[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31992838]Well here we go.[/QUOTE]
I just want to see if he really agrees with the statement I quoted. That's all.
I don't see how that is relevant or how any opinion of mine would affect my point.
[QUOTE=Ridge;31988752]I understand you are British, and are used to the government having it's eye in your windows all the time, but maybe, just maybe, the government doesn't need all powerful control over every aspect of your life?[/QUOTE]
You heard it hear first folks, british people are controlled by the government and the illumaniti just pull the strings.
You don't fucking listen to yourself do you
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;31991641]Except if he voted, it's already done and over with. He may not see his next term, but the law he's voted on will still go into effect.[/QUOTE]What dumbass would vote for something that guarantees he won't get another term? If the law is in effect the new majority could vote for repealing it.
[QUOTE=Ridge;31992631]You do realize this discussion is irrelevant to political parties, right?[/QUOTE]
Err, no one is talking about political parties
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;31993027]What dumbass would vote for something that guarantees he won't get another term? If the law is in effect the new majority could vote for repealing it.[/QUOTE]
No offense, but I really wish politicians would vote for things they honestly believed would do good and sacrifice popularity for that.
As I see it, a politician represents their party and not necessarily themselves. They should support their party in most cases except in issues where they strongly disagree with the rest of the party.
So we got a bunch of insane republicans and a Mormon.
kthxbai
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;31991641]Except if he voted, it's already done and over with. He may not see his next term, but the law he's voted on will still go into effect.[/QUOTE]
Supreme Court.
[QUOTE=KommradKommisar;31993753]So we got a bunch of insane republicans and a Mormon.
kthxbai[/QUOTE]
Nah, it's all of the Muslims you have to watch out for.
We need a Facepuncher to run for president.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;31993245]As I see it, a politician represents their party and not necessarily themselves. They should support their party in most cases except in issues where they strongly disagree with the rest of the party.[/QUOTE]
I always thought the politician should represent the people that elect them, as that is their purpose.
[QUOTE=lavacano;31994774]We need a Facepuncher to run for president.[/QUOTE]
I'll run :v:
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31989463]I understand you are American, and are used to bigots stepping on your rights, but maybe, just maybe, the government has a role to play in ensuring your basic human rights?[/QUOTE]
i don't know if we have the same view of civil rights considering it seems like you think sexting and underage sex is fine
[QUOTE=TBFundy;31996915]i don't know if we have the same view of civil rights considering it seems like you think sexting and underage sex is fine[/QUOTE]
You're not going to stop kids from fucking. It's not going to happen. So what good is it telling them it's off limits, it's evil, and that they can't have it when you can at least try and teach them to do it in a safe manner and add some actual meaning and context to sex.
And what the fuck is wrong with sexting? Are kids not allowed to talk dirty in your world? How bloody socially conservative are you? Oh no, the worlds coming to an end, kids are having sex for the first time in history!(it's not)
I tell you, I've liked conservatives a bit more than liberals mostly because of the idea of privatized social security, but holy hell, is the party getting stupid.
I hope to god Obama gets reelected. I may not agree with everything he does, such as cutting NASA funding (although I see the reasons), but I just hate the GOP now, and he honestly seems like the only candidate who'll actually do anything decently.
I really wish we didn't have a two party system. I have a feeling all of this stupidity at least would have a chance being avoided if we did, and there'd be a ton more compromises that actually ended up decently.
Other candidates's speeches in a nutshell:
"Obama sucks. I'm better. Pick me."
[QUOTE=Flubadoo;31997484]Other candidates's speeches in a nutshell:
"Obama sucks. I'm better. Pick me."[/QUOTE]
If you really think that's what they're saying, you need to open your ears.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31997206]You're not going to stop kids from fucking. It's not going to happen. So what good is it telling them it's off limits, it's evil, and that they can't have it when you can at least try and teach them to do it in a safe manner and add some actual meaning and context to sex.
And what the fuck is wrong with sexting? Are kids not allowed to talk dirty in your world? How bloody socially conservative are you? Oh no, the worlds coming to an end, kids are having sex for the first time in history!(it's not)[/QUOTE]
god what is with you people and this logic about laws
just because you can't stop someone from doing something doesn't mean you don't make a law making it illegal
you aren't going to ever stop violence but we fucking have laws against violence now don't we
btw I don't know if you live in america but pretty much every state school system requires a sex education class, and almost all of them teach you to save sex when you're ready (i'm sure most people can agree that "when you're ready" is a good time to choose) and you might be from hickville but no government worker is going to call it "evil". the most conservative thing they say is "the only way to be completely safe from std's and teen pregnancy is to be abstinent" and that's a fact albeit one that I wish wasn't true
megafanx13 is right about one thing, though, teenagers don't suddenly make a magical maturity boner appear when they turn 18. the reason the law is in place is to stop adults from taking advantage of kidss who don't know how big of a deal sex can be. it's a papercut or a amputation, you protect young ignorant young children but sacrifice the rights of young adults, or you make borderline pedophilia legal just so 17 year olds can have sex freely. i'm not even against 17 year olds having sex, or even 15 year olds for that matter. i'm just against a 33 year old guy taking advantage of an 11 year old, and I as a minor will willingly give up my right for unrestricted sex if it needs be.
i have my reservations about sexting but it's not so much a civil rights thing as it is a harassment thing
you seem a little quick to jump to the conclusion that i'm a conservative, and you seem really quick to assume i'm a fear mongerer
i don't like you man
[QUOTE=Flubadoo;31997484]Other candidates's speeches in a nutshell:
"Obama sucks. I'm better. Pick me."[/QUOTE]
When I saw Hillary Clinton in person back in 2008, that was the jist of her 3 hour rally, but with Bush.
[QUOTE=TBFundy;31997840]god what is with you people and this logic about laws
just because you can't stop someone from doing something doesn't mean you don't make a law making it illegal
you aren't going to ever stop violence but we fucking have laws against violence now don't we
btw I don't know if you live in america but pretty much every state school system requires a sex education class, and almost all of them teach you to save sex when you're ready (i'm sure most people can agree that "when you're ready" is a good time to choose) and you might be from hickville but no government worker is going to call it "evil". the most conservative thing they say is "the only way to be completely safe from std's and teen pregnancy is to be abstinent" and that's a fact albeit one that I wish wasn't true
megafanx13 is right about one thing, though, teenagers don't suddenly make a magical maturity boner appear when they turn 18. the reason the law is in place is to stop adults from taking advantage of kidss who don't know how big of a deal sex can be. it's a papercut or a amputation, you protect young ignorant young children but sacrifice the rights of young adults, or you make borderline pedophilia legal just so 17 year olds can have sex freely. i'm not even against 17 year olds having sex, or even 15 year olds for that matter. i'm just against a 33 year old guy taking advantage of an 11 year old, and I as a minor will willingly give up my right for unrestricted sex if it needs be.
i have my reservations about sexting but it's not so much a civil rights thing as it is a harassment thing
you seem a little quick to jump to the conclusion that i'm a conservative, and you seem really quick to assume i'm a fear mongerer
i don't like you man[/QUOTE]
Wow you seem to have jumped to conclusions all over the place as what the fuck I mean but you're okay with that i'm sure.
There's a difference between having laws about violence and over legislating sexuality you dolt. How the fuck can you even get that mixed up. The difference is however is that while yes, we DO need laws to protect kids from adults, we don't need laws to protect kids from kids anymore so than we have now. Obviously rape is rape and assault is assault but a 18 year old having sex with a 16 year old IS criminal in some areas and shouldn't be.
And if you've never seen a "abstinence only" or a like wise minded seminar in your life, count yourself lucky because A LOT of other people never got any other picture painted for them and while you may like to assume they did, that's not helping them out at all.
How the fuck you get "don't stop kids from fucking kids" and turn that into "YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT OKAY FOR ADULTS TO FUCK KIDS?!" is beyond me. And by making a laws telling kids it's illegal for them to fuck each other basically paints the picture that it's a "wrong" or "evil" thing to do in a lot of peoples minds.
I jumped to those conclusions justly it seems.
I don't like you either but hey, maybe don't read into what I say so much.
[editline]28th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ridge;31997898]When I saw Hillary Clinton in person back in 2008, that was the jist of her 3 hour rally, but with Bush.[/QUOTE]
The gist of any political speech these days is to slam the opponent. It's sad and the democrats aren't above it sadly. Though, what choice do they have, that's just about all the people seem to respond to.
[QUOTE=Ridge;31994790]I always thought the politician should represent the people that elect them, as that is their purpose.[/QUOTE]
I wish that was the case as well
american sex education actually teaching kids to have sex when they're ready? ha yeah right.
everything here is abstain until marriage and scare kids with images of stds.
they teach anatomy and stds but you learn nothing about responsibility
[editline]28th August 2011[/editline]
I like how TBFundy acts as if the suggestion is to get rid of laws that prevent adults from having sex with kids. That was never even mentioned.
[QUOTE=Ridge;31994790]I always thought the politician should represent the people that elect them, as that is their purpose.[/QUOTE]I think it's the party's responsibility to represent their voters, not the individual MPs. I mean if everyone just voted for whatever they felt like it would quickly undermine the balance of power in the parliament.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;31998243]american sex education actually teaching kids to have sex when they're ready? ha yeah right.
everything here is abstain until marriage and scare kids with images of stds.
they teach anatomy and stds but you learn nothing about responsibility
[editline]28th August 2011[/editline]
I like how TBFundy acts as if the suggestion is to get rid of laws that prevent adults from having sex with kids. That was never even mentioned.[/QUOTE]
Because why argue about what's relevant when you can just talk about irrelevancies
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;31998304]I think it's the party's responsibility to represent their voters, not the individual MPs. I mean if everyone just voted for whatever they felt like it would quickly undermine the balance of power in the parliament.[/QUOTE]
Voting for parties is restricting. Voting for individuals is liberating.
Teaching abstinence is stupid. It doesn't work and teenage pregnancy increases anywhere it is taught.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;31998561]Voting for parties is restricting. Voting for individuals is liberating.[/QUOTE]
It's liberating provided you're voting for someone knowing who they are. Most independent voters in America just go "well I don't like this guy so I'm going to vote for whoever runs against him." and that's worse than partisan voting, which at least gives you an basic idea of where they stand.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;31998243]american sex education actually teaching kids to have sex when they're ready? ha yeah right.
everything here is abstain until marriage and scare kids with images of stds.
they teach anatomy and stds but you learn nothing about responsibility[/QUOTE]
there also seems to be this idea that having sex is some sort of crime in some states. comes to a head when they essentially have a "if you do the crime, pay the time" attitude when it comes to abortion and birth.
[editline]28th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=person11;31998773]Teaching abstinence is stupid. It doesn't work and teenage pregnancy increases anywhere it is taught.[/QUOTE]
Teaching Abstinence alone anyway. When you teach that alongside legit sex stuff it's fine.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;31999563]there also seems to be this idea that having sex is some sort of crime in some states. comes to a head when they essentially have a "if you do the crime, pay the time" attitude when it comes to abortion and birth.[/QUOTE]
"Sodomy" was still illegal in some states up until 2003 when a Supreme Court ruling ([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas]Lawrence V. Texas[/url]) made the laws unconstitutional. However some states still continue to have laws that basically see 'homosexual' activities as illegal, and the Texas GOP for that matter has as part of their platform support for making sodomy illegal and other things they feel tie into homosexuality.
Sex-Ed varies from state to state, and in many cases between cities, but Texas has pretty bad ones. I didn't have a sex-ed class for instance, it was tied in during a week of health class to get us scared about STDs. Nothing about prevention beyond abstinence.
Governor Perry has been rather bad on this count, and the State Board of Education has made a big mess of it. Mostly politicized along with evolution and the "gay agenda" in the scope of 'taking back the classrooms from liberals'.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
