bullets13

The whole "Uncle Tom" insult seems pretty offensive to me, but not nearly as offensive as to who i've seen it directed at.  i've heard it a lot in reference to those who have a problem with people milking the system for all it's worth.  I'm not sure why a tax payer, based simply on skin color, should find it acceptable for a person, REGARDLESS of skin color, to make bilking the government out of thousands of dollars a month a full-time job.  I see it in my line of work all the time.  We have parents come to school and try and convince us to sign papers stating we believe their child is ADHD.  In some cases, they may be, and it is simply a worried parent.  But oftentimes they just want them to be diagnosed so that they can collect a disability check on said child.  Yes, you heard right.  A 3-year-old diagnosed as hyperactive draws between $300-$400 a month disability.  Seeing as the government also pays for their medicine for the disorder, I'm having a hard time understanding exactly why that "help" is needed.  Is it because the "disability" keeps the 3-year-old child from becoming gainfully employed, perhaps?  Oh wait, they're 3.  When it comes to government assistance, there is PLENTY of fat that could be trimmed.

I don't consider it hypocritical for someone who took government assistance and used it to better his situation, become a successful person, etc., to have a problem with those who would take government assistance and use it as a career move.

I want you around, we have interesting debates (at least until you change the subject). You referred to me as the "self-appointed topic police", and I just wanted to point out that not only am I not self-appointed, but part of my duties as a mod on here is in fact to police topics.

that's the prevailing view on this site... many, many on here have directly or indirectly said as much.  not sure how me bringing that up is over the top.

We have a problem with the halftime show, because of the gays, but no problem with the racial slur for the team name.  And then claim the gays, and not our attitudes, are ruining the country.  Did i get that right?

As if you have never (repeatedly) called out "lefties using the lefty playbook".  That being said, the owner of the site, in his decision to make me a moderator, appointed me a part of the "topic police".  fortunately, i'm not strict about it, or you would have been banned years ago for breaking forum rules several times a week for not staying on topic.  personally, my main motivation in bringing these up is to keep debates going with you, because i enjoy them, only to so often see them thrown off in some random direction.    As to your question, which i really shouldn't even answer, the issues are wholly unrelated, and i personally think it's assinine when people take a "trivial" issue that some in the government are working on, throw out a separate issue that they feel is more important, and then make the assumption that the government either can't work on two issues at once, or infer that they're super busy on the simple issue and thus cant get around to the more important issue. 

    i just saw this... really? Coming from you this is either well-played sarcasm or(In Booming God Voice) THE MOST IRONIC SETX POST OF ALL TIME!

  I guess wrong turns right if it lasts long enough? This has been an issue before. Social media just gives issues like this more exposure and it's proponents more of a voice.

    the real question is what does the topic (That you started) of this thread have to do with senators dealing with a 3 page bill that would make it easier to fire incompetent VA employees? The answer of course is very little.

Nope, simply pointing out that once again instead of arguing an issue you on it's own merits you've again elected to change the subject.

Almost as much as Benghazi and banning sugary soft drinks.

I'm not sure who started it, but we all know who took it and ran with it, looking like buffoons in the process.

    don't misunderstand me. the tea party, after a brief spell of success, is now just pretty much dividing and diluting the influence the GOP has left. here's a pretty good example. These guys (shocked at the lack of outrage on here ;) ) were arrested trying to sabotage a republican, not a dem. I'd love to see multiple parties take hold, but it's a long way off where one can form that doesn't essentially flounder while screwing the most similar party.

  the same on the right who throw out 54,000,000 million killed love to gripe about the millions of kids they're supporting with their tax dollars. here you managed to bring up both in the same post.

  that's a really nice way of putting "love them in the womb, screw em once they're born", which is how i generally refer to it.

    if we could get rid of the tea party, a united republican party might get something done.

   i understand this. the point being, if a descriptive term for darker skin color is deemed offensive, it's not exactly a stretch to believe those who claim the term for red skin is offensive to them.

[Hidden Content] The basic details are that in their attempt to prove that a political opponent (GOP member) was seeing another woman, they illegally snuck into a nursing home to take pictures of the opponent's wife, who has lived there for 13 years with dementia. Arrests include a Mississippi Tea Party Board Member and a conservative blogger.

I don't think this is a significant story, however we all know if it had been a CNBC anchor there would be something immediately posted with all of y'all chiming in about how terrible he is. It's the hypocrisy of politics. When it's their guy he's a monster, when it's our guy it's all been blown out of proportion.

It is if those referred to by it are offended. The N word is derived from Negro, which was derived from the Spanish term negro which means black. So although "negro" is a discriptive term for someone's skin color, you're going to have a hard time using it without it being "harmful" in today's society.

    Do you know how many hundreds of legalized acts do the same thing? Why is this the one that upsets Christians so much? Realistically, unless we want to go back to living like pilgrims, it's a lost cause, which as far as i'm concerned is for the best anyway.

  For all of your talk of the lefty handbook, you sure use this move out of the righty handbook CONSTANTLY. Anytime anyone talks about anything, use it as an excuse to bring up something either marginally or completely unrelated that the left did wrong, or has been perceived to do wrong. Just in this thread alone (about same sex marriage) you've brought up Occupy Wallstreet AND the banning of sugary drinks in New York. And if i had a dollar for every unrelated thread you turned into a benghazi thread i bet i could just about afford a trip for two to the movies, with a large popcorn thrown in to boot.

Saints is not an ethnic descriptor. If they were the New Orleans Ghostfaces I'd give your argument a little more credence, although i have to admit, I would be the first in line to buy a New Orleans Ghostface jersey.

    Race Card Alert if there are protests in her defense after a jury that was 50% African American found her guilty in less than 40 minutes of deliberation, and after we ALL have seen the clear video evidence of her guilt.

I agree that sin is sin, but i have a problem when we try to compare two consenting adults to beastiality or pedophilia. Because while as Christians we're quick to lump them together and claim that all sin is "equal", i feel like for the most part we can agree that we'd rather our daughters marry a guy who's sin is the occasional over-indulgence of alcohol, rather than a guy who's sin is the occasional raping of elderly women. I mean, they're both sins, but they're incomparable when it comes to the severity and depravity involved.