Oklahoma Tea Party Candidate Scott Esk Wants Homosexuals Put To Death

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I thought it was pretty funny when he suggested the Pope probably knows a bit of scripture.

Anyway, this New Testament passage seems pretty applicable here:

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." John 8:7

I also like Matthew 7:5.

It often seems right on point.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The only Bible verse I know is Ezekiel 25:17....

[Huntingwhale]

It's always humorous to listen some homophobic go on about how homosexuality goes against the Bible's teachings, yet they completely ignore the teachings about tolerance and loving your neighbour.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Canada Maybe, but US, I just don't see it.

That's because all you know about the US is the fringe. That's all that gets reported.

Nobody mentions that 300 million people don't believe what Esk does.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

That's because all you know about the US is the fringe.

hmmmmmm, how do you know what I know about the US?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

That's because all you know about the US is the fringe. That's all that gets reported.

Nobody mentions that 300 million people don't believe what Esk does.

You know, I actually feel pretty bad for you Dis. You actually might be willfully going to the polls in 2 years to cast a vote for Hillary Clinton because of sheer lunacy of the alternative (most likely Ted Cruz).

[Locke]

What the US needs to do is contract Jay & Silent Bob to go and beat the everloving crap out of people who post or say crap like that.

"Are you Scott Esk and did you say that we should kill all the homosexuals?"

"Ummm...yes?"

*Proceed to ass kicking*

I guess thats my stance, people who say crazy crap like that should get their asses kicked.

You have the right to say crazy things but.....there'll be consequences...

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

That's because all you know about the US is the fringe. That's all that gets reported.

Nobody mentions that 300 million people don't believe what Esk does.

Dude, how many prominent Republicans need to be exposed for their bigoted beliefs before you recognize this is not a fringe thing, and is in fact very much step-in-step with mainstream American conservatism?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

That's because all you know about the US is the fringe. That's all that gets reported.

Nobody mentions that 300 million people don't believe what Esk does.

How can you call these guys 'fringe' when they're elected officials? Obviously a significant number of people feel the same way or agree with them, ergo their election.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Dude, how many prominent Republicans need to be exposed for their bigoted beliefs before you recognize this is not a fringe thing, and is in fact very much step-in-step with mainstream American conservatism?

I mean hell, they have a whole news channel that promotes these sort of beliefs.

The "fringe" doesn't get a national news network.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Locke

How can you call these guys 'fringe' when they're elected officials? Obviously a significant number of people feel the same way or agree with them, ergo their election.

Not only that, but in the cases of Rick Perry and Ted Cruz, they're also considered strong contenders to be the Republican presidential nominees in 2016. That's not fringe. Calling it fringe is just an attempt to absolve oneself from the accountability that is inherent in affiliating oneself politically with the Republican party.

It's the same morally repugnant argument that has people say things like "Well I'm voting based on his economic principles, not his social principles."

EDIT: Note DF, I'm not saying these are your views.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by rubecube

"Well I'm voting based on his economic principles, not his social principles."

Actually I think this is a reasonable basis for voting for someone. Different voters have different priorities. Personally, I will always vote based on economic policy rather than on social issues provided I am satisfied that the individual will not legislate according to their beliefs on those social issues. Which obviously is much harder to get comfortable on in the U.S.A., but still.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The Republican Party has dug its own grave through years of systematically turning key voting blocks against them (women, minorities, educated people etc...). When you shrink your potential options to garner enough votes to win, you have to take what's available and for the Republicans that means the extreme elements have a substantially larger voice than they should, because without them the GOP has no shot at winning anything. So instead of maybe trying to start appealing to some key groups, they are double down on insane. Of course because of gerrymandering they can still win enough seats to matter. American politics are such a disaster.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

I think there is a huge correlation between Christians who are primarily inspired by the Old Testament and Batshi**iness

Christians who are inspired by the New Testament and ignore the Old Testament are probably much more reasonable.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Locke

How can you call these guys 'fringe' when they're elected officials? Obviously a significant number of people feel the same way or agree with them, ergo their election.

Well to be fair he's not elected yet.

And I don't know if you can necessarily say that a significant number of people feel the same way about stoning, even if he was elected the worst you could say is that enough people hated Democrats more than they hated Esk's views on stoning which would never come into play in their minds.

The general bigotry against homosexuals yes I'd agree, though it is improving even among Republicans. Saw a recent poll that had 52% of age 18-50 voters supporting same-sex marriage, and 61% for age 18-29. Over age 50... 27%

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...-sex-marriage/

Numbers for the Tea Party look quite a bit worse (can't find anything recent though), but I wonder what the age demographic for people who call themselves part of the Tea Party is.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

Actually I think this is a reasonable basis for voting for someone. Different voters have different priorities. Personally, I will always vote based on economic policy rather than on social issues provided I am satisfied that the individual will not legislate according to their beliefs on those social issues. Which obviously is much harder to get comfortable on in the U.S.A., but still.

I'm guessing you're a white, straight male. That might be a big reason why social issues are less of a concern to you than economic ones.

[photon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm guessing you're a white, straight male. That might be a big reason why social issues are less of a concern to you than economic ones.

Haha that reminded me have you ever seen Scalzi's (Sci-Fi author) posts on straight white male being the easiest difficulty setting? Interesting, as is the responses and the subsequent updates.

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/1...ting-there-is/

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The Republican Party has dug its own grave through years of systematically turning key voting blocks against them (women, minorities, educated people etc...). When you shrink your potential options to garner enough votes to win, you have to take what's available and for the Republicans that means the extreme elements have a substantially larger voice than they should, because without them the GOP has no shot at winning anything. So instead of maybe trying to start appealing to some key groups, they are double down on insane. Of course because of gerrymandering they can still win enough seats to matter. American politics are such a disaster.

It's the election system. Fundamentally flawed from the beginning.

I think it's done a lot of harm socially, as having an entrenched 2 party system gives staying power to antiquated ideas.

Key example in the post above, someone voting for economic policies over social policies and vice versa. In a representative democracy you would have a choice between parties representing conservative economic policies and a party representing conservative social policies, and you would vote accordingly.

Now, you've got to lump your vote in with some jerkoff who represents what you're looking for economically, but that economic policy is only 20 percent of his overall platform.

All that being said, I can't think of many fiscally conservative members of the GOP. Alan Simpson and...I'm drawing a blank.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The Tea Party's average age demographic is the most powerful in politics: Old people...who we all know, actually vote. There are some younger Tea Party groups but when you look at the crowd of any Tea Party rally and it's geriatric central.

[strombad]

I have worked elections before.
Can confirm:
Old people love voting