I lost 40 points. What does this mean?

[CowboyCO]

What I have never understood either is how marriage is a political issue anyway?

If it is not a political issue, then why is a candidate for high office being asked about it in a town hall? Again I don't care about the issue, but hypocrisy is hypocrisy when it comes to what is allowed and what is not.

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2125870

 

[akhenaten]

I remember things a bit differently. IIRC after the election there was a poster who would pop up on any thread that she could find any way to stretch into a political argument and use the OT to springboard into a diatribe about the election consequences. The thread then turned into an argument regardless what the OT was and ended up closed. It spoiled a lot of discussions.

yes... in fact that could be why the "Liberal" version of the "lasagna lovers" thread is gone... my memory is being refreshed..

 

[diznygirl]

There is a pro-Gay slant on these forums. Would that actually surprise anyone? I don't know what the DISer posted but it sounded like it might have been anti-Gay. Is that political?

I would agree that comments about the candidate are certainly political though.

You mean a "pro-tolerance" slant as opposed to an "intolerant" slant?

 

[Toad_Passenger]

during the last pres. election things got hot and heavy on the community board...as threads were closed and bans put in place the people on each side of the election started threads with benign topics to keep chatting with their friends... the Republican/conservative group called theirs "Lasagna Lovers".

Sounds no different than people in the "ORLY" thread, "Bacon" thread, or countless other social threads. Not sure why they wouldn't be allowed to discuss other things in life, so long as their not discussing politics?

While the "issue" of the thread referenced may not political, the subsequent discussion is tinged with rhetoric, no matter what side of the original issue one may fall.

 

[akhenaten]

If it is not a political issue, then why is a candidate for high office being asked about it in a town hall? Again I don't care about the issue, but hypocrisy is hypocrisy when it comes to what is allowed and what is not.

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2125870

I would say, because the candidate (and perhaps others also in said party who made a rather infamous commercial about the subject) are using the topic to try and secure a segment of voters to support them.

 

[Planogirl]

You mean a "pro-tolerance" slant as opposed to an "intolerant" slant?

To me this means the same but using the word "tolerance" does sound better.

 

[PrincessKsMom]

To me this means the same but using the word "tolerance" does sound better.

I guess the word "acceptance" is too far down the road. Tolerance just rubs me the wrong way. JMHO.

 

[akhenaten]

Sounds no different than people in the "ORLY" thread, "Bacon" thread, or countless other social threads. Not sure why they wouldn't be allowed to discuss other things in life, so long as their not discussing politics?

While the "issue" of the thread referenced may not political, the subsequent discussion is tinged with rhetoric, no matter what side of the original issue one may fall.

if you read all posts you will see that the LL thread was brought up to counter the argument that there is a liberal bias here on the DIS.... since they are still "together" and the liberal version was , I believe, locked. No one is saying they are having a political discussion..

 

[OceanAnnie]

I'd damn near forgot!

Me too.

yes... in fact that could be why the "Liberal" version of the "lasagna lovers" thread is gone... my memory is being refreshed..

Yes. It is coming back to me. It was a long time ago.

 

[marmalade]

If it is not a political issue, then why is a candidate for high office being asked about it in a town hall? Again I don't care about the issue, but hypocrisy is hypocrisy when it comes to what is allowed and what is not.

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2125870

That's exactly my point. I never understood why marriage is being used as political leverage. Why is marriage a law? It should never even be an issue at a town hall meeting with a presidential candidate.

 

[akhenaten]

Me too.



Yes. It is coming back to me. It was a long time ago.

LOL it was a long time ago... and I have to say given how things went , I am not sad that political discussions are banned... there were a lot of bad feelings on all sides...

 

[Mkrop]

the post does not bash all republicans... and does not paint all republicans with the same brush.

The poster here who said it "bashed republicans" was exaggerating...

Actually the thread does. If someone wants to have an intelligent discussion about the thread, one should read the thread like I did before posting. I have not read it since I posted earlier so if other things got added I am unaware but I dont have time to go back but the posts I did see spoke of this. Like FD posted, it started off with a political candidate's viewpoint and then proceeded to mention ALL Republicans and the Republican party in a not so favorable light.

So you're gonna blame a Mod who wants to discuss discrimination/oppression in America?

Folks should be concerned that any Party uses discrimination/oppression of Americans as a quick fix to get votes.

I am going to blame a Mod if they bring politics into the discussion or allow a discussion they started to continue with political references. Discuss discrimination/oppression all you want, leave politics out of it per the board's rules, if you cant then dont start the thread in the first place.

I'm all for equal rights and the discussion of it but the subject can be broached without mentioning any political party, candidate, or religion.

If someone who agreed with the person in the video posted it in a thread about the support of her as opposed to the opposition of her the thread would be closed and that is hypocrisy.

Either ban all political threads or allow all political threads. Don't only allow some if they adhere to a particular ideology.

ETA: That linked thread is about freaking lasagna. I looked at the last page and it is about food and has nothing to do with politics.

I would say, because the candidate (and perhaps others also in said party who made a rather infamous commercial about the subject) are using the topic to try and secure a segment of voters to support them.

Once again, per DIS board rules, it doesnt matter WHAT the candidate said, it is not allowed here.

 

[Uncle Remus]

Then we should not turn anythin' about gays 'n lesbians into religious or political ideology, it's just plain ol' freedom 'n human rights.

 

[Toad_Passenger]

That's exactly my point. I never understood why marriage is being used as political leverage. Why is marriage a law? It should never even be an issue at a town hall meeting with a presidential candidate.

Agreed. If two people want to be joined in a union that is honored by the government for purposes of taxation, or whatever, then it should be called a Civil Union and just be as simple as getting a notarized piece of paper...it would then extend to any couple, regardless of orientation.

If you are a member of an organized religion that also has a "Rite of Marriage" then they can make whatever rules they want, and people can decide to get "Married" according to that rite, as they so please.

But, in terms of the law, the Civil Union papers should be all that is needed, and we can just keep the term "marriage" for uses elsewhere.

 

[akhenaten]

Actually the thread does. If someone wants to have an intelligent discussion about the thread, one should read the thread like I did before posting. I have not read it since I posted earlier so if other things got added I am unaware but I dont have time to go back but the posts I did see spoke of this. Like FD posted, it started off with a political candidate's viewpoint and then proceeded to mention ALL Republicans and the Republican party in a not so favorable light.




I am going to blame a Mod if they bring politics into the discussion or allow a discussion they started to continue with political references. Discuss discrimination/oppression all you want, leave politics out of it per the board's rules, if you cant then dont start the thread in the first place.






Once again, per DIS board rules, it doesnt matter WHAT the candidate said, it is not allowed here.

I did read the thread... up until I posted very early on... and I still don't consider what was there at that point "bashing". ( and whose "intelligence" are you calling into question?)

My post about what the candidate said was in response to another poster... why take things out of context.

and if you continue reading this thread.. you will see I state that I am glad there is a political ban...

I don't think the exception was due to political leanings as much as about friendship perhaps... or who was on mod. duty at the moment...

 

[FireDancer]

Then we should not turn anythin' about gays 'n lesbians into religious or political ideology, it's just plain ol' freedom 'n human rights.

Damn skippy it is. It is the civil rights movement of the 1960's being played out again. You'd think we would have learned the lesson after that turbulent era and know not to repeat it all over again. Apparently not.

 

[akhenaten]

Agreed. If two people want to be joined in a union that is honored by the government for purposes of taxation, or whatever, then it should be called a Civil Union and just be as simple as getting a notarized piece of paper...it would then extend to any couple, regardless of orientation.

If you are a member of an organized religion that also has a "Rite of Marriage" then they can make whatever rules they want, and people can decide to get "Married" according to that rite, as they so please.

But, in terms of the law, the Civil Union papers should be all that is needed, and we can just keep the term "marriage" for uses elsewhere.

Then are you saying all "marriage" should be called civil union in terms of the government??

 

[DWGal210]

Well, for the record, there are plenty of Christians, conservatives 'n Republicans who support equality for gays 'n lesbians so I'm not sure what the issue is.

(raising my hand)

No kidding - its annoying when people are herded together in a group when even within political parties, there's lots of variations of beliefs. It doesn't make sense to say that EVERY Rep or Dem is 100% one way or the other.

Honestly, my main concern is electing people who understand the revolutionary concept that we can't spend more than we take in. It's radical, I know. (and that applies to BOTH parties, do no one needs to get offended)

 

[OceanAnnie]

LOL it was a long time ago... and I have to say given how things went , I am not sad that political discussions are banned... there were a lot of bad feelings on all sides...

There were. No doubt about it.

I wish there were a way to discuss issues without conversations degenerating. I do enjoy reading different perspectives. It brings issues to life where before they may have seemed more remote.

But degenerate they do, even if things go swimmingly for awhile those threads all decline like the titanic. That's the way it is.

So it goes.

 

[Uncle Remus]

Damn skippy it is. It is the civil rights movement of the 1960's being played out again. You'd think we would have learned the lesson after that turbulent era and know not to repeat it all over again. Apparently not.

Had to clean my computer screen with a reminder to not drink coffe while readin'.

Agreed. If two people want to be joined in a union that is honored by the government for purposes of taxation, or whatever, then it should be called a Civil Union and just be as simple as getting a notarized piece of paper...it would then extend to any couple, regardless of orientation.

If you are a member of an organized religion that also has a "Rite of Marriage" then they can make whatever rules they want, and people can decide to get "Married" according to that rite, as they so please.

But, in terms of the law, the Civil Union papers should be all that is needed, and we can just keep the term "marriage" for uses elsewhere.

Right, ridin' at the back of the bus still gets ya there.

(raising my hand)

No kidding - its annoying when people are herded together in a group when even within political parties, there's lots of variations of beliefs. It doesn't make sense to say that EVERY Rep or Dem is 100% one way or the other.

Honestly, my main concern is electing people who understand the revolutionary concept that we can't spend more than we take in. It's radical, I know. (and that applies to BOTH parties, do no one needs to get offended)

I know what ya mean. I'm just a gun totin' lesbian, confuses some folks.

ETA: With strong family values!