiot who takes 5 minutes studying the fall of civilizations is concerned with the moral decay of this country. But then who really should care?

We can always move to Sweden. Or Denmark.

You are the only one here who grouped/equated Conservatives and Stupid people, right? Just wanted to see if I am right on that.

Seriously martin, the OP doesn't infer that right? GoshDarnLiberalNation here isn't pontificating from the Enlightened Left wing pulpit, right?

And you are correct; please find me some other conservatives in here, boss.

By definition, the OP doesn't and can't infer that.
And you said you cared about the definition of words!

And it's odd the "conservative" is the one here who wants to give government a big role - defining marriage, while the "liberals" want the government out of their bedrooms. Maybe you're using these lots of words incorrectly.

Excuse me, but gay marriage is the legislation under discussion, right, not DOMA? The government is redefining marriage for you. The liberal poster agrees and states that it should be up to the common sense posse (read: the government passing legislation for gay marriage) to define words, and legislate morality. The government's not only in your bedroom, it's inside your skull, in your church, in your schools, in your dictionary. "Liberals" want the government everywhere, including your bedroom and if necessary, the womb you happen to be occupying.

Definitions:

OP = Original Post -

Somehow in this Twilight Zone of a society, how two consenting adults choose to validate their love is an effrontery to the masses and their personal life but the dismantling of ****ing program that is evidently designed to save us all money and serve the most vulnerable of us does not even register. And such is the current state of stupidity in our country; one that should earn some kind of recognition for just how unique and intense it is.

Thread title -

The Current state of Stupidity

Are you reading any of this?