|
So, probably the most famous Filipino in the world (as well as a top Boxer and Congressman in the Philippines), Manny Pacquiao, has been preaching fire and brimstone about gays and condemned President Obama for his 'evolution' on the topic. The shocking part? How much negative backlash I've been seeing in both articles and comments about Pacquiao's beliefs.
|
#
¿
May 16, 2012 23:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 18, 2024 03:24 |
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Apparently he didn't quote Leviticus (the original article was updated) and he's just opposed to same sex marriage. Pacquiao's gay relative is a variation of "I have black friends, so how can I be racist?  ". Still, even without the Leviticus part, he's projecting his terrible opinions onto the general masses because of his popularity as a Boxer, which certainly isn't helping gay rights.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 00:21
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:Hmmm. Concentrating people... in places you might call camps. In order to wipe them out. A novel idea. Hey! It's not like the homosexual people were persecuted in the Holo... oh.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:Edit: Nah I guess it makes sense the more I think about it? They just have to claim it's for the betterment of society? Basically the IRS doesn't often enforce the political lobbying rule unless it's really, really blatant because of the legal process to revoke tax-exempt status is incredibly time and money consuming.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2012 22:18
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Regardless of what I think of Mises, Mises.org is not Ludwig von Mises. To sum up Mises.org, well, someone pull up that article where one of the authors there was arguing children should be allowed to legally be sold since they're their parents property. You mean the Murray Rothbard quote: quote:Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway-freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children. Superficially, this sounds monstrous and inhuman. But closer thought will reveal the superior humanism of such a market. For we must realize that there is a market for children now, but that since the government prohibits sale of children at a price, the parents may now only give their children away to a licensed adoption agency free of charge.[12] This means that we now indeed have a child-market, but that the government enforces a maximum price control of zero, and restricts the market to a few privileged and therefore monopolistic agencies. The result has been a typical market where the price of the commodity is held by government far below the free-market price: an enormous “shortage” of the good. The demand for babies and children is usually far greater than the supply, and hence we see daily tragedies of adults denied the joys of adopting children by prying and tyrannical adoption agencies. In fact, we find a large unsatisfied demand by adults and couples for children, along with a large number of surplus and unwanted babies neglected or maltreated by their parents. Allowing a free market in children would eliminate this imbalance, and would allow for an allocation of babies and children away from parents who dislike or do not care for their children, and toward foster parents who deeply desire such children. Everyone involved: the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing the children, would be better off in this sort of society.[13]
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 07:25
|
|
|
RembrandtQEinstein posted:Minnesota, if Thursday goes like I hope it will. What are the other states that currently have same-sex marriage legislation pending and which ones of those have a good chance of passing this year (if things go smoothingly)?
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
What's the status of the legislation in Illinois?
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
Sweeney Tom posted:The House has until May 31 (when Assembly adjourns) to vote on it, and then it's too late. What are the odds that they will actually move on the legislation? Wikipedia says the Illinois House has a 71-47 Democrat to Republican split and the Illinois Senate is 40-19, but is there a lot of Blue Dog-types that make the odds pretty long to see anything done in the next three weeks?
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
Sweeney Tom posted:The Minnesota marriage equality progress is even better if only for how Michelle Bachmann must be reacting to it all. Is there a big enough forest in Minnesota that she can hide behind?
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
katium posted:I thought they only needed 60 votes now. Why did every Democrat need to approve it? Illinois has a Super Hastert rule going on?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
Plus they can easily get a Foster Friess or the Cathys to pay off the debts in order to float their political lobbying arm.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
Sweeney Tom posted:Luxembourg's expected to pass their marriage equality bill by summer, with legal marriages coming by year's end. With that and Ireland's increasing support, there's a decent chance all of Europe legalizes gay marriage before all of the US. I seriously doubt that given Eastern Europe's thoughts/actions towards gays...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:
NOW: We want you to marry old school - at 13ish!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Sweeney Tom posted:The Illinois marriage equality ban won't be on the ballot this year. Senate just passed the amended version. Uh, you mean Indiana?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
I think effectual is referring to the pocket veto, not the line item veto.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
some moron posted:They (plaintiffs) reduce marriage from an institution that exists to benefit children You could make child support an obligation in the absence of marriage (and you can have unmarried couples take care of children in lieu of formal marriage), so I'm not sure what marriage per se has to do with that...? 
Horseshoe theory fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Any reason for no test case being prepared in North Dakota?
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Are you serious? gently caress them then. I just put them up there as a religious charity to show that I wasn't trying to be anti-faith. They're pretty well known for being homophobic, overtly proselytizing and sheltering child molesters/rapists.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:What didn't you get the memo, literally no bigotry exists in glorious Mass. Boston busing crisis, what's that?! Edit: Also, Bill Russell called Boston the most racist city he ever was in.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
skaboomizzy posted:There are plenty of crazy-rear end lawyers out there. A couple colleges are committed to shooting them out like sewage through a fire hose. There is no shortage of "qualified" legal professionals who are all-in on this stuff. And some even make it to Congress! See: Bachmann, Michelle.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:How is it someone can come out of that law school, apply to practice law in a state, and not be told to gently caress right off because they don't have a valid degree? It'd be like Attending the Zoidberg School of Medicine and Homeopathy then being allowed to become a doctor. Accreditation standards are nonexistent? See: Cooley Law School, Taft Law School (where Orly Taitz got her law degree from), etc.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 18, 2024 03:24 |
|
|
The one thing that Andrew Jackson had a good idea about was how to treat people who moved towards nullification/secession.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 20:12
|
|
