Cite?
Also, there’s no “hypocrisy” in the thread title as the OP isn’t the same person who is regulating alcohol in your (our) state.
No fundamentalist Christian is going to accept any historical evidence that contradicts the Bible.
Are you sure it was liberals who passed that law? Could just be my political biases talking, but that sort of law strikes me as more of a conservative idea.
For what, that Washington is a blue state, or that we have such laws?
If you need a cite that puts two and two together I doubt you would find anything more than a news cite. It just stands to reason that if a state has a law that passed, the law was voted on publicly, and the state is predominately liberal, then the liberals were largely responsible for it.
We have said law, and we are a liberal state. What more proof do you need?
ETA: Either way, it is a stupid law. I assumed it was liberal because of no “blue” laws. They are open Sundays, there are no dry counties, etc. If religious conservatives want to control alcohol, it seems that they tend to just ban it.
:rolleyes:
There is hypocrisy, because a liberal (MORE government) is bashing the idea of passing more laws (MORE government). That’s it. That’s the hypocrisy.
So if 18 Republican senators and 7 Democratic senators voted for a piece of legislation, with 24 Democratic senators voting against, it just stands to reason that liberals were largely responsible for it?
I don’t know anything about this legislation in question, but your rationale doesn’t work very well.
When I said “and it was voted on” I meant like the population of Washington, not senators. There are still state laws that have to be voted on by the populace, no?
ETA, anyway, the debate wasn’t about this and this is derailing. If you really want to debate it, you can start another thread, but I’m not bothered enough to, as I was just making a quick comment about the TITLE (not content).
I find it very unlikely a law regarding the sale of alcohol through state liquor stores, and the banning of online ordering of liquor was the result of a referendum. I guess it is possible, I just find it extremely unlikely.
I don’t know enough to be certain either. It was merely an example I have to deal with on a personal basis. It kept going because liberals think they are perfect and all of their adding more government would NEVER, EVER take away somebody’s perceived right.
ETA: one example is California banning fast food (if that ever went through). I hardly think the fat conservatives would be for such a law. It certainly takes away the right to eat what one wants.
So you blamed a particular law on “the liberals” with no clue in fact whether it was “the liberals” who caused such a law? I see how that makes your point. Anyway, liberals taking your booze away is right up there with the right wingers deliberately causing the Black Death.
:rolleyes:
This is why I don’t debate on the internet. Ignore all of my actual points and think you win because I was wrong once… on the internet. My god, you proved my whole point invalid. I guess the NEXT example I gave is wrong by default. Or you aren’t really interested in debate, but defending your sore pride because you are a liberal that likes more government. Or just taking a pot shot at somebody that was wrong on the internet so you look good by comparison.
Actual proof. You make a claim - you cite it. Though I wouldn’t bother, were I you, as it’s completely irrelevant to subject of this thread.
So, you assume that “liberals” have drawn up and passed liquor laws in WA state, so it’s hypocritical for someone else you assume is “liberal” to oppose banning SSM? You really think this makes sense?
How do you know the OP supports “MORE government”? What does “MORE government” mean?
I support re-writing the liquor laws here in WA state, and I also support making SSM legal. Is that hypocritical?
WA state liquor stores were all closed on Sundays until a few years ago.
Let me spell this out for you. I’ve said this several times already, and you seem a bit too dense to get this.
I was not referring to the meat of the OP, merely the title. I am for gay marriage and against it being up to the government to decide who and who we cannot marry.
The point I was making was that this board is mostly liberal (does that need a cite?), and that it was (funny) hypocritical that a liberal slanted board has a title of a thread like this (yes, there is a high chance the OP is a liberal), when liberals pass just as many laws (I wouldn’t say more) that restrict personal freedom.
People tend to be one way or the other, I’m afraid. While it is possible he is like me and doesn’t fit a mold, most people associate themselves with one ideal or the other (and never the twain shall meet). I’m the only person that I’ve met that has libertarian leanings (i.e conservative), but has come to support many liberal started concepts (I’m green conscious, I am pro-education spending, now pro-public option, I morally oppose abortion in a general sense, but don’t support the banning of it, etc) I certainly have not seen many like me on this board. Most are walking stereotypes, on both ends of the spectrum.
More government means more government regulations, more constricting laws, etc. What did you think it meant? Another branch of the government? I somehow doubt you are this dense, so you are just being pedantic.
Why would it be hypocritcal? I’m against that aspect of the liquor state laws and I’m for making SSM legal. Did you somehow, after reading my statement that I am all for making SSM legal, think that I am lying or do you only see things that fit in your worldview.
Again, any law that says marriage should only be between a man or woman should not exist (does one exist?), therefore SSM should be legal if there isn’t a law explicitly stating that SSM is illegal. If said law exists, it shouldn’t be and should be removed, IMO. Government should not disallow marriage of any sort. Is that more clear?
Well here is the problem. Your fundamental premise was mistaken. There are liberals who support more government regulation of individuals, and liberals who support less government regulation of individuals. Just like there are right wingers who support more government regulation of individuals, and right wingers who support less government regulation of individuals.
The only example of liberals trying to intervene in your private life that you botehred to cite was a Washington state law, that you finally admitted you had no idea if it had be foisted on your by liberals. You started with the assumption that liberals are more likely to try to control your private life (wrong) and moved on to presume based on that that a particular restriction on individual liberty must be the result of liberals. Given that both your premise and your logic were incorrect, can you explain why I should take anything you say seriously?
Liberals and conservatives both lie across the spectrum on individual liberties. And even if we do make statements about the groups, liberals and conservatives both tend to restrict different types of individual freedoms.
So I am sorry I did not treat your entire argument with the merit it so clearly deserved. By only proving one part of it to be groundless, I left you with the opinion that anything else you had said was of value. I hope to have rectified that problem.
Well, apparently I’m your clone brother, as a pro-public option, pro-concealed-carry, pro-choice, flag-waving patriot voter. Now that we’re done back-patting, I personally think you’re being ridiculous about this–there’s nothing inherently “liberal” about the title of the OP, the OP itself, or the status of liquor laws in Washington state.
Hey, I live in PA, the most on the fence swing state in the union, and we have the same liquor laws as you guys. That must mean everyone’s a big-government jagoff on all sides of the spectrum, amiright?
So, you’re having a hard time pointing out this supposed hypocrisy, so you resort to calling me stupid.
That’s all, then.
Ok, I’m cynical by nature, especially about politics. America in a sense hasn’t exactly dissuaded me from the concept that we want the government to baby-sit every aspect of our lives. There are hundreds of examples I’m sure (Patriot act being one of them, yes I know it was probably largely Republicans that helped that one along, I’m not against pointing fingers both directions).
So maybe I’m wrong and jumped to conclusions. Fine, I’ll man up to it.
Are you being anything other than honest yourself? You keep discussing the hypocrisy issue and conflating it with the “supposed” idea that I’m against SSM. After I state several times I wasn’t saying the meat of the argument was what I was referring to, ONLY the title, which doesn’t mention SSM at all.
Not dense in the sense of stupid, dense as in stubborn, deliberately obtuse or not, nothing about your intelligence. (though on second look, the “I know your not dense, you are being pedantic” was in that use, but I was saying I know you aren’t stupid, so you are still wrong.
I guess that I agree with Bricker on this. There is no constitutional right to same sex marriage. It is not mentioned in the Constitution, nor is it implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. To structure the debate as if we are “vote[ing] other people’s rights away” is incorrect. Same sex marriage is not now, nor has ever been a right in the history of this country. This needs to be said again. Sam sex marriage is now not, nor has it ever been a right in the history of this country. As such, it devolves to the people or the legislatures to decide what, if any, legal status these relationships have. Every thread that talks about 14th amendment rights to gay marriage needs to stop right there.
Only in recent years have ideas and thoughts changed to the point where some people feel that homosexual relationships should be accepted the same as traditional relationships. As evidenced by the votes in Maine and California (and the other 29 states where it has been voted upon) a majority of the population, and in some states an overwhelming majority, are not of the opinion that these homosexual relationships are deserving or as “equal” as traditional, opposite sex relationships.
Perhaps it is time to change these laws, but the burden is on those advocating change. You can’t just come on here and state your opinions as if they are fact. You have to convince the rest of us to change these laws.
Yeah, you are all so pious and wonderful because you accept different lifestyles so you shouldn’t feel the need to “educate” anyone who is old fashioned and therefore “bigoted”. As a poster said in a different thread, anyone who is against gay marriage just wants to put them in concentration camps.
I think posters here have gotten so liberal that they can’t take that step back and think for themselves. Do we really want a sea change in society like this FORCED upon people? Is it right to force things like this? What happens next that is forced on you?
I’m being completely honest. I didn’t say or imply you were against SSM. Just telling you the “hypocrisy” you keep trying to point out is non-existent.