Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Republican Compares Abraham Lincoln To.. (Guess Who?!)" video.

"Even though he was a democrat by today's standards!" Uh, no. What Lincoln pushed for was equality for all which is what republicans push for. Democrats create groups they claim are oppressed (gays, minorities, women), and feel those groups need government help. That is called the "soft bigotry of low expectations". There is also a strong argument that policies by democrats have hurt some of those groups. For example, the min. wage had hurt black teen employment.
5
Democrats today will tax the slaveholders at a high rate, and give the slaves government jobs.
4
"The anti gay marriage rhetoric today was just like the anti intergration rhetoric in the 1950s." No, because in the 50s black people were forced to used different services, sit in different seats in the bus, or were kicked out of business and went to different schools. If two gay people lived with each other and said they were married, would they have been thrown in jail? No. But when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat she did go to jail. You see the difference? At that point the discussion is what is the government's role in marriage? I have never heard of a gay person going to jail for living with their partner.
3
Temporal, the gay marriage argument shows the ignorance of the general public. Gay people have always been allowed to get married. They could have had a ceremony, created their own license, and live with each other without being incarcerated. They had that right and ability, always. The issue was that the government did not recognize it. So the real issue is what is the government's role in marriage? Not if gays were allowed to do it or not, because they are. You can get more progress done if you present your argument in an intelligent way. Just a little bit of advice for you.
2
" it was the southern conservative Christians that used the Bible to justify slavery." That is also not true. It was the economy that justified slavery. No different than our trade deals that have been supported by both republicans and democrats.
2
tehHax0r,one, that site is an anti-religion site. Anyone with a brain between their ears can see the bias. They are immediately comparing religion to science which is a disgrace to science and displays their level of ignorance on both topics. Next, the vast majority of the population was religious at that time, as in almost everyone. Slavery was about the economy.
2
Temporal, slaves were force to work and were treated like property. We do not have "wage slavery" today. Saying that term is a disgrace to actual slaves that do exist today, such as girls who are kidnapped and sold into sex slavery for example.
2
Pittman has a legit point here. The war was arguably unconstitutional and slavery could have been ended through peaceful negotiation. Instead we had a war that killed thousands.
2
" republicans were still against gay marriage there has been a lot of Republicans I have come across who say gay marriage is a sin & is corrupting the youth and should be stop by the government. " You are talking to radicals, but with that I agree that is a weak argument against gay marriage and I criticize those people as well. "I'm constantly hearing Republicans complaining about gay marriage complaining about the rainbow lights that were at the White House complaining about gay couples adopting kids" The rainbow lights are annoying I would agree. Adoption is a more complicated issue. As whole I don't mind a gay couple adopting. "You can't sit here and say the Republican Party is for equality on all levels " No one is arresting gay people for getting married, the government just does not recognize it. That is the issue. Gay people always had the ability to get married, the government never recognized it. If the government were arresting gay people for living with each other I would oppose that and call those people out. But that was not happening. "They are the party full of support from the KKK and Christians who would love for the government to make it 100% illegal and death sentence for getting married if you're gay." And those are radicals. A gay couple shut down a cake shop with government force.
1
"Slavery could have ended peacefully? Just when I think you can't get any more dense and clueless." So you support the war in the Middle East and what is going on in Syria?
1
Raizhen010, I am not kidding. Today we actually settle many disputes off of the battlefield and with peaceful negotiation. We could have tried that to end slavery and not go to war. I also find it ironic how Kyle and his viewers support the Civil War and are not considering that maybe we could have negotiated, but are opposing the war in the Middle East or the recent Syria situation. You could, in the very end, support the Civil War. But the fact that Kyle and his viewers are not even considering that negotiation was an option really goes against their anti-war stance.
1
The Missouri Compromise was in 1820. Lincoln was elected in 1860. Right away you showed you failed history.
1
Xpert520a, your point does not stand. Lincoln could have come up with a compromise himself, or tried. Also, the fact that the south attacked first means nothing. Why did they attack? What was their reasoning? They became their own separate country with their own currency and government. They had no reason to attack unless provoked. Again, you failed history.
1
barbiquearea, you have a very intelligent argument there. I learned a few things reading your comments.
1
Pittman is not wrong. The Civil War as unnecessary and arguably unconstitutional. You may say it freed the slaves, but thousands died because of it. There could have been negotiations done to end slavery. The comparison to Hitler was a stretch, but what Pittman said is not completely wrong. I find it ironic how Kyle, who is against war, feels that the Civil War was completely necessary and peaceful negotiation was not an option.
1
Gays have always been allowed to get married. The issue was that the government did not recognize it. At that point the issue is what is the government's role in marriage?
1
"gays should be able to participate right along with straight people. " They had every right as straight people had. You have the right to pursue happiness, so you can get married. But the government did not have to recognize it. That is the issue, on whether or not government recognized it and if they had a vested interested in doing so. Gay people always had the right to get married, now the question is what is the government's role in marriage?
1
"They could not marry each other." Yes they could. The government did not recognize it. Have you ever heard of a gay person being arrested for living with their partner?
1
"You do realize there are a plethora of benefits when it comes to getting married. " I know. "Why shouldn't gays have access to these same benefits?" Why do those benefits exist to begin with? You need to ask that. What is the interest for the government and society to create those benefits? That is the issue. Is there a benefit in giving a gay couple those same benefits? That is the problem with the gay marriage argument. People on the left have become so extreme on the issue that they come up with these weak arguments of marriage being a right and that gay people are denied it. Gay people can get married or live with each other if they want. The government just didn't recognize it. That's it. The actual argument is what is the government's role in marriage? But those on the left are, at least to me, too ignorant to present that which has hindered progress in gay marriage.
1
"Not having recognition in the eyes of the law means any rights, legal protection & representation afforded to legal marriages are not available to you." Not really. A right is something the government can't take away. You have the right to pursue happiness thus the government can't arrest you if you are gay and live with a partner (minus any zoning laws). You do not have the right to any benefits gay couples receive, just like you do not have a right to any benefits someone with a child receive. There are benefits giving to people for various reasons. For example, if I were to buy a book and list it as an expense for college I get a tax break. But if I were to buy a book just for fun I do not get a tax break. I had to buy Shock Doctrine for one of my courses, so I used it as a tax deduction and was allowed to since I was a college student and used it in my course. That book was worthless and lack intellectual thought. Now say I was not a college student and I bought a diet book that allowed me to lose weight and stay healthy so I am less of a burden to society in terms of healthcare. Do I receive a tax deduction for that book? No. In our tax code and government system there are many inequalities that exist for many reasons. The gay marriage argument is not about whether or not gay people are denied rights, because they are not denied any. The argument is what is the government's role in marriage?
1
Count Deku, look at my example in buying books of a college student vs a non-college student and how the college student can receive tax breaks for the books they buy. There are many cases in our tax code and government system where certain people in certain situations get benefits and others don't. So again, this comes down to what is government's role in marriage? Those on the left have become to radical that I get criticized when I approach the topic like this. I will be blunt, I do not care about gay marriage at all. What I care about is how laws are created. But I am not for or against gay marriage, so do not try to paint me as a person that is opposed to gay marriage.
1
Zack West, when have I ever changed positions? If you are going to criticize someone you have to give examples.
1
Zack, it seems like you do not want to have a discussion on an issue and rather go back to your safe space. I do not say that to be rude, but with your comment you are giving the perception.
1
Violet Rose in the Dark, I am an educator by nature so I do enjoy informing people and making them think. These comments do not take long to write. Also, I am a moderate. I am not on the opposite end of the spectrum as you put it. People that feel I am are radicals. If you read my comment I am not opposed to gay marriage, nor do I support it. I support standards in how laws are developed. And I support developing intelligent arguments which can actually help progress us on the issues.
1
BioCapsule, nothing is ideal. If that family disowned that son for being gay chances are they will not care they are dead. Or those that do care will not care that his partner will attend the funeral. That is a personal matter and that begs the question on how much should the government be involved in personal life? Where do you draw the line? Say that gay couple was just dating? Say there were engaged? Say they were living with each other for 10 years? At what point to do change the law. There are also these little things call wills that can account for situations like that. That person can write a will accounting for that situation in if they were to die their partner will be allowed access to their body and possessions. You can bring up situations left and right and I can show you ways around it or show you how easily you can change the standards. So that comes back to what is the government's role in marriage? Why does it exist and how does it behoove society? "You keep saying "you need to ask that" as if other than you, people don't question why society works a certain way (how very full of yourself). " I realize that people do question society. I am pointing out how people approach certain issues in an incorrect manner. People keep saying that marriage is a right and gays are denied it. That is not true at all. Gays have always been able to marry, the government just didn't recognize it. That is why I say it is an issue of what is the government's role in marriage. That is the actual argument. You then bring up the benefits of a married couple which is a legit point. You have to ask yourself at that point why do those benefits exist? How do they behoove society? You then brought up a scenario that is plausible. But now I have shown you a way around it simply by writing a will. Your argument is weak, that is my point. You need to strengthen your argument in order to progress on these issues. In reality I am actually trying to help you. I really do not care about marriage in general. I care about people acting in an intelligent way. Failure in doing so is hindering progress as a whole, and is also why the democrats continue to lose. "He is anti-government, that is it," I am for limited government. I have never said I was anti-government. I work for the government as I work for the university and the school district.
1
BioCapsule, I will add this is why I support state rights. These issues are complex and can go many ways. There is no ideal system as there are pros and cons in having the government do certain things. That is why I want to leave these issues to the states. We have our protected rights in the Constitution. Beyond that issues such as government's involvement in marriage should be left up to the states.
1
"where do we draw the line? We have always done so. Please understand the idea of legal precedents, how laws have always changes with time and how laws are made. You don't know how to draw the line, that your problem. " We do have to draw a line, but what is that line, and why? I follow the Constitution and marriage is a state issue. Thus it is up to the states to decide what that line is. It is vague and subjective. That is my point. You have your belief and others have their belief. "Rubbish just like everything you say." How is it rubbish? " the decease in question is very young & as you said, you wouldn't expect the family to care after disown" Create a will than. That lies on that person. "And it is not just plausible because such things actually happened." When? "Since we don't expect everyone to have a will" How about we make a law forcing people to make one? We have a law forcing people to buy healthcare insurance. We have seat belt laws. " Are you proposing we 'mandate' everyone having one detailing every aspect of live, they don't expect to happen and update it on a daily basis for good measures" No, but you are. I said nothing is ideal. Maybe everyone should have wills just in case something does happen, like we force people to have health insurance. That seems to be up the left's ally.
1
BioCapsule, your response to me was rather poor. You said this "And what you say is rubbish all the way. "Gays have always been able to marry, the government just didn't recognize it." Rubbish just like everything you say." But yet you did not give a reasoning on how it is rubbish. You just saying it is does not make it so. And yes, I am for limited government. Ever considered this? If the government was not involved in marriage to begin with than gay marriage would not even be a topic.
1
Zack West, if you are going to make accusations you have to back them up, period. If you don't than no one with intelligence can take your argument serious. "You misapplied the term "safe space" as a means of dishonestly attacking my integrity." No I did not. What you did was come up, call me stupid, and then ran away. Now you did come back, but with the internet you have the option to block and ignore me like you are suggesting others to do which shows you do not like to interact with opposing viewpoints. So I did not misapply the term "safe space". "Furthermore, I do not have enough time for your bullshit. Between my own small business, the hobby debate community I help run which we're looking to translate into a professional site, my communicating with my colleagues for each, and daily recreation time, I have very limited time I can spend arguing with a dense clown such as you. As much as I would love countering every comment you make, I prioritize on the things which matter more to me like my career, hobby, and friends." These comments do not take long as long as you know what you are talking about. I am a PhD candidate, I work a second job for more income. I work as a football official and am moving my way up to the college ranks. I do spring ball for semi-pro, camps and college scrimmages. I work out on a regular basis as well. I also have friends to hang out with. So I am very busy as well. The reality is that you simply are not witty enough to type a somewhat coherent, intelligent comment to rebuttal what I say, which is fine. I do not expect a PhD thesis here, but some sort of opinion is enough. This comment took 5 minutes.
1