Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   Dr. Ben Carson will no longer be speaking at Johns Hopkins after comparing gays to NAMBLA and people who want to have sex with turtles   (tv.msnbc.com ) divider line
    More: Dumbass, NAMBLA, Dr. Ben Carson, Johns Hopkins, National Prayer Breakfasts, andrea mitchell, gay marriage ban, Presidential Medal of Freedom, gays  
•       •       •

13251 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Mar 2013 at 9:13 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



613 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-03-30 10:28:28 AM  

Silly Jesus: Good. We can raise a hell of a lot of people's taxes from 0%.


I don't know why you are still on about this.  Go, fly to the side of your representatives, Republicans or Democrat, and demand that they raise taxes on all those people not paying taxes!  Make it the first plank of your preferred party: We desire a flat tax of 30% for all people, no matter what!  Demand that they raise taxes on the free loaders and moochers!  Write letters, op eds and spread the word that whatever your party is, it wishes to raise taxes on all those moochers, like my disabled and retired Tea party Republican father and his wife!  God, how I wish they would have paid a dime during the years they demanded we invade Iraq.

Please, proceed.
 
2013-03-30 10:34:06 AM  

ultraholland: Hollie Maea: This is what happens when you listen to talk radio, believe that it is true, and then open your mouth.

the world is a better place when idiots are vocal


oh, I completely agree. The true disaster would be if he had kept his thoughts to himself and become elected president (he does have a compelling biography). But this is still a cautionary tale...
 
2013-03-30 10:48:23 AM  

VictoryCabal: "What I was basically saying and if anyone was offended, I apologize to you. What I was basically saying is there is no group. I wasn't equating those things, I don't think they're equal. If you ask me for an apple and I give you an orange you would say, that's not an orange. And I say, that's a banana. And that's not an apple either. Or a peach, that's not an apple, either. It doesn't mean that I'm equating the banana and the orange and the peach. In the same way I'm not equating those things."

Why is it that no one in politics can just say something like "I really farked up, I was wrong, I'm really sorry"?


That would require having a modicum of shame. People in politics don't have that.
 
2013-03-30 10:49:21 AM  

syrynxx: The world would be a much better place without a trace of religion. It makes intelligent people think stupid things.


Sorry, dude, religon's not a magical, mystical force whispering in these people's ears and FORCING them to think stupid things.

I can goddamn guarantee you that if religion (or what most people 'consider' religion: That is, worshiping dieties, etc), were to vanish overnight, or never have existed, we would still have almost AAAALLLL of the same problems. I mean, think about it: Half of these problems are people going to war and killing people over a text that, literally, says YOU SHOULDN'T DO THAT. Heck, try comparing the Prosperity Gospel to what the bible actually says about wealth sometime!

So no, it's not religion that's the issue. It's people blindly following others, or eager to appeal to their supposed authorities. It's what was revealed to be a part of human nature via the Milgram experiment. Desire to appease authorities causes intelligent people to do stupid shiat. Lack of introspection causes people to do stupid shiat. *BEING HUMAN*, basically. We're not rational beings.

If religion were to vanish, or be outlawed and suppressed, it would very, VERY quickly be replaced, by, say, blind, fervent nationalism. In fact, we've SEEN that happen in the past.

Really, just seeming to think that it's only *religion* that causes problems like this is.. well, pretty dangerous, since it sort of implies you'd think you were immune.
 
2013-03-30 10:57:01 AM  

Silly Jesus: nocturnal001: Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: I liked his 10% flat tax idea.

Ah, so he can't do math either huh?

Unless this is an additional tax, which in that case is heresy in the GOP.

Flat taxes aren't math?  Potato?

That's the kind of thinking one has to have to think that a 10% flat tax is sustainable.

These 41 countries with a flat tax might be interested in your expertise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Countries_that_have_flat_tax_s ys tems

It's not that flat taxes can't work, but rather that the plans we usually see claim to be our solution yet never bother to actually do the math. It seems like these guys just pick a percent that sounds good and run with it.

In the absence of spending cuts, lowering one person's taxes means you have to raise somebody else's.

Good.  We can raise a hell of a lot of people's taxes from 0%.


Not that many pay zero. Most of those are elderly on SS and the disabled.
 
2013-03-30 10:59:56 AM  

Felgraf: syrynxx: The world would be a much better place without a trace of religion. It makes intelligent people think stupid things.

Sorry, dude, religon's not a magical, mystical force whispering in these people's ears and FORCING them to think stupid things.

I can goddamn guarantee you that if religion (or what most people 'consider' religion: That is, worshiping dieties, etc), were to vanish overnight, or never have existed, we would still have almost AAAALLLL of the same problems. I mean, think about it: Half of these problems are people going to war and killing people over a text that, literally, says YOU SHOULDN'T DO THAT. Heck, try comparing the Prosperity Gospel to what the bible actually says about wealth sometime!

So no, it's not religion that's the issue. It's people blindly following others, or eager to appeal to their supposed authorities. It's what was revealed to be a part of human nature via the Milgram experiment. Desire to appease authorities causes intelligent people to do stupid shiat. Lack of introspection causes people to do stupid shiat. *BEING HUMAN*, basically. We're not rational beings.

If religion were to vanish, or be outlawed and suppressed, it would very, VERY quickly be replaced, by, say, blind, fervent nationalism. In fact, we've SEEN that happen in the past.

Really, just seeming to think that it's only *religion* that causes problems like this is.. well, pretty dangerous, since it sort of implies you'd think you were immune.


It's not what faith you follow, it's what you do with it. There are plenty of Buddhists who look upon rebirth and karma as an excuse to not do anything for the poor. It was their karma to come back to this world to suffer more, because they were bad, and they should feel bad. There are Christians who feel the same way, that God punishes those who have been wicked, and they wouldn't be poor and suffering if it wasn't in His plan. If flies against a great many of the teachings of either religion, but folks use what they find to reinforce their natural prejudices, or at least to justify crap that they are ALREADY doing. Be they pagans, Baptists, Catholics, or Buddhists. The faith itself isn't an indicator of one's charity or compassion, or their willingness to bash folks and be hurtful. Faith isn't the problem. It's what folks do with it. Same with ideology. There are socialists and communists who are simply repugnant folks. There are those who believe so much in democracy that they will subvert it and the foundation of our own Constitution to "defend" it.

Boils down to it: when you find folks twisting things up, especially if you happen to believe differently, is to call folks out on it. Get it out there. In relation to my earlier post on deviance, that is how societies work. We find those that deviate, and we either reward or punish for that deviance, or at least make our displeasure known. In some cases, that helps bring folks "back to the fold" of acceptable behavior. Or it pushes folks to excel to gain more praise for their efforts. The current dialog on marriage equality is our society trying to figure itself out, and what track we should be taking. It's not a bad thing. This is how societies work, and decrying the discussion is less helpful, as opposed to having meaningful dialog, and getting it all out there.
 
2013-03-30 11:01:04 AM  
When you don't pay a doctor for his opinion, you get a really shiatty opinion.

We need to ask at least two other doctors what they think.
 
2013-03-30 11:02:24 AM  
ThatGuyFromTheInternet:

Rule 34 never fails.
 
2013-03-30 11:03:39 AM  

Felgraf: I mean, think about it: Half of these problems are people going to war and killing people over a text that, literally, says YOU SHOULDN'T DO THAT.


Well, apart from all the instances where these religious texts say you should (and, indeed, must) kill people. I've been hearing this argument a lot lately; that religions just an unfortunate scapegoat and that everything bad (or almost everything bad) would keep happening even if it didn't exist. The truth, though, is that there are plenty of terrible things - such as the lynching of gay people in Africa - that exist for literally no reason other than the religious beliefs that command or condone them.
 
2013-03-30 11:04:46 AM  

dickfreckle: Kittypie070: dickfreckle: Kittypie070: Ohhhh....can I steal that phrase?

Kittypie, everything I own belongs to you!

/except my dog

Squeeeeeeeeeeeeee

My dog loves cats, and tries to face-hump other male dogs. Perhaps we can work something out. Right now he's on the balcony whimpering desperately at one of the feral cats we feed. Am pretty sure he's bisexual but also doesn't understand that he's supposed to stick to his species. Damn, dude. At least keep it in the family.

/retarded mutt with a heart of gold


LMAO

That dawg's a xenomorph, I tells ya! The face-humping gave it away!!


My cat is set in her ways, being 11 years old now and isn't really what I'd call friendly toward other cats. When she was a youngster she used to get into loud, energetic fights with the neighbor's cats and then come swaggering back inside to be looked over.

Dogs, she knows how to handle dogs pretty well, as she grew up with a rather crazed Boston Terrier and a Labrador. She didn't use her claws except to go hunting birds with.

/end threadjack
 
2013-03-30 11:10:55 AM  
Conservatives don't seem to understand that you need a balance of credentials and character to win presidential elections in this day and age.
 
2013-03-30 11:11:21 AM  
MSNBC fails to mention that before Dr. Carson made that comment, Hannity was discussing Justice Sotomayor's concern that finding a constitutional right to a gay marriage could establish a principle that could also apply to incestuous marriages and polygamy.  Carson was simply restating Sotomayor's concern, using different examples.  That's the context of it.
 
2013-03-30 11:13:02 AM  

SkinnyHead: MSNBC fails to mention that before Dr. Carson made that comment, Hannity was discussing Justice Sotomayor's concern that finding a constitutional right to a gay marriage could establish a principle that could also apply to incestuous marriages and polygamy.  Carson was simply restating Sotomayor's concern, using different examples.  That's the context of it.


I thank everybody one in this thread in advance for not responding to this troll.
 
2013-03-30 11:16:11 AM  
My first exposure to Carson was his long interview with NPR a few months ago.  I was unsurprised he was a conservative darling: he refused to answer reasonable questions, kicked the ball to scripture at his convenience, and was passive aggressive with the host.  When all of that failed, he basically went into the pseudo-intellectual gobbledy-gook that conservatives today are known for ("he's the stupid person's idea of a smart person").

In other words, I am completely unsurprised he turned out to be a misguided bigot.
 
2013-03-30 11:18:36 AM  

Biological Ali: I thank everybody one in this thread in advance....


Don't quote the troll in any way when posting about the troll.  You gave the troll what it wants by repeating his words.
 
2013-03-30 11:19:16 AM  

SkinnyHead: MSNBC fails to mention that before Dr. Carson made that comment, Hannity was discussing Justice Sotomayor's concern that finding a constitutional right to a gay marriage could establish a principle that could also apply to incestuous marriages and polygamy.  Carson was simply restating Sotomayor's concern, using different examples.  That's the context of it.


You said "MSNBC" as if a television station had something intelligent to contribute to any political conversation whatsoever.
 
2013-03-30 11:20:51 AM  

Sgt Otter: Relatively Obscure: "What I was basically saying and if anyone was offended, I apologize to you. What I was basically saying is there is no group. I wasn't equating those things, I don't think they're equal. If you ask me for an apple and I give you an orange you would say, that's not an orange. And I say, that's a banana. And that's not an apple either. Or a peach, that's not an apple, either. It doesn't mean that I'm equating the banana and the orange and the peach. In the same way I'm not equating those things."

[www.reactiongifs.com image 193x135]

[img.photobucket.com image 480x360]


That's the math Republicans do to make themselves feel better when they're on the wrong side of an issue.
 
2013-03-30 11:22:24 AM  

Sgt Otter: Relatively Obscure: "What I was basically saying and if anyone was offended, I apologize to you. What I was basically saying is there is no group. I wasn't equating those things, I don't think they're equal. If you ask me for an apple and I give you an orange you would say, that's not an orange. And I say, that's a banana. And that's not an apple either. Or a peach, that's not an apple, either. It doesn't mean that I'm equating the banana and the orange and the peach. In the same way I'm not equating those things."

[www.reactiongifs.com image 193x135]

[img.photobucket.com image 480x360]


I TIHNK "peach" means "pedophiles", but I'm not really sure here.  After all, I don't have the medical training this guy has.
 
2013-03-30 11:23:14 AM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: he's the stupid person's idea of a smart person


its sad because its true
 
2013-03-30 11:24:03 AM  

RyogaM: Don't quote the troll in any way when posting about the troll. You gave the troll what it wants by repeating his words.


He's not the only troll in this thread, so I had to be specific. People merely quoting the posts doesn't bug me (and for that matter, it's not what he wants either) - it's when he can see that he's getting a rise out of people and getting them to waste their time trying to "debate" him that he knows his job is done.
 
2013-03-30 11:25:38 AM  

Biological Ali: SkinnyHead: MSNBC fails to mention that before Dr. Carson made that comment, Hannity was discussing Justice Sotomayor's concern that finding a constitutional right to a gay marriage could establish a principle that could also apply to incestuous marriages and polygamy.  Carson was simply restating Sotomayor's concern, using different examples.  That's the context of it.

I thank everybody one in this thread in advance for not responding to this troll.


I can see how you wouldn't want this discussion derailed by the truth.
 
2013-03-30 11:28:16 AM  

SkinnyHead: Biological Ali: SkinnyHead: MSNBC fails to mention that before Dr. Carson made that comment, Hannity was discussing Justice Sotomayor's concern that finding a constitutional right to a gay marriage could establish a principle that could also apply to incestuous marriages and polygamy.  Carson was simply restating Sotomayor's concern, using different examples.  That's the context of it.

I thank everybody one in this thread in advance for not responding to this troll.

I can see how you wouldn't want this discussion derailed by the truth.


You mean something that was thoroughly debunked on Wednesday?

You need new material dude.
 
2013-03-30 11:33:39 AM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: Conservatives don't seem to understand that you need a balance of credentials and character to win presidential elections in this day and age.


Which Obama had in spades, so to speak, His academic prowess combined with his charm is what elected him, not the welfare queens the right wants us to believe ushered him into office. I'm as white as they come (seriously, I'm almost embarrassingly WASP) and I found the man convincing starting with the '04 DNC speech. And I typically decry speeches as huckster BS.

Years into his presidency, I take issue with many of his decisions. But I still like the man, Next week he'll do something that pisses me off, and I'll gripe about it in this tab - but I still admire the man for being self-made and smarter than the average bear.

Obama is far from perfect. But he's what we have in the face of the TeaPublicans of the world. His charm and turn of phrases endear him to the public where the GOP seems hell-bent on alienating huge segments of it. Sure, he's just another politician, but compared to his GOP rivals he's a farking saint.
 
2013-03-30 11:36:14 AM  

dickfreckle: Britney Spear's Speculum: Conservatives don't seem to understand that you need a balance of credentials and character to win presidential elections in this day and age.

Which Obama had in spades, so to speak, His academic prowess combined with his charm is what elected him, not the welfare queens the right wants us to believe ushered him into office. I'm as white as they come (seriously, I'm almost embarrassingly WASP) and I found the man convincing starting with the '04 DNC speech. And I typically decry speeches as huckster BS.

Years into his presidency, I take issue with many of his decisions. But I still like the man, Next week he'll do something that pisses me off, and I'll gripe about it in this tab - but I still admire the man for being self-made and smarter than the average bear.

Obama is far from perfect. But he's what we have in the face of the TeaPublicans of the world. His charm and turn of phrases endear him to the public where the GOP seems hell-bent on alienating huge segments of it. Sure, he's just another politician, but compared to his GOP rivals he's a farking saint.


The thing that I will be anxious to see is who will fill his shoes when 2016 comes along.
 
2013-03-30 11:38:24 AM  

Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: Biological Ali: SkinnyHead: MSNBC fails to mention that before Dr. Carson made that comment, Hannity was discussing Justice Sotomayor's concern that finding a constitutional right to a gay marriage could establish a principle that could also apply to incestuous marriages and polygamy.  Carson was simply restating Sotomayor's concern, using different examples.  That's the context of it.

I thank everybody one in this thread in advance for not responding to this troll.

I can see how you wouldn't want this discussion derailed by the truth.

You mean something that was thoroughly debunked on Wednesday?

You need new material dude.


I watched the entire show so I know it's true.  Hannity played the audio of Sotomayor's question about incest and polygamy.  Go ahead and say "troll" and "debunked" all you want, I'm just giving you the truth.
 
2013-03-30 11:40:05 AM  

error 303: One Cuil = One level of abstraction away from the reality of a situation.
Example: You ask me for a Hamburger.
1 Cuil: if you asked me for a hamburger, and I gave you a raccoon.
2 Cuils: If you asked me for a hamburger, but it turns out I don't really exist. Where I was originally standing, a picture of a hamburger rests on the ground.
3 Cuils: You awake as a hamburger. You start screaming only to have special sauce fly from your lips. The world is in sepia.
4 Cuils: Why are we speaking German? A mime cries softly as he cradles a young cow. Your grandfather stares at you as the cow falls apart into patties. You look down only to see me with pickles for eyes, I am singing the song that gives birth to the universe.
5 Cuils: You ask for a hamburger, I give you a hamburger. You raise it to your lips and take a bite. Your eye twitches involuntarily. Across the street a father of three falls down the stairs. You swallow and look down at the hamburger in your hands. I give you a hamburger. You swallow and look down at the hamburger in your hands. You cannot swallow. There are children at the top of the stairs. A pickle shifts uneasily under the bun. I give you a hamburger. You look at my face, and I am pleading with you. The children are crying now. You raise the hamburger to your lips, tears stream down your face as you take a bite. I give you a hamburger. You are on your knees. You plead with me to go across the street. I hear only children's laughter. I give you a hamburger. You are screaming as you fall down the stairs. I am your child. You cannot see anything. You take a bite of the hamburger. The concrete rushes up to meet you. You awake with a start in your own bed. Your eye twitches involuntarily. I give you a hamburger. As you kill me, I do not make a sound. I give you a hamburger.
6 Cuils: You ask me for a hamburger. My attempt to reciprocate is cut brutally short as my body experiences a sudden lack of electrons. Across a variety of hidden dimensions you are dis ...


1-media-cdn.foolz.us
 
2013-03-30 11:41:05 AM  

SkinnyHead: I watched the entire show so I know it's true.  Hannity played the audio of Sotomayor's question about incest and polygamy.  Go ahead and say "troll" and "debunked" all you want, I'm just giving you the truth.


You're not giving factual evidence, which is what people generally mean when they use the word "truth."
 
2013-03-30 11:41:11 AM  
Dr. Carson, good Christian that he is, would fully support NAMBLA's position on marriage as there is nothing in the Bible preventing old men from marrying children and sexing them up.  If NAMBLA's position is they want to be able to marry and sex up children, then NAMBLA is fully in support of traditional Biblical marriage.
 
2013-03-30 11:43:24 AM  

SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: Biological Ali: SkinnyHead: MSNBC fails to mention that before Dr. Carson made that comment, Hannity was discussing Justice Sotomayor's concern that finding a constitutional right to a gay marriage could establish a principle that could also apply to incestuous marriages and polygamy.  Carson was simply restating Sotomayor's concern, using different examples.  That's the context of it.

I thank everybody one in this thread in advance for not responding to this troll.

I can see how you wouldn't want this discussion derailed by the truth.

You mean something that was thoroughly debunked on Wednesday?

You need new material dude.

I watched the entire show so I know it's true.  Hannity played the audio of Sotomayor's question about incest and polygamy.  Go ahead and say "troll" and "debunked" all you want, I'm just giving you the truth.


I'll let this post from an earlier thread sum up my point:

http://www.fark.com/comments/7669148/Top-conservative-says-that-marr ia ge-equality-will-lead-to-shakes-magic-8-ball-immigrant-polygamists&new =1#c83279299
 
2013-03-30 11:44:19 AM  

SkinnyHead: I watched the entire show so I know it's true.


BTW: You HAVE to be trolling if your only source for "the truth" is Sean Hannity.
 
2013-03-30 11:44:49 AM  
Polygamists and incestors are also fully in compliance with Biblical law, as Genesis clearly shows that Eve sexed up all of her male children and Adam sexed up all of his children.  Same with Lot and his daughters. And, clearly, Biblical law support polygamist, as the Bible is full of Godly sanctioned Polygamists.  And, since the Republicans are all about Biblical law, they will have no problem with any of the above.
 
2013-03-30 11:45:50 AM  
Ah so, the good doctor is hung up on semantics.  He is 100% right, the articulate GOPman didn't "compare" homosexuals wanting to get married to the sweet, tender ministrations of NAMBLA members or chicken farkers.  He "equated" them.
 
2013-03-30 11:46:04 AM  

Mrtraveler01: The thing that I will be anxious to see is who will fill his shoes when 2016 comes along.


I've given this a lot of thought, and I'd love to see Hilldawg step into the shoes. This is a woman who knows how to get sh*t done, and after her stint as Secretary, I think people might realize she has a pair of balls lurking down there that probably put ours to shame.

We'll see. Lots of conjecture this far removed from primaries. But I'd like to see it. She keeps saying no, but the realities of America are saying yes.
 
2013-03-30 11:49:24 AM  
Non-idiot:  What can prevent people who are old enough to consent but are close relatives and/or in a poly relationship from marrying?

Idiot: What can prevent people who are not old enough to consent to marriage to marry, or, prevent animals with no ability to consent to a contract enter into a marriage contract?

Guess which one Carson is.
 
2013-03-30 11:55:18 AM  

dickfreckle: Mrtraveler01: The thing that I will be anxious to see is who will fill his shoes when 2016 comes along.

I've given this a lot of thought, and I'd love to see Hilldawg step into the shoes. This is a woman who knows how to get sh*t done, and after her stint as Secretary, I think people might realize she has a pair of balls lurking down there that probably put ours to shame.

We'll see. Lots of conjecture this far removed from primaries. But I'd like to see it. She keeps saying no, but the realities of America are saying yes.


That's what I would like to see as well. But I'm wondering as to what Plan B would be. I thought Cuomo might've had a shot but his stance on gun control pretty much torpedoed any chance he would have at connecting with Midwestern, Rocky Mountain, and Mid-Atlantic states.
 
2013-03-30 11:59:10 AM  

ko_kyi: CorporatePerson: Pretty much every Republican I know has assured me at one time or another that Obama only got elected president because he's black.

That happens when they were told for a year the only reason they didn't vote for him was that they were racist.


How silly of me to forget that the Republican Party's stupidity is always the fault of teh libz.
 
2013-03-30 12:03:27 PM  
I Hindenburged Myself With Birf Certificit!: I watched the whole program so i know it's true!

I ate the whole bag so I know it's healthy!

I _____ the whole _______ so I know it's [true, beneficial, genuine, etc.]!

i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-30 12:11:20 PM  
There's nothing quite like a thread of people proclaiming that their own ignorance of set theory makes them "smarter" than a neurosurgeon.
 
2013-03-30 12:14:13 PM  

Rent Party: dickfreckle: Speaker2Animals: (snip)

I've never understood how otherwise smart people can fall for politics that thrive on the lowest common denominator. I have a worthless BA from an equally worthless state drinking university that I don't recall attending, but even I know bullsh*t when I see it. Others can be educated in strict logic for 8 post-secondary years plus a residency and still can't count past potato. And I don't mean to say this because I disagree; I'm talking about actual stupidity, like the aforementioned Akin.

Meh, such is life.

Because they are not smart people.  Your father was not a smart person, the highly pedegreed jet engine designer down the hall is not a smart person, and this neurosurgeon is not a smart person.  They are morons.  Well trained morons, but morons nonetheless.


Salt of the earth, though...
 
2013-03-30 12:16:33 PM  

Mrtraveler01: I'll let this post from an earlier thread sum up my point:


Your friend from the other thread says that incest is a bad comparison because there is a rational reason to prohibit inbreeding.  Gay marriage poses no risk of inbreeding.  So if we establish a legal principle that marriage equality is a fundamental constitutional right, why can't a father marry his son?  How about mother and daughter?  Why can't sister marry sister or brother marry brother?  And why should bi-sexual people be denied a plural marriage?  Wouldn't it be unconstitutional to deny a bi-sexual person a three-way marriage?
 
2013-03-30 12:22:43 PM  

Infernalist: ghare: EmmaLou: cptjeff: EmmaLou: Just once, once I would like to go through a day and not think "WTF is wrong with people?"

Try going camping. A nice backpacking or canoe trip in a remote wilderness is a good way to get away from the derp. And everything else, really.

I've been seriously considering that.  I think being disconnected for a few days with definitely help.

Get a good tent. I mean really.

Rustics.

Seriously, if you need to get away, go get a hotel room for a week on the beach.  The woods are full of dirt, trees and animals.


To say nothing of hot water & room service.
 
2013-03-30 12:23:15 PM  

Silly Jesus: RyogaM: Silly Jesus: Oh, I didn't get that that was your point. I'm not locked in to the 10%...I just liked the flat tax idea. I was just throwing a number out there.

Everyone was arguing that The Math Did Not Add Up.  That's an argument against a 10% flat tax, not the tax itself.

Being for a Flat Tax without mentioning a rate that is actually mathematically realistic is like being for Free hookers and Blow for everyone, without saying how you pay for it.  It's asinine.  Like Doc. Carson.

Usually libs argue against the flat tax on the basis of "the poors will have to pay as much (percentage wise) as the wealthy, and that's not faaaaaaiiiiiiiirrrrrr."  I was caught off guard.


My other problem with the flat tax is, most of the  proposals I've seen have the flat tax being implemented as a consumption tax, rather than an income or capital gains tax.  A consumption tax is about the most unfair implementation of a tax that I can think of.
 
2013-03-30 12:27:59 PM  

SkinnyHead: Why can't sister marry sister or brother marry brother?  And why should bi-sexual people be denied a plural marriage?  Wouldn't it be unconstitutional to deny a bi-sexual person a three-way marriage?


Because marriage as it currently exists denies equal treatment to gay couples. It does not deny equal treatment to bigamists, it's impossible for 3 people to be 2 people.
 
2013-03-30 12:32:40 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Why can't sister marry sister or brother marry brother?  And why should bi-sexual people be denied a plural marriage?  Wouldn't it be unconstitutional to deny a bi-sexual person a three-way marriage?

Because marriage as it currently exists denies equal treatment to gay couples. It does not deny equal treatment to bigamists, it's impossible for 3 people to be 2 people.


Don't even try to rationalize the stupidity of that invalid comparison. You're not taking Mark Twain's advice. Squash the red herrings and you'll find that they got nothin', other than their bible thumping of course.
 
2013-03-30 12:35:22 PM  

agb1953: Dr. Carson did not compare the 3 groups.  He listed the three groups as being those who fall in love but are not man/woman combinations.  In 2006 a Sudanese man married a goat, so there is precedent for his remark.


And I disagree with what he said.

Just like I disagree with Christians, kiddie rapists, and Adolf Hitler.
 
2013-03-30 12:36:13 PM  

DrPainMD: did anybody else notice that he didn't compare gay relationships to pedophilia?


Correct, he grouped them together as similar ideas, which is not comparison.
 
2013-03-30 12:37:26 PM  

nocturnal001: agb1953: Dr. Carson did not compare the 3 groups.  He listed the three groups as being those who fall in love but are not man/woman combinations.  In 2006 a Sudanese man married a goat, so there is precedent for his remark.

Look, I just want to say that there are people bin this country that are bad for us. These groups are bad because they are fundamentally at odds with the American way of life. Child rapists, republicans, and serial killers all want to change our society for the worse.

Oh? Nah brah, I wasn't comparing those groups. I just put them down in the same sentence while trying to make a political point. Why you mad brah?

Nice try guy, but we know you really don't believe your claim.


** shakes fist **
 
2013-03-30 12:44:17 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Why can't sister marry sister or brother marry brother?  And why should bi-sexual people be denied a plural marriage?  Wouldn't it be unconstitutional to deny a bi-sexual person a three-way marriage?

Because marriage as it currently exists denies equal treatment to gay couples. It does not deny equal treatment to bigamists, it's impossible for 3 people to be 2 people.


Who says marriage can only be between two people?  You are relying on the traditional definition of marriage. Gay marriage activists say that the traditional definition of marriage must be discarded.  If so, why shouldn't the part where marriage is limited to 2 people be discarded as well.  Why should a bi-sexual person be forced to marry only a man or woman?  Why not a three-way marriage?
 
2013-03-30 12:44:49 PM  

SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: I'll let this post from an earlier thread sum up my point:

Your friend from the other thread says that incest is a bad comparison because there is a rational reason to prohibit inbreeding.  Gay marriage poses no risk of inbreeding.  So if we establish a legal principle that marriage equality is a fundamental constitutional right, why can't a father marry his son?  How about mother and daughter?  Why can't sister marry sister or brother marry brother?  And why should bi-sexual people be denied a plural marriage?  Wouldn't it be unconstitutional to deny a bi-sexual person a three-way marriage?


Hey, your smarter than Carson, who doesn't understand that all parties to a contract need the ability to consent.  Good jerb!

As for incest, all family units are overseen by the government ensure that children are protected from active abuse and neglect.  Abuse includes and is not limited to physical, emotional, sexual and physiological abuse.  The government has the obligation to prevent sexual abuse from occurring in a family, whether between parents, siblings or close relatives.  Sexual abuse, especially between parents and older/younger siblings, does not just start out of nowhere.  A parent who wishes to sexually abuse their children, or an older sibling that sexually abuses their younger siblings, do so after patient grooming of the child to mold the child to desire that sexual relationship.  The family unit, because it is isolated is perfect for this type of sexual grooming.  This type of grooming cannot be allowed to occur because it is abusive in and of itself.  The government prohibition on incest helps ensure that the family units they are supervising is free from this abuse.  Even if the parents and child and/or sibling couple meet after the age of majority, you can never be certain that the child has not been groomed to desire the relationship from their past family history.  In order to protect children from sexual abuse, one part of that protection is the outlawing of incest relationships.

As for poly marriage, at this time it would not work because the poly relationship is, by the nature of being poly, forces the government to treat the people in the relationship in an unequal manner than those in a to-party marriage.  Marriage forces the government to recognize that the other partner in the marriage has certain rights and obligations.  For example, a marriage partner has full say in regard to the medical treatment of their partner, if their partner is incapacitated.  In a poly marriage, the government cannot give any of the partners to the marriage full say, because there is more than one partner involved.  If the two partners disagree, then the government will not be able to choose between the two positions, because the government, as a matter of logic, cannot give both parties equal consideration.  Until ploys come up with some standard ploy marriage form that creates and explains how the government can split the rights and obligations of the marriage between all parties and still remain equal before the law (they can't, btw), they poly marriage will not be recognized.
 
2013-03-30 12:54:48 PM  

Biological Ali: Well, apart from all the instances where these religious texts say you should (and, indeed, must) kill people. I've been hearing this argument a lot lately; that religions just an unfortunate scapegoat and that everything bad (or almost everything bad) would keep happening even if it didn't exist. The truth, though, is that there are plenty of terrible things - such as the lynching of gay people in Africa - that exist for literally no reason other than the religious beliefs that command or condone them.


Okay, so how were gay people treated under, say, the soviet union?
(Article 121)

Again. Religion is not a magic, mystical fairy force. It is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not saying it's *just* scapegoat: There are vile versions of religions. But to claim it is somehow the fault of 'religion' itself, some sort of platonic ideal of religion is the true evil, seems.... misguided, at the very least. To pretend like people wouldn't do horrible, evil things to folks that are different if religion were to vanish seems *INCREDIBLY* naive.

Furthermore, if there were no reason for these people to do these things if religion didn't tell them to... ... why does the religion tell them to? It's not as though the beliefs themselves sprung fully formed from the very ground, or washed up ashore naked in a seashell. Someone went "dudes that sleep with other dudes need to be killed".

I mean, fark, the people that will manipulate a system to prove why it's OK to treat others as inferior have even infested SCIENTIFIC communities in the past (fark you, eugenics), and we've even got a self defense mechanism built in to try and get RID of assholes like that, and it still really took the horrors of the 3rd Reich to completely kill the eugenics movement in the scientific community.

"Ah!" but you might say, "But there were several scientists saying 'WTF? This isn't proper science! You're perverting the discipline in order to justify forced sterilization of folks you deem inferior!'", and you would be correct, since that is *entirely my point*.
 
Displayed 50 of 613 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report