summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I believe that giving gay marriage an alternate title would solve a few issues on the matter. CMV | Do you think there's any difference between a " marriage " and " civil union " as you define them? If there's no difference legally ( other than the gender of those involved ), why make a difference? Imo, I wish that " marriage " was completely separated from the government, and that every person who wanted to get legally married had to get a " civil union ". " Marriage " should be seen as a completely separate, religious ceremony like Baptism or Communion. | cmv |
I believe that giving gay marriage an alternate title would solve a few issues on the matter. CMV | Ah, separate but equal. Makes me think back when there were different schools for whites, and for blacks. That went really well! FYI : " A different title " is exactly a perfect example of separation. | cmv |
I believe that giving gay marriage an alternate title would solve a few issues on the matter. CMV | The situation you describe already more or less exists or has existed in a number of countries ( legally identical civil unions under a different name ), and in those countries there is / was still a push for equal marriage. If people still fight for equal marriage laws when they have equal legal status, that should tell you that the campaign is not just about the legal benefits ( as important as they are ). This'solution'therefore evidently does not solve anything. | cmv |
I believe that giving gay marriage an alternate title would solve a few issues on the matter. CMV | Religion does not deserve a monopoly on the term : Marriage predates all current major religions Marriage terminology is primarily used non - religiously ; e. g. in all law and legal documents, contracts, hospital rules, literature, films etc. There are religions that provide same - sex marriage ceremonies. Why should the anti - gay religions be the decisive factor to determine who gets to use the word? If some religions are so offended that gays are using the same word as them, let them change their terminology. They already call it holy matrimony ; why not simply use that term exclusively? | cmv |
I believe that giving gay marriage an alternate title would solve a few issues on the matter. CMV | I agree that this is a practical solution that will provide gay couples with the desire outcome they wish. However, I argue that gay couples are entitle to the term marriage as a straight couple. You argue that it is a term people hold sacred. Gay couples also hold the term sacred. and Under our constitution, why would they not be entitled to use the term marriage? Shouldn't the better solution be to remove marriage fro everyone, and that everyone has to use " civil unions ". Both straight and gay couples are civil unions. You can get your marriage licenses from churches. | cmv |
I believe that giving gay marriage an alternate title would solve a few issues on the matter. CMV | They thought that giving black people their own bathrooms and water fountains would solve their problems too. It didn't... Why call it something other than it is? Separate but equal. | cmv |
I believe that giving gay marriage an alternate title would solve a few issues on the matter. CMV | i think you've seen the right problem but come to the wrong answer. make marriage something that isn't approved by the government. if they want religious marriage let them have marriage as a religious term. give the governmental binding of two people the name " civil unions " then both gay and straight couples have to get unions under the eyes of the law and can also get married under god if they want. PROBLEM SOLVED because like thornnuminous said separate but equal doesn't work | cmv |
I believe that it is not gay if it's in a three - way. CMV | Whether or not something is gay depends not on the action but the person performing them. Gay has the implication that the main attraction of a person is towards same - sex people. That means a gay person can still be attracted to, and have sex with, people of the opposite - sex and consider themselves to the gay. The same thing goes for hetereosexual people who can have homosexual sex, or have same - sex attractions, and still not identify as bisexual or gay. You cannot boil an identitiy down to a single act, and say it is straight, bi, or gay. One question though : why did you specify that you were talking about a FMM threesome? If a FMM threesome is gay, then a MFF threesome is also gay, so a threesome would be gay by definition. | cmv |
I believe that it is not gay if it's in a three - way. CMV | Technically, it's not gay because there is a female in the mix here, so while it could technically be considered a homosexual or bisexual encounter, it is not technically gay ( because the word " gay " implies a solely same - sex sexual attraction ). That said, gay or bisexual describes one's sexual attractions, not one's actions. If you are not attracted to the other man in the FMM threesome with you, then it isn't technically bisexual. And if you don't have sexual intercourse with the other man in the FMM threesome, only the woman, then I don't think that would technically be considered a homosexual encounter, either. " Gay " and " Bisexual " is an identity, not an act. It is entirely possible for a straight man to have a sexual encounter with another man without needing to identify as gay or bi. While their encounter is technically a homosexual act because they are both men, a homosexual act does not necessarily make someone gay any more than a heterosexual act necessarily makes someone straight. There are lots and lots of gay men out there who have had sexual encounters with women, and even have children by them, and there is no question that they are indeed gay. Not all gay men are " gold star " gays, nor should they have to be. | cmv |
I believe that it is not gay if it's in a three - way. CMV | Bisexuality means being attracted to men, and generally means having sex with men. If you have sex with men and women during a threesome then you are likely bisexual. If you want to have sex with a man during a fmm threesome then you are also probably bisexual. If you don't want to have sex with a man and don't, you probably aren't. | cmv |
I believe that it is not gay if it's in a three - way. CMV | I don't have much to say, besides : why do you even care if some act is gay? Oh, and, " gay " refers to a mental state of attraction, not a quality of actions. So not even " having sex with someone of the same sex " is gay if you aren't attracted to them. | cmv |
I think the Confederate flag should be banned from flying at any public or school related event. CMV | It is a freedom of expression that I would rather keep in place then start picking and choosing what can be displayed / taught / shown to the public and our children. Furthermore, I highly doubt that any public or school related event that has flown the Confederate flag does so in support of what we believe that flag symbolizes : Racism / Slavery. Usually, it is flown out of tradition and respect for their relatives that they descend from. To the South, that flag holds a wholly different meaning than what it generally symbolizes. So long as the message is not one of violence or hate, I would not want to stiffen their freedoms of expression. Some of those very same people would love for sexual education and science to be forbidden and the word of God to be taught exclusively. I would hate to see either be lawfully enforced. I am from the South, and while I don't see the merits in flying this flag, I know many who are tied to the tradition that comes with it. | cmv |
I think the Confederate flag should be banned from flying at any public or school related event. CMV | Well, the Confederate flag may represent racism and sedition, but the first amendment protects racist and seditious speech. It's cool to condemn the flag ; in fact, I'll say right now that I think it's disrespectful and ignorant to fly it. Banning its display, though, would violate the first amendment just as much as banning any other flag. If the first amendment protects this guy's right to fly a swastika, then it sure as hell protects the Confederate flag. | cmv |
I think the Confederate flag should be banned from flying at any public or school related event. CMV | If people cannot fly a Swastika or Conferderacy flag, does your country have freedom of speech? If opinions that are considered henious and " other " are legally banned, where does it end? Maoists? Stalinist? Union organizers? Tea party activists? Once we legitimize censorship, a country takes to the dark path of banning certain opinions and limiting speech based on ideology. This is the exact opposite of freedom of speech and expression as ( I believe ) is intended in the US constitution ( Though no US Govts. I've known in my life act like it ). We should oppose censorship of | cmv |
I think the Confederate flag should be banned from flying at any public or school related event. CMV | What about Mississippi? It is our state flag, and we have one of the largest percentages of black people in the country. Are you really trying to tell all these black people how to feel? Obviously they're OK with it since the majority of our elected officials are black. You want to know whats racist? White people trying to tell black people how to feel about slavery. That's racist. | cmv |
I think the Confederate flag should be banned from flying at any public or school related event. CMV | In the US, one of our basic legal rules is that there is no advance restriction on speech, and that in general except in extremely clearly delineated situations, there can be no legal punishment for speech. Part of the idea is that if the state has the power to ban or punish speech, it will inevitably be used selectively to punish speech which is disfavored by those in power. Another part of the idea is that it's extremely difficult to draw a line which allows banning some speech but not other speech. Flying a symbolic flag is an act, to be sure. But it's also a form of speech ; it's speech - by - waving - a - symbol, rather than speech - by - talking. It's speech in exactly the same way that, say, wearing a coat of arms was speech ; it's publically declaring a viewpoint or allegiance. So : if the state had the power to ban flying the CSA flag, how could that power be constrained so that they didn't also have the power to ban other things those currently in power dislike? | cmv |
I think the Confederate flag should be banned from flying at any public or school related event. CMV | It is southern pride plain and simple. It still flies over the state capitol in South Carolina. It is on the Mississippi flag. North Carolina's, Georgia's, and Alabama's flag are based on Confederate flags. You can get a Confederate flag state issued license plate. You see it everywhere in the South. You can't understand why people feel pride in a home that is not yours. It is that simple. | cmv |
I think the Confederate flag should be banned from flying at any public or school related event. CMV | OK, so I am going to assume you mean a federal ban, which is important here. The reason the confederate flag is still flown is, in part, a celebration of states rights and the southern tradition of independence. By trying to place a federal ban on this type of symbolic speech, it opens the door for any number of bans in the future. If the federal government can stop a state from flying a flag, they could just as easily stop an individual from doing so. Remember that flying Old Glory and burning it are protected for the same reason : freedom of speech. TL : DR Preventing a state from flying the Stars and Bars is a violation of the first amendment. | cmv |
I think the Confederate flag should be banned from flying at any public or school related event. CMV | I think it's a little ridiculous that any governmental organization would fly a flag related to secession but that said I'd like to clear up a few inconsistencies : It's not the confederate flag. These are the confederate flags. What's typically flown is a battle flag that originated with the Army of Northern Virginia and was used by other units as well. It also served as the Naval Jack of the Confederate Navy. Anyway, as such it is perceived in the south by those who fly it as a representation of a spirit of independence and a willingness to fight for that if necessary. However, despite the fact that those armies were fighting to protect their rights, the right they were fighting to protect was the right to determine whether or not slavery would be legal in their territory. Even if that weren't the case I wouldn't support flying it nor would I fly it personally because of the potential for misunderstanding / offense that necessarily goes along with it, even if I agree that a spirit of independence and conviction is a worthy thing to celebrate in its own right. | cmv |
I think the Confederate flag should be banned from flying at any public or school related event. CMV | You don't even have a reason to ban the flag other than your own ignorance of why people fly it. Many people in the south use the flag in the same sort of way a country flies their flag. The US is huge, and people in the south feel like they were raised differently than people from other regions, so they use this flag to express where they came from. We as a country need to stop trying to ban every damn thing that someone could possible construe as offending someone. | cmv |
I think the Confederate flag should be banned from flying at any public or school related event. CMV | I'm from the north as well and don't feel any loyalty or special affection for southern states that want to raise the confederate flag. However it shouldn't be your choice or anyone else's how people decide who gets to celebrate their heritage and how. Even if it can be distasteful to remember US slavery the fact is many good things happened in the south as well and if people want to celebrate that aspect of their history it must be accepted. As for slavery the fact is calling raising a confederate flag insulting to black people is actually a lot like calling raising the modern US flag supporting the near genocide of American Indians. A lot of people who dislike the confederate flag seem to forget that the American flag has flown over many atrocities as well | cmv |
I think the Confederate flag should be banned from flying at any public or school related event. CMV | It is the decision of each State to choose which flag ( s ) they will fly. Particularly with the States which joined the Confederacy it is indeed a source of pride that they were willing to give up so much for their freedoms, to remain sovereign. So yes there is in fact regional and cultural pride which comes from that. The other part of your question as to what other symbol can be used to represent the Confederate Flag, well there probably is, but it isn't necessary. People are entitled to their beliefs but not entitled to not being offended. Many people mistake the Confederate Flag as a symbol of hatred, which some people have adopted, and like a post made earlier about the Swastika just because something is adopted by a particular group doesn't mean the symbol loses its original meaning. The Confederate Flag, from my point of view, as someone who has tried to study the Civil War, who tries to look at conflicts from all angles not just what we are taught in a History class. The Confederate Flag to me symbolizes the lengths Americans will go to keep the Government from controlling their lives. The North did a lot of terrible things to the South, and many freed slaves went back to fight for the South because the North was destroying their homes. So there is pride in those Confederates as well who weren't white but still fought for their homes. | cmv |
I think the Confederate flag should be banned from flying at any public or school related event. CMV | When you say the confederate flag, I assume you mean the Confederate navy jack and not the real one ( source ). This discrepancy has always suggested to me that this issue is more about what perceptions it inspires in people than what this flag was used for. The navy jack does not represent the CSA or slavery historically. Also I doubt the people who fly it mean for a connection to slavery to be drawn. It is only outsiders who make this connection. | cmv |
I think the Confederate flag should be banned from flying at any public or school related event. CMV | Something I don't think anyone's mentioned yet : Banning things is a terrible way to fight bad ideas. Making an expression of an idea only makes that idea more attractive. Instead of banning the Confederate flag, fight the ideas of racism directly via education. | cmv |
I think the Confederate flag should be banned from flying at any public or school related event. CMV | Do you enjoy your rights? Do you think any type of flag should be banned because someone doesn't like it? It's a freedom, if someone feels that way why stop them from expressing it? | cmv |
I believe feminism blames men 100 % for past and present oppression. CMV. | Feminism doesn't blame men. It blames the patriarchy, which isn't a cabal of men dictating rules, but rather the social institution that most of the world ascribes to. Men and women both are harmed by this in many ways, and men and women are both responsible. The reason men are pointed out is because most organizations are run to serve men ( marriage roles, for example ), which means that its promotion is tautologically mostly the result of having men in charge. | cmv |
I believe feminism blames men 100 % for past and present oppression. CMV. | The only thing that really unifies all of feminism is a fight for the benefit of women. Some feminists have a narrow definition as to what a woman is, most feminists want men to benefit too, but you can't really say anything like you've claimed as something which is contended by feminism as a whole. It just doesn't exist as a cohesive entity like you seem to think | cmv |
I believe feminism blames men 100 % for past and present oppression. CMV. | I think it's hard to make such big generalizations. There's feminists who do this, others who don't, and a lot who on a theoretical level don't blame men 100 %, and if you asked them " do you blame men 100 % for society's problems " they'd say no, but in practice for most given specific problems they blame men for it. bell hooks talks about a culture of violence in her book Feminism Is For Everybody, but mostly talks about child abuse perpetrated by women. But then there's plenty of other feminists who will try and minimize crime committed by women or against men. I also think that one thing which happens a lot in big groups with different factions, is that the fringe group talks like they're saying how the group really feels, and the rest of the group is just moderating their opinions for public acceptability. This isn't helped when the more moderate members really do change what they're saying when they're speaking to the public, vs when they're speaking to the base. I see a lot of feminist stuff aimed at the public / men / non - feminists which goes very much out of its way to say they're not blaming men for everything... but then other stuff that's sort of " red meat " for the base which talks broadly about men in contentious terms. And it seems like it's the same people supporting both. | cmv |
I believe that almost all rape convictions are unjust. CMV. | What about cases in which the victim is too young or mentally handicapped to consent? What about situations in which there is convincing evidence of kidnap? What about cases in which it is demonstrated convincingly that the attacker drugged the victim or threatened them with a weapon, rendering meaningful consent impossible? What about situations in which it is demonstrated that, through their own actions or those of their attacker, the victim was comatose at the time of the sexual contact? What about situations in which the attacker bragged about their actions to others or on social media, though they did not specifically use the term " rape "? What about situations in which the attacker announced to friends, acquaintances, or social media their specific intention to find a victim too inebriated to say no? What about situations in which the attacker sends threatening communications to the victim after the fact telling them to keep quiet? Some of these are more common than others, but it's worth noting that most rapes involve drugs, alcohol, or both. | cmv |
I believe that almost all rape convictions are unjust. CMV. | Beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable. Doubt. Eyewitness testimony is considered the holy grail of evidence in almost any other kind of crime, including murder, robbery, assault, etc. etc. The list literally goes on and on. This is especially true when that eyewitness is also the victim. But when we come to rape trials we immediately begin to question the legitimacy of their testimony. We demand a level of proof that we don't ask for in any other type of trial. Why is that? In a trial where there were photos of bruises ( or other documented evidence of a physical assault ) and the victim testifying that the defendant had mugged them, would you be saying that these things are not PROOF of a mugging? | cmv |
I believe that almost all rape convictions are unjust. CMV. | A lot of cases involve drugs. Even if that drug is just alcohol if either person is inebriated in any way it is impossible to give consent. So many of these circumstances are rape no matter what went on or was said behind closed doors. It is however scary that our legal system can and does convict people on nothing more than the opposing person's claim of the situation. Especially when we have evidence of people falsely accusing of this crime. | cmv |
I'm OK with drone strikes. CMV | First, it is literally legitimized assassination. They can kill anyone, anywhere, at any time. Lets rephrase this slightly. There's a new program where each American has to take a pill each day. Most of them are sugar pills, but some of them are lethal poison. The list of who receives lethal poison is secret, has no oversight, and there is no consequences except dead people. Sometimes names are added by accident, and sometimes people ( including children ) get pills that are poisonous because of system error. Which countries are you comfortable with being able to add names to the list? Are you happy when you pop your potentially poisonous pill each day? | cmv |
I'm OK with drone strikes. CMV | Another reason people are upset about the drones is that they are not only being used on foreigners, they are also being used to kill US citizens. This is a direct violation of the sixth amendment which states " In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. " These drone strikes have turned the executive branch into judge, jury, and executioner, in direct violation of the constitution of the United States. If a drone strike can be authorized on a US citizen in Palestine, you bet it can be authorized on one here in the United States as well. | cmv |
I'm OK with drone strikes. CMV | You should be, they are cheaper and safer for non - targets than any alternative. The danger is that the US has less obstacles to intervening violently overseas when their soldiers and pilots arent at risk. Basically they are inherently a good thing ( as compared to other strategies ), but because of this superiority they may be used too often and without proper discrimination. | cmv |
I believe that both feminism and MRA are valid social movements. CMV. | Large scale movements often have problematic beliefs. Some members of MRA and feminism will work together to address inequalities of men and women, some will just work towards the problems of just men or women. Some will be actively stupid and screw over the gender they are advocating for. I have seen a lot of feminists and MRA who care about both genders. And a lot who don't care about either. | cmv |
I think we should consider imposing a maximum allowable income. CMV | I disagree with your statement of removing incentives. As a grad student, I can personally attest I know not one person that is pursuing their MS or PhD for money. They do it because that want to progress their field. Granted, this does require money, but most of us know that extreme amounts of money will not happen for quite some time. I also posit that maximum allowable income restrictions are not enough. We need a 100 % inheritance tax. This would completely end the reign of privileged families and would synergise with the maximal income restrictions to keep families and corporations from forming dynasties. In essence, it would create an equal opportunity playing field where people excel based on merit. This would eventually reach the logical conclusion of the majority of the populace becoming enlightened and a highly progressive technological society being formed. | cmv |
I think we should consider imposing a maximum allowable income. CMV | Why is high income bad? Not poverty, but high income. Think of money as concentrated work. Most people with a lot of money use it not to buy yet another pair of shoes ( this gets old rather quickly ), but to direct this concentrated work to achieve something a man cannot achieve alone. I have no problem with the way Bill Gates or Elon Musk are spending their money. | cmv |
I don't hate the big banks or large corporations and I feel the government should not regulate them differently than any other company or much at all. CMV. | Well as a libertarian you'll recognize that the knife cuts both ways - - quite often big banks and corporations are given special accommodations by the government that aren't available to all. For example, if Bub's Tire Store had the same financial troubles as General Motors, we know there wouldn't be a federal bailout. We're ruled by corporatists now so I don't buy the argument that big business is at all encumbered by government. Especially when you see how Wall Street is doing and what's happening to income equality. Although we can wish for an eventual libertarian utopia, at this moment there are varying levels of " social contract " between all of us. When Wal - Mart refuses to pay a living wage, the costs are passed through to the taxpayers ( more info here ). Therefore, the government has an interest in that that can't be removed easily unless you want to simultaneously remove a ton of other government programs and investments that have nothing to do with the corporations. | cmv |
I don't care whether the government keeps track of our browser history / email etc. or not. CMV | They have access to your private emails, your online purchases, your credit card information... Anyone that is very skilled in hacking could locate and steal this information. Just recently, a couple was visited by the feds for googling backpacks and pressure cookers. They are an otherwise normal, wholesome - seeming couple, yet they have been isolated and interrogated by the evil that is our government. You may think you have nothing to hide, but as has already been mentioned, your data may match suspected individuals and thus, may make you a target. For a more likely situation, do you lock your doors? Do you close your curtains? | cmv |
I don't care whether the government keeps track of our browser history / email etc. or not. CMV | You may have nothing of significance to hide, but I'm sure that you have certain things that you would not want certain people knowing. A mere existence of a database could allow less - than - honest employees as well as hackers to gain access to your information. What if you end up upsetting the wrong person? What if they happen to have access to your personal information. This is already possible. I know a few people who's parents have secret clearance with the FBI. One of them ran a check on me before I could be friends with his daughter. He is not allowed to do that, but he did. I wish I could find the source, but I saw an article recently regarding an NYPD police officer who gave out personal information to a lady so that she could harass and stalk her ex - boyfriend's new girlfriend. If they have access to it, there is a chance that someone might use it. | cmv |
I don't care whether the government keeps track of our browser history / email etc. or not. CMV | you may have nothing to hide but other people might. For example, suppose you were gay, but didn't want people knowing you were gay. You post frequently on gay sites, forums etc.. Would you want the govnmt knowing you are gay? | cmv |
I believe raped men should ahve the legal power to abort the fetus. CMV? | There are a number of huge ethical problems with forcing a medical procedure onto an unwilling person. You don't need to go down that road as there's a much simpler, gender - neutral solution : On conviction, rapists lose any and all parental rights. This works as a solution because there are long lists of people looking to adopt children. As the only legal parent, the rape - victim ( of either gender ) would have a free choice to keep a child or to give it up for adoption. The rapist would have no say in the matter. | cmv |
I believe raped men should ahve the legal power to abort the fetus. CMV? | To alter your view, I'd suggest your idea isn't necessary. Instead, implement the option for the male victim to have no financial responsibility for the child. Or even a step further : at his request, treat him like a sperm donor that has no knowledge whatsoever of the outcome of a potential child. Obviously unlike a woman who was raped, a raped man doesn't have to worry about taking a child to term or dealing with any part of the birth. A woman has to deal with nine + months of aftermath if they don't abort. So there are definitely differences, and that's why I feel options other than abortion are applicable in this situation. Do you feel this would this satisfy the issue in most cases? | cmv |
I believe raped men should ahve the legal power to abort the fetus. CMV? | It seems that the hot - button issue here is that abortion is an incredibly personal and violating procedure, and to force it onto the woman in this case, even if she had become pregnant as an act of rape on her part, is a very controversial action to take. That being said, is it necessary to go straight to abortion as an option? I don't see why the man needs to be involved any further with the life of the child. If the woman tries to sue for child support, of course she should be denied because of the nature of the conception. But couldn't the woman keep the child, or perhaps couldn't a court mandate the child be adopted by another family, without any consequences forced upon the father? I recognize there's a potential issue of the father feeling a sense of guilt for the child's existence without his support, but that seems like another matter. | cmv |
I believe that firearm ownership should be heavily regulated CMV | The moment a tyrant comes into power he could start looking through your gun registries and know who to get rid of. He also knows everything about them. We would be defenseless. | cmv |
I believe that firearm ownership should be heavily regulated CMV | A background check should be carried out on anyone wanting to own a gun. You don't let the blind drive, and there are good reasons for someone not being allowed to own a gun ( e. g. certain psychological conditions, a criminal record, history of violence etc. ) Who determines what things found in a background check means you cant own a gun? Speeding ticket? shoplifting? got in a bar fight once and got arrested? A record should be kept of every weapon owned and who possesses it. All private sales must be registered. IM ( current ) O objections based on a vague fear of the government are unjustified since so many way less important things require registration ( e. g. cars ), To not do this essentially makes background checks pointless and allows easy access for criminals, gangs, the cartels etc. to get guns. How do you feel about NSA wiretapping? No fly lists??? | cmv |
I believe recreational hunting is barbaric. CMV | In many areas, deer ( for example ) pose a serious overpopulation problem. When they breed too quickly, they throw off the balance of the eco system ( by what they eat ) and tend to run out onto the road. A set amount of tags are issued to hunters every year to maintain that balance. | cmv |
I believe recreational hunting is barbaric. CMV | You seem to have the idea that all hunting is big game hunting and people kill then stuff the animals for display and then don'thing with the meat. If this was the case I would agree completely with you. However, I come from an area of Michigan that has many poor rural farming communities where people depend on hunting deer to feed their families. A good sized deer will provide for a family for quite some time. In many instances there is a family friend that guts and cleans the deer and uses the hide or bones for blankets and artwork after he gives the family the venison. Also these people getting their meat from hunting means that they reduce the consumption of meat that comes from factory farms that have been proven to be detrimental to the environment. Not to mention that deer would suffer greatly in Michigan without hunting because of a severe overpopulation problem just like / u / FishNetwork stated in his / her comment. | cmv |
I believe recreational hunting is barbaric. CMV | Humans are part of the ecosystem, and hunting is integral to an ecosystem. A hunter killing deer is not any more immoral than a coyote killing deer. These days hunters control deer population where there are no natural predators, just like coyotes control deer population in remote areas. It's all part of the circle of life. At some point in the past humans realized that it would be beneficial for all humans to agree not to kill other humans. That agreement is passed through generations as " thou shalt not kill " moral principle, with some exceptions for self - defense. The mistake you are making is applying this principle to animals ( your comment about animals not posing danger leads me to believe that ). | cmv |
I believe the Republican Party will die within the next 100 years and will be replaced by the Libertarian Party. CMV | Well I predict that in 100 years we will have flying cars and underwater cities. You can anything you like about anything that far ahead in the future, but will never happen because all you have to go on is a one - off story about how crappy the Republican Party is now. Nobody remember the populist party from 100 years ago, who argued for better wages and and an income tax on senators. Tl ; dr : nobody care 100 years later. | cmv |
I believe the Republican Party will die within the next 100 years and will be replaced by the Libertarian Party. CMV | In the 90s and early 2000s the British Conservative Party gained this whole " nasty party " reputation which the Republicans seem to now be adopting. The party simply does what all parties do, re - markets itself and then plays of the inevitable failures of the opposition. I don't think as a whole political parties ( or indeed our western political classes ) are particularly adamant in their beliefs these days, they'll simply adapt to whatever strategy gets them votes at the time. | cmv |
I believe the Republican Party will die within the next 100 years and will be replaced by the Libertarian Party. CMV | Republicans screwed up by not doing enough to court Hispanic and Asian immigrants. These immigrants actually have a lot in common with Republican ideals : they tend to embrace traditional values including the importance of a strong, traditional family structure ; they tend to have an outstanding work ethic ; and they tend to respect excellence and achievement. These are core Republican ideals and completely antithetical to the Democrat worldview. If the Republican party can get past its xenophobia and start building a few short bridges, these folks will be natural born Republicans. | cmv |
I believe the Republican Party will die within the next 100 years and will be replaced by the Libertarian Party. CMV | I think it's more probable that the party will split. In fact, this has already happened to a degree. The " Tea Party " exists within the GOP at the moment, but it's dragging it to the right. The GOP won't tolerate this for long. Eventually they'll be asked to come to heel, and split. They will take the right - wing and Christian fundamentalist supporters with them. This will allow the GOP to adopt fiscal conservative policies which are not so draconian in social terms. This will attract a lot of people who are fiscally conservative but dislike the Tea - Party - like views. | cmv |
I believe the Republican Party will die within the next 100 years and will be replaced by the Libertarian Party. CMV | It's far more probable that the Republican party will survive, but will shift towards a more libertarian stance - if libertarianism is what will get them votes. Political parties are notoriously hard to ruin, especially in a two - party system. No matter how much people gripe about them being out of touch, they still have a sizable base, and new blood from a younger generation, like Marco Rubio for example, will be on the forefront of changing the party to be more on line with a changing society. Think about how Republican party lines are already changing due to demographics ( immigration reform instead of more border policing and building an ineffectual fence ) and the now majority acceptance of LGBTs. Just remember that Republican politicians are still politicians at their heart. Maybe they'll need to lose a few more presidential races, and lose the popular vote a couple more times, but they'll undoubtedly change their strategy if it means that destruction of their party. | cmv |
I'm an Anarchist. We should do away with the state and Capitalism. CMV. | we are living in anarchy, its just a controlled anarchy. There is nothing stopping you from doing whatever you want, but there might be some other people out there that disagree with what you are doing who come and arrest you and put you in a box. The only way to have complete anarchy would be if no one else was alive on earth to disagree with your opinions. Or everyone alive had the exact same philosophy as you. | cmv |
I'm an Anarchist. We should do away with the state and Capitalism. CMV. | It might be a bit late to post this but i'll try anyway and i'll hopefully get a response. I agree with you, Anarchism is the way to go, but how are we to get there? I agree with you, Violent revolution isn't the answer. So then what are we to do. | cmv |
I'm an Anarchist. We should do away with the state and Capitalism. CMV. | You must understand that very small degrees of government are necessary for a society to be successful. They are needed for the oversight of trade and for maintaining an infrastructure, but should be allowed no more power than that. I must take issue with your point of " I'm a Christian. " Anarchy will end up in violence or will come full - circle back to the old world order if opinions are allowed based on religion, as religion is at its core nothing more than a means of keeping the weak down and the power hungry elite elevated. All decisions should be made based on logic, reason, and evidence ONLY. If a decision cannot pass those tests, it should not be carried out. | cmv |
I'm an Anarchist. We should do away with the state and Capitalism. CMV. | Where does the line get drawn between productive property and personal property? I work on my computer, but it's also my personal computer. A taxi driver could ferry people in his personal car. | cmv |
[ CMV ] I think that people who smoke are terrible people who deserve no sympathy. | I feel sorry for people who began smoking back in the sixties / seventies, which gave them time to get addicted before society became aware of its harm. Most people didn't know it was bad until the mid to late 80s. It would be very hard for someone who had been smoking since deployment in Vietnam to quit. My dad, who used to smoke but quiet in the 90s, told me that he honestly didn't know they were bad until then. But I have no mercy for anybody who has started smoking in the past two decades. | cmv |
[ CMV ] I think that people who smoke are terrible people who deserve no sympathy. | Smoking is addictive. Apparently very much so. Quitting an addiction is really, incredibly difficult, and a person has to want to quit very very much in order to have any chance of succeeding. Many people who smoke grew up with parents who smoked. In houses filled with smoke. This means that a person can wind up addicted to smoking without ever having touched a cigarette. I once knew someone who, when her mom quite smoking, also went through withdrawal, just from the loss of the general smoke in the air. | cmv |
[ CMV ] I think that people who smoke are terrible people who deserve no sympathy. | First of all I kind of feel like people who get cancer from tobacco already don't get any sympathy so I'm not sure what the point of this is. Second I'm not sure if you'd be as down to say, ban fast food for everyone or legally require them under threat of punishment to work out enough or anything else like that so why do you want tobacco to be illegal? I figured not allowing it inside most buildings was a fair compromise. | cmv |
[ CMV ] I think that people who smoke are terrible people who deserve no sympathy. | OK I'm going out on a loooong limb here but Do you think a really old person should be allowed to have assisted suicide? I guess the point is people should have the freedom to live / die as they see fit. If someone wants to smoke and damage themselves you may think they are stupid for doing it, but in the words of Jimi Hendrix " I'm the one that's got to die when its time for me to die, so let me live my life the way I want to " | cmv |
I Believe The US Education System Requires Drastic Changes. CMV | It seems to me that you think the more funding should go towards education so that : a ) Public colleges and universities are cheaper, if not free and b ) More schools of different types like vocational schools can be opened. I don't think those are really controversial opinions nor drastic changes really. I don't think anyone opposes education being cheaper and increased funding isn't really a reform of education system. Now on the point of reducing the push for college education, that isn't an inherent aspect of the US education system. That is the result of US culture and beliefs that American citizens have. Similarly, making program sizes match predicted demand means forcing people to learn certain things and not others. Forcing people to subscribe to a certain ideology has problematic ethical implications. | cmv |
I don't believe that teachers of any kind should be legally allowed to have unions. CMV | The reasonable argument against why you shouldn't make any unions illegal : People should be free to make voluntary agreements to work together, even if that includes banding together in unions. Of course, that doesn't give them the right to break other agreements / contracts those member have made, with, say, their bosses. It's the same logic as to why you might hate the speech - content of a natzi, but defend his right to say it. | cmv |
I believe that religion should not come into play when making decisions for a country CMV | So lets say we elect a religious politician ( I know, really use your imagination here ). That politician then enacts a law that complies with their religion, but insists that they were not motivated by their religion to make the decision. How would you separate this person from someone who says religion does motivate them? And if the only difference is admitted motivation, what could we reasonably do to be sure that religious people aren't being influenced by their religion? | cmv |
I believe that religion should not come into play when making decisions for a country CMV | At least here in the US, religion isn't officially part of the government. It's still part of the political discussion though because we're in a democratic state that seeks to reflect the values of the citizenry. That citizenry happens to overwhelmingly describe themselves as religious. Do you think it's possible to isolate a critical part of a person's belief system from their political opinions while still allowing them to freely construct political views of their liking? | cmv |
I believe that religion should not come into play when making decisions for a country CMV | What if you believe that murder is wrong because it is against your religion? Should you therefore legalize murder simply because you believing it's wrong is a religious view? There are people like that, who only believe things like murder are bad because God said so. | cmv |
I believe that religion should not come into play when making decisions for a country CMV | Momentarily change the word " religion " in your title to " morality ". Worded that way, do you still hold that view? Or asked another way, do you feel religion and morality have absolutely nothing to do with eachother? | cmv |
I believe that religion should not come into play when making decisions for a country CMV | You claim that if we take religion out of politics, people would be more happy. I disagree with this ; non - religious people would be happier, but a majority of the religious people would be materially less so. So, are you claiming that religious people would be happier? | cmv |
I believe that religion should not come into play when making decisions for a country CMV | I will play devils advocate ; Explain to me, a religious Christian, in a nation that is majority Christian, why everyone should not have to justify their positions in terms of religion? The central issue is that having anyone play policeman for the opinions and values of others, at best disenfranchises them. | cmv |
I believe the vast majority of libertarians care more about money than people, I want to have some faith restored in humanity, please CMV | There is a difference between not wanting to help people and not wanting the government to help people on other's behalf. As a Libertarian I can tell you that I want everyone's problems to go away too - I just don't think the government is the best avenue for all of those things. There are plenty of other charities that can make a significant impact and aren't affected by all the downsides of being a large, overweight government. People should absolutely help one another - through their own means, their own ways and with their own pockets. | cmv |
I believe the vast majority of libertarians care more about money than people, I want to have some faith restored in humanity, please CMV | Anti - libertarian rhetoric aside, let's break this down to the fundamentals. You get money in return for goods or services that you provide to others ; in exchange, this money is essentially your claim ticket on the future work of others. If you don't spend that money, that means you're providing services to society and not taking what's due to you in return. Spending everything you earn means your net contribution is zero ; accumulating money ( or, as a corporation, operating at a profit ) means you're doing more for others than they are doing for you. Accumulating money, if you actually examine what that means, is the opposite of greed. Unspent money is a debt from society to you in return for work you did for society. This is why profitability is desirable - it means the profitable entity is contributing more than it uses. Money itself is not the reward - on the contrary, it is a measure of rewards due but not taken. | cmv |
I believe the vast majority of libertarians care more about money than people, I want to have some faith restored in humanity, please CMV | The libertarian ideology is not about money, it is about freedom from coercion. The ideology favors individual liberty and upholds individual rights at all cost - generally held to be up to the point where that individual's rights infringe on another individual's rights. This makes the individual the most important entity, by necessity making the individual more important than money. It assumes that with maximum individual liberty the greatest social benefit can be achieved. Your thought experiment doesn't hold up because it assumes the bystanders have no morals in order to prove a moral point. Association with a particular ideology doesn't totally define your morals, especially when that ideology is only concerned with a few particular morals ( primarily that the individual has full ownership of himself ). Most people who identify with libertarian philosophies agree that government is necessary for many social reasons ( those who don't are anarcho - capitalists ). Mainstream libertarians advocate that this government should only be as large as necessary to provide the requisite social services. They believe that the free market can provide other services better and more efficiently. Ultimately people hold this ideology for the reason anybody holds a political ideology - they believe that it is best for society, i. e. people. | cmv |
I believe the vast majority of libertarians care more about money than people, I want to have some faith restored in humanity, please CMV | According to libertarianism ( speaking as an ancap myself ), there's nothing to stop you from giving your money to the poor if you want to. Nothing. We just think it's wrong that the government takes money from unwilling people, to give to the poor. That's not cold hearted. In my opinion, it's more pro - human than anything else. It's just protecting people's rights, no matter who they are. | cmv |
I believe the vast majority of libertarians care more about money than people, I want to have some faith restored in humanity, please CMV | Basically, your concerns with Libertarianism are adressed by Hayek's idea of the Spontaneous Order. As long as the government preserves the rule of law ( and maybe provides a very modest safety net, as more moderate libertarians may support ), people will be wealthier and better off then they will be if the government tried to centrally plan ways to reduce hunger, poverty, etc. Remember that the government is just made up of people, just like private corporations. They have their own interests, biases, and limited knowledge. Only unlike participants in the free market, the government has no incentive to actually help people. Walmart has an incentive to offer products that people want for more value than other stores, otherwise they lose money. A government agency has no such incentive, the paychecks come regardless. Plus, the government has no price mechanism to guide their decisions like private corporations can. TDLR : Libertarians do care about people, they simply think that the free market leaves people better off than the the government. | cmv |
I believe the vast majority of libertarians care more about money than people, I want to have some faith restored in humanity, please CMV | I don't know if it will restore any faith, but here's my view on libertarians : They have made the all too common mistake of confusing a good idea with a perfect one. The idea of individual liberty is important. It is a great thing to promote. However, it doesn't magically answer all questions. In fact most of the hard questions we have to face as a society are where one person's individual liberty infringes on another persons liberty. The bad strain of libertarians that I've met ( and I've also met good ones ) never seem to get this particular shade of grey. They will pick the view point of the individual that is most like them, and think that POV on liberty is the controlling one. | cmv |
I believe the vast majority of libertarians care more about money than people, I want to have some faith restored in humanity, please CMV | It sounds ruthless when I say it and perhaps it is, but I really don't care if people can't meet their needs. We are sovereign entities and as such we are solely responsible for how we rise and fall. You can't have liberty and a nanny state. You're right in the sense that I do care about me and mine more than others. I spend my money on things I want and the people I care about. I work hard at two jobs, and at minimum wage. I get tips at one but I'm not making a killing. Somewhere along the line someone decided that another persons needs were more important than my own and that I should give up what I worked for to make them more comfortable. Tell me how is this just? | cmv |
I think that " job creators " are the worst people to listen to when it comes to deciding government action. CMV | Your grandfather isn't the Bill Gates kind of rich which comes from a brilliant new innovation and makes you billions. All of the tech billionaires and most of the richest of the rich ( Buffet, Soros ) are pretty liberal. People with opinions like your grandfather's are the bottom of the upper class. These people get their money by scraping money into little piles and slightly out competing other people who were doing the same thing. This doesn't make him a job creator, it makes him a slight cost reducer, which is sort of the opposite. It also doesn't make him an authority on macro - economics. | cmv |
I think that " job creators " are the worst people to listen to when it comes to deciding government action. CMV | First of all, let's just use the term " wealthy people " instead of the politically charged " job creators " term. Wealthy people range from Bill Gates to Donald Trump to the inconspicuous millionaire next door. So they aren't a monolithic bloc with monolithic ideas. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, for example, have what most people would describe as centrist or center - left political ideologies. But, if you take specific issues about government action, is it inconceivable that they would have good ideas and key insights? For example, if you've spent 20 years of your life working in finance or building a carpet cleaning business, is it unreasonable for you to offer some insights on how regulation harms your industry? | cmv |
I think that " job creators " are the worst people to listen to when it comes to deciding government action. CMV | I think it's worth saying -'job creators'aren't actually in the business of creating jobs. If they could make their money by having an army of maintenance free robots do the job cheaper they would. They are wealth creators and their aim is to keep as much for it for themselves and their shareholders as possible. This isn't a bad or evil thing, but we should recognise this for what it is. Usually this process necessitates them taking people on in the process, thus creating jobs, and they might be very good jobs. They might be very kind employers, and very socially responsible - but this is purely incidental. It's a side effect. | cmv |
I think that " job creators " are the worst people to listen to when it comes to deciding government action. CMV | You're listing your Gramps as your sole example, how about Bill Gates or the guy who owns Tesla or Carnegie, or Gaben etc. etc.? Business people have experience with a side of things that most people don't, they think about things that most people don't, and they prioritize things that most people don't. Those things are essential to creating a prosperous world. Of course they have a stilted view of things, so does everyone else. Renters think that they should get a years grace after they stop paying rent and McD's workers think they should get paid the same as factory workers. A lot of college professors seem to think that life should revolve around their chosen field. Democracy works by having all these different views of the world compete instead of disenfranchising one or the other. I'll even go farther and say that employers should have a bit more influence than their one vote. Think about it, a hundred selfish factory workers, ten selfish managers and one selfish employer. The employer has to level the playing field in some way or else the others are going to go beyond fairness in exacting things from him. | cmv |
I think that " job creators " are the worst people to listen to when it comes to deciding government action. CMV | First. I think the use of the term " job creator " is a joke to begin with. I don't think a business owner considers himself a " job creator ", this term is merely a way to make corporate benefits sound appealing to the general population. Second. " Job Creators " are not looking to create jobs but to maximize profits. That said, the people at the top know their business and know what is needed to succeed in that business. Does that mean every idea or policy they propose will be beneficial to the economy or general population? No, but some will, so why not listen to them? Same with Unions. They do a lot of great things to help the working man, but they are not worried about creating a functioning business model, their job is to get the worker everything it can. I am sure they have several policies that could help create jobs but does that mean they are better qualified for solving the problem? The issue is not who you listen to, it is who you let influence you. | cmv |
I think that " job creators " are the worst people to listen to when it comes to deciding government action. CMV | I don't see how listening to " Job Creators " ( I assume we mean employers ) would be a worse idea than listening to people without any stake in the matter. It depends on the issue, and what groups we're comparing them too. Why would listening to " Job Creators " be worse than Party - Insiders, lobbyists, or white supremacy groups. I'm sure you can always find a worse group to listen to when considering government policy. We can make up any group we like, what about " terrible people ". I'd think whatever they had to say would be worse than " job creators ". | cmv |
I believe the arguments of the Republican Party stop short and don't adequately address opposing viewpoints CMV | CMV doesn't seem like the proper place for this kind of question. This reads as a " I'm of x political leaning, and the opposing viewpoint doesn't make sense to me ". I'm sure your opposite number is thinking the same thing. Everyone in the world who holds a political opinion strongly probably thinks this same thing. In other words, this is too broad of scope and too commonplace for a proper CMV. | cmv |
The U. S. would be better off if everyone who supports the Tea Party disappeared. CMV. | This post is kind of astounding because you are attacking a strawman without even bothering to define it. What, exactly, do you think the Tea Party is? Until you define it, your logic is essentially " the tea party is harmful because it is the tea party. " You claim outright that their policies / ideologies are ignorant, racist, and will cause " concrete harm, " so I'm sure you will have no problem citing sources on what those policies / ideologies actually are. | cmv |
The U. S. would be better off if everyone who supports the Tea Party disappeared. CMV. | so, first - you say that everyone who identifies with the Tea Party is demonstrably ignorant. So it is ok for someone to be ignorant, as long as they aren't Tea Party members? They don't have to disappear? Follow - up question - what if you found someone who was clearly far more knowledgeable than you about politics, the political process, the economy, leadership, law, national history, the constitution, etc. And also a self - identified member of the Tea Party. Do they have to disappear as well? | cmv |
The U. S. would be better off if everyone who supports the Tea Party disappeared. CMV. | Your choice of non - corporate owned opponents in the republican party are the Tea Party and the Evangelists. Take your pick. There is a sub set of the Tea Party republicans that are not beholden to corporate interests. I'd rather have an honest opponent who believes in what he says than a vacillating stooge that is not allowed to make their own decisions. | cmv |
I don't believe that a child should confront a bully physically / violently. CMV | Sometimes violence really is the only alternative. Much as I hate to admit it, not all schools are as diligent in their anti - bullying efforts as the ones in the area I currently work in, especially when it comes to topics of homosexuality. You can be totally ignored, or even threatened by the teachers / principal / district if you try to go through the system, which can be a time consuming and humiliating process when they decide to ignore you. All the while the bullying will continue. There is only so much torment you can reasonably expect a human being to endure before they retaliate, and while I would prefer a child to go through the system that's not always an option, and bullies need to be stood up to. If you have to punch a bully in the face because no one is listening to you then so be it. Bullies need to learn that their actions have consequences, and that you cannot expect everyone to sit there and take it while you make them feel like they're not a human being. What recourse is there for a student who's not getting help from the school? | cmv |
I don't believe that a child should confront a bully physically / violently. CMV | Violence rarely is the ideal option, but when I have kids, I feel it would be necessary to teach them that is an option. Ideally, there's a system in place to prevent bullying from happening and in case it does happen stop it from happening again. Unfortunately, this isn't always the case. Teachers will turn a blind eye or bullies will make sure the teacher doesn't find out. Oftentimes the bullies get off with a verbal warning and the victim is told just ignore it next time. This is not effective. It doesn't send the proper message and despite popular belief, bullies won't just stop if you ignore them ( and ignoring them can be rather difficult / traumatic ). One good fight is enough to keep bullies of your back for the rest of your school career. It's not the best way out, but it is the quickest. Sometimes you need quick. | cmv |
I don't believe that a child should confront a bully physically / violently. CMV | Here's the thing, I see no reason to believe using self - defense in a violent way has any correlation with their future self now using violence to get money, power, food, etc. Unless OP, you have reason to believe things like that, please provide a link saying so. Other wise there is no proof, there is no reason for you to believe that taking self - defense in that manner will result in a future listed above. | cmv |
In my mind, President Obama is a liar and has lost total credibility due to the NSA scandal and his subsequent pursuit of Snowden. PLEASE CMV | The only thing I can think of at this point is to point out the checks and balances. In other words, the other two branches of governments are just as much to blame as the Obama administration. Otherwise, yeah I pretty much agree. | cmv |
In my mind, President Obama is a liar and has lost total credibility due to the NSA scandal and his subsequent pursuit of Snowden. PLEASE CMV | Administrations have a self - serving interest in not investigating past administrations for crimes. It means they can do what they want with impunity and not be afraid of their laundry being sifted through after a changing of the guard. I can't really change your view, because I agree with your viewpoint. I guess if it matters, Obama isn't anything new. " It's not you who will eventually change the system, it is the system that will eventually change you. " | cmv |
In my mind, President Obama is a liar and has lost total credibility due to the NSA scandal and his subsequent pursuit of Snowden. PLEASE CMV | I've been voting for a long time, and one thing that I came to realize a long time ago is that all politicians lie. It's kind of baseline assumption that I make informed by my solid belief that an honest man cannot be elected to high national office. In order to pick a candidate I look at things like who owns him. Instead of trying to pick the better candidate or the lessor of two evils, I try to pick the candidate likely to do the least damage. For the last couple of decade it's been a democrat for the presidency, and I think history has proven me right. But I don't respect these men. I don't trust them, except that I trust them to say whatever is going to get them elected and do whatever is in their best interest or the best interest of their owners. | cmv |
In my mind, President Obama is a liar and has lost total credibility due to the NSA scandal and his subsequent pursuit of Snowden. PLEASE CMV | As for the courts it's possible that the NSA is just really good at understanding what types of things the court is likely to allow and what types of things it may feel queasy about and the NSA has never really tried to push the envelope. Just because it's never turned down a request doesn't mean it's ever approved a request it shouldn't have. Personally I voted for Obama three times but not because I particularly liked him, only because I thought he was the least bad option each time. | cmv |
In my mind, President Obama is a liar and has lost total credibility due to the NSA scandal and his subsequent pursuit of Snowden. PLEASE CMV | Obama may be a liar and he may lose credibility on this issue. However, this is just one issue out of many. Isn't it possible for Obama to be wrong on this issue only, and correct on many others? I just think it's difficult to so quickly pass judgment on someone due to their behavior on one issue. I personally disagree with obama on this issue, and disapprove of his handling of it. However, I still see him as a good president overall because I believe he is correct on a number of other issues. | cmv |
In my mind, President Obama is a liar and has lost total credibility due to the NSA scandal and his subsequent pursuit of Snowden. PLEASE CMV | The way I look at it is once you become the president there's probably a big book of things he needs to know. He read the book and like most reasonable people he rethought some decisions which is fair. Now on the NSA probing, you can say this is fear mongering or whatever but there's people who want to hurt other people for fickle reasons and these people have positions of power where they can do that. I'm don't think it's smart to wait until it happens if you can stop it by reading someone's e - mails or checking phone data. It's not invasive and they don't use it to stop domestic crimes so I think it's fine. | cmv |
In my mind, President Obama is a liar and has lost total credibility due to the NSA scandal and his subsequent pursuit of Snowden. PLEASE CMV | I'll note a previous example - front page of the WSJ I think - " Health Insurers : We've Already Won. " Obama, at the same time : " I will not give in " He had already cut the deal ( and this constitutes another lie ) that there would be NO PUBLIC OPTION. Diametrically opposed to his'I WILL NOT SIGN ANY DEAL WITH NO PUBLIC OPTION. " Get used to how America works. It's not a representative system. It's business, for business, by business. | cmv |
In my mind, President Obama is a liar and has lost total credibility due to the NSA scandal and his subsequent pursuit of Snowden. PLEASE CMV | While it's human nature to do so, I've never found it fair to dismiss your like of a politician over a single issue. ESPECIALLY over a covert operations issue, like Benghazi or the NSA, which requires the politician to lie to the public by definition. Try not viewing the world in the polarized light our nature tries to make it, there's room between him sucking and being awesome. Think about all the good Obama's done, and weigh it against this one bad thing he's done ( Which isn't NEARLY as bad as the internet is making it out to be ). Do you really feel that this one blunder outweighs all the good he's done for the LGBT community, the poor and infirm, and the death of Bin Laden? If so, well, there's nothing else I can tell you to change your view ( though others might offer you specifics on the program that I cannot that might help you see the NSA as less of an issue. ) | cmv |
In my mind, President Obama is a liar and has lost total credibility due to the NSA scandal and his subsequent pursuit of Snowden. PLEASE CMV | I am a fervent obama supporter but I do agree that he has lost credebility because of this nsa thing. It is an invasion of privacy and I wish that he would have shut it down. However I disagree that he has lost all credebility. I know that " nobodys perfect " is kind of a lame argument, but I really do believe that he has the countrys best interests at heart. He has done a lot of good during his terms and I dont think that all of that should be ignored because of this scandal. | cmv |
I believe that Communism is so obviously wrong that all Communist leaders deserve to be executed even if they never unjustifiably imprisoned or executed anyone. CMV | Has it ever occurred to you that if they grew up in such a society ( which was different from yours ) and had an education ( that was different from yours ) which taught them the benefit of such a system, then perhaps they may come to different conclusions? Even in capitalist countries, there are plenty of people who see the benefits of communism. If they decide to try out leading a communist country, they should automatically die? You say that the answers are so obvious to you, but I have no idea where you got the idea that people with ( subjectively ) erroneous ideas should simply be killed. Too many video games, mate. | cmv |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.