Attorney David Boies faces off with the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, and shows him up for the ignorant bigot he is: ‘No Evidence of Harm’ from Same Sex Marriage.
(Hat tip: Thanos.)
1 |
Stanghazi Sun, Aug 8, 2010 9:24:21pm |
The crazy points against same sex marriage (the children! polygamy!) worked for a fear based campaign, and subsequently prop 8 was passed. Thankfully, these arguments do not transfer to a court of law.
| 2 |
Kragar Sun, Aug 8, 2010 9:28:45pm |
re: #1 Stanley Sea
The crazy points against same sex marriage (the children! polygamy!) worked for a fear based campaign, and subsequently prop 8 was passed. Thankfully, these arguments do not transfer to a court of law.
For some reason, they also want to ignore the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
| 3 |
SpaceJesus Sun, Aug 8, 2010 9:31:16pm |
what part of, "no rational basis" do you people not understand
| 4 |
Kragar Sun, Aug 8, 2010 9:32:40pm |
re: #3 SpaceJesus
what part of, "no rational basis" do you people not understand
Rational. They don't have much experience with it.
| 5 |
avanti Sun, Aug 8, 2010 9:39:17pm |
Go to any right wing blog and the issue is clear. The opposition to gay marriage is nearly 100% rooted in religion. I have no problem with a religious person not agreeing with gay marriage, they can simply choose not to marry a same sex partner, but they can't control the free choice of others.
| 6 |
Killgore Trout Sun, Aug 8, 2010 9:43:55pm |
re: #5 avanti
Go to any right wing blog and the issue is clear. The opposition to gay marriage is nearly 100% rooted in religion. I have no problem with a religious person not agreeing with gay marriage, they can simply choose not to marry a same sex partner, but they can't control the free choice of others.
Imminent domain on your naughty bits!
/tea party
| 7 |
freetoken Sun, Aug 8, 2010 9:44:41pm |
See also the Pages entry by Thanos where Ted Olson gives Chris Wallace no room to wiggle:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
| 9 |
freetoken Sun, Aug 8, 2010 9:45:23pm |
re: #6 Killgore Trout
Imminent domain on your naughty bits!
/tea party
Heh, the imminence of eminence?
| 10 |
freetoken Sun, Aug 8, 2010 9:46:34pm |
re: #8 SJohnsonFL
if not then why do we vote in this country?
Go watch Ted Olson dismantle your case, in the link I just gave a couple of comments up.
| 11 |
jamesfirecat Sun, Aug 8, 2010 9:46:53pm |
re: #8 SJohnsonFL
The voters decided...I remember the gay community screaming that the black community "were all a bunch of racists" you see the blacks turned out in record numbers so they only assumed that they were the tipping votes to pass prop 8! The voters spoke and this is another example of "passing laws" from the bench...14th Amendment and 7 million voters will make this law remain...if not then why do we vote in this country?
Oh yes I lived in California in this period too...
The rights of the minority should not be up for grabs by the vote of the majority.
This may be a democracy, but that doesn't mean the common man can decide anything we want just by voting on it, that's why we have a constitution in the first place...
| 12 |
JamesWI Sun, Aug 8, 2010 9:47:11pm |
How many times is he going to say "District level judge" with that fucking smirk on his face like it's supposed to be an insult? Apparently "District level judges" are not supposed to rule on the facts and law before them.
Also, the line about how there haven't been any studies that show gay marriage *isn't* harmful to children. Hello? Pretty sure that when the issue is whether there is the harm necessary to withhold the right of marriage, the onus is ON THE PEOPLE CLAIMING THERE IS HARM. And then how a study about no-fault divorce impacting children is somehow supposed to translate to the issue of gay marriage?
Jesus Christ. Fucking idiot.
| 13 |
goddamnedfrank Sun, Aug 8, 2010 9:48:00pm |
re: #5 avanti
Go to any right wing blog and the issue is clear. The opposition to gay marriage is nearly 100% rooted in religion. I have no problem with a religious person not agreeing with gay marriage, they can simply choose not to marry a same sex partner, but they can't control the free choice of others.
I'd like to see them take the same attitude regarding the word marriage as it applies to bottles of ketchup as they do in application towards gay human beings, simply being a synonym for union, joining, etc.
| 14 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Aug 8, 2010 9:48:38pm |
re: #8 SJohnsonFL
The voters decided...I remember the gay community screaming that the black community "were all a bunch of racists" you see the blacks turned out in record numbers so they only assumed that they were the tipping votes to pass prop 8! The voters spoke and this is another example of "passing laws" from the bench...14th Amendment and 7 million voters will make this law remain...if not then why do we vote in this country?
Oh yes I lived in California in this period too...
People's civil rights can't be limited by a vote.
If the State of California had voted to outlaw interracial marriage again that would also have been struck down
| 15 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Aug 8, 2010 9:49:46pm |
re: #12 JamesWI
How many times is he going to say "District level judge" with that fucking smirk on his face like it's supposed to be an insult? Apparently "District level judges" are not supposed to rule on the facts and law before them.
Also, the line about how there haven't been any studies that show gay marriage *isn't* harmful to children. Hello? Pretty sure that when the issue is whether there is the harm necessary to withhold the right of marriage, the onus is ON THE PEOPLE CLAIMING THERE IS HARM. And then how a study about no-fault divorce impacting children is somehow supposed to translate to the issue of gay marriage?
Jesus Christ. Fucking idiot.
If he does not like having a district-level judge rule on him, he need only wait. Soon, the 9th Circuit Court will be throwing his crap arguments out as well.
| 16 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Aug 8, 2010 9:50:24pm |
re: #13 goddamnedfrank
I'd like to see them take the same attitude regarding the word marriage as it applies to bottles of ketchup as they do in application towards gay human beings, simply being a synonym for union, joining, etc.
Yes, but then, don't you end up with a single bottle of ketchup, rather than two wedded ketchup bottles?
| 17 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Aug 8, 2010 9:52:42pm |
Is it just me, or are people just in a weird damn mood this weekend?
| 18 |
goddamnedfrank Sun, Aug 8, 2010 9:53:16pm |
re: #16 SanFranciscoZionist
Yes, but then, don't you end up with a single bottle of ketchup, rather than two wedded ketchup bottles?
As long as one of them ends up in the trash, it's a marriage.
| 19 |
b_Snark Sun, Aug 8, 2010 9:54:14pm |
re: #17 SanFranciscoZionist
Is it just me, or are people just in a weird damn mood this weekend?
No, it's just you.
| 21 |
palomino Sun, Aug 8, 2010 9:55:57pm |
re: #8 SJohnsonFL
The voters decided...I remember the gay community screaming that the black community "were all a bunch of racists" you see the blacks turned out in record numbers so they only assumed that they were the tipping votes to pass prop 8! The voters spoke and this is another example of "passing laws" from the bench...14th Amendment and 7 million voters will make this law remain...if not then why do we vote in this country?
Oh yes I lived in California in this period too...
I love this issue because it's one that I know my side will win. It's all a question of demographics and time.
The only age group that clearly opposes SSM is 65+. There's no delicate way to put this, so I won't try: those people will leave planet Earth before the youngsters who are open minded because they weren't indoctrinated into hate and fear as children.
So your precious victories in ballot initiatives will soon end, as foretold by slipping numbers. Then you'll have nothing left but, "Gays are icky and Jesus hates them." That won't work, and you will continue to lose.
| 23 |
webevintage Sun, Aug 8, 2010 9:58:24pm |
Here you guys are...
Back.
I forgot The Empty Child is our first time with Captain Jack.
mmm, Captain Jack...
and True Blood tonight?
awwwesome...
yeah, yeah...Bad Romance
and Tony Perkins is a tool and David Boise was brilliant this morning.
| 24 |
JamesWI Sun, Aug 8, 2010 9:58:33pm |
re: #20 SJohnsonFL
a Republic...
A CONSTITUTIONAL Republic. You seem to have a problem remembering that little Constitution thing when you're talking about judges overruling the will of the people.
| 26 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Aug 8, 2010 9:58:53pm |
re: #20 SJohnsonFL
a Republic...
Define the difference between a republic and a democracy.
State clearly if a nation with a republican form of government can or cannot be referred to colloquially as a democracy.
Then, explain to me how your 'the voters decided' routine squares with your understanding that the US is a Republic.
Take your time.
| 27 |
webevintage Sun, Aug 8, 2010 9:59:46pm |
re: #25 SJohnsonFL
Not "my case" I am just wondering why "judges" decide to interpret what the "voters" were "really thinking" what a person does is NOT my concern...
Because we have a constitution that protects the minority from the bias of the majority.
Thank God for our Constitution.
| 29 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:00:31pm |
re: #21 palomino
I love this issue because it's one that I know my side will win. It's all a question of demographics and time.
The only age group that clearly opposes SSM is 65+. There's no delicate way to put this, so I won't try: those people will leave planet Earth before the youngsters who are open minded because they weren't indoctrinated into hate and fear as children.
So your precious victories in ballot initiatives will soon end, as foretold by slipping numbers. Then you'll have nothing left but, "Gays are icky and Jesus hates them." That won't work, and you will continue to lose.
My mother is confused by those stats. She and my father are in their early sixties, and both great proponents of marriage equality, as are all of their friends.
I keep telling her it's statistical, not specific.
As far as California is over, support for same-sex marriage goes up about a percent annually. The numbers are never going to work in the opposition's favor.
| 31 |
Kragar Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:01:40pm |
True Democracy means me and my buddies can take your shit legally if we outnumber you.
Thank God for a constitutional republic, huh?
| 32 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:02:02pm |
re: #22 SJohnsonFL
Whats next?
Next?
Well, first comes love, then comes marriage. I believe after that we get to a baby in a baby carriage.
Some couples I know have already done the baby carriage part, though.
| 33 |
Walter L. Newton Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:02:16pm |
re: #17 SanFranciscoZionist
Is it just me, or are people just in a weird damn mood this weekend?
No... it must just be you in a weird damn mood... I feel fine.
| 34 |
Dan G. Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:02:41pm |
re: #30 SJohnsonFL
And then... if the law doesn't comport with the Constitutional restrictions on the powers of government, then the law gets thrown out by the courts.
| 35 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:02:53pm |
re: #25 SJohnsonFL
Not "my case" I am just wondering why "judges" decide to interpret what the "voters" were "really thinking" what a person does is NOT my concern...
The judge wasn't interpreting the thoughts of the voters. He was ruling on the law of the State of California.
| 36 |
Kragar Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:03:33pm |
re: #30 SJohnsonFL
By the "rule of law" how do we get these laws? we vote!!!
And we have courts and an entire legal system to make sure those laws don't conflict with or deprive people of other guaranteed rights. Kind of the whole 3 branches of the Government, checks and balances thing going on.
See how this thing works?
| 37 |
JamesWI Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:03:50pm |
re: #28 SJohnsonFL
And where in the U.S. Constitution are you referencing? "Is it the pursuit of happiness"? or the part of "Seperation of Church and State"?
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That pesky little Fourteenth Amendment that Conservatives seem to hate these days.
| 39 |
webevintage Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:04:32pm |
re: #28 SJohnsonFL
And where in the U.S. Constitution are you referencing? "Is it the pursuit of happiness"? or the part of "Seperation of Church and State"?
Equal protection on the law...rights shall not be abridged...ect, ect.
Listen you cannot give one right (to marry) to one set of people in this country and not let others also enjoy the same fucking right.
This is just bullshit.
You can't apply freedom to only some and not others.
You can't ...oh fuck this:
"Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs' objective as 'the right to same-sex marriage' would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy -- namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages."-- California 9th Circuit Judge Vaughn Walker in a ruling that overturns Prop 8, which bans gay marriage
| 40 |
freetoken Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:04:37pm |
re: #25 SJohnsonFL
Not "my case" I am just wondering why "judges" decide to interpret what the "voters" were "really thinking" what a person does is NOT my concern...
You're not understanding the case at all. Recommend you go look at why the judge ruled as he did.
| 41 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:06:22pm |
re: #28 SJohnsonFL
And where in the U.S. Constitution are you referencing? "Is it the pursuit of happiness"? or the part of "Seperation of Church and State"?
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If you want the specific legal reasoning of Judge Walker, please refer to his ruling, which I believe to be available online.
| 42 |
Walter L. Newton Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:06:49pm |
re: #38 SJohnsonFL
That being the "Rule of Law" the laws are applied equally and laws are created by votes. a Democracy is where the majority rules and the majority has no voice.
What?
| 43 |
webevintage Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:06:58pm |
re: #30 SJohnsonFL
By the "rule of law" how do we get these laws? we vote!!!
So if guys in the state where you live decide that woman should no longer have the right to vote you would be ok with that because well, "the majority voted for it".
What if in Arkansas some hump got a new law put on the ballot that says...I don't know...maybe that whites and blacks cannot marry and the majority of folks here said "yeah, I think that mixing of the races IS a bad idea" you would be ok with that?
I mean the voters would have voted for it.
| 45 |
Firstinla Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:07:38pm |
There are umpteen jillion laws on the books that I never got a chance to vote on. And I can't recall a single instance when the law makers ask me what I thought of those laws. Any law that defines what consenting adults do in private should be considered unconstitutional.
| 46 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:08:10pm |
re: #37 JamesWI
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That pesky little Fourteenth Amendment that Conservatives seem to hate these days.
GMTA!!!
| 47 |
Dan G. Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:08:27pm |
re: #43 webevintage
Or... what if the voters decided that evangelical christians didn't deserve the right to vote... if the voters voted for it?
| 48 |
JamesWI Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:09:01pm |
re: #44 SJohnsonFL
and the Vote that created a LAW? or shall I dare say an amendment to a State Constitution?
Um, what the hell are you trying to say with that? Can't understand you.
| 49 |
Kragar Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:09:12pm |
re: #44 SJohnsonFL
and the Vote that created a LAW? or shall I dare say an amendment to a State Constitution?
Because I guess this is the first time in all of recorded US history that a law passed by a vote has ever been challenged in a court.
| 50 |
Kragar Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:09:26pm |
re: #47 Dan G.
Or... what if the voters decided that evangelical christians didn't deserve the right to vote... if the voters voted for it?
I'd vote for that law!
| 51 |
Neocon55 Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:09:59pm |
re: #47 Dan G.
Or... what if the voters decided that evangelical christians didn't deserve the right to vote... if the voters voted for it?
Well, that doesn't have to be put to a vote, because it's exactly what Walker's decision did.
| 52 |
Dan G. Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:10:03pm |
re: #50 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
I could make a case for measurable harm... ;)
| 54 |
blueraven Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:10:47pm |
| 55 |
JamesWI Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:10:50pm |
re: #52 Dan G.
I could make a case for measurable harm... ;)
But a much greater benefit to the country at large :)
/ (maybe)
| 56 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:10:54pm |
re: #44 SJohnsonFL
and the Vote that created a LAW? or shall I dare say an amendment to a State Constitution?
That vote did not create a law which was valid according to the Constitution of the State of California, or that of the United States. Which is why the judge struck 'er down.
| 57 |
Dan G. Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:11:00pm |
re: #51 Neocon55
Nah. He just showed that you cannot vote peoples' rights away; 51% cannot deny the other 49% their individual rights. Nice try asshole.
| 58 |
Walter L. Newton Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:11:01pm |
Did the stupid hive have some hatchlings tonight?
| 60 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:11:28pm |
re: #47 Dan G.
Or... what if the voters decided that evangelical christians didn't deserve the right to vote... if the voters voted for it?
Strike 'er down. Unconstitutional.
| 61 |
Nimed Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:11:49pm |
Civil and women rights, constitutional democracies, airplanes, cinema, daily showers, AC, computers, extended average lifespans, shampoos & conditioners, TACs.
All good reasons to tell Tony Perkins to go fuck himself when he throws in the idiotic but often repeated argument that we should be against gay marriage because it constitutes a novelty in the history of the human race. We have to recognize that humans in a civilized society have grown up to be freaks for at the very least the last couple of hundred years. Perkins should take his buddies and go experience the adult version of Lord of the Flies in a desert island if he is so convinced that we should emulate the lifestyle of our more distant ancestors.
| 62 |
Dan G. Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:12:08pm |
re: #60 SanFranciscoZionist
I agree, I just think it is a more pertinent example in that it hits closer to these haters' homes.
| 63 |
Kragar Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:12:18pm |
re: #53 SJohnsonFL
The point is the judge's ruling was NOT valid...I love how the federal government has forgotten it's role and the States Rights. Would you feel the same when California legalizes ALL uses of marijuana and this same judge throws that out too? I would have supported the voters if they voted against Proposition 8 in the first place...
I knew that states right bullshit arguement was waiting out there.
14th Amendment again. Have you ever bothered to fucking read it?
| 64 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:12:21pm |
re: #51 Neocon55
Well, that doesn't have to be put to a vote, because it's exactly what Walker's decision did.
That's complete bullshit, and I'm pretty sure you know it.
| 65 |
webevintage Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:12:24pm |
re: #51 Neocon55
Well, that doesn't have to be put to a vote, because it's exactly what Walker's decision did.
hahahahahahahaha
Oh, you are not going to start with the poor persecuted Christian shit are you?
| 66 |
JamesWI Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:12:48pm |
re: #59 SJohnsonFL
How is a "law" established? The vote was for an amendment to California's Constitution...
Jesus Christ. A state constitution cannot violate the US Constitution. Are you really that dense, or just purposely acting like you don't understand the most basic tenets of Constitutional law?
| 67 |
William Barnett-Lewis Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:14:08pm |
re: #53 SJohnsonFL
I've been trying to think of a nice way to say this, but I can't.
Please go to school. It's obvious that you have never had an education and that your grasp of Civics & history is even less than that of my 8 year old son who thinks I am old enough to have fought in World War II. Once you have a basic education, please feel free to return and we can continue this conversation.
Until then any further discussion with you is the same as trying to teach a pig to sing.
| 68 |
freetoken Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:14:09pm |
re: #53 SJohnsonFL
The point is the judge's ruling was NOT valid...I love how the federal government has forgotten it's role and the States Rights.
You're sounding like a "tenther".
Guess what? The US Constitution takes preference, which has been quite fortunate in many instances in the past 221 years.
| 70 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:14:43pm |
re: #53 SJohnsonFL
The point is the judge's ruling was NOT valid...I love how the federal government has forgotten it's role and the States Rights. Would you feel the same when California legalizes ALL uses of marijuana and this same judge throws that out too? I would have supported the voters if they voted against Proposition 8 in the first place...
The judge's ruling was, in fact, valid. Read the ruling.
| 72 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:15:21pm |
re: #58 Walter L. Newton
Did the stupid hive have some hatchlings tonight?
Charles ran up the cranky flag to see who salutes.
| 74 |
Kragar Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:16:43pm |
As John Stewart said, I love how people can make the 3rd branch of the Government created in the Constitution sound like its a communist plot.
| 75 |
Irenicum Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:17:08pm |
I'm a person who holds to traditional views within my own church, and yet believes that beyond the realm of the church's authority, the civil realm should hold sway. Thus I believe in marriage equality on a civil level while still holding to traditional biblical teaching regarding sexuality. Is there tension in that? Certainly. But as a "two kingdom" Christian I think we need to keep our sovereignties discrete.
As long as the various Christian denominations are allowed to practice their own convictions regarding sexual activity I have no problem with civil recognition of gay marriage.
| 78 |
Four More Tears Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:18:40pm |
re: #74 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
As John Stewart said, I love how people can make the 3rd branch of the Government created in the Constitution sound like its a communist plot.
You betcha!
| 79 |
Nimed Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:18:41pm |
re: #17 SanFranciscoZionist
Is it just me, or are people just in a weird damn mood this weekend?
I'm feeling it too.
| 80 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:20:00pm |
re: #8 SJohnsonFL
The voters decided...I remember the gay community screaming that the black community "were all a bunch of racists" you see the blacks turned out in record numbers so they only assumed that they were the tipping votes to pass prop 8! The voters spoke and this is another example of "passing laws" from the bench...14th Amendment and 7 million voters will make this law remain...if not then why do we vote in this country?
Oh yes I lived in California in this period too...
There's these things called courts, they have a habit of overturning garbage bigoted laws. If you'd like to know more, perhaps you should return to high school and pay attention in your civics classes
| 81 |
Four More Tears Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:20:10pm |
I haven't had a smoke since about 10:20 AM. I've been vaping all day and quite frankly don't miss the damn dirty things one bit. E-Cigs for the win.
| 82 |
freetoken Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:20:18pm |
re: #71 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
precedence*
Heh... I'm busy doing a search on great movies I haven't seen... last night I watched Casablanca and tonight on the menu we have the Maltese Falcon. Anyway, I'm not proofing my writing - just wish we had computers smart enough to catch my mistakes.
| 83 |
webevintage Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:20:28pm |
re: #77 SJohnsonFL
The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) is my concern.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Well there you go....
| 84 |
Walter L. Newton Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:20:30pm |
re: #72 SanFranciscoZionist
Charles ran up the cranky flag to see who salutes.
I just got home from the store (and the gym) and I was hoping to whoop up on something I don't agree with... can't we talk about Obama or something. Or do I have to put up with these two fuck off's SJohnsonFL and Neocon55?
| 86 |
Firstinla Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:20:38pm |
re: #79 Nimed
Nah. This was just a two-day weekend when we really needed three days to recover from last week.
| 87 |
Dan G. Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:20:42pm |
re: #77 SJohnsonFL
Care to continue... you left out how your argument is supported by the 10th ammendment.
| 88 |
Kragar Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:20:44pm |
re: #77 SJohnsonFL
The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) is my concern.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I FUCKING KNEW THAT WAS COMING!
Guess what, the amendents dont have an order of precedence, so that is in fact true, with the further limitations placed on it by the 14th Amendment.
You are stupid.
| 89 |
Nervous Norvous Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:20:48pm |
re: #77 SJohnsonFL
The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) is my concern.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
you just proved everyone else's point dumbass.
| 90 |
Reginald Perrin Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:20:57pm |
re: #17 SanFranciscoZionist
Is it just me, or are people just in a weird damn mood this weekend?
It's been going on for a few days now, maybe it's an August "thing"
| 92 |
Nervous Norvous Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:22:02pm |
re: #84 Walter L. Newton
I just got home from the store (and the gym) and I was hoping to whoop up on something I don't agree with... can't we talk about Obama or something. Or do I have to put up with these two fuck off's SJohnsonFL and Neocon55?
Walter! How the hell are ya?
| 93 |
JamesWI Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:22:27pm |
re: #77 SJohnsonFL
The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) is my concern.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Guess what, if it is decided that a State's law/constitution violates the Constitution, that State does not reserve the right under the Tenth Amendment to make that law. The people of California certainly could vote to ban interracial couples from marrying, or to ban the practice of Islam. The Tenth Amendment doesn't prevent the Federal Courts from immediately smacking that law down. Try again. *whack*
| 94 |
Kragar Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:22:45pm |
re: #91 SJohnsonFL
Nice to see the mud slinging and cussing gets thrown around...I have my opinions and you have yours. I could care less about what this law was but I do agree with the term "civil unions"...but since I do not agree with your thoughts you automatically hide behind your interpretation and call me "too stupid"...I guess that means you win the argument now?
Yes, and you are stupid.
| 95 |
Walter L. Newton Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:22:49pm |
re: #91 SJohnsonFL
Nice to see the mud slinging and cussing gets thrown around...I have my opinions and you have yours. I could care less about what this law was but I do agree with the term "civil unions"...but since I do not agree with your thoughts you automatically hide behind your interpretation and call me "too stupid"...I guess that means you win the argument now?
No... I think it's clear... it means you're too stupid. Or are you too stupid to understand what that means?
| 96 |
Four More Tears Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:23:06pm |
re: #91 SJohnsonFL
Hiding behind the shield of "opinion," now? The law could give two shits about your opinion.
| 97 |
webevintage Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:23:33pm |
re: #79 Nimed
I'm feeling it too.
I am in a good mood.
Watched Doctor Who and True Blood.
Ate some yummy food and now I am listing to:
yeah, Sinatra
| 98 |
Dan G. Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:23:33pm |
re: #77 SJohnsonFL
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
You mean law (like Prop 8) and equal protection/recognition (like equal amongst sexual orientations)? You are shooting yourself in the foot.
| 99 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:23:39pm |
re: #77 SJohnsonFL
The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) is my concern.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
No. That's the Fourteenth.
This is the 10th.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That does not negate the US Constitution, nor the Constitution of the State of California.
| 100 |
JamesWI Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:23:39pm |
re: #91 SJohnsonFL
Nice to see the mud slinging and cussing gets thrown around...I have my opinions and you have yours. I could care less about what this law was but I do agree with the term "civil unions"...but since I do not agree with your thoughts you automatically hide behind your interpretation and call me "too stupid"...I guess that means you win the argument now?
No, we won the argument because your entire argument is complete garbage and has no basis in reality. Next.
| 101 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:23:46pm |
re: #91 SJohnsonFL
Nice to see the mud slinging and cussing gets thrown around...I have my opinions and you have yours. I could care less about what this law was but I do agree with the term "civil unions"...but since I do not agree with your thoughts you automatically hide behind your interpretation and call me "too stupid"...I guess that means you win the argument now?
Yeah it is nice!
You don't know what you're talking about, and thus we laugh at you, make you look like the uninformed fool you are, and then you wander back off to your Ron Paul boards, your Hot Air, your Free Republic and you no longer burden us with your fallacies.
| 102 |
Nervous Norvous Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:23:59pm |
re: #96 JasonA
Hiding behind the shield of "opinion," now? The law could give two shits about your opinion.
But he feels his opinion should be protected by law. It is, it just isn't enforcable on the rest of us, thank (insert deity here)
| 103 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:24:23pm |
re: #99 SanFranciscoZionist
No. That's the Fourteenth.
This is the 10th.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That does not negate the US Constitution, nor the Constitution of the State of California.
it's funny how all these states rights nimrods forget this
| 104 |
William Barnett-Lewis Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:24:25pm |
re: #77 SJohnsonFL
The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) is my concern.
No State ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This isn't obvious to you?
| 105 |
CarleeCork Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:24:45pm |
re: #8 SJohnsonFL
The voters decided...I remember the gay community screaming that the black community "were all a bunch of racists" you see the blacks turned out in record numbers so they only assumed that they were the tipping votes to pass prop 8! The voters spoke and this is another example of "passing laws" from the bench...14th Amendment and 7 million voters will make this law remain...if not then why do we vote in this country?
Oh yes I lived in California in this period too...
Up until 1967 my son and his wife weren't afforded 'equal protection' under the law.
Try to evolve a bit.
| 106 |
jamesfirecat Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:24:49pm |
re: #38 SJohnsonFL
That being the "Rule of Law" the laws are applied equally and laws are created by votes. a Democracy is where the majority rules and the majority has no voice.
If you expect laws were created by a voting majority... ohh boy must you have some problems with the Senate these days!
| 107 |
Four More Tears Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:24:55pm |
re: #102 PT Barnum
But he feels his opinion should be protected by law. It is, it just isn't enforceable on the rest of us, thank his noodly appendages
Thank you for the handy blank space.
| 108 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:24:55pm |
re: #84 Walter L. Newton
I just got home from the store (and the gym) and I was hoping to whoop up on something I don't agree with... can't we talk about Obama or something. Or do I have to put up with these two fuck off's SJohnsonFL and Neocon55?
Well, see if they want to talk about Obama.
| 109 |
webevintage Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:24:58pm |
re: #84 Walter L. Newton
I just got home from the store (and the gym) and I was hoping to whoop up on something I don't agree with... can't we talk about Obama or something. Or do I have to put up with these two fuck off's SJohnsonFL and Neocon55?
Pizza toppings?
| 110 |
Nervous Norvous Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:25:38pm |
re: #101 WindUpBird
Yeah it is nice!
You don't know what you're talk about, and thus we laugh at you, make you look like the uninformed fool you are, and then you wander back off to your Ron Paul boards, your Hot Air, your Free Republic and you no longer burden us with your fallacies.
huh...huh....you said fallicies...huh...huh
| 111 |
Walter L. Newton Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:26:09pm |
re: #92 PT Barnum
Walter! How the hell are ya?
Winding down... ok... a little pissed off about my shifts this week... they got me covering for some person on vacation... so, I get the lovely shift of 2:00 am - 10:30 am Wed. and Thur. this week... working in General Merchandise... there has been some talk around the place that some staff may be moved around... I let my managers know that I'll walk before I wind up working nights... I want to cashier only, and I don't want more than 20-25 hours a week the most.
| 112 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:26:17pm |
re: #51 Neocon55
Well, that doesn't have to be put to a vote, because it's exactly what Walker's decision did.
Congratulations, you have the worst handle on this thread.
Genericdork80926 says "I DUN KNOW ANYTHING BOUT NO CIVIKS!"
| 113 |
William Barnett-Lewis Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:26:23pm |
re: #104 wlewisiii
This isn't obvious to you?
I guess I'm too tired to keep them straight too (he he he, he said straight)
Good night.
| 114 |
webevintage Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:26:35pm |
re: #82 freetoken
Heh... I'm busy doing a search on great movies I haven't seen... last night I watched Casablanca and tonight on the menu we have the Maltese Falcon. Anyway, I'm not proofing my writing - just wish we had computers smart enough to catch my mistakes.
We watched Key Largo last night.
So good....
| 115 |
Walter L. Newton Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:27:06pm |
| 116 |
Nervous Norvous Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:27:19pm |
re: #114 webevintage
We watched Key Largo last night.
So good...
of all the blogs in all the world...these guys had to walk into Charles'
| 117 |
webevintage Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:27:57pm |
re: #101 WindUpBird
Yeah it is nice!
You don't know what you're talking about, and thus we laugh at you, make you look like the uninformed fool you are, and then you wander back off to your Ron Paul boards, your Hot Air, your Free Republic and you no longer burden us with your fallacies.
Mocking the mockable...
| 118 |
Four More Tears Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:28:05pm |
It matters not whether a law or state constitution amendment is passed by legislation or referendum. Please drop the "will of the people" poppycock.
| 119 |
Nervous Norvous Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:28:35pm |
re: #115 Walter L. Newton
No pineapple.
we could talk about sushi. I have introduced my wife to the philadelphia roll (cream cheese and salmon) which she has fallen in love with.
| 120 |
Irenicum Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:28:55pm |
And here I thought all humans were equal under that law. How silly of me. But dammit, I'll keep fighting for that until it becomes a true reality. From womb to tomb and from accepted to rejected, for whatever reason, every life matters.
| 121 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:29:00pm |
re: #116 PT Barnum
of all the blogs in all the world...these guys had to walk into Charles'
Hay guys!!! Here's some stuffs we learned on Free Republic and we can't wait to share them with you!!!
| 122 |
jamesfirecat Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:29:14pm |
re: #8 SJohnsonFL
The voters decided...I remember the gay community screaming that the black community "were all a bunch of racists" you see the blacks turned out in record numbers so they only assumed that they were the tipping votes to pass prop 8! The voters spoke and this is another example of "passing laws" from the bench...14th Amendment and 7 million voters will make this law remain...if not then why do we vote in this country?
Oh yes I lived in California in this period too...
By the way... did you have a problem with how Loving V Virginia lead to the supreme court "passing laws from the bench" which made it illegal to outlaw people of difference races marrying each other?
| 123 |
Walter L. Newton Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:29:19pm |
You know... it's really uncomfortable sitting here agreeing with all you lefties and trouncing up on some stupid right wankers.
| 124 |
CarleeCork Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:29:29pm |
re: #25 SJohnsonFL
Not "my case" I am just wondering why "judges" decide to interpret what the "voters" were "really thinking" what a person does is NOT my concern...
A judge does not interpret what the voters were thinking, he interprets The Law.
| 125 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:29:41pm |
re: #120 Irenicum
And here I thought all humans were equal under that law. How silly of me. But dammit, I'll keep fighting for that until it becomes a true reality. From womb to tomb and from accepted to rejected, for whatever reason, every life matters.
I desperately want one of them to go all fringe of the flag chemtrails ron paul income tax is illegal on us :D
| 126 |
webevintage Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:29:43pm |
re: #123 Walter L. Newton
You know... it's really uncomfortable sitting here agreeing with all you lefties and trouncing up on some stupid right wankers.
btw, I agree, no pineapple on pizza.
| 127 |
Walter L. Newton Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:29:51pm |
re: #119 PT Barnum
we could talk about sushi. I have introduced my wife to the philadelphia roll (cream cheese and salmon) which she has fallen in love with.
No we can't... I can't stand fish on any kind... so, put a sock in that talk.
| 128 |
Four More Tears Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:29:57pm |
re: #123 Walter L. Newton
You know... it's really uncomfortable sitting here agreeing with all you lefties and trouncing up on some stupid right wankers.
I'm sure we'll put it all behind us in the morning.
| 129 |
jamesfirecat Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:30:41pm |
re: #123 Walter L. Newton
You know... it's really uncomfortable sitting here agreeing with all you lefties and trouncing up on some stupid right wankers.
If anyone asks you can just claim the full moon turns you into a were-liberal...
Must... resist... urge.... to ... upding.... the F-cat....
| 130 |
Walter L. Newton Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:30:43pm |
re: #126 webevintage
btw, I agree, no pineapple on pizza.
And you... you of all people... up dinging me up thread... creepy.
| 131 |
Four More Tears Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:30:51pm |
re: #119 PT Barnum
we could talk about sushi. I have introduced my wife to the philadelphia roll (cream cheese and salmon) which she has fallen in love with.
Hm. I have to try that. Cali roll is still my favorite.
| 132 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:31:00pm |
re: #123 Walter L. Newton
You know... it's really uncomfortable sitting here agreeing with all you lefties and trouncing up on some stupid right wankers.
The problem is the lefties I love to bang on never come to LGF! The goofy medical quackery/Bush stole the election types.
| 133 |
Kragar Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:31:01pm |
Hey, I just got to the first appearance of Zathras, cool.
"OOHHH....not the one. Won't talk, can't talk, not the one. They talk, Zathras listens and does what he is told."
| 134 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:31:09pm |
Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs' objective as "the right to same-sex marriage" would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy -- namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.
| 135 |
webevintage Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:31:14pm |
re: #119 PT Barnum
we could talk about sushi. I have introduced my wife to the philadelphia roll (cream cheese and salmon) which she has fallen in love with.
Sushi always looks so good to me but I suspect that it does not taste as good as it looks which why I have never had any.
I know.
I suck.
I won't eat olives either.
| 136 |
Walter L. Newton Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:31:17pm |
| 137 |
CarleeCork Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:31:33pm |
| 138 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:31:39pm |
re: #130 Walter L. Newton
And you... you of all people... up dinging me up thread... creepy.
ONE OF US
(creepy stare from cornfield)
| 139 |
Four More Tears Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:31:47pm |
re: #132 WindUpBird
The problem is the lefties I love to bang on never come to LGF! The goofy medical quackery/Bush stole the election types.
Yeah. Now that you mention it I can't ever recall meeting one of those here.
| 140 |
Kragar Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:31:49pm |
| 141 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:32:37pm |
re: #137 CarleeCork
Mmmm, pineapple?
I'm in the vast minority here because I love California style pizza, so lots of weird crap like thai spices and barbecue sauce and jamacian jerk chicken and oh yeah the dreaded pineapple :D
| 142 |
webevintage Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:33:17pm |
re: #137 CarleeCork
Mmmm, pineapple?
No.
You may not have pineapple on pizza.
You may not have it in a boat or up a rope.
You may not have by the sea or in a tree.
| 143 |
Four More Tears Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:33:20pm |
re: #141 WindUpBird
I'm in the vast minority here because I love California style pizza, so lots of weird crap like thai spices and barbecue sauce and jamacian jerk chicken and oh yeah the dreaded pineapple :D
I don't know you.
/
| 144 |
Firstinla Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:33:21pm |
re: #141 WindUpBird
I'm in the vast minority here because I love California style pizza, so lots of weird crap like thai spices and barbecue sauce and jamacian jerk chicken and oh yeah the dreaded pineapple :D
All at the same time?
| 145 |
Mr Pancakes Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:33:21pm |
re: #135 webevintage
Sushi always looks so good to me but I suspect that it does not taste as good as it looks which why I have never had any.
I know.
I suck.
I won't eat olives either.
Try it ...... it's great. I could live on sushi.
| 146 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:33:40pm |
re: #139 JasonA
Yeah. Now that you mention it I can't ever recall meeting one of those here.
they don't come here!
And so people on LGF think I'm way more of a tribal lefty than I am, because I can't demonstrate my zings against the paranoid-of-modern-medicine-I-get-all-my-info-from-RFK-and-Ring-of-Fire people.
| 147 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:34:12pm |
re: #142 webevintage
No.
You may not have pineapple on pizza.
You may not have it in a boat or up a rope.
You may not have by the sea or in a tree.
I literally have pineapple pizza leftovers from my minor beach vacation in my fridge right now :D
| 148 |
webevintage Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:34:18pm |
re: #139 JasonA
Yeah. Now that you mention it I can't ever recall meeting one of those here.
They all stay on Daily Kos....
| 149 |
JamesWI Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:34:24pm |
Mr. SJohnsonFL, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
| 150 |
Walter L. Newton Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:34:36pm |
Ok... I'm going to bed... turn the radio on... listen to some reruns of Sean Hannity on KNUS or something... I have to get things back in perspective... and I'm tired.
| 151 |
Four More Tears Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:34:37pm |
| 152 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:35:11pm |
re: #135 webevintage
Sushi always looks so good to me but I suspect that it does not taste as good as it looks which why I have never had any.
I know.
I suck.
I won't eat olives either.
depends on the sushi. I like sushi, but I tend to like the stuff that's easy to like, like salmon rolls, california rolls, and bbq eel.
| 153 |
blueraven Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:35:21pm |
re: #145 Mr Pancakes
Try it ... it's great. I could live on sushi.
Well at least every Friday night!
Night all.
| 154 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:35:29pm |
re: #149 JamesWI
Mr. SJohnsonFL, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
"You have failed conclusively!"
| 155 |
webevintage Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:35:33pm |
re: #151 JasonA
DU, more likely.
Ah, yeah...I have gone there once or twice and besides a lot of crazy I hate the format.
| 156 |
Irenicum Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:35:57pm |
re: #125 WindUpBird
I understand that impulse. But we do need to be careful. Not every impulse resonates in an opposite way to our own. Life is more complicated than that.
| 157 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:35:58pm |
| 158 |
Walter L. Newton Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:36:07pm |
re: #146 WindUpBird
they don't come here!
And so people on LGF think I'm way more of a tribal lefty than I am, because I can't demonstrate my zings against the paranoid-of-modern-medicine-I-get-all-my-info-from -RFK-and-Ring-of-Fire people.
Caught your remark above just before I was going to shut the monitor off... Ring of Fire... I've listened to that show a number of time... whoa... you guys really should be ashamed of that pair... plus Kennedy has the most annoying voice on radio.
| 159 |
Four More Tears Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:36:14pm |
re: #150 Walter L. Newton
Ok... I'm going to bed... turn the radio on... listen to some reruns of Sean Hannity on KNUS or something... I have to get things back in perspective... and I'm tired.
All you'll learn about there is how evil the Park 51 project is and why we need to stop it. Well, that's not true. You're smart enough to learn that we just need to talk about stopping it for Hannity's ratings.
| 160 |
CarleeCork Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:37:04pm |
re: #142 webevintage
No.
You may not have pineapple on pizza.
You may not have it in a boat or up a rope.
You may not have by the sea or in a tree.
Let me get this straight....no pineapple on pizza.
But raw fish is ok?
Hmmmm, I must ponder this.
| 161 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:37:12pm |
re: #156 Irenicum
I understand that impulse. But we do need to be careful. Not every impulse resonates in an opposite way to our own. Life is more complicated than that.
haha I'm just goofing around :D
I do notice that when a right winger has a really detailed and yet completely and obviously wrong read on the constitution, and is willing to persistently argue the point, there's a decent chance that there's some Ron Paul happening there.
| 162 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:37:20pm |
re: #123 Walter L. Newton
You know... it's really uncomfortable sitting here agreeing with all you lefties and trouncing up on some stupid right wankers.
Sorry Walter.
Uh, Obama is so great! He's wise, and knows what's best for America. Tax cuts for rich people suck!!
//help, any?
| 163 |
Mr Pancakes Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:37:59pm |
re: #160 CarleeCork
Let me get this straight...no pineapple on pizza.
But raw fish is ok?
Hmmm, I must ponder this.
Yes because pineapple is a fruit.
| 164 |
Cato the Elder Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:38:02pm |
re: #8 SJohnsonFL
The voters decided...I remember the gay community screaming that the black community "were all a bunch of racists" you see the blacks turned out in record numbers so they only assumed that they were the tipping votes to pass prop 8! The voters spoke and this is another example of "passing laws" from the bench...14th Amendment and 7 million voters will make this law remain...if not then why do we vote in this country?
Oh yes I lived in California in this period too...
What if the "will of the people" per referendum or ballot proposition in, say, Georgia, were to decide to turn back the clock and make it illegal again for a black person to marry a white one? Would you and your fellow screechers be upset if the courts were to overturn that particular piece of bigotry?
This constant pissing and moaning about "passing laws from the bench" is just so much horseshit. That's what the courts are there for - to ensure that there is a counterbalance to the "will of the people" if the people go apeshit and deny the constitution.
Don't like it? Blame those pesky founding fathers!
| 165 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:38:07pm |
re: #158 Walter L. Newton
Caught your remark above just before I was going to shut the monitor off... Ring of Fire... I've listened to that show a number of time... whoa... you guys really should be ashamed of that pair... plus Kennedy has the most annoying voice on radio.
YES YES YES YES
And yes, I am ashamed. :D Also, Mike Malloy. That dude is impossible to tolerate.
| 166 |
Four More Tears Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:38:09pm |
re: #160 CarleeCork
Let me get this straight...no pineapple on pizza.
But raw fish is ok?
Hmmm, I must ponder this.
Trust us. It all makes sense.
| 167 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:38:16pm |
re: #132 WindUpBird
The problem is the lefties I love to bang on never come to LGF! The goofy medical quackery/Bush stole the election types.
They'd get massacred, and they know it.
| 168 |
CarleeCork Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:38:52pm |
| 169 |
webevintage Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:39:18pm |
I would do anything for love.....
| 170 |
Walter L. Newton Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:39:23pm |
re: #165 WindUpBird
YES YES YES YES
And yes, I am ashamed. :D Also, Mike Malloy. That dude is impossible to tolerate.
Ok... we can agree on that... I'll sleep much better tonight... I have two days off now, so you'll all get enough of me for a spell...
Night all
| 171 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:39:29pm |
re: #135 webevintage
Sushi always looks so good to me but I suspect that it does not taste as good as it looks which why I have never had any.
I know.
I suck.
I won't eat olives either.
I am limited by kosher issues in my sushi consumption, but I do like a little bit from time to time. If you're nervous about the raw fish issue, maybe try an avocado roll to begin with.
| 172 |
Mr Pancakes Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:39:38pm |
re: #165 WindUpBird
YES YES YES YES
And yes, I am ashamed. :D Also, Mike Malloy. That dude is impossible to tolerate.
That jerk is still on the radio?
| 173 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:39:52pm |
re: #167 SanFranciscoZionist
They'd get massacred, and they know it.
Oh yeah, it'd be like the tasmanian devil, there'd just be a buzzsaw sound and then nothing left
| 174 |
Irenicum Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:40:19pm |
re: #161 WindUpBird
Thanks for the heads up. Didn't give the newbies enough attention to notice that aspect of their ignorance.
| 175 |
webevintage Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:40:28pm |
re: #171 SanFranciscoZionist
I am limited by kosher issues in my sushi consumption, but I do like a little bit from time to time. If you're nervous about the raw fish issue, maybe try an avocado roll to begin with.
ohhhhh, I like avocados very much....
| 176 |
CarleeCork Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:40:28pm |
re: #165 WindUpBird
YES YES YES YES
And yes, I am ashamed. :D Also, Mike Malloy. That dude is impossible to tolerate.
I'd rather hear him than watch Glen Beck cry and make faces.
| 177 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:40:32pm |
re: #141 WindUpBird
I'm in the vast minority here because I love California style pizza, so lots of weird crap like thai spices and barbecue sauce and jamacian jerk chicken and oh yeah the dreaded pineapple :D
My husband likes the classic Hawaiian pizza very much. I actually don't mind it, but the kosher issues, once again...if I could find a place that made a veggie Hawaiian pizza I would go for it.
| 178 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:40:58pm |
re: #172 Mr Pancakes
That jerk is still on the radio?
YES :( :(
The only radio I can tolerate is comedy radio. It winds up actually being more intelligent than political radio.
| 179 |
CarleeCork Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:41:13pm |
| 181 |
Nervous Norvous Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:42:02pm |
re: #179 CarleeCork
Is this like a 'Grasshopper' moment?
Grasshopper walks into a bar and the bartender says "hey we got a drink named after you!"
The grasshopper replies "You got a drink named Steve?"
| 182 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:42:19pm |
re: #160 CarleeCork
Let me get this straight...no pineapple on pizza.
But raw fish is ok?
Hmmm, I must ponder this.
Raw fish is definitely not OK on pizza.
Rolled into sushi, pretty good.
| 183 |
Nimed Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:43:57pm |
The silly controversy over the downtown mosque is excellent evidence that the conservative movement has become obsessed to the point of derangement with a right-wing version of identity politics that sees everything through the lens of the assumption that American identity is under seige. The modus operandi of the populist right is patriotic semiotics gone wild. 9/11 was a Great Awakening and Ground Zero is a sacred scar representing the sacrifice of those thousands who died in fire in order to shake the rest of us into recognition of the great existential threat to the American Way of Life. To refuse to resist the placement of a mosque next to the grave of those martyred in the Great Awakening is to fail to have heard the call, to fail to understand the battle now underway, to complacently acquiesce to the forces slowly transforming America into something else, into something unAmerican, a place for some other kind of people, a place not worth fighting for. It is to, as they say, “let the terrorists win.”
[Link: www.willwilkinson.net...]
| 184 |
Mr Pancakes Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:44:11pm |
re: #182 SanFranciscoZionist
Raw fish is definitely not OK on pizza.
Rolled into sushi, pretty good.
| 186 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:44:47pm |
re: #174 Irenicum
Thanks for the heads up. Didn't give the newbies enough attention to notice that aspect of their ignorance.
I deal with a lot of very-nerdy-yet-also-conservative types in other forums I frequent, the sorts of dudes who call themselves Objectivists and are very serious about their Gor books (don't ask), and they all sorta skew that direction. Their whole thing is to appear as informed as possible and serious as possible by drowning a thread in gibberish about the constitution. But it's a facade, it just falls apart the instant you lean on it.
| 187 |
Nervous Norvous Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:44:54pm |
It's only legislating from the bench when the Court upholds the Constitution in ways that the wingnuts don't like.
Most would define it as overturning settleid precedent, in which case the right wing of the current court is much more activist than not.
| 188 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:45:05pm |
| 189 |
Mr Pancakes Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:45:09pm |
| 190 |
Dancing along the light of day Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:45:22pm |
re: #182 SanFranciscoZionist
Mmm, spicy tuna roll!
| 191 |
Reginald Perrin Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:45:39pm |
Maybe this recent wing-nut eruption at LGF is heat induced, 2010 is the validity of climate change. The right wing astro-turf spin machine failed miserably trying to promote their myths about a "climate-gate".
The heat wave in Russia and it's drought induced wildfires may be the nail in the coffin for the deniers movement. They may have lost their Russian allies this week, there has been a lot of talk from Russian officials about Climate Change being responsible for the heatwave and fires.
| 192 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:45:40pm |
| 193 |
Cato the Elder Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:45:51pm |
re: #186 WindUpBird
I deal with a lot of very-nerdy-yet-also-conservative types in other forums I frequent, the sorts of dudes who call themselves Objectivists and are very serious about their Gor books (don't ask), and they all sorta skew that direction. Their whole thing is to appear as informed as possible and serious as possible by drowning a thread in gibberish about the constitution. But it's a facade, it just falls apart the instant you lean on it.
I never lean on rickety arguments. One could injure oneself!
I just kick the shit out of them.
| 194 |
jamesfirecat Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:46:09pm |
re: #20 SJohnsonFL
a Republic...
Wow really?
What's the difference between a democracy and a republic exactly that you feel its worth bringing up and matters in the context of this argument?
| 195 |
Dancing along the light of day Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:46:12pm |
re: #189 Mr Pancakes
Hoopster does.
Some of the rest of us, not so much!
| 196 |
Four More Tears Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:46:17pm |
re: #189 Mr Pancakes
NFL started today... who cares?
Ah nuts. I guess I know I won't be on LGF on Sundays anymore... :)
| 197 |
webevintage Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:46:18pm |
| 198 |
Irenicum Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:46:39pm |
re: #186 WindUpBird
OK. I'll know to stay away. I'm not really a techie, so that world doesn't intersect with mine.
| 199 |
Nervous Norvous Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:46:46pm |
re: #186 WindUpBird
I deal with a lot of very-nerdy-yet-also-conservative types in other forums I frequent, the sorts of dudes who call themselves Objectivists and are very serious about their Gor books (don't ask), and they all sorta skew that direction. Their whole thing is to appear as informed as possible and serious as possible by drowning a thread in gibberish about the constitution. But it's a facade, it just falls apart the instant you lean on it.
I read quite a few of the Gor books in highschool. As he got away from being a straight rip off of John Carter of Mars I lost interest.
| 200 |
MartiansAteMyCat Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:47:04pm |
Since a handful of people don't understand the difference between a democracy and a republic, let me put it as a simple illustration that I was taught.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
A republic is two wolves and a very well-armed sheep.
People who use the terms "activist judge" and "illegitimate ruling" to describe this case haven't read the ruling for themselves, nor have they read the court transcripts where the pro-8 side was utterly decimated in court.
But that's aggressive ignorance for you. Don't disturb the worldview... nothing to see here.
| 201 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:47:04pm |
re: #186 WindUpBird
I deal with a lot of very-nerdy-yet-also-conservative types in other forums I frequent, the sorts of dudes who call themselves Objectivists and are very serious about their Gor books (don't ask), and they all sorta skew that direction. Their whole thing is to appear as informed as possible and serious as possible by drowning a thread in gibberish about the constitution. But it's a facade, it just falls apart the instant you lean on it.
How serious can you possibly be about Gor books? I mean, they were good masturbatory material when I was fourteen, but good LORD.
(My husband notes, in his scholarly way that the blood of the deflowered virgin in the Gor series never smudges, smears, or flows to the right, but only down the LEFT thigh.)
| 202 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:47:12pm |
re: #177 SanFranciscoZionist
My husband likes the classic Hawaiian pizza very much. I actually don't mind it, but the kosher issues, once again...if I could find a place that made a veggie Hawaiian pizza I would go for it.
that's all of Portland, because Portland is full of vegan and veggie hippies and also LOVES A PIZZA JOINT. There are so many indie pizza joints here.
| 203 |
CarleeCork Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:47:38pm |
re: #189 Mr Pancakes
NFL started today... who cares?
The hubby gets to go see a Cowboys preseason game, the boss gave out tickets.
| 204 |
Irenicum Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:47:40pm |
re: #189 Mr Pancakes
Damn straight! Glad for football to finally get back!!!
| 205 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:47:54pm |
re: #194 jamesfirecat
Wow really?
What's the difference between a democracy and a republic exactly that you feel its worth bringing up and matters in the context of this argument?
He answered that, I think, but damned if I could tell what he said.
| 207 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:47:57pm |
re: #198 Irenicum
OK. I'll know to stay away. I'm not really a techie, so that world doesn't intersect with mine.
they're...not really techies so much as they're people who have unconfortably detailed fantasy lives :D
| 208 |
Dancing along the light of day Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:47:59pm |
re: #201 SanFranciscoZionist
LOL! Now, I don't need to read them! Thank you!
| 209 |
Ben G. Hazi Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:48:41pm |
re: #40 freetoken
You're not understanding the case at all. Recommend you go look at why the judge ruled as he did.
Oh, I think they understand the case just fine...they just don't like that bad law (which they apparently support) got tossed out like the unconstitutional rubbish that it is.
| 210 |
Nervous Norvous Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:48:59pm |
re: #207 WindUpBird
they're...not really techies so much as they're people who have unconfortably detailed fantasy lives :D
These are the people who play LARPs, right?
| 211 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:49:13pm |
| 212 |
CarleeCork Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:49:58pm |
| 213 |
Nervous Norvous Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:50:22pm |
re: #211 SanFranciscoZionist
Who is that?
Played the love interest in the original Day the Earth Stood Still.
| 214 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:50:33pm |
re: #201 SanFranciscoZionist
How serious can you possibly be about Gor books? I mean, they were good masturbatory material when I was fourteen, but good LORD.
(My husband notes, in his scholarly way that the blood of the deflowered virgin in the Gor series never smudges, smears, or flows to the right, but only down the LEFT thigh.)
Oh, go on Second Life! Those guys are hardcore about the Gor. They'll kick you off their grid if you don't follow all their rules exactly, etc. There's this certain sort of fetish enthusiast who is about that world and nothing else, generally Randian types who are really not about the rainbow-flag-whee-pansexual side of the scene so much.
also LOL :D
| 215 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:50:48pm |
re: #210 PT Barnum
These are the people who play LARPs, right?
Getting closer! They MUCK more than they LARP. :D
| 216 |
Irenicum Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:50:52pm |
re: #197 webevintage
My grandpa was a Mets fan. Taught me everything I know about baseball. Still, I became a Yankees fan. Now I'm a Bosox fan. The shame!
| 217 |
jamesfirecat Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:50:53pm |
re: #200 MartiansAteMyCat
Since a handful of people don't understand the difference between a democracy and a republic, let me put it as a simple illustration that I was taught.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
A republic is two wolves and a very well-armed sheep.People who use the terms "activist judge" and "illegitimate ruling" to describe this case haven't read the ruling for themselves, nor have they read the court transcripts where the pro-8 side was utterly decimated in court.
But that's aggressive ignorance for you. Don't disturb the worldview... nothing to see here.
Wait why should it matter if the sheep is well armed or not...
Unless.....
It was a sheep that could use weapons.... a killer sheep!
| 218 |
Kragar Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:51:19pm |
re: #201 SanFranciscoZionist
How serious can you possibly be about Gor books? I mean, they were good masturbatory material when I was fourteen, but good LORD.
(My husband notes, in his scholarly way that the blood of the deflowered virgin in the Gor series never smudges, smears, or flows to the right, but only down the LEFT thigh.)
For your viewing enjoyment, MST3K presents "Outlaw of Gor" starring Jack Palance.
| 219 |
Cato the Elder Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:51:21pm |
| 220 |
webevintage Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:51:23pm |
re: #200 MartiansAteMyCat
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
A republic is two wolves and a very well-armed sheep.
I would love to see a sheep in armor.
BTW, your nic?
Might be one of the best ever.
| 221 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:51:26pm |
| 222 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:51:50pm |
re: #213 PT Barnum
Played the love interest in the original Day the Earth Stood Still.
Oh. Sorry to hear it.
| 223 |
Dancing along the light of day Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:52:10pm |
re: #218 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
How is it, in Kragaristan, this fine evening?
| 224 |
Mr Pancakes Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:52:19pm |
re: #216 Irenicum
My grandpa was a Mets fan. Taught me everything I know about baseball. Still, I became a Yankees fan. Now I'm a Bosox fan. The shame!
You couldn't have been much of a Yankee fan.
| 225 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:52:36pm |
re: #220 webevintage
I would love to see a sheep in armor.
BTW, your nic?
Might be one of the best ever.
one sec...
here you go: Armored sheep
| 226 |
Kragar Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:52:55pm |
re: #223 Floral Giraffe
How is it, in Kragaristan, this fine evening?
Watching B5, getting some painting done.
| 227 |
webevintage Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:53:48pm |
re: #211 SanFranciscoZionist
Who is that?
I'm sorry.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
I have always had a soft spot for her, we went an heard her talk at a film festival a few years ago.
Very nice, very interesting.
Plus she was in every Randian's favorite movie The Fountain Head.
She was lovely in it, great costumes, stupid story.
| 228 |
Irenicum Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:56:28pm |
re: #224 Mr Pancakes
It was actually in my time. I still love the classic Yankees of the late 70's and early 80's. Goose, Guidry, Jackson, et al, still epitomize what great baseball is all about. I miss that time.
| 230 |
webevintage Sun, Aug 8, 2010 10:59:03pm |
re: #227 webevintage
I'm sorry.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
She was also in A Face in The Crowd which was a prophetic movie warning us about the rise of Glenn Beck Lonesome Rhodes.
Great film, she was fabulous....
| 231 |
Nimed Sun, Aug 8, 2010 11:00:02pm |
re: #186 WindUpBird
I deal with a lot of very-nerdy-yet-also-conservative types in other forums I frequent, the sorts of dudes who call themselves Objectivists and are very serious about their Gor books (don't ask), and they all sorta skew that direction. Their whole thing is to appear as informed as possible and serious as possible by drowning a thread in gibberish about the constitution. But it's a facade, it just falls apart the instant you lean on it.
Gor books apart, the few self-identified Randians I knew throughout my life usually resented being called conservatives.
| 232 |
Four More Tears Sun, Aug 8, 2010 11:00:26pm |
re: #224 Mr Pancakes
You couldn't have been much of a Yankee fan.
A real Yankee fan would not have become a Red Sox fan. So it is written.
| 233 |
Mr Pancakes Sun, Aug 8, 2010 11:01:31pm |
re: #206 webevintage
Sad.
Patricia Neal died.
| 234 |
Mr Pancakes Sun, Aug 8, 2010 11:02:18pm |
re: #232 JasonA
A real Yankee fan would not have become a Red Sox fan. So it is written.
True that........ that would be like me, a Charger fan becoming a Raider fan..... impossible.
| 235 |
webevintage Sun, Aug 8, 2010 11:03:33pm |
1am, i'm heading to read a bit and then bed.
I can't remember who suggested C.J. Sansom's Matthew Shardlake novels, but thanks, I'm half way into the second one Dark Fire.
Great books.
| 236 |
Mr Pancakes Sun, Aug 8, 2010 11:06:02pm |
re: #228 Irenicum
It was actually in my time. I still love the classic Yankees of the late 70's and early 80's. Goose, Guidry, Jackson, et al, still epitomize what great baseball is all about. I miss that time.
There is so much rivalry there dude....... how could you go to the dark side?
| 237 |
Irenicum Sun, Aug 8, 2010 11:09:12pm |
re: #236 Mr Pancakes
I love the histories of both teams. Yaz and Bucky both speak to me.
| 238 |
Irenicum Sun, Aug 8, 2010 11:22:26pm |
By the way, seeing humans as equal is truly a concept we need to accept as normative. And on that note I bid y'all g'nite. Be well and be blessed.
| 239 |
freetoken Sun, Aug 8, 2010 11:35:40pm |
re: #191 Reginald Perrin
Maybe this recent wing-nut eruption at LGF is heat induced, 2010 is the validity of climate change....
Maybe, but I think a more likely explanation is that Charles has left the door open for a while now, and as election time is drawing near the sleepers-on-a-mission come out to make sure everyone knows how important their missions are.
As for the AGW science deniers - just look at the last AGW thread, where you'll find MKELLY in fine form along with a couple of compatriots.
| 240 |
lostlakehiker Sun, Aug 8, 2010 11:47:07pm |
re: #1 Stanley Sea
The crazy points against same sex marriage (the children! polygamy!) worked for a fear based campaign, and subsequently prop 8 was passed. Thankfully, these arguments do not transfer to a court of law.
A majority of the voters in California, and a supermajority nationwide, are ignorant bigots.
Happily, their arguments, opinions, and policy preferences count for nothing.
| 241 |
lostlakehiker Sun, Aug 8, 2010 11:50:49pm |
re: #191 Reginald Perrin
Maybe this recent wing-nut eruption at LGF is heat induced, 2010 is the validity of climate change. The right wing astro-turf spin machine failed miserably trying to promote their myths about a "climate-gate".
The heat wave in Russia and it's drought induced wildfires may be the nail in the coffin for the deniers movement. They may have lost their Russian allies this week, there has been a lot of talk from Russian officials about Climate Change being responsible for the heatwave and fires.
The Russians are beginning to see the light as they feel the heat. Unfortunately, Washington D.C. is beyond reach of a direct and dramatic proof of this sort.
During the dust bowl, a vote was being held on a matter of dust-bowl relief. The organizers of the motion found themselves in a unique position: a dust storm of epic proportions had formed up over Oklahoma and surrounding states and was headed for DC. The proponents put the measure to a vote just as the storm blotted out the afternoon sun over DC, and against all projections, it carried.
(Source: "The Worst Hard Time" [book]).
| 242 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Aug 8, 2010 11:59:05pm |
re: #240 lostlakehiker
A majority of the voters in California, and a supermajority nationwide, are ignorant bigots.
Happily, their arguments, opinions, and policy preferences count for nothing.
This is more passive-aggressive nonsense.
For the moment, a bare majority of California voters favor a ban on same-sex marriage.
A Federal judge has determined that this cannot stand under the law.
I can tell you're feeling disenfranchised, but you're not, any more than I would be if I had voted to ban interracial marriage and had that struck down.
Here's my question for you: if we wait five years, the numbers will have changed. California gains a percentage point favoring same-sex marriage annually. The tides of social change are shifting.
Suppose this had been allowed to stand and we had taken it back to the voters in 2012 or 2014? And a majority of California voters had overturned 8, as would have invariably happened?
Am I really to believe that those who are so hurt by the disregard of the voters would have accepted the will of the people then? Or would they have screamed louder for a Constitutional amendment?
Are we talking about the rule of law, or about what we want the outcome to be?
| 244 |
Kronocide Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:37:04am |
Family something or other lawyer yapping about 'social science.'
I'm sorry, I thought that conservatives didn't believe in science.
| 245 |
Nimed Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:38:47am |
re: #243 SanFranciscoZionist
Hey all. Anybody up?
You've silenced everybody with the awesomeness of that last argument, SanFranZ.
The problem is now nobody wants to play...
| 246 |
Kronocide Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:39:57am |
Thread killa.
It was Matt Damon night: watched The Informant and Green Zone. Liked them both.
| 247 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:43:01am |
re: #245 Nimed
You've silenced everybody with the awesomeness of that last argument, SanFranZ.
The problem is now nobody wants to play...
Dang. Didn't mean to.
| 248 |
Nimed Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:53:22am |
re: #247 SanFranciscoZionist
Dang. Didn't mean to.
No worries. I'll find something on everybody's favorite topic -- Israel!
So I've linked this story the other day about Netanyahu sort of bragging about getting a way around the Oslo accords. It was ignored by everybody except Alouette. Here it is again, in case you've missed it:
[Link: www.tabletmag.com...]
I bring it up again because the discussion with Alouette at the time focused more on the context of Netanyahu's statements instead of the, well, pretty damning content.
| 249 |
Eclectic Infidel Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:57:57am |
re: #172 Mr Pancakes
That jerk is still on the radio?
Broadcasts off of Green 960 am here in the SF bay area. He whines endlessly about corporations and thinks that Israeli history began with the second intifada. He's a true blue left-winger when it comes to Israel. He's fit right in on the UCI campus, the creep.
| 250 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:10:01am |
re: #248 Nimed
No worries. I'll find something on everybody's favorite topic -- Israel!
So I've linked this story the other day about Netanyahu sort of bragging about getting a way around the Oslo accords. It was ignored by everybody except Alouette. Here it is again, in case you've missed it:
[Link: www.tabletmag.com...]I bring it up again because the discussion with Alouette at the time focused more on the context of Netanyahu's statements instead of the, well, pretty damning content.
That does sound like Bibi.
| 251 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:10:35am |
OK, I have figured out how to post pages. This is fun.
| 252 |
freetoken Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:17:34am |
re: #251 SanFranciscoZionist
OK, I have figured out how to post pages.
Welcome to the world of your own blog!
| 253 |
Nimed Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:18:00am |
re: #250 SanFranciscoZionist
That does sound like Bibi.
He sounds somewhat less than ideal head of state to restart the peace process.
| 254 |
Nimed Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:18:55am |
| 255 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:19:30am |
re: #252 freetoken
Welcome to the world of your own blog!
Oh, I've got a blog. This is just for LGF stuff. And whatever.
| 256 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:24:43am |
re: #253 Nimed
He sounds somewhat less than ideal head of state to restart the peace process.
Bibi has never been my favorite guy. That said, I'm not sure who I would want at the wheel in Israel right now...except for Arik Sharon, who unfortunately is not available. I was a very hard sell on Sharon, but in the end I had a lot of trust in him, and then the son of a bitch went into a coma on me. Figures.
| 257 |
freetoken Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:37:06am |
re: #255 SanFranciscoZionist
Oh, I've got a blog. This is just for LGF stuff. And whatever.
Ooops, I guess I should get out more often.
| 258 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:39:05am |
re: #257 freetoken
Ooops, I guess I should get out more often.
No reason you should know it's there! I mention it once it a while.
| 259 |
Ben G. Hazi Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:47:39am |
re: #240 lostlakehiker
A majority of the voters in California, and a supermajority nationwide, are ignorant bigots.
Happily, their arguments, opinions, and policy preferences count for nothing.
No, most of your "majority of the voters in California" and "supermajority nationwide" are just plain ignorant, because they're being fed a line of bullshit from the remainder of those who voted (or would vote for something like) Prop 8, the hardcore religious fundie nutballs. Those fuckers use the bullshit "TEH GHEY IZ A LIFESTYLE CHOICE!!" and "MARRIAGE IZ DOOMED!!" arguments (among others), which aren't reasoned, rational arguments at all, but are naked, base appeals to people's fears and prejudices. However, you're right that their decision to vote in bad law doesn't count for anything (in this case), because bad law needs to be tossed out and Prop 8 was rotten to the core.
I swear, the next person who even insinuates that being gay is just a lifestyle choice and spews bogus arguments based on that is getting five across the eyes...my brother sure as fuck didn't choose to be BORN gay and I don't know of anyone in their right minds who would, just to be ostracized for life about it.
I'll bet you don't have family or friends who are gay, because I seriously doubt you'd be all gung ho for Prop 8 or measures like it if you did...if you do, I pity those gay people who have the displeasure to know you.
| 260 |
Varek Raith Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:51:44am |
Morning.
I'm going to build a Mosque and perform gay marriages there...
;)
| 261 |
boredtechindenver Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:52:15am |
Sorry SFZ. Teh Stoopid can't stay up late. It takes all their brane power to typo their screeds that fail to convince anyone who isn't one of them.
| 262 |
Varek Raith Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:53:37am |
re: #240 lostlakehiker
A majority of the voters in California, and a supermajority nationwide, are ignorant bigots.
Happily, their arguments, opinions, and policy preferences count for nothing.
Yep.
And that's a good thing.
The majority of Americans once supported segregation and a banning inter-racial marriages.
Good thing the courts were there, yes?
| 263 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:53:46am |
re: #260 Varek Raith
Morning.
I'm going to build a Mosque and perform gay marriages there...
;)
Hi Varek!
I'm goin' to bed.
That sounds like a business plan.
| 264 |
boredtechindenver Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:54:34am |
Watching Stana Katic act really badly in "Stiletto". It is almost time to start watching "Castle".
| 265 |
Varek Raith Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:54:42am |
re: #263 SanFranciscoZionist
Hi Varek!
I'm goin' to bed.
That sounds like a business plan.
Night, SFZ!
I figured I could hit multiple birds with one stone with that venture.
XD
| 266 |
Ben G. Hazi Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:56:06am |
re: #265 Varek Raith
Night, SFZ!
I figured I could hit multiple birds with one stone with that venture.
XD
You'd have nutball fundie Islamist and "Christian" heads explode far and wide ;-P
| 267 |
ClaudeMonet Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:56:08am |
| 268 |
Varek Raith Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:56:23am |
re: #266 talon_262
You'd have nutball fundie Islamist and "Christian" heads explode far and wide ;-P
Hehehehahahaha!
| 269 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:56:52am |
| 271 |
boredtechindenver Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:57:20am |
Nite SFZ. I am beginning to think HWMOY (He Who Must Obey You) has it right. Ignore the politics.
| 272 |
Ben G. Hazi Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:57:46am |
| 274 |
Ben G. Hazi Mon, Aug 9, 2010 2:00:30am |
A particularly pernicious Prop 8 troll...I didn't see that they had totally flamed out and got blocked. That must have happened while I was on the way home from work earlier...
| 275 |
Ben G. Hazi Mon, Aug 9, 2010 2:02:35am |
re: #274 talon_262
Pernicious isn't quite the right word...they were persistent, however.
| 276 |
boredtechindenver Mon, Aug 9, 2010 2:03:19am |
it wasn't "teh stoopid" that got the ban if "SJohnsonFL" was deleted and blocked. it was the sock puppeting.
| 278 |
ClaudeMonet Mon, Aug 9, 2010 2:03:44am |
re: #187 PT Barnum
It's only legislating from the bench when the Court upholds the Constitution in ways that the wingnuts don't like.
Most would define it as overturning settleid precedent, in which case the right wing of the current court is much more activist than not.
It's also legislating from the bench when the Court upholds the Constitution in ways that the moonbats don't like.
Cuts both ways. People to whom everything is political assume that any rulings against them are also political.
| 279 |
Ben G. Hazi Mon, Aug 9, 2010 2:03:53am |
re: #276 boredtechindenver
it wasn't "teh stoopid" that got the ban if "SJohnsonFL" was deleted and blocked. it was the sock puppeting.
O RLY?
| 281 |
tnguitarist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 2:04:34am |
re: #275 talon_262
Pernicious isn't quite the right word...they were persistent, however.
Sometimes I wish Charles would leave some of that crap up. Just so their argument getting torn apart is there for the world to see. I left in the middle and see if it got really nasty, though.
| 282 |
Ben G. Hazi Mon, Aug 9, 2010 2:04:47am |
I wondered if it was a sock, but didn't think to put it out there.
| 283 |
boredtechindenver Mon, Aug 9, 2010 2:05:11am |
| 284 |
ClaudeMonet Mon, Aug 9, 2010 2:06:37am |
re: #213 PT Barnum
Played the love interest in the original Day the Earth Stood Still.
Also the housekeeper in the incredible but depressing "Hud".
| 285 |
Ben G. Hazi Mon, Aug 9, 2010 2:07:01am |
re: #281 tnguitarist
Sometimes I wish Charles would leave some of that crap up. Just so their argument getting torn apart is there for the world to see. I left in the middle and see if it got really nasty, though.
He needs to break out the Disemvoweler more often, even on posts that aren't overly profane, just to fuck with their heads ;-P
| 287 |
ClaudeMonet Mon, Aug 9, 2010 2:10:50am |
re: #253 Nimed
He sounds somewhat less than ideal head of state to restart the peace process.
So was Menachem Begin. Sometimes it takes a true hawk to make peace and make it stick.
| 288 |
freetoken Mon, Aug 9, 2010 3:09:13am |
| 289 |
Darth Vader Gargoyle Mon, Aug 9, 2010 3:16:39am |
Good Morning Lizards!
Today's Simpsons Quote:
Mr. Burns: I’ll keep it short and sweet — Family. Religion. Friendship. These are the three demons you must slay if you wish to succeed in business.
| 291 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Aug 9, 2010 4:10:07am |
re: #290 Varek Raith
Perkins, you're a tool.
You gotta wonder if guys like that actually believe their bullshit, or if they just shut it off like a cynic, and view their lobbyist bigot job as a job,
| 292 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Aug 9, 2010 4:12:25am |
re: #282 talon_262
I wondered if it was a sock, but didn't think to put it out there.
They're like children, only worse. Children eventually learn! These fools just show up, throw a tantrum, then poof, all their silliness gets deleted, they keep doing it, like someone with brain damage
it's like tagging a wall, and then two minutes later the automatic paint sprayers paint it back the way it was, Demolition Man style.
| 293 |
Varek Raith Mon, Aug 9, 2010 4:15:01am |
re: #292 WindUpBird
They're like children, only worse. Children eventually learn! These fools just show up, throw a tantrum, then poof, all their silliness gets deleted, they keep doing it, like someone with brain damage
it's like tagging a wall, and then two minutes later the automatic paint sprayers paint it back the way it was, Demolition Man style.
San Angeles.
BLOW IT UP!!!
Three seashells...
| 297 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Mon, Aug 9, 2010 4:50:37am |
| 298 |
Wozza Matter? Mon, Aug 9, 2010 4:50:48am |
re: #295 Gus 802
This ruling has certainly angered the American Taliban.
a phrase i used but not three threads ago.....
| 299 |
Gus Mon, Aug 9, 2010 4:53:29am |
re: #297 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
Wow. What did that person step in?
Or, are they the ones who dropped it?
Hard to say with complete accuracy since all of his posts were deleted.
| 300 |
Darth Vader Gargoyle Mon, Aug 9, 2010 4:56:14am |
re: #299 Gus 802
Hard to say with complete accuracy since all of his posts were deleted.
I prefer the disemvoweler.
| 301 |
Gus Mon, Aug 9, 2010 4:56:59am |
Coming in December. All electric Nissan Leaf. You can get one for about 20 grand in California with tax rebates. Half the price of a Chevy Volt. 100 mile range.
Found out about this from this article.
| 303 |
Darth Vader Gargoyle Mon, Aug 9, 2010 5:04:49am |
re: #302 Gus 802
Yeah. That sort of adds an element of shame.
Plus I would think it would be infuriating to see your post up there, but know folks can't read what you wrote.
| 304 |
Taqyia2Me Mon, Aug 9, 2010 5:08:24am |
re: #301 Gus 802
Twice the range at half the price, imagine that...
| 305 |
Gus Mon, Aug 9, 2010 5:11:59am |
re: #304 Taqyia2Me
Twice the range at half the price, imagine that...
Yeah. Which leaves me wondering if Detroit is paying any attention. You know how they can get sometimes in ignoring a trend. 41 grand is way to much money. Ford will probably come out with something better than a Volt come next year. If they're smart they'll have something like the Nissan Leaf.
| 306 |
Spare O'Lake Mon, Aug 9, 2010 5:14:18am |
re: #242 SanFranciscoZionist
This is more passive-aggressive nonsense.
For the moment, a bare majority of California voters favor a ban on same-sex marriage.
A Federal judge has determined that this cannot stand under the law.
I can tell you're feeling disenfranchised, but you're not, any more than I would be if I had voted to ban interracial marriage and had that struck down.
Here's my question for you: if we wait five years, the numbers will have changed. California gains a percentage point favoring same-sex marriage annually. The tides of social change are shifting.
Suppose this had been allowed to stand and we had taken it back to the voters in 2012 or 2014? And a majority of California voters had overturned 8, as would have invariably happened?
Am I really to believe that those who are so hurt by the disregard of the voters would have accepted the will of the people then? Or would they have screamed louder for a Constitutional amendment?
Are we talking about the rule of law, or about what we want the outcome to be?
Unfortunately your rosy predictions concerning the inevitability of positive social change are in doubt these days...or haven't you noticed the neanderthal groundswell? The constitution and the judicial branch's willingness to enforce it (or not) are going to remain crucial.
| 307 |
Spare O'Lake Mon, Aug 9, 2010 5:22:47am |
Radical Indonesian cleric arrested in terror plot
By NINIEK KARMINI (AP) – 35 minutes agoJAKARTA, Indonesia — Indonesia's anti-terrorism unit arrested a radical Islamist cleric Monday for alleged ties to an al-Qaida-affiliated cell accused of plotting high-profile assassinations and Mumbai-style attacks targeting foreigners in the capital.
Abu Bakar Bashir, who has been arrested twice before and spent several years in jail, was heading home after delivering a sermon when the police swooped, surrounding his van and smashing in the rear window when body guards tried to stand in their way, according to Bashir's son, Abdul Rohim.
"The United States is behind this!" shouted the white-bearded cleric, who was wearing his traditional flowing white robe. He smiled as he was escorted under tight security into police headquarters, and said: "This arrest is a blessing ... I will be rewarded by Allah!"
[Link: www.google.com...]
I hope he rots in jail and then in hell.
| 309 |
Ojoe Mon, Aug 9, 2010 5:26:03am |
THe Towercam has been un-fritzed:
Today's San Gabriel Mountains August Dawn.
Good morning all.
What a beautiful planet.
| 310 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Mon, Aug 9, 2010 5:27:57am |
re: #309 Ojoe
Ever notice the prettiest pictures don't seem to have people in them?
Excluding Sofia Vergara, of course.
| 311 |
Ojoe Mon, Aug 9, 2010 5:29:54am |
re: #306 Spare O'Lake
The State should get out of the marriage business altogether IMHO, issuing civil unions only, to whomever. Otherwise Church and State are not separate. You can see the ill effects of that, look at the traction it has given to the hate - filled religious types. They use this vestigial Church - State connection to try and impose their will on others, just the sort of nonsense the founding fathers wanted to avoid.
| 313 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Mon, Aug 9, 2010 5:32:15am |
| 314 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Mon, Aug 9, 2010 5:33:35am |
re: #311 Ojoe
Will they still require blood tests for gays and lesbians?
And, isn't lesbian also gay? Why the separation?
| 317 |
Ojoe Mon, Aug 9, 2010 5:36:51am |
re: #314 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
Well blood tests are OK I guess, they can tell you other things than Rh factor, but whatever document is issued, it should not have "marriage" written on it. I suppose there might be a condition that it only applies to 2 people and you can only have one such document.
Then if you also want to get married, you can go to a church; you can already find ones that will marry gays.
| 318 |
Spare O'Lake Mon, Aug 9, 2010 5:37:13am |
re: #311 Ojoe
The State should get out of the marriage business altogether IMHO, issuing civil unions only, to whomever. Otherwise Church and State are not separate. You can see the ill effects of that, look at the traction it has given to the hate - filled religious types. They use this vestigial Church - State connection to try and impose their will on others, just the sort of nonsense the founding fathers wanted to avoid.
Yes, that's a logical solution for anyone not invested in the existing system. Problem is we'll probably all grow old and die waiting for that to happen.
I say folks should first get the substantive rights secured, and then the formalities will fall into place more easily afterwards.
| 319 |
Ojoe Mon, Aug 9, 2010 5:39:55am |
re: #318 Spare O'Lake
"When Logic and proportion have fallen far below"
—Jefferson Airplane.
That's where we are now unfortunately.
| 320 |
Spare O'Lake Mon, Aug 9, 2010 5:41:55am |
re: #319 Ojoe
"When Logic and proportion have fallen
far belowsloppy dead."—Jefferson Airplane.
That's where we are now unfortunately.
FIFY
| 323 |
Spare O'Lake Mon, Aug 9, 2010 5:53:14am |
| 324 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Mon, Aug 9, 2010 5:53:40am |
re: #317 Ojoe
Actually, I was wondering if anyone would object to blood tests; claiming they were to detect STD's such as AIDS.
Pro-gay union, whatever you want to call it (FWIW)... don't really care.
| 325 |
Ojoe Mon, Aug 9, 2010 5:55:04am |
re: #324 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
You would think people would want to know !
| 327 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Aug 9, 2010 6:08:55am |
Hello, all. My back is still bad, so I can't get to work till I see my doctor. But I see we had us couple trolls last night. One of them looks to be a Grade A Gamey Spewer. Did someone remember to put the troll carcass on ice till it could be dressed and grilled?
| 328 |
sagehen Mon, Aug 9, 2010 6:16:17am |
re: #287 ClaudeMonet
So was Menachem Begin. Sometimes it takes a true hawk to make peace and make it stick.
"Only Nixon could have gone to China."
| 329 |
Douchecanoe and Ryan Too Mon, Aug 9, 2010 6:16:23am |
re: #327 Dark_Falcon
Hello, all. My back is still bad, so I can't get to work till I see my doctor. But I see we had us couple trolls last night. One of them looks to be a Grade A Gamey Spewer. Did someone remember to put the troll carcass on ice till it could be dressed and grilled?
Not to worry. It was plenty fresh when I grilled it up for breakfast this morning. Owing to the fall season, I spiced it up with chopped fresh garden peppers and a zesty barbecue sauce.
| 330 |
Stonemason Mon, Aug 9, 2010 6:17:22am |
re: #325 Ojoe
You would think people would want to know !
The ACLU does not agree with you.
COERCIVE PARTNER NOTIFICATION IS BAD PUBLIC POLICY
The case is made that HIV/AIDS is different from all other diseases that require partner notification and should be exempted.
I do know that when I was first Married in PA, I answered medical questions, then, when I married again in 2001 I was not asked those medical questions. I do believe that States are moving away from asking those types of questions for fear of encroaching on personal rights.
While I think that there should be partner notification for all the diseases the CDC identifies as necessary, I can see the other side of the coin. This could lead to possibly requiring women to disclose past surgical treatments (if the anti-choice people win power).
Of course that is the slippery-slope argument, which is a fallacy, so who knows...
| 331 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Aug 9, 2010 6:17:53am |
re: #329 thedopefishlives
Not to worry. It was plenty fresh when I grilled it up for breakfast this morning. Owing to the fall season, I spiced it up with chopped fresh garden peppers and a zesty barbecue sauce.
Cool. Hope the group liked it. I can't eat peppers, they make my mouth feel like its on fire.
| 332 |
Douchecanoe and Ryan Too Mon, Aug 9, 2010 6:18:45am |
re: #331 Dark_Falcon
Cool. Hope the group liked it. I can't eat peppers, they make my mouth feel like its on fire.
I'm not a big pepper person myself, but the Mrs. Fish loves the blasted things. She's crazy about spicy food.
| 333 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Aug 9, 2010 6:20:58am |
re: #330 Stonemason
The case is made that HIV/AIDS is different from all other diseases that require partner notification and should be exempted.
I do know that when I was first Married in PA, I answered medical questions, then, when I married again in 2001 I was not asked those medical questions. I do believe that States are moving away from asking those types of questions for fear of encroaching on personal rights.While I think that there should be partner notification for all the diseases the CDC identifies as necessary, I can see the other side of the coin. This could lead to possibly requiring women to disclose past surgical treatments (if the anti-choice people win power).
Of course that is the slippery-slope argument, which is a fallacy, so who knows...
Such questions should be asked in the case of AIDS. In the case of infectious disease the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. This does not mean the many get to simply trample on the few without limit, but it does mean that the public need to prevent the spread of infection overrides the individual's right to privacy.
| 334 |
Daniel Ballard Mon, Aug 9, 2010 6:24:23am |
Good Morning all... How was the overnight?
| 335 |
Douchecanoe and Ryan Too Mon, Aug 9, 2010 6:25:04am |
re: #334 Rightwingconspirator
Good Morning all... How was the overnight?
Apparently, crazy. I went back to read the early pages in this thread, and it looks like the stupid brigade decided to try a Pickett's Charge.
| 336 |
Stonemason Mon, Aug 9, 2010 6:25:28am |
re: #333 Dark_Falcon
The ACLU seems to be arguing that because the traditional STD 's haven't been stopped by notification and due to the stigma associated with HIV/AIDS coercive notification shouldn't be used.
It has been an interesting read, that's for sure.
| 337 |
Daniel Ballard Mon, Aug 9, 2010 6:30:39am |
re: #335 thedopefishlives
Sorry I missed that I was out on Glendora canyon road. Amazing views.
| 338 |
Douchecanoe and Ryan Too Mon, Aug 9, 2010 6:31:56am |
re: #337 Rightwingconspirator
Sorry I missed that I was out on Glendora canyon road. Amazing views.
I'd take amazing views over a troll beatdown any day of the week. 'Course, I wasn't here for it either, I was asleep. Work comes too early on Mondays.
| 339 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Aug 9, 2010 6:33:28am |
re: #336 Stonemason
The ACLU seems to be arguing that because the traditional STD 's haven't been stopped by notification and due to the stigma associated with HIV/AIDS coercive notification shouldn't be used.
It has been an interesting read, that's for sure.
They can argue that, but they're wrong. An infectious, deadly disease changes the rules and allows what would normally be prohibited. Again, the need to prevent the spread of the disease outweighs the harm done to the individual.
| 340 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Aug 9, 2010 6:35:52am |
re: #335 thedopefishlives
Apparently, crazy. I went back to read the early pages in this thread, and it looks like the stupid brigade decided to try a Pickett's Charge.
Thankfully Walter, SFZ, and webvintage got there "pretty goddamn quick" and hammered the trolls into oblivion.
| 341 |
Cannadian Club Akbar Mon, Aug 9, 2010 6:45:33am |
re: #340 Dark_Falcon
Thankfully Walter, SFZ, and webvintage got there "pretty goddamn quick" and hammered the trolls into oblivion.
What did I miss? (and morning all)
| 342 |
Daniel Ballard Mon, Aug 9, 2010 6:45:34am |
I highly recommend taking Glendora road from Azusa up to Mt Baldy. I saw folks on bikes, motorcycles, classic sports cars all havin a great time. Some of this narrow road actually runs a ridge line, great views both ways. Lots of turnouts. For a downhill thrill take a really good road bike down from Mt Baldy.
| 344 |
William Barnett-Lewis Mon, Aug 9, 2010 6:53:02am |
Mmm cold pizza for breakfast - ham & pineapple! Yum!
What?
// Good Morning all.
| 346 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Aug 9, 2010 6:57:54am |
re: #341 Cannadian Club Akbar
What did I miss? (and morning all)
Check upthread. There was a serious troll attack and it took some time before Stinky Ban Hammered the wretched thing.
| 347 |
Obdicut Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:01:25am |
Here's some bullshit we can expect more of:
[Link: www.courthousenews.com...]
A married couple from Hemet kidnapped and "deported" a Filipina woman who they claimed was in the United States illegally, federal prosecutors say. According to the grand jury indictment, Gregory Denny and his wife handcuffed and kidnapped the woman from her home and took her to a Border Patrol station, where Greg Denny falsely claimed to be a U.S. Marshal. When the Border Patrol refused to arrest her, the Dennys took her to the San Diego Airport, where Greg Denny, still impersonating a U.S. Marshal, "informed Transportation Security Administration personnel that he was escorting a prisoner to a flight," the indictment states.
| 348 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:04:06am |
re: #347 Obdicut
Here's some bullshit we can expect more of:
[Link: www.courthousenews.com...]
Well, they good news is this the wingnuts who try this sort of caper won't do it more than once, because after they try it they'll go to prison.
As an aside: Why does such much crazy occur in California?
| 349 |
darthstar Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:08:57am |
There's no better way to start a week than to wake up and see Tony Perkins getting his ass handed to him on national television.
Good morning, everyone.
| 350 |
jaunte Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:11:57am |
re: #347 Obdicut
Greg Denny, 38, and Karen Denny, 52, are charged with conspiracy to kidnap, kidnapping, and "impersonator making arrest or search and aiding and abetting." Greg Denny also is charged with entering the security area of the airport under false pretenses, and making false statements to a federal officer.
Kidnapping is punishable by up to life in prison.
What an idiot.
| 351 |
pharmmajor Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:15:05am |
You guys know that Vaughn Walker, the man who overturned the foolish Prop 8 ruling, is a Libertarian. Another indication that our party is for true civil equality.
| 352 |
Douchecanoe and Ryan Too Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:15:26am |
re: #348 Dark_Falcon
Well, they good news is this the wingnuts who try this sort of caper won't do it more than once, because after they try it they'll go to prison.
As an aside: Why does such much crazy occur in California?
Ah, California, the land of fruits and nuts.
/No disrespect intended to anyone, it's just a stupid joke
| 353 |
Ericus58 Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:15:46am |
re: #347 Obdicut
Here's some bullshit we can expect more of:
[Link: www.courthousenews.com...]
LOL, what a couple of maroons.
But seriously, do you expect to see a rash of incidences like this? I don't think so.
| 354 |
lawhawk Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:19:40am |
re: #347 Obdicut
They'll get the book thrown at them for attempting to impersonate federal law enforcement.
Each of those charges is up to three years in prison. That's in addition to all the other charges against them.
| 355 |
Douchecanoe and Ryan Too Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:20:06am |
re: #353 Ericus58
LOL, what a couple of maroons.
But seriously, do you expect to see a rash of incidences like this? I don't think so.
Eh, I dunno. Given the immense quantities of stupid the vast unhinged have been partaking, I'd expect to see a lot of plays on this theme. The whole "citizen's arrest" meme is big with the right-wing nutjobs.
| 356 |
jaunte Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:20:48am |
re: #348 Dark_Falcon
As an aside: Why does such much crazy occur in California?
I think the formula is basically: more people = more crazy people
| 357 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:22:01am |
re: #354 lawhawk
They'll get the book thrown at them for attempting to impersonate federal law enforcement.
Each of those charges is up to three years in prison. That's in addition to all the other charges against them.
And they deserve it. I myself would give them both 20-to-life. That would serve as a deterrent to any other wingnuts who might consider such a crime.
| 358 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:24:49am |
re: #355 thedopefishlives
Eh, I dunno. Given the immense quantities of stupid the vast unhinged have been partaking, I'd expect to see a lot of plays on this theme. The whole "citizen's arrest" meme is big with the right-wing nutjobs.
Concur. And I fear what happens when one of these "arrests" is strongly resisted (as some legit arrests are). I can see wingnuts killing someone they claim is an illegal in such a circumstance. That would discredit anyone urging border security and it would taint the GOP very badly.
| 359 |
Stanghazi Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:25:20am |
re: #348 Dark_Falcon
As an aside: Why does such much crazy occur in California?
Hemet is where the white supremacists were arrested for targeting the police recently. It's a very small community of mostly retirees and scary wackos.
| 360 |
Ericus58 Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:26:05am |
re: #355 thedopefishlives
Eh, I dunno. Given the immense quantities of stupid the vast unhinged have been partaking, I'd expect to see a lot of plays on this theme. The whole "citizen's arrest" meme is big with the right-wing nutjobs.
What, these same nutjobs have been trying to arrest Cheney also?!
Heh heh.
| 361 |
Douchecanoe and Ryan Too Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:27:13am |
re: #360 Ericus58
What, these same nutjobs have been trying to arrest Cheney also?!
Heh heh.
Actually, the first thing that came to mind after I typed that is the scene from the commercial for Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story where he's calling for a citizen's arrest of the board of directors of AIG. Citizen's arrests seem to be a common theme among nutjobs of all political flavors.
| 362 |
jaunte Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:28:58am |
re: #359 Stanley Sea
This story says the unemployment rate there is 24%.
[Link: thevalleychronicle.com...]
| 363 |
darthstar Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:29:37am |
From the CBS transcript...best. takedown. ever.
DAVID BOIES: Right. Well, it's easy to sit around and debate and throw around opinions appear-- appeal to people's fear and prejudice, cite studies that either don't exist or don't say what you say they do. In a court of law you've got to come in and you've got to support those opinions. You've got to stand up under oath and cross-examination. And what we saw at trial is that it's very easy for the people who want to deprive gay and lesbian citizens the right to vote, to make all sorts of statements and campaign literature or in debates where they can't be crossexamined.But when they come into court and they have to support those opinions and they have to defend those opinions under oath and cross-examination, those opinions just melt away. And that's what happened here. There simply wasn't any evidence. There weren't any of those studies.
There weren't any empirical studies. That's just made up. That's junk science. And it's easy to say that on television. But witness stand is a lonely place to lie. And when you come into court, you can't do that. And that's what we proved. We put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost.
A lonely place to lie. I hope Perkins thought about that line all night.
| 364 |
darthstar Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:30:14am |
re: #359 Stanley Sea
Hemet is where the white supremacists were arrested for targeting the police recently. It's a very small community of mostly retirees and scary wackos.
I'll bet they make great meth there.
| 365 |
Ericus58 Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:31:04am |
re: #362 jaunte
This story says the unemployment rate there is 24%.
[Link: thevalleychronicle.com...]
Ouch.
Idle time + anger = maroons.
Let's just hope it stays iin the maroon category.
| 366 |
Stanghazi Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:31:26am |
| 367 |
'K.' Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:33:12am |
Darn, I missed this thread after posting on the original one by Thanos. Bummer.
Much of this issue depends on what "harm" is. If you think that undercutting traditional gender roles or norms of marital commitment (gay men are more likely to have partners outside marriage, and gay relationships on average don't last as long) then there is seemingly a good case to make against gay marriage. If you think eroding these ideas doesn't do harm, say because you think traditional gender roles hurt women, then gay marriage may be a no-brainer. "Harm" here is very subjective. Either way, you're making a moral judgment: it's not just the conservatives doing it.
| 368 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:33:38am |
re: #364 darthstar
I'll bet they make great meth there.
That's not the kind of thing to joke about. That stuff is a literal and societal toxin.
| 369 |
Taqyia2Me Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:36:51am |
re: #368 Dark_Falcon
That's not the kind of thing to joke about. That stuff is a literal and societal toxin.
Meth largely hecho en Mexico these days...
| 370 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:38:47am |
This is a non-insane but unfriendly take on the men behind the Park51 project. Please do take the time to read it:
Ground Zero Mosque: Who’s in Charge?
By Nina Shea
| 371 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:39:55am |
re: #369 Taqyia2Me
Meth largely hecho en Mexico these days...
That can depend. Much of it is made in the US. But its vile stuff that needs to be rooted out wherever it shows up.
| 372 |
'K.' Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:42:18am |
That should have read, "If you think that undercutting traditional gender roles or norms of marital commitment...does harm..." My bad!
| 373 |
Obdicut Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:43:04am |
re: #370 Dark_Falcon
I don't see anything new or really interesting there.
| 374 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:44:24am |
re: #367 'K.'
Darn, I missed this thread after posting on the original one by Thanos. Bummer.
Much of this issue depends on what "harm" is. If you think that undercutting traditional gender roles or norms of marital commitment (gay men are more likely to have partners outside marriage, and gay relationships on average don't last as long) then there is seemingly a good case to make against gay marriage. If you think eroding these ideas doesn't do harm, say because you think traditional gender roles hurt women, then gay marriage may be a no-brainer. "Harm" here is very subjective. Either way, you're making a moral judgment: it's not just the conservatives doing it.
I do think eroding those ideals harmful, and that's why I don't like the ruling. I hope it gets overturned.
| 375 |
Killgore Trout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:44:52am |
Today's outrageous outrage seems to be that Mrs. Obama is secretly meeting with Muslims on her lavish vacation in Spain.
| 376 |
darthstar Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:45:26am |
re: #368 Dark_Falcon
That's not the kind of thing to joke about. That stuff is a literal and societal toxin.
Agreed...and I do so only because I have first hand experience with it from my college days...yet somehow I survived.
re: #369 Taqyia2Me
Meth largely hecho en Mexico these days...
No...most meth is made north of the border. It's very easy to do, with over the counter ingredients (though buying a case of Sudafed isn't as easy as it used to be), and it doesn't take much time.
| 377 |
darthstar Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:47:11am |
re: #376 darthstar
note: I never made the shit myself, but knew some people who did. Three days of drinking and tweaking without sleep really beats the hell out of a person's body. I strongly recommend against it.
| 378 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:47:25am |
re: #375 Killgore Trout
Today's outrageous outrage seems to be that Mrs. Obama is secretly meeting with Muslims on her lavish vacation in Spain.
Oh, brother. Can't these rumor mongers please get a life?
| 379 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:47:35am |
re: #374 Dark_Falcon
I do think eroding those ideals harmful, and that's why I don't like the ruling. I hope it gets overturned.
Harmful to whom, and in what way? How does it affect your life AT ALL if gays are allowed to marry?
It doesn't dark. It doesn't.
| 380 |
Darth Vader Gargoyle Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:48:17am |
re: #375 Killgore Trout
Today's outrageous outrage seems to be that Mrs. Obama is secretly meeting with Muslims on her lavish vacation in Spain.
Is she vacationing in Cordoba!!!11!!!
//
| 381 |
Killgore Trout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:49:15am |
| 382 |
darthstar Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:49:44am |
re: #375 Killgore Trout
Today's outrageous outrage seems to be that Mrs. Obama is secretly meeting with Muslims on her lavish vacation in Spain.
Maureen Dowd has a gossip column about how she was abandoning the President on his birthday. There's a funny satire piece on the front page of dKos right now mocking Dowd and includes a photo of Mrs. O and the kids with the President...yes, on his birthday.
| 383 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:52:06am |
re: #379 Fozzie Bear
Harmful to whom, and in what way? How does it affect your life AT ALL if gays are allowed to marry?
It doesn't dark. It doesn't.
I disagree. i prefer strong marital commitment and I really do think letting gay men marry will erode it. I also prefer to draw gender distinctions. If they leave some outliers miserable, that means little to me. They make things much neater and more orderly. I admit that I strongly favor order over compassion.
| 384 |
Killgore Trout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:52:48am |
re: #382 darthstar
Maureen Dowd has a gossip column about how she was abandoning the President on his birthday. There's a funny satire piece on the front page of dKos right now mocking Dowd and includes a photo of Mrs. O and the kids with the President...yes, on his birthday.
Outrage!
| 385 |
Varek Raith Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:54:38am |
re: #383 Dark_Falcon
I disagree. i prefer strong marital commitment and I really do think letting gay men marry will erode it. I also prefer to draw gender distinctions. If they leave some outliers miserable, that means little to me. They make things much neater and more orderly. I admit that I strongly favor order over compassion.
*Whack!*
Sorry.
| 386 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:55:05am |
re: #383 Dark_Falcon
I disagree. i prefer strong marital commitment and I really do think letting gay men marry will erode it. I also prefer to draw gender distinctions. If they leave some outliers miserable, that means little to me. They make things much neater and more orderly. I admit that I strongly favor order over compassion.
How will letting gay men (why don't you include gay women?) marry, in the full, legal, sense of the word... how will is "erode" marriage? Details?
| 387 |
darthstar Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:55:09am |
re: #383 Dark_Falcon
I disagree. i prefer strong marital commitment and I really do think letting gay men marry will erode it. I also prefer to draw gender distinctions. If they leave some outliers miserable, that means little to me. They make things much neater and more orderly. I admit that I strongly favor order over compassion.
I think as long as you don't marry a gay man that your marriage will be fine.
| 388 |
Stonemason Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:59:38am |
re: #370 Dark_Falcon
Good read Dark, but I don't think it will change any opinions.
| 389 |
Stanghazi Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:00:00am |
re: #383 Dark_Falcon
I disagree. i prefer strong marital commitment and I really do think letting gay men marry will erode it. I also prefer to draw gender distinctions. If they leave some outliers miserable, that means little to me. They make things much neater and more orderly. I admit that I strongly favor order over compassion.
Ah, so this will help take the personal responsibility for your own marriage out of play. I just don't get this position at all.
| 390 |
Varek Raith Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:00:26am |
re: #388 Stonemason
Good read Dark, but I don't think it will change any opinions.
So, what are the "valid" reasons to oppose the construction of the Park51 center???
| 391 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:00:52am |
re: #385 Varek Raith
*Whack!*
Sorry.
Fair enough. I'm not going to push my view here, I know I'm outnumbered.
But now I've got to get to the doctor, and thence to work.
BBT
| 392 |
Varek Raith Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:01:17am |
re: #391 Dark_Falcon
Fair enough. I'm not going to push my view here, I know I'm outnumbered.
But now I've got to get to the doctor, and thence to work.
BBT
Doctor?
You ok?
| 393 |
prairiefire Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:02:26am |
The threads have gone absolutely armed insurrection bonkers over at RedState. I am avoiding far righties as much as possible lately. I dislike getting flecks of foam on me. It is a public service to be able to read the crazy on a safe, clean computer monitor.
| 394 |
Stonemason Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:03:09am |
re: #390 Varek Raith
So, what are the "valid" reasons to oppose the construction of the Park51 center???
There are none, everyone who opposes the building of the Park 51 Center is either a bigot or a loser tool of a bigot.
| 395 |
Varek Raith Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:04:28am |
re: #394 Stonemason
There are none, everyone who opposes the building of the Park 51 Center is either a bigot or a loser tool of a bigot.
It would appear that you are unable to tell us what that valid reason is.
| 396 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:04:36am |
re: #387 darthstar
I think as long as you don't marry a gay man that your marriage will be fine.
But damn do they look good...
| 397 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:04:50am |
| 398 |
Stonemason Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:05:18am |
re: #395 Varek Raith
It would appear that you are unable to tell us what that valid reason is.
There are none, everyone who opposes the building of the Park 51 Center is either a bigot or a loser tool of a bigot.
| 399 |
Varek Raith Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:05:45am |
| 400 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:05:55am |
re: #394 Stonemason
There are none, everyone who opposes the building of the Park 51 Center is either a bigot or a loser tool of a bigot.
Why do you oppose the building of a religious center in downtown NY?
| 401 |
Stonemason Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:06:47am |
re: #400 JasonA
Why do you oppose the building of a religious center in downtown NY?
I do not, please search my posts, I have never opposed the building of the Park 51 Center.
| 402 |
'K.' Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:07:02am |
re: #383 Dark_Falcon
I think it's pretty obvious that gay marriage will undercut traditional gender roles.
A lot of times liberals don't seem to realize that by dismissing these traditional roles as useless or even harmful, they are making a moral judgment.
| 403 |
Varek Raith Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:07:31am |
re: #402 'K.'
I think it's pretty obvious that gay marriage will undercut traditional gender roles.
A lot of times liberals don't seem to realize that by dismissing these traditional roles as useless or even harmful, they are making a moral judgment.
Oh, please.
| 404 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:08:58am |
re: #402 'K.'
I think it's pretty obvious that gay marriage will undercut traditional gender roles.
A lot of times liberals don't seem to realize that by dismissing these traditional roles as useless or even harmful, they are making a moral judgment.
Yeah, what the hell were we thinking when we gave dem broads the right to vote?
Barefoot & preggers is how it's gotta be.
///
| 405 |
Varek Raith Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:09:38am |
re: #402 'K.'
I think it's pretty obvious that
gay marriagewomen's sufferage will undercut traditional gender roles.A lot of times liberals don't seem to realize that by dismissing these traditional roles as useless or even harmful, they are making a moral judgment.
| 407 |
jaunte Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:10:09am |
re: #402 'K.'
I think it's pretty obvious that gay marriage will undercut traditional gender roles.
I think rural electrification did that, too.
| 408 |
CuriousLurker Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:10:46am |
re: #383 Dark_Falcon
I disagree. i prefer strong marital commitment and I really do think letting gay men marry will erode it. I also prefer to draw gender distinctions. If they leave some outliers miserable, that means little to me. They make things much neater and more orderly. I admit that I strongly favor order over compassion.
Sorry to have to down-ding you DF, but that last part was just too much.
| 409 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:11:14am |
re: #402 'K.'
I think it's pretty obvious that gay marriage will undercut traditional gender roles.
A lot of times liberals don't seem to realize that by dismissing these traditional roles as useless or even harmful, they are making a moral judgment.
re: #391 Dark_Falcon
Fair enough. I'm not going to push my view here, I know I'm outnumbered. But now I've got to get to the doctor, and thence to work. BBT
This is the bullshit I get tired of. You made a statement, a rather strong statement that gay marriage will "erode" marriage, and then you won't even stick around to explain your position or defend it.
Guess what? You're afraid of a fucking word, you know that? A word, that if it didn't even exist, would not change the facts. Would not change a damn thing. The facts? The fact that there are gay couple, thousands of them, living together exactly like your mom and dad, exactly like the married couple next door, exactly like George Bush and Laura, and their living arrangements have not eroded anything. And this has been going on for a good long time.
And you have a lot of balls talking about marriages being eroded. I'll tell you what. As soon as you breeders get around to cleaning up you own marriages and stop eroding your own lives, then maybe you'll have some moral leg to stand on.
But in the meantime, welcome to the real world. You're holier than thou fantasy lifestyle doesn't exist and the only thing that is eroding anything is your hypocrisy.
| 410 |
Stonemason Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:11:26am |
re: #402 'K.'
I think it's pretty obvious that gay marriage will undercut traditional gender roles.
A lot of times liberals don't seem to realize that by dismissing these traditional roles as useless or even harmful, they are making a moral judgment.
'traditional gender roles?' really? like hitting women over the head and dragging them back to the cave?
roles of gender change all the time, this is simply one more. It will hurt no one.
| 411 |
cronus Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:11:32am |
re: #383 Dark_Falcon
I disagree. i prefer strong marital commitment and I really do think letting gay men marry will erode it. I also prefer to draw gender distinctions. If they leave some outliers miserable, that means little to me. They make things much neater and more orderly. I admit that I strongly favor order over compassion.
Is there a time table for an evidenced-based assertion of heterosexual marriage decline due to the acceptance of gay unions? Is it 1 year, 2 years, a decade? If civil unions are accepted but not technically defined as marriage does is the erosion factor the same or somewhat less?
| 412 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:12:16am |
re: #409 Walter L. Newton
This is the bullshit I get tired of. You made a statement, a rather strong statement that gay marriage will "erode" marriage, and then you won't even stick around to explain your position or defend it.
Guess what? You're afraid of a fucking word, you know that? A word, that if it didn't even exist, would not change the facts. Would not change a damn thing. The facts? The fact that there are gay couple, thousands of them, living together exactly like your mom and dad, exactly like the married couple next door, exactly like George Bush and Laura, and their living arrangements have not eroded anything. And this has been going on for a good long time.
And you have a lot of balls talking about marriages being eroded. I'll tell you what. As soon as you breeders get around to cleaning up you own marriages and stop eroding your own lives, then maybe you'll have some moral leg to stand on.
But in the meantime, welcome to the real world. You're holier than thou fantasy lifestyle doesn't exist and the only thing that is eroding anything is your hypocrisy.
Walter, I thought we were supposed to go back to disagreeing today.
| 413 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:12:45am |
re: #412 JasonA
Walter, I thought we were supposed to go back to disagreeing today.
Ah... fuck you :)
| 414 |
Varek Raith Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:12:49am |
re: #410 Stonemason
'traditional gender roles?' really? like hitting women over the head and dragging them back to the cave?
roles of gender change all the time, this is simply one more. It will hurt no one.
You stay away from Ug's women!!!
CAPTAIN CAAAVVVEEE-MAN!
XD
| 415 |
darthstar Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:13:04am |
re: #402 'K.'
I think it's pretty obvious that gay marriage will undercut traditional gender roles.
A lot of times liberals don't seem to realize that by dismissing these traditional roles as useless or even harmful, they are making a moral judgment.
Undercut? I don't see how gay marriage will keep me from opening the door for my wife, though I do like to iron her clothes for her in the morning...oh, dear, you're right! I also cook and do dishes! And just last week I was saying that, when we have a place with room for one, I'd like to get a sewing machine so I could make better hems on her clothes as sometimes I will do minor alterations for her if there's something she wants but it's not available in her exact size. OMFGZQ! Gay marriage is putting a ripple in the gender-time continuance.
What should I do? Should I go change the oil on the car? Mow the lawn? How do I stop gay marriage from undercutting my gender role before it's too late?!!11ty!
| 416 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:13:35am |
re: #415 darthstar
Undercut? I don't see how gay marriage will keep me from opening the door for my wife, though I do like to iron her clothes for her in the morning...oh, dear, you're right! I also cook and do dishes! And just last week I was saying that, when we have a place with room for one, I'd like to get a sewing machine so I could make better hems on her clothes as sometimes I will do minor alterations for her if there's something she wants but it's not available in her exact size. OMFGZQ! Gay marriage is putting a ripple in the gender-time continuance.
What should I do? Should I go change the oil on the car? Mow the lawn? How do I stop gay marriage from undercutting my gender role before it's too late?!!11ty!
You are such a bitch.
/
| 417 |
Killgore Trout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:14:35am |
I think we've all heard the Jim Cramer ads on radio....
How You Can Beat Jim Cramer's Portfolio for Free
So naturally, I was intrigued by this call to action on his web page, thestreet.com: "My charitable trust portfolio was up an amazing 31% in 2009, even when the market was on a wild roller coaster ride. In fact, for years, I've made money in good markets and bad."
This statement is part of a pitch to get subscribers to Cramer's "Action Alerts Plus," which gives you "24/7 access to [Cramer's] portfolio." As an added inducement, if you order "right now," you get a free "Booyah Bull." How tempting!
...
I ran the returns for the Vanguard index funds recommended in The Smartest Investment Book You'll Ever Read, which I wrote in 2006. In it, I advised investors to place 70% of the amount they allocated to stocks into Vanguard's Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTSMX), and the remaining 30% in its Total International Stock Index Fund (VGTSX). These are two low-cost index funds that simply track their respective indexes.How did this "no brainer" portfolio do in 2009? It was up 31.1%.
With this portfolio, you simply bought and held. No need to watch the financial media or to follow the markets. No frenetic buying and selling.
| 418 |
Stonemason Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:15:08am |
re: #415 darthstar
Undercut? I don't see how gay marriage will keep me from opening the door for my wife, though I do like to iron her clothes for her in the morning...oh, dear, you're right! I also cook and do dishes! And just last week I was saying that, when we have a place with room for one, I'd like to get a sewing machine so I could make better hems on her clothes as sometimes I will do minor alterations for her if there's something she wants but it's not available in her exact size. OMFGZQ! Gay marriage is putting a ripple in the gender-time continuance.
What should I do? Should I go change the oil on the car? Mow the lawn? How do I stop gay marriage from undercutting my gender role before it's too late?!!11ty!
Sewing machines are freaking hard to use anymore, I gave mine away, I wasn't handy enough to figure all the options out, went back to sewing stuff by hand.
All three of my boys sew by hand as well, it is a very important skill to learn, right up there with cooking.
Now folding laundry? Not allowed, I seem to do it wrong.
| 419 |
darthstar Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:16:46am |
re: #414 Varek Raith
You stay away from Ug's women!!!
CAPTAIN CAAAVVVEEE-MAN!
XD
Ha! I loved that guy when I was a kid.
| 420 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:18:01am |
Listen, here are my thoughts on marriage in a nutshell. We "straight" people do it for a bunch of reasons. Reproduction, love, companionship, hell, we even do it for financial reasons. They're all valid. Gay people can do it for all of those listed except the first one.
Guess what. There are many straight couples incapable of fulfilling that first item. Does anyone have the balls to tell a couple in their seventies that they cannot get married because they can't have kids? I didn't think so.
| 421 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:19:02am |
re: #409 Walter L. Newton
Sorry to disappoint you. I don't have reason to defend, because my position is not based on it. It's an emotion -based position, I admit it. That's all I have time to say.
BBT for real.
| 422 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:19:03am |
re: #420 JasonA
Listen, here are my thoughts on marriage in a nutshell. We "straight" people do it for a bunch of reasons. Reproduction, love, companionship, hell, we even do it for financial reasons. They're all valid. Gay people can do it for all of those listed except the first one.
Guess what. There are many straight couples incapable of fulfilling that first item. Does anyone have the balls to tell a couple in their seventies that they cannot get married because they can't have kids? I didn't think so.
I certainly have the right to tell the couple in their 70's that I don't want to see any videos.
| 423 |
darthstar Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:19:07am |
re: #418 Stonemason
I want a simple one...not too many bells and whistles. Sewing by hand is an important skill to have, I agree. So is deglazing a pan with wine and adding butter (and sometimes cream) to make a quick sauce.
| 424 |
Interesting Times Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:19:16am |
re: #402 'K.'
I think it's pretty obvious that gay marriage will undercut traditional gender roles.
Here's some wonderful escapist reading material to take your mind off that terrible fact :)
| 425 |
Stonemason Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:20:33am |
re: #420 JasonA
Actually the first one is moot as well. 'Traditionally' billions of kids have been raised by people who didn't biologically parent them.
Marriage is an outdated concept to begin with, how the heck is this going to hurt something that is dying anyway?
| 426 |
Cato the Elder Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:20:49am |
re: #407 jaunte
I think rural electrification did that, too.
Anyone who wants to undercut my gender roles is going to need to bring a big fucking knife.
Now I have to go do some housework.
| 427 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:22:08am |
re: #425 Stonemason
Actually the first one is moot as well. 'Traditionally' billions of kids have been raised by people who didn't biologically parent them.
Marriage is an outdated concept to begin with, how the heck is this going to hurt something that is dying anyway?
Gotcha. My only point is that gay couples want to get married for the same reason that a lot of straight couples do. No conception necessary.
| 428 |
Stonemason Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:22:14am |
re: #423 darthstar
I want a simple one...not too many bells and whistles. Sewing by hand is an important skill to have, I agree. So is deglazing a pan with wine and adding butter (and sometimes cream) to make a quick sauce.
and parmesan, and some basil, chiffonade cut, with Penne and some sun dried tomatoes....
darn, now I'm hungry
| 429 |
Stonemason Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:23:00am |
re: #427 JasonA
I know, I was bolstering your point, which was well put.
| 430 |
DaddyG Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:23:10am |
My take is that heterosexual couples that don't honor their commitments are doing much more harm to the family (as an institution) than homosexual copules that keep their commitments.
Mothers and Fathers play an important role in the development of a child's self image and growth. But if we were to construct a sliding scale that showed how much bebefit vs. damage is done to a growing child and included divorce, drug use, abuse, education, nutrition, income, race, religion, orientation, etc. there would be a whole heapin helpin of religious heterosexuals who would find themselves scoring below the homosexual couples they claim are not as fit to parent.
The broader issue is that it is not for the church to dictate through the state who is fit or unfit. That is the very definition of a state sponsored religion.
I happen to think time honored roles including a strong male and female presence in the home are good for kids - if those roles are honored with commitment and love. But it is better by far to have loving parents and extended family of any combination than it is to have people faking their way through a traditional role while neglecting the very values that role can bring to a family (love, commitment, security, etc.)
More importantly it is not up to the state to decide which roles are proper or not. The state should not be in the business of dictating to a church which kinds of marrriages or unions it will benefit with tax codes or the ability to buy insurance. That's where we've crossed church and state to begin with and where we ned to un-knot the current system.
| 431 |
darthstar Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:24:12am |
Okay...time to go fulfill my gender role. See you all in a little while.
| 432 |
Cato the Elder Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:26:10am |
Mongo no like when people talk about "gender". Gender is for nouns. Mongo like sex.
| 433 |
DaddyG Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:28:11am |
Any time you (insert change here) _____________ it will undermine the tranditional (insert status quo here) ___________________.
That is a trusim not an argument.
| 434 |
DaddyG Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:29:30am |
...of course I've broken out my cave man spelling in honor of my traditional marriage. (ugh!)
| 435 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:30:22am |
re: #421 Dark_Falcon
Sorry to disappoint you. I don't have reason to defend, because my position is not based on it. It's an emotion -based position, I admit it. That's all I have time to say.
BBT for real.
Disappoint me? You're the one that has the problem, not me. What the fuck am I suppose to be disappointed about?
I have a very long history of having my foot in both the straight and gay community. In my case, it was due to my involvement in regional theatre since I was 14. So knowing committed gay couples for me was as Walt Disney as your Rob and Laura role models.
And guess what they are not a whit different than any straight marriage. Fist off, there are no rules about what you should do, be able to do or not do as a married couple. There are married couples who opt not to have children, there are married couples that enjoy all sorts of sexual activities, including swinging, bisexual activities and so on. They work and play just like you do, just like most married couples.
I could make some suggestions to you why it's emotion-based in your case, but the my language and my descriptions of your fucked up concepts of sex would probably get me banned. Because most of the time I have found that the REAL problem people have with gay couples is the sexual aspects of the union, not procreation, not morals. not anything written in scripture or a holy book.
| 436 |
calochortus Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:34:18am |
I remember way back when (college) when my sociology prof pointed out that in the vast number of cultures out there, child rearing was done in many different ways. It didn't matter if the people with the same biological relationship to the child took on the exact same role in each culture, but that there were general similarities in the roles that someone filled. It could be mom or grandma, dad or eldest maternal uncle, whatever. So the must-have-biological-father-and-mother crowd aren't paying attention to reality.
Then there's the equating gay marriage with divorce argument. These people want to get married, not divorced (though that will happen too.)
The final irony is that the Mormon church got behind the 'one man, one woman-that's the way its always been' meme. Really? There has never been polygamy? Amazing.
| 437 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:44:11am |
Plans to Build Massive Islamic Centers Raise Concerns in Tennessee
As the Muslim population grows and their communities spread throughout the state, religious leaders say their places of worship must do the same, spurring the construction of mosques and the massive Islamic centers that host them in several Tennessee cities, including Murfreesboro, Memphis and Antioch.
[Link: www.foxnews.com...]
| 438 |
sagehen Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:45:09am |
re: #367 'K.'
(gay men are more likely to have partners outside marriage, and gay relationships on average don't last as long)
Gay men are more likely to have partners outside marriage, only because their marriages to women are shams. They weren't allowed to marry someone they can really give their whole heart and soul and libido to.
Gay relationships don't last as long as hetero relationships because they're not allowed to get married.
I bet next you'll tell us that gay soldiers have their combat readiness eroded by stress because they don't have the same spousal support systems that hetero soldiers do.
| 439 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:46:11am |
re: #437 albusteve
Plans to Build Massive Islamic Centers Raise Concerns in Tennessee
As the Muslim population grows and their communities spread throughout the state, religious leaders say their places of worship must do the same, spurring the construction of mosques and the massive Islamic centers that host them in several Tennessee cities, including Murfreesboro, Memphis and Antioch.[Link: www.foxnews.com...]
I can't wait to hear about how Tennessee is sacred ground now.
| 440 |
calochortus Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:50:04am |
re: #438 sagehen
I don't even see how you can have statistics on married gays cheating on a spouse unless you mean gay men in heterosexual marriages-which is hardly analogous to a same-sex marriage in that case.
Someone here in CA is gathering signatures for a ballot initiative to ban divorce. Strangely, the conservatives who want to save marriage do not support this effort.
| 441 |
garhighway Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:50:17am |
re: #383 Dark_Falcon
I disagree. i prefer strong marital commitment and I really do think letting gay men marry will erode it. I also prefer to draw gender distinctions. If they leave some outliers miserable, that means little to me. They make things much neater and more orderly. I admit that I strongly favor order over compassion.
The whole point of Walker's opinion was that there is no evidence, none, zero, nada, zilch of that being true.
That is the whole idea of applying the "rational basis" test: it is the easiest test for the Prop 8 proponents to meet. All they had to do was show some reliable evidence that some legitimate state interest was furthered by Prop 8.
They whiffed. They showed nothing.
The opinion is fascinating reading.
| 442 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:51:40am |
re: #439 JasonA
I can't wait to hear about how Tennessee is sacred ground now.
the question will be, how big is too big?...how much is too much?
as for me, I think in the next generation or so, the institutional power in America is going to shift from the govt to religion, and stuff like this is the precursor...and then there are our own homegrown theocrats
| 443 |
jaunte Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:52:07am |
re: #439 JasonA
Nashville has the largest Kurdish population in the U.S., more than 11,000. Mostly from Iraq. Massive!
| 444 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:53:17am |
Opposition to gay marriage comes down to the id-based fear that "the gays are coming for my butthole".
Crude? Yes, absolutely. But that's the basis of it.
I guarantee if gay men as a rule just held hands and were asexual, there would be little resistance to it.
| 445 |
RadicalModerate Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:54:29am |
Tony Perkins' bigotry isn't limited to just being anti-gay. He also has some rather well-documented ties to white supremacist organizations in the not-too-distant past.
Politicians' Links to the Council of Conservative Citizens
The man who would later replace Connor as head of the Family Research Council, Tony Perkins, spoke to the Louisiana Council of Conservative Citizens on May 19, 2001. At the time, Perkins was a Republican state legislator.
Perkins, who still heads the Family Research Council and is regularly quoted in media from The New York Times to National Public Radio, has declined to answer questions about his ties to the CCC.
For those of you who may think that this was just some sort of accidental association, it was at the very least his third speech to the CCC, and in 1996 he paid $86,000 (on behalf of the Woody Jenkins election campaign) for the mailing list of none other than David Duke.
Tony Perkins and White Supremacy
In reference to that second link, nice picture there, Tony.
| 446 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:55:05am |
re: #444 Fozzie Bear
Opposition to gay marriage comes down to the id-based fear that "the gays are coming for my butthole".
Crude? Yes, absolutely. But that's the basis of it.
I guarantee if gay men as a rule just held hands and were asexual, there would be little resistance to it.
Heh. I remember hearing about how gay's in the military would be giving the straight soldiers stealth blowjobs. Fuck, people...
| 447 |
DaddyG Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:55:37am |
re: #436 calochortus
The final irony is that the Mormon church got behind the 'one man, one woman-that's the way its always been' meme. Really? There has never been polygamy? Amazing.
It gets even stranger. Doctrinally the principle of polyandry is still on the books. It is not something we practice now in the LDS Church and we never will unless additional revelation is received in the matter.
I am puzzled by the Church taking a public political stance on the issue other than a fear that we could be told by the state who we can and cannot marry. (But that is a slippery slope argument already discussed here that doesn't seem to carry much of a real threat).
In short someone else deciding to build a family in another manner than I choose to do should not be a threat to me.
| 448 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:56:05am |
for all the wordy analysis, gay marriage is a non issue...a big ass nontroversy and anybody who opposes it needs to focus on more important things and get the fuck out of the way...of course they won't which will only further erode the reasonable fabric of our society...the losers will be the winners
| 449 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:58:02am |
re: #446 JasonA
Heh. I remember hearing about how gay's in the military would be giving the straight soldiers stealth blowjobs. Fuck, people...
Exactly. This is all about people's personal ick factor, and NOTHING to do with morality.
| 450 |
sagehen Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:00:47am |
re: #415 darthstar
What should I do? Should I go change the oil on the car? Mow the lawn? How do I stop gay marriage from undercutting my gender role before it's too late?!!11ty!
Chopping down a tree would be good.
And no power tools; those are a product of the 20th century. Grab an axe, and really put your back into it.
| 451 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:01:28am |
Iran launches four home-made submarines
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran showed off four new domestically made small submarines Sunday that Tehran said would bolster its defence capability as it vows to confront any military threat from countries opposed to its nuclear program.
short shit..."where are my subs?"
USN...."dunno"
[Link: www.swissinfo.ch...]
| 452 |
Ericus58 Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:01:33am |
re: #446 JasonA
Heh. I remember hearing about how gay's in the military would be giving the straight soldiers stealth blowjobs. Fuck, people...
ah.... a whole new meaning to "covert operations"....
| 453 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:03:00am |
re: #449 Fozzie Bear
Exactly. This is all about people's personal ick factor, and NOTHING to do with morality.
how do you know?...you presume an awful lot
judging others' concept of morality?
| 454 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:04:19am |
re: #453 albusteve
how do you know?...you presume an awful lot
judging others' concept of morality?
There has yet to be made a single coherent moral argument as to how gays marrying could possibly affect straight marriages in any way. Not one.
That doesn't leave much as a basis for objection.
| 455 |
Interesting Times Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:06:00am |
re: #449 Fozzie Bear
Exactly. This is all about people's personal ick factor, and NOTHING to do with morality.
You just reminded me of something that happened about a dozen years ago - I was in the break room of the store where I worked at the time, and one of my co-workers came across a magazine article about same-sex marriage illustrated with a photo of two women in wedding dresses. Her exact words? "Two women getting married? That turns my stomach."
| 456 |
calochortus Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:06:05am |
re: #444 Fozzie Bear
Wouldn't marrying the gay guys off to each other help deal with some of the threat to the rest of you?
| 457 |
DaddyG Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:06:20am |
re: #449 Fozzie Bear
Exactly. This is all about people's personal ick factor, and NOTHING to do with morality.
If people were more honest about their reasons the ick factor whould be a big one but not the only one. There are people out there that believe that traditional marriage is a pillar of a healthy society. I'm one of them, although I think heterosexual divorce is a much bigger threat than homosexual commitment ever could be.
| 458 |
Ericus58 Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:07:08am |
Inmarsat to set up global 50Mbps satellite broadband network
Computer Weekly 08/09/2010
"Inmarsat is to spend $1.2bn to build a new global satellite-based network to deliver data speeds up to 50Mbps on demand to customers from 2014.
The system includes three new Boeing 702HP Ka-band geostationary satellites, as well as new ground infrastructure."
OPEN THE FIRE HOSE!!
| 459 |
DaddyG Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:07:49am |
re: #455 publicityStunted
You just reminded me of something that happened about a dozen years ago - I was in the break room of the store where I worked at the time, and one of my co-workers came across a magazine article about same-sex marriage illustrated with a photo of two women in wedding dresses. Her exact words? "Two women getting married? That turns my stomach."
Max Clinger in a wedding dress was much more disturbing. But that had more to do with body hair than gender. /
| 460 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:08:18am |
re: #454 Fozzie Bear
There has yet to be made a single coherent moral argument as to how gays marrying could possibly affect straight marriages in any way. Not one.
That doesn't leave much as a basis for objection.
yes, there are 300 posts claiming that very thing...I get it
| 461 |
subsailor68 Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:09:27am |
Morning all. On the subject of gay marriage, I think Kinky Friedman has the best take on it:
"I support gay marriage because I believe they have right to be just as miserable as the rest of us!"
;-)
| 462 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:09:31am |
re: #460 albusteve
yes, there are 300 posts claiming that very thing...I get it
And none of them make any fucking sense.
| 463 |
garhighway Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:11:02am |
re: #457 DaddyG
If people were more honest about their reasons the ick factor whould be a big one but not the only one. There are people out there that believe that traditional marriage is a pillar of a healthy society. I'm one of them, although I think heterosexual divorce is a much bigger threat than homosexual commitment ever could be.
That phrase "traditional marriage is a pillar of a healthy society" sounds good, but what exactly does it mean? That an untraditional marriage is destructive of society? If so, how?
That was Walker's point: there is NO evidence that allowing gays to marry hurts ANYTHING. If you think it does, tell us what.
| 464 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:11:40am |
who said the Boy Scouts would be content with a video from their Honorary President?...this is hilarious
| 465 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:12:53am |
re: #462 Fozzie Bear
And none of them make any fucking sense.
you missed my point...300 posts claiming there is no point in objection
| 466 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:13:17am |
The thing is, letting gays marry changes almost nothing about the "ick factor" for those who have a problem with it. Gays will still be living together, whether or not it bothers people. They will still be having sex.
The only thing gay marriage will change is things like insurance coverage, power of attorney, hospital visitation, etc.
In other words, it will hurt noone, and it will fix several long-standing injustices.
| 467 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:13:44am |
re: #465 albusteve
you missed my point...300 posts claiming there is no point in objection
Ah, then indeed I did miss your point. Sorry.
| 468 |
Killgore Trout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:15:45am |
re: #451 albusteve
They look pretty sloppy....
Image: x910.jpg
I'm no expert but those welds don't look very good.
| 469 |
calochortus Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:16:25am |
re: #457 DaddyG
Aside from the 'ick' factor, there is a rational (as opposed to emotional) reason not to support same sex marriage. Dark Falcon mentioned it: Order. At the bottom: slaves, serfs, children. At the top: your deity of choice. In between: a strict hierarchical ranking which includes husbands over wives. This is upset by interracial marriage and same sex marriage because it can put members of a higher caste under a lower one (black man, white woman) or prevent a 'proper' role assignment (2 women-no one is in charge.) Many decades ago these ideas were spelled out quite explicitly, but it is an argument that would be laughed out of most segments of society today.
| 470 |
DaddyG Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:18:05am |
re: #463 garhighway
That phrase "traditional marriage is a pillar of a healthy society" sounds good, but what exactly does it mean? That an untraditional marriage is destructive of society? If so, how?
That was Walker's point: there is NO evidence that allowing gays to marry hurts ANYTHING. If you think it does, tell us what.
It means that when people do it right, a strong mother and a strong father bring benefit to the development of their children. Legitimate psychological studies show that the presence of a father has a profound influence on the positive self image of children.
I do not agree that non-traditional marriages will necessarily hurt society, and certainly unless there is strong evidence that they would sociaty has no business prohibiting them.
My point was that even though I see benefit in traditional marriage and child rearing I do not see a compelling reson to deny homosexuals the ability to marry.
| 471 |
DaddyG Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:20:08am |
re: #464 albusteve
who said the Boy Scouts would be content with a video from their Honorary President?...this is hilarious
[Video]
It's kind of embarassing. The boys should have kept it classy no matter what. Then again I've been camping with the Boy Scouts and classy isn't always what you get when you take mobs of teenage boys into the woods. sigh.
| 472 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:20:09am |
re: #468 Killgore Trout
They look pretty sloppy...
Image: x910.jpgI'm no expert but those welds don't look very good.
I'm sure they pressure-tested the hulls. I mean, they may be poor and backward, but they aren't retarded. *shrug*
I hope no poor sap conscripted into riding in those things drowns. They are so small.
| 473 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:22:16am |
re: #469 calochortus
Aside from the 'ick' factor, there is a rational (as opposed to emotional) reason not to support same sex marriage. Dark Falcon mentioned it: Order. At the bottom: slaves, serfs, children. At the top: your deity of choice. In between: a strict hierarchical ranking which includes husbands over wives. This is upset by interracial marriage and same sex marriage because it can put members of a higher caste under a lower one (black man, white woman) or prevent a 'proper' role assignment (2 women-no one is in charge.) Many decades ago these ideas were spelled out quite explicitly, but it is an argument that would be laughed out of most segments of society today.
You totally blew your rational reason as soon as you mentioned deity.
| 474 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:22:40am |
On closer inspection, those welds do look awfully.... lumpy.
| 475 |
Killgore Trout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:23:21am |
re: #472 Fozzie Bear
I'm sure they pressure-tested the hulls. I mean, they may be poor and backward, but they aren't retarded. *shrug*
I hope no poor sap conscripted into riding in those things drowns. They are so small.
They'll probably have an accident eventually. I doubt they're even very useful. Crude diesel engines and some batteries. I would guess a WWII era U-Boat would be more effective.
| 476 |
DaddyG Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:23:39am |
re: #474 Fozzie Bear
On closer inspection, those welds do look awfully... lumpy.
They learned how to build the submarines from the American spies/students/hikers... /
| 477 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:23:46am |
re: #474 Fozzie Bear
On closer inspection, those welds do look awfully... lumpy.
It looks like a prop, not a serviceable submarine.
| 478 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:24:27am |
re: #468 Killgore Trout
They look pretty sloppy...
Image: x910.jpgI'm no expert but those welds don't look very good.
agreed, and the shape of the hull looks antiquated...even tho I don't think they are capable of diving too deep, it still looks like a death trap
| 479 |
Killgore Trout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:24:52am |
re: #474 Fozzie Bear
On closer inspection, those welds do look awfully... lumpy.
Lumpy and not even in a straight line. The outer hull on those things isn't structural but the inner hull probably isn't made any better.
| 480 |
DaddyG Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:24:56am |
re: #477 Walter L. Newton
It looks like a prop, not a serviceable submarine.
At least we know who Disney sold the old 20,000 leagues under the sea ride to.
| 481 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:26:00am |
re: #471 DaddyG
It's kind of embarassing. The boys should have kept it classy no matter what. Then again I've been camping with the Boy Scouts and classy isn't always what you get when you take mobs of teenage boys into the woods. sigh.
they are just returning the favor...they know they got stiffed
| 482 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:26:04am |
| 483 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:28:20am |
re: #481 albusteve
they are just returning the favor...they know they got stiffed
I can't say that I feel bad about an organization that discriminates against people like me getting stiffed.
| 484 |
NJDhockeyfan Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:28:35am |
re: #482 Walter L. Newton
re: #479 Killgore Trout
re: #480 DaddyG
I'm sorry... that's not a usable sub... that's a prop... I didn't catch all the up thread links/comments, but has anyone seen the damn thing operating underwater... in service so to speak?
Sure....here's a video of the new Iranian subs...
| 485 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:28:38am |
Look at the water line, slightly left of center, on the "sub" in the foreground in the picture KT linked. It's not painted.
Also, look at the "tower", or riser, or whatever the hell you call it on the sub in the foreground. There is a little "door" on the right side. You can see two hinges on it. That's not how you make bulkheads. it would flood the instant you submerged. There needs to be a recessed pressure seal, or it CANNOT be watertight.
| 486 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:28:43am |
re: #482 Walter L. Newton
re: #479 Killgore Trout
re: #480 DaddyG
I'm sorry... that's not a usable sub... that's a prop... I didn't catch all the up thread links/comments, but has anyone seen the damn thing operating underwater... in service so to speak?
there was a news vid of them putting along in the water...give me a Danzi, a .308, and a box of ammo and I bet I could sink it
| 487 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:29:53am |
re: #486 albusteve
there was a news vid of them putting along in the water...give me a Danzi, a .308, and a box of ammo and I bet I could sink it
Putting along doesn't mean shit... I could get a auto body shop to build a fucking shell sitting on top of a row boat that woul "putt" along.
| 488 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:29:58am |
re: #483 JasonA
I can't say that I feel bad about an organization that discriminates against people like me getting stiffed.
yes...punish the kids for the behavior of the adults?
| 489 |
lawhawk Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:30:17am |
re: #451 albusteve
Excellent shallow depth performance*? Really. They're purposefully meant for coastal operations and have limited deepwater capabilities - and to harass oil tankers - not stopping a USN Carrier Task Force. They're meant to operate as harassment of shipping in the Persian Gulf, and the Iranians think that these subs will be hard for the USN or other navies to detect and destroy because of their size, electric motors, etc., ignoring that the USN has been doing the cat and mouse with the Soviet Union's sub fleet for several generations.
*can I really pass up the joke about shallow water performance? Nope. I will not: those subs will perform quite admirably as coral reefs upon being sunk by the USN if such an engagement is warranted.
| 490 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:31:01am |
re: #488 albusteve
yes...punish the kids for the behavior of the adults?
If Stormfront had a youth outing I wouldn't want him to attend either.
| 491 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:32:12am |
re: #485 Fozzie Bear
Look at the water line, slightly left of center, on the "sub" in the foreground in the picture KT linked. It's not painted.
Also, look at the "tower", or riser, or whatever the hell you call it on the sub in the foreground. There is a little "door" on the right side. You can see two hinges on it. That's not how you make bulkheads. it would flood the instant you submerged. There needs to be a recessed pressure seal, or it CANNOT be watertight.
And what's with the two rings in the front of the lead "sub" attached to what appears to be an edge, and apron of some sort, right at water level... huh?
| 492 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:32:23am |
re: #487 Walter L. Newton
Putting along doesn't mean shit... I could get a auto body shop to build a fucking shell sitting on top of a row boat that woul "putt" along.
actually, that probably pretty close to what it is...certainly by USN standards
| 493 |
DaddyG Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:33:11am |
re: #483 JasonA
I can't say that I feel bad about an organization that discriminates against people like me getting stiffed.
If a protest against the BSA policies about atheists and homosexual scout leaders were the reason he blew off the Jamboree it would have at least been principled. But President Obama blew off the Boy Scouts because he had better photo ops with The View and some Democratic fund raisers to attend.
| 494 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:33:25am |
re: #492 albusteve
actually, that probably pretty close to what it is...certainly by USN standards
Bullshit... it's a fucking prop... I call bullshit until I see one of those junk piles dive and return to the surface... in one piece.
| 495 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:33:32am |
re: #491 Walter L. Newton
And what's with the two rings in the front of the lead "sub" attached to what appears to be an edge, and apron of some sort, right at water level... huh?
Look at the distance between rivets. That's WAAAAY too far apart.
| 496 |
Ericus58 Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:33:41am |
re: #479 Killgore Trout
Lumpy and not even in a straight line. The outer hull on those things isn't structural but the inner hull probably isn't made any better.
They'll make for a nice target... Sonar was a specialty in the Navy for me. Even if they run them only on battery power, the machinery noise from valves and pumps will allow good target acquisition. I seriously doubt there is much in the way of sound-proofing - as exhibited by the outer hull showing the welds.
| 497 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:33:52am |
re: #489 lawhawk
Excellent shallow depth performance*? Really. They're purposefully meant for coastal operations and have limited deepwater capabilities - and to harass oil tankers - not stopping a USN Carrier Task Force. They're meant to operate as harassment of shipping in the Persian Gulf, and the Iranians think that these subs will be hard for the USN or other navies to detect and destroy because of their size, electric motors, etc., ignoring that the USN has been doing the cat and mouse with the Soviet Union's sub fleet for several generations.
*can I really pass up the joke about shallow water performance? Nope. I will not: those subs will perform quite admirably as coral reefs upon being sunk by the USN if such an engagement is warranted.
just cheap bling
| 498 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:34:45am |
re: #493 DaddyG
If a protest against the BSA policies about atheists and homosexual scout leaders were the reason he blew off the Jamboree it would have at least been principled. But President Obama blew off the Boy Scouts because he had better photo ops with The View and some Democratic fund raisers to attend.
As I understand it, The View appearance was scheduled well after he declined the Boy Scouts' invitation.
| 499 |
lawhawk Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:34:47am |
re: #485 Fozzie Bear
Heck, the Ecuadorian narco-terrorists have better subs than that.
| 500 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:34:52am |
re: #493 DaddyG
If a protest against the BSA policies about atheists and homosexual scout leaders were the reason he blew off the Jamboree it would have at least been principled. But President Obama blew off the Boy Scouts because he had better photo ops with The View and some Democratic fund raisers to attend.
yeah, but what's the use...you can't get the point across no matter what
| 501 |
Ericus58 Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:35:11am |
re: #481 albusteve
they are just returning the favor...they know they got stiffed
what was the reason for the President not attending in person?
| 502 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:35:13am |
re: #495 Fozzie Bear
Look at the distance between rivets. That's WAAAY too far apart.
Here is a submarine... from the set of LOST...
| 503 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:35:22am |
re: #493 DaddyG
If a protest against the BSA policies about atheists and homosexual scout leaders were the reason he blew off the Jamboree it would have at least been principled. But President Obama blew off the Boy Scouts because he had better photo ops with The View and some Democratic fund raisers to attend.
So, it's cool that they discriminate against atheists and gays, but it's not cool that Obama didn't attend their jamboree?
| 504 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:35:43am |
| 505 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:36:04am |
re: #494 Walter L. Newton
Bullshit... it's a fucking prop... I call bullshit until I see one of those junk piles dive and return to the surface... in one piece.
heh...the same level of technology as any riding lawnmower
| 506 |
DaddyG Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:36:58am |
re: #503 Fozzie Bear
So, it's cool that they discriminate against atheists and gays, but it's not cool that Obama didn't attend their jamboree?
Nice try- I never said that.
| 507 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:37:11am |
Alright, we went over the boy scout thing a couple f weeks ago. I'm not doing this again. It's fucking pointless and I can't figure out why it even had to be brought up. Time for me to hit the shower. Ciao.
| 508 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:37:44am |
| 509 |
RadicalModerate Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:38:05am |
re: #471 DaddyG
It's kind of embarassing. The boys should have kept it classy no matter what. Then again I've been camping with the Boy Scouts and classy isn't always what you get when you take mobs of teenage boys into the woods. sigh.
I know it's YouTube and all, but a quick scan of the 7,000-odd comments on that video have to be some of the ugliest stuff I've seen this side of the fever swamp, or VDARE. Open racism, conspiracy lunacy, and support for armed rebellion abounds. And those are the ones that haven't been deleted yet - I'd hate to see what was in the dozens that were removed.
| 510 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:38:54am |
re: #507 JasonA
Alright, we went over the boy scout thing a couple f weeks ago. I'm not doing this again. It's fucking pointless and I can't figure out why it even had to be brought up. Time for me to hit the shower. Ciao.
hey...fuck you
I'll post whatever I want
| 511 |
tnguitarist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:39:00am |
re: #509 RadicalModerate
I know it's YouTube and all, but a quick scan of the 7,000-odd comments on that video have to be some of the ugliest stuff I've seen this side of the fever swamp, or VDARE. Open racism, conspiracy lunacy, and support for armed rebellion abounds. And those are the ones that haven't been deleted yet - I'd hate to see what was in the dozens that were removed.
Youtube always has some of the worst crap.
| 512 |
NJDhockeyfan Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:39:44am |
re: #501 Ericus58
what was the reason for the President not attending in person?
He was scheduled to be on The View.
| 513 |
DaddyG Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:40:01am |
re: #509 RadicalModerate
I know it's YouTube and all, but a quick scan of the 7,000-odd comments on that video have to be some of the ugliest stuff I've seen this side of the fever swamp, or VDARE. Open racism, conspiracy lunacy, and support for armed rebellion abounds. And those are the ones that haven't been deleted yet - I'd hate to see what was in the dozens that were removed.
I think I'm glad I didn't read the comments.
| 514 |
subsailor68 Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:40:10am |
re: #496 Ericus58
They'll make for a nice target... Sonar was a specialty in the Navy for me. Even if they run them only on battery power, the machinery noise from valves and pumps will allow good target acquisition. I seriously doubt there is much in the way of sound-proofing - as exhibited by the outer hull showing the welds.
Hi Ericus! Mine too. I think you're probably right about a pretty severe lack of sound-dampening/proofing. I suppose it depends on who (if anyone) consulted with them on design/development. A diesel/electric boat with good dampening could be a problem for detection (years ago we'd exercise with diesel boats - I was on a nuke fast attack - and when they went to the batteries it was a bit unnerving), but as others have noted, the welds may be an indication of overall shoddiness in the work.
| 515 |
lawhawk Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:40:27am |
re: #491 Walter L. Newton
Heh... and compared with the USS Virginia class, that's some pretty limited technologies, hull design, etc.
| 516 |
Ericus58 Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:40:47am |
re: #490 JasonA
If Stormfront had a youth outing I wouldn't want him to attend either.
Now I'm sure that you are not equating BSA to a Stormfront youth organization....
naw, that would be over-the-top...
| 517 |
lostlakehiker Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:42:17am |
re: #242 SanFranciscoZionist
This is more passive-aggressive nonsense.
For the moment, a bare majority of California voters favor a ban on same-sex marriage.
A Federal judge has determined that this cannot stand under the law.
I can tell you're feeling disenfranchised, but you're not, any more than I would be if I had voted to ban interracial marriage and had that struck down.
Here's my question for you: if we wait five years, the numbers will have changed. California gains a percentage point favoring same-sex marriage annually. The tides of social change are shifting.
Suppose this had been allowed to stand and we had taken it back to the voters in 2012 or 2014? And a majority of California voters had overturned 8, as would have invariably happened?
Am I really to believe that those who are so hurt by the disregard of the voters would have accepted the will of the people then? Or would they have screamed louder for a Constitutional amendment?
Are we talking about the rule of law, or about what we want the outcome to be?
We are talking about the rule of law. I can see the writing on the wall; you will get your way on gay marriage. You can get it by way of votes, if you are patient. The other way is based on the principle that votes are for minor choices while important matters get left to judges.
If, after all, the State may not make any law for which, in the opinion of some judge, there is not good reason, then that's little different from saying that judges have sole authority to enact or rescind laws. Who else, after all, has command of sufficient rational faculties to know whether or not there is a rational basis for a law?
Seeing the writing on the wall, here's what I'd like: A constitutional amendment that explicitly legalizes the marriage of two, and no more, consenting, unrelated adults. This would put all these other questions that your camp says are not on its agenda out of play. You win what you say you want, and we get insurance against the rest of the agenda that we fear waits in the wings.
If a constitutional amendment is not possible, then at least replace the current "defense of marriage" act with language along those lines.
The worst path to defeat for my camp is a defeat that lays the seeds of further defeats, and defeats that go far beyond issues involving marriage.
| 518 |
garhighway Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:42:35am |
re: #470 DaddyG
It means that when people do it right, a strong mother and a strong father bring benefit to the development of their children. Legitimate psychological studies show that the presence of a father has a profound influence on the positive self image of children.
My understanding of those studies is that they compare families with a father and mother with single parent families.
The Prop 8 proponents had every chance to bring forth any studies that would lend credence to the idea that allowing gays to marry would lead to worse outcome for children.
Those studies do not exist.
One of the many things that I find interesting about the case is that it seems the proponents thought they could sound-bite their way through it. It is as if they thought the courtroom was just another press conference where no one could call them on their nonsense.
They were wrong. Boies and Olsen handed them their heads.
| 519 |
lawhawk Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:43:37am |
re: #514 subsailor68
The Iranians have been squawking about building subs for several years now. It's been one of their running themes, along with high speed torpedo/missiles (essentially unguided Shkvals), etc. Every one of those hull imperfections is a potential cavitation point - enabling sonar systems to pinpoint its location. I doubt that its propulsion system is up to snuff either, which means that it's a floating coffin for those on board (which may be the point - as a suicide weapon).
| 520 |
calochortus Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:44:37am |
re: #473 Walter L. Newton
You totally blew your rational reason as soon as you mentioned deity.
Very true. But now I must go perform my deity-ordained role in marriage: running errands...
| 521 |
DaddyG Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:44:38am |
re: #516 Ericus58
Now I'm sure that you are not equating BSA to a Stormfront youth organization...
naw, that would be over-the-top...
It seemed to be an emotional response so I just kind of ignored the hyperbole and understood that he was saying he wouldn't be upset if Obama blew off any organization he strongly disagreed with.
| 522 |
garhighway Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:45:07am |
re: #517 lostlakehiker
This would put all these other questions that your camp says are not on its agenda out of play. You win what you say you want, and we get insurance against the rest of the agenda that we fear waits in the wings.
What the hell are you talking about?
| 523 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:45:16am |
re: #519 lawhawk
Cavitation will only happen if the thing can move. From the looks of it, I wouldn't be so sure it can move fast enough to cause cavitation at the imperfections on the hull.
| 524 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:45:39am |
re: #519 lawhawk
The Iranians have been squawking about building subs for several years now. It's been one of their running themes, along with high speed torpedo/missiles (essentially unguided Shkvals), etc. Every one of those hull imperfections is a potential cavitation point - enabling sonar systems to pinpoint its location. I doubt that its propulsion system is up to snuff either, which means that it's a floating coffin for those on board (which may be the point - as a suicide weapon).
Briggs and Stratton has made improvements in their mufflers..we'll see
| 525 |
Ericus58 Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:46:16am |
re: #514 subsailor68
Hi Ericus! Mine too. I think you're probably right about a pretty severe lack of sound-dampening/proofing. I suppose it depends on who (if anyone) consulted with them on design/development. A diesel/electric boat with good dampening could be a problem for detection (years ago we'd exercise with diesel boats - I was on a nuke fast attack - and when they went to the batteries it was a bit unnerving), but as others have noted, the welds may be an indication of overall shoddiness in the work.
I was wondering if you would chime in - nicely put.
I think even with an antiquated SQS-23F system on passive mode would detect this hole in the water ;)
| 526 |
webevintage Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:46:41am |
re: #464 albusteve
who said the Boy Scouts would be content with a video from their Honorary President?...this is hilarious
Well what a bunch of nasty little jerks.
So much for the Boy Scout oath.
I would be appalled if I found out my son acted like that and no adult reprimanded him.
Of course we all know that kids reflect their parents views and I'm sure those kids heard nothing but bitching and whining about how horrible the commie muslim non-President was for not attending something that other Presidents before him did not attend.
| 527 |
subsailor68 Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:46:59am |
re: #519 lawhawk
The Iranians have been squawking about building subs for several years now. It's been one of their running themes, along with high speed torpedo/missiles (essentially unguided Shkvals), etc. Every one of those hull imperfections is a potential cavitation point - enabling sonar systems to pinpoint its location. I doubt that its propulsion system is up to snuff either, which means that it's a floating coffin for those on board (which may be the point - as a suicide weapon).
Hi lawhawk! Yep, right on! Even back in the old days, noise dampening - including machinery isolation, proper stowing of anything and everything in the line lockers, proper maintenance of the screw blades, you name it - was critical.
And you're certainly right in saying that if the propulsion system isn't up to snuff it could end up as a coffin - at the bottom of the Strait or the harbor.
| 528 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:49:11am |
re: #517 lostlakehiker
We are talking about the rule of law. I can see the writing on the wall; you will get your way on gay marriage. You can get it by way of votes, if you are patient. The other way is based on the principle that votes are for minor choices while important matters get left to judges.
If, after all, the State may not make any law for which, in the opinion of some judge, there is not good reason, then that's little different from saying that judges have sole authority to enact or rescind laws. Who else, after all, has command of sufficient rational faculties to know whether or not there is a rational basis for a law?
Seeing the writing on the wall, here's what I'd like: A constitutional amendment that explicitly legalizes the marriage of two, and no more, consenting, unrelated adults. This would put all these other questions that your camp says are not on its agenda out of play. You win what you say you want, and we get insurance against the rest of the agenda that we fear waits in the wings.
If a constitutional amendment is not possible, then at least replace the current "defense of marriage" act with language along those lines.
The worst path to defeat for my camp is a defeat that lays the seeds of further defeats, and defeats that go far beyond issues involving marriage.
First of all, the bolded pronouns are doing some seriously heavy lifting.
Secondly, there is no fucking "rest of the agenda", you ignorant piece of shit. Equal protection under the law IS THE AGENDA.
Thirdly, if you honestly feel that the constitution should be amended in order to "protect" marriage, you are out of your fucking mind.
| 529 |
subsailor68 Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:49:14am |
re: #525 Ericus58
I was wondering if you would chime in - nicely put.
I think even with an antiquated SQS-23F system on passive mode would detect this hole in the water ;)
LOL! Okay, now you're showing your age! Guess it's only fair to show mine: BQS-13 and BQR-7. Heh.
| 530 |
DaddyG Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:49:35am |
re: #518 garhighway
My understanding of those studies is that they compare families with a father and mother with single parent families.
The Prop 8 proponents had every chance to bring forth any studies that would lend credence to the idea that allowing gays to marry would lead to worse outcome for children.
Those studies do not exist.
Yup - which is why I would not support legislating against gay marriage. Although imagine the uproar on both sides if a longitudanal study was done on the efficacy of different parental arrangements on the raising of children? Expecially of polygamy, communal parenting or some other wildly non-traditional arrengement came out on top.
| 531 |
NJDhockeyfan Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:49:55am |
re: #526 webevintage
Well what a bunch of nasty little jerks.
So much for the Boy Scout oath.
I would be appalled if I found out my son acted like that and no adult reprimanded him.Of course we all know that kids reflect their parents views and I'm sure those kids heard nothing but bitching and whining about how horrible the commie muslim non-President was for not attending something that other Presidents before him did not attend.
They do? That's news to me. My mother would love to hear that. Heh.
| 532 |
webevintage Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:50:30am |
re: #512 NJDhockeyfan
He was scheduled to be on The View.
I guess you can answer it that way, but the decision to not go to the BS Jamboree was made earlier this year.
The decision to go on the view (because he would already be in NY) was made much closer to air date.
This is just another BS outrageous outrage created by FOX and repeated by folks with nothing better to do.
| 533 |
webevintage Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:52:17am |
re: #531 NJDhockeyfan
They do? That's news to me. My mother would love to hear that. Heh.
You are right.
I should have said "when young, most kids parrot what their parents say"....
| 534 |
DaddyG Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:52:30am |
re: #526 webevintage
Well what a bunch of nasty little jerks.
So much for the Boy Scout oath.
I would be appalled if I found out my son acted like that and no adult reprimanded him.
Of course we all know that kids reflect their parents views and I'm sure those kids heard nothing but bitching and whining about how horrible the commie muslim non-President was for not attending something that other Presidents before him did not attend.
I'm sure a variety of Boy Scouts with a variety of views had a variety of reactions. A thirty second video clip of a small group of Scouts among thousands does not a representative sample make.
| 535 |
Ericus58 Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:52:44am |
re: #529 subsailor68
LOL! Okay, now you're showing your age! Guess it's only fair to show mine: BQS-13 and BQR-7. Heh.
Haha!
I'll ring ya up on the UQC-1H on the bridge!
| 536 |
NJDhockeyfan Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:53:59am |
Since the 1980s, the Shia terrorist group Hezbollah has not been given to blunt public moralizing about the need for women to wear the veil. It originally made no secret of its desire to convert Lebanon into a Shia Islamic state—the organization’s 1985 manifesto called for the establishment of “Islamic government” and the conversion of Christians to Islam—but these efforts proved exceedingly unpopular, given Lebanon’s plurality of Christian and Sunni Muslim citizens. So when its leader, Abas Musawi, was assassinated in 1992, his successor Hassan Nasrallah refrained from offering explicit support for theocracy in Lebanon—and largely backed away from efforts to impose conservative religious traditions on Hezbollah's female constituents. But now, suddenly, the organization is again behaving in a way that evinces deep insecurity about the decorum of Shiite women....
| 537 |
subsailor68 Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:54:57am |
re: #535 Ericus58
Haha!
I'll ring ya up on the UQC-1H on the bridge!
Cool! I'll be the one who sounds like I'm gargling peanut butter every time I reply!
;-)
| 538 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:54:59am |
Province escaped July 30 from an Arizona prison with two other men. One of them, John Charles McCluskey, 45, and his alleged accomplice, Casslyn Mae Welch, 43, were believed to be hiding in Yellowstone National Park, Rivera said.
good thing you may be armed in a national park....think of the possibilities
[Link: www.cnn.com...]
| 539 |
garhighway Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:55:30am |
re: #530 DaddyG
Yup - which is why I would not support legislating against gay marriage. Although imagine the uproar on both sides if a longitudanal study was done on the efficacy of different parental arrangements on the raising of children? Expecially of polygamy, communal parenting or some other wildly non-traditional arrengement came out on top.
Such a study would indeed be mind-blowing. (I don't know where you would get the families to include, but that's a different point.) But remember: all the state needs is a rational basis to forbid the practice. It doesn't HAVE to be related to child-rearing outcomes. It could be something else.
| 540 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:55:33am |
re: #526 webevintage
Well what a bunch of nasty little jerks.
So much for the Boy Scout oath.
I would be appalled if I found out my son acted like that and no adult reprimanded him.Of course we all know that kids reflect their parents views and I'm sure those kids heard nothing but bitching and whining about how horrible the commie muslim non-President was for not attending something that other Presidents before him did not attend.
you're so easy
| 541 |
Wozza Matter? Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:56:05am |
re: #517 lostlakehiker
We are talking about the rule of law. I can see the writing on the wall; you will get your way on gay marriage. You can get it by way of votes, if you are patient. The other way is based on the principle that votes are for minor choices while important matters get left to judges.
If, after all, the State may not make any law for which, in the opinion of some judge, there is not good reason, then that's little different from saying that judges have sole authority to enact or rescind laws. Who else, after all, has command of sufficient rational faculties to know whether or not there is a rational basis for a law?
Seeing the writing on the wall, here's what I'd like: A constitutional amendment that explicitly legalizes the marriage of two, and no more, consenting, unrelated adults. This would put all these other questions that your camp says are not on its agenda out of play. You win what you say you want, and we get insurance against the rest of the agenda that we fear waits in the wings.
If a constitutional amendment is not possible, then at least replace the current "defense of marriage" act with language along those lines.
The worst path to defeat for my camp is a defeat that lays the seeds of further defeats, and defeats that go far beyond issues involving marriage.
I'm taking the low road on this.
That comment pegs you to being an ass.
| 542 |
NJDhockeyfan Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:56:19am |
Indonesian Cleric Bashir Arrested for Terror Training
Indonesian police arrested radical Muslim cleric Abu Bakar Bashir for links with terrorists who planned to bomb foreign embassies and hotels, four years after a court overturned his conviction for involvement in a 2002 attack on a Bali nightclub.
Bashir, 71, contributed funds to a training camp in Aceh province and regularly received reports from militant operatives, national police spokesman Edward Aritonang told reporters today in Jakarta. Police are also searching for a French national with a Moroccan wife who may be involved in the larger plot, he said.
The cleric’s arrest follows a February raid on a training camp in Aceh that unveiled more than 100 terrorism suspects. Of that group, 66 have been arrested and will be prosecuted in Jakarta soon, Aritonang said. Authorities will “reconstruct the event in Aceh to see how deep Bashir’s involvement is and also to find out the next possible terror act,” he said.
| 543 |
jamesfirecat Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:56:33am |
re: #517 lostlakehiker
We are talking about the rule of law. I can see the writing on the wall; you will get your way on gay marriage. You can get it by way of votes, if you are patient. The other way is based on the principle that votes are for minor choices while important matters get left to judges.
If, after all, the State may not make any law for which, in the opinion of some judge, there is not good reason, then that's little different from saying that judges have sole authority to enact or rescind laws. Who else, after all, has command of sufficient rational faculties to know whether or not there is a rational basis for a law?
Seeing the writing on the wall, here's what I'd like: A constitutional amendment that explicitly legalizes the marriage of two, and no more, consenting, unrelated adults. This would put all these other questions that your camp says are not on its agenda out of play. You win what you say you want, and we get insurance against the rest of the agenda that we fear waits in the wings.
If a constitutional amendment is not possible, then at least replace the current "defense of marriage" act with language along those lines.
The worst path to defeat for my camp is a defeat that lays the seeds of further defeats, and defeats that go far beyond issues involving marriage.
Maybe if your side hadn't treated our side the exact same way people a certain Mr. and Mrs. Loving about half a century ago, we'd be more open to compromise and believe you had reasonable points to make....
| 544 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:57:18am |
re: #541 wozzablog
I'm taking the low road on this.
That comment pegs you to being an ass.
well, that's a step up from "ignorant piece of shit"
| 545 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:58:39am |
re: #544 albusteve
well, that's a step up from "ignorant piece of shit"
The "slippery slope" argument against gay marriage is a sign of just that.
To call such a tactic disgusting is to be charitable.
| 546 |
reine.de.tout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:59:12am |
re: #517 lostlakehiker
We are talking about the rule of law. I can see the writing on the wall; you will get your way on gay marriage. You can get it by way of votes, if you are patient. The other way is based on the principle that votes are for minor choices while important matters get left to judges.
If, after all, the State may not make any law for which, in the opinion of some judge, there is not good reason, then that's little different from saying that judges have sole authority to enact or rescind laws. Who else, after all, has command of sufficient rational faculties to know whether or not there is a rational basis for a law?
Actually - one of the jobs judges must perform is to decide if a particular law is constitutional, so judges do legitimately have authority to rescind laws that they find do not meet the requirements of the constitution.
Seeing the writing on the wall, here's what I'd like: A constitutional amendment that explicitly legalizes the marriage of two, and no more, consenting, unrelated adults. This would put all these other questions that your camp says are not on its agenda out of play. You win what you say you want, and we get insurance against the rest of the agenda that we fear waits in the wings.
If a constitutional amendment is not possible, then at least replace the current "defense of marriage" act with language along those lines.
The worst path to defeat for my camp is a defeat that lays the seeds of further defeats, and defeats that go far beyond issues involving marriage.
I agree there are many issues to consider. I fear you are going to be roundly criticized here for bringing them up - a "head in the sand" sort of philosophy, IMO - "the others" cannot possibly have legitimate concerns, so instead of trying to work them out, let's just criticize in the ugliest terms possible. Sort of what our politicians in Washington do to each other a lot.
| 547 |
NJDhockeyfan Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:59:20am |
German authorities shut 9/11 plotters' mosque
HAMBURG, Germany — German police on Monday shut down a mosque in Hamburg frequented by suicide hijackers from the September 11, 2001 attacks and suspected of recruiting jihadists, authorities said.
An affiliated cultural centre called Taiba was also banned.
"Hamburg must not become a cradle of violent Islamists," the city-state's chief interior affairs official, Christoph Ahlhaus, told reporters.
"We closed the Taiba mosque today because young men were converted to religious fanatics there. A purported cultural association shamelessly exploited the freedoms of our democratic state under the rule of law to recruit for holy war behind the scenes."
Three of the September 11 hijackers including their ringleader Mohammed Atta, who piloted the first plane into New York's World Trade Center, met regularly at the mosque before moving to the United States.
| 548 |
lawhawk Mon, Aug 9, 2010 9:59:53am |
| 549 |
DaddyG Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:00:51am |
re: #539 garhighway
Such a study would indeed be mind-blowing. (I don't know where you would get the families to include, but that's a different point.) But remember: all the state needs is a rational basis to forbid the practice. It doesn't HAVE to be related to child-rearing outcomes. It could be something else.
My belief (based on faith as well as some studies I've seen) is that the one overriding factor in how well a child is raised would be how much they are loved (affect as well as demonstrative behavior).
As far as compelling reason - the only one I can think of is the state dictating to a church which kind of marriage they can perform. Something Prop 8 supporters have not shown will result from failure to enforce Prop 8.
| 550 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:01:32am |
re: #545 Fozzie Bear
The "slippery slope" argument against gay marriage is a sign of just that.
To call such a tactic disgusting is to be charitable.
you take this stuff too serious, and have an anger problem to boot...not a healthy combibation
| 551 |
Wozza Matter? Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:01:37am |
re: #544 albusteve
well, that's a step up from "ignorant piece of shit"
I can't really do much other than pity someone who has bought the idea of the fabled "homosexual agenda".
Not worth my invective.
| 552 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:01:55am |
| 553 |
jamesfirecat Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:02:39am |
re: #546 reine.de.tout
I agree there are many issues to consider. I fear you are going to be roundly criticized here for bringing them up - a "head in the sand" sort of philosophy, IMO - "the others" cannot possibly have legitimate concerns, so instead of trying to work them out, let's just criticize in the ugliest terms possible. Sort of what our politicians in Washington do to each other a lot.
Reine I've always known you to be open and honest person.
So if you feel there are issues that the latest ruling or the way our nation is trending on gay marriage, please clearly articulate them so that they can be discussed rather than just alluding to them as if we Liberals should be able to see them but can't because we've got our political correctness blinders on...
| 554 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:03:00am |
re: #548 lawhawk
Here's a closer view of the sub:
[Link: www.militaryphotos.net...]
the crew looks like 40 foot giants!
what a joke
| 555 |
NJDhockeyfan Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:03:14am |
| 556 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:03:20am |
re: #550 albusteve
you take this stuff too serious, and have an anger problem to boot...not a healthy combibation
Apparently you have never had any family get caught on the wrong side of mob rule as regards homosexuality.
I have zero patience for it. None. Anyone who wants to get between two people in love is an ignorant piece of shit in my eyes.
| 557 |
garhighway Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:03:52am |
re: #549 DaddyG
My belief (based on faith as well as some studies I've seen) is that the one overriding factor in how well a child is raised would be how much they are loved (affect as well as demonstrative behavior).
As far as compelling reason - the only one I can think of is the state dictating to a church which kind of marriage they can perform. Something Prop 8 supporters have not shown will result from failure to enforce Prop 8.
I haven't heard or read anything about anyone wanting to interfere with how churches determine who they will or will not marry. The Catholic Church has imposed requirements over and above those of the law since forever, and no one is suggesting that is a legal problem for the state.
The First Amendment pretty much addresses that.
| 558 |
Killgore Trout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:04:44am |
re: #548 lawhawk
Here's a closer view of the sub:
[Link: www.militaryphotos.net...]
Wow, those things are really tiny. There isn't even enough room to accommodate the periscope. It looks like the periscope folds back on a hinge instead of retracting.
Here's another pic...
Image: 22_8803110614_L600.jpg
Check out the crumpled hull.
| 559 |
garhighway Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:05:21am |
re: #546 reine.de.tout
I agree there are many issues to consider. I fear you are going to be roundly criticized here for bringing them up - a "head in the sand" sort of philosophy, IMO - "the others" cannot possibly have legitimate concerns, so instead of trying to work them out, let's just criticize in the ugliest terms possible. Sort of what our politicians in Washington do to each other a lot.
So what, exactly, do you think are the "issues to consider"? Let us consider them together.
| 560 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:06:23am |
re: #559 garhighway
So what, exactly, do you think are the "issues to consider"? Let us consider them together.
The issue to consider is, on an individual basis, how people who have a problem with gay people having equal protection under the law can get over it.
There is no issue beyond that.
| 561 |
NJDhockeyfan Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:06:32am |
re: #558 Killgore Trout
Wow, those things are really tiny. There isn't even enough room to accommodate the periscope. It looks like the periscope folds back on a hinge instead of retracting.
Here's another pic...
Image: 22_8803110614_L600.jpgCheck out the crumpled hull.
NATO must be laughing their asses off today looking at those pictures.
| 562 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:06:52am |
re: #558 Killgore Trout
Wow, those things are really tiny. There isn't even enough room to accommodate the periscope. It looks like the periscope folds back on a hinge instead of retracting.
Here's another pic...
Image: 22_8803110614_L600.jpgCheck out the crumpled hull.
I will generously give the entire Iranian navy 45minutes in a shoot out with the USN....how do they even have the nads to release these picks?...looks like it was built in a garage!
| 563 |
Killgore Trout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:07:18am |
Is that the only propeller? That prop can't possibly move that sub, can it?
| 564 |
'K.' Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:07:45am |
re: #420 JasonA
These are all valid reasons, but I think you're missing a big chunk of what marriage is about, for many people. It's not just about general companionship, but companionship in the context of specific gender roles. Companionship where the guy stays home and takes care of the kids while the wife works is different from the other way around. With gay marriage, these traditional roles are absolutely thrown out the window. With gay marriage you can no longer think about (much less make policy on) marriage in a way that reflects gender. The lack of such ideas would no doubt influence how people behave in heterosexual marriages. Ideas are powerful things!
A lot of people here are saying, "Narly! Let's bring it on, because traditional gender roles should go!" But that's a moral judgment, just like saying we should keep these roles is one also. People shouldn't claim that gay marriage is somehow "objective." What you think harm is depends on your values.
| 565 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:07:49am |
re: #563 Killgore Trout
Is that the only propeller? That prop can't possibly move that sub, can it?
I have an 8' fishing boat that has a larger motor on it.
| 566 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:08:26am |
re: #564 'K.'
These are all valid reasons, but I think you're missing a big chunk of what marriage is about, for many people. It's not just about general companionship, but companionship in the context of specific gender roles. Companionship where the guy stays home and takes care of the kids while the wife works is different from the other way around. With gay marriage, these traditional roles are absolutely thrown out the window. With gay marriage you can no longer think about (much less make policy on) marriage in a way that reflects gender. The lack of such ideas would no doubt influence how people behave in heterosexual marriages. Ideas are powerful things!
A lot of people here are saying, "Narly! Let's bring it on, because traditional gender roles should go!" But that's a moral judgment, just like saying we should keep these roles is one also. People shouldn't claim that gay marriage is somehow "objective." What you think harm is depends on your values.
The 14th amendment doesn't care about gender roles.
| 567 |
subsailor68 Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:08:31am |
re: #558 Killgore Trout
Wow, those things are really tiny. There isn't even enough room to accommodate the periscope. It looks like the periscope folds back on a hinge instead of retracting.
Here's another pic...
Image: 22_8803110614_L600.jpgCheck out the crumpled hull.
LOL! I saw that too! I see a lot of that kind of damage in the parking lot at our local grocery store, but those pictures look like the launch ceremony. Did a 67 Ford pickup truck back into it just before launch? Heh.
| 568 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:08:44am |
re: #563 Killgore Trout
Is that the only propeller? That prop can't possibly move that sub, can it?
yeah, you'd be surprised, it doesn't take a whole lot of prop for a lightweight craft
| 569 |
DaddyG Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:08:48am |
Top secret photo of experimental Iranian sub program.
| 570 |
jaunte Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:09:12am |
re: #558 Killgore Trout
Looks like they have a whole fleet of the things.
Image: IranianSubs.jpg
| 571 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:09:13am |
re: #555 NJDhockeyfan
Umm, it's called news?
And do you see any similarities between this mosque in Germany and the proposed mosque/community center in Manhattan, Park51?
| 572 |
jamesfirecat Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:09:17am |
re: #564 'K.'
These are all valid reasons, but I think you're missing a big chunk of what marriage is about, for many people. It's not just about general companionship, but companionship in the context of specific gender roles. Companionship where the guy stays home and takes care of the kids while the wife works is different from the other way around. With gay marriage, these traditional roles are absolutely thrown out the window. With gay marriage you can no longer think about (much less make policy on) marriage in a way that reflects gender. The lack of such ideas would no doubt influence how people behave in heterosexual marriages. Ideas are powerful things!
A lot of people here are saying, "Narly! Let's bring it on, because traditional gender roles should go!" But that's a moral judgment, just like saying we should keep these roles is one also. People shouldn't claim that gay marriage is somehow "objective." What you think harm is depends on your values.
So what is the harm that will be created by gay marriage when viewed by someone of your values?
| 573 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:09:17am |
re: #564 'K.'
How about we get to decide our own roles in our relationships.
| 574 |
garhighway Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:09:34am |
re: #564 'K.'
These are all valid reasons, but I think you're missing a big chunk of what marriage is about, for many people. It's not just about general companionship, but companionship in the context of specific gender roles. Companionship where the guy stays home and takes care of the kids while the wife works is different from the other way around. With gay marriage, these traditional roles are absolutely thrown out the window. With gay marriage you can no longer think about (much less make policy on) marriage in a way that reflects gender. The lack of such ideas would no doubt influence how people behave in heterosexual marriages. Ideas are powerful things!
A lot of people here are saying, "Narly! Let's bring it on, because traditional gender roles should go!" But that's a moral judgment, just like saying we should keep these roles is one also. People shouldn't claim that gay marriage is somehow "objective." What you think harm is depends on your values.
Have you read Walker's opinion? He talks about this at length.
| 575 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:10:22am |
re: #570 jaunte
Looks like they have a whole fleet of the things.
Image: IranianSubs.jpg
Anyone taking bets on whether or not that pic's photoshopped?
| 576 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:10:35am |
| 577 |
NJDhockeyfan Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:11:13am |
Could the Iranians fit a nuke inside one of these subs? That's all I would be worried about. I don't think they would last very long in a naval fight with anyone. Floating them into another country's city harbor or near one and exploding would be horrible.
| 578 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:11:19am |
re: #573 JasonA
How about we get to decide our own roles in our relationships.
This, this, THIS.
A million times this.
A trillion times this.
| 579 |
DaddyG Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:11:25am |
re: #573 JasonA
How about we get to decide our own roles in our relationships.
Certainly not the state!
| 580 |
tnguitarist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:11:40am |
re: #567 subsailor68
LOL! I saw that too! I see a lot of that kind of damage in the parking lot at our local grocery store, but those pictures look like the launch ceremony. Did a 67 Ford pickup truck back into it just before launch? Heh.
They probably dented it with the christening bottle.....
| 581 |
NJDhockeyfan Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:11:44am |
re: #571 Walter L. Newton
And do you see any similarities between this mosque in Germany and the proposed mosque/community center in Manhattan, Park51?
No. Why?
| 582 |
lawhawk Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:11:45am |
re: #558 Killgore Trout
The retracting periscope/snorkel is a flimsy one at that with the way the hinges are - if the boat is traveling at any speed, it could fold over while underway.
re: #561 NJDhockeyfan
They've been producing these things for a couple of years now. They're supposedly up to 11 in this particular class of sub.
re: #565 Fozzie Bear
I think they've got dual propellers, but that's still pretty limited for the size boat. I think a Yugo had a bigger/more powerful engine than what the Iranians came up with here.
| 583 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:11:47am |
re: #575 JasonA
Anyone taking bets on whether or not that pic's photoshopped?
On further inspection I'm certain it is.
| 585 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:12:38am |
re: #577 NJDhockeyfan
Could the Iranians fit a nuke inside one of these subs? That's all I would be worried about. I don't think they would last very long in a naval fight with anyone. Floating them into another country's city harbor or near one and exploding would be horrible.
They certainly could, as there are nuke designs which are extremely compact. However, I very seriously doubt these things could handle a long trip, in terms of fuel capacity and provisions.
| 586 |
NJDhockeyfan Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:12:41am |
| 587 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:13:09am |
re: #586 NJDhockeyfan
Kind of a shitty question. Why ask?
You fucking know why I asked... don't play stupid.
| 588 |
reine.de.tout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:13:17am |
re: #553 jamesfirecat
Reine I've always known you to be open and honest person.
So if you feel there are issues that the latest ruling or the way our nation is trending on gay marriage, please clearly articulate them so that they can be discussed rather than just alluding to them as if we Liberals should be able to see them but can't because we've got our political correctness blinders on...
I think there are people with real and legitimate concerns about the possibility that the next thing up will be marriage between more than 2 people. I happen to believe that's a pretty far-fetched idea, myself . . . but instead of calling people names, why not discuss and work out a solution that would put those fears to rest? Just seems to me to be the rational thing to do.
There are those who believe that at some point, the government will begin to push for all religions to recognize and perform gay marriages. I used to think this was pretty far-fetched, but as time moves on, this is less far-fetched in my mind. We've seen rumblings here about the the fact that Catholic hospitals won't perform abortions. Now, this is not entirely accurate, I have it from a good source (a person who served on the ethics panel at a Catholic hospital) that there are occasions when this procedure is performed in very extreme circumstances, and with the permission of the Bishop, but of course, no Catholic hospital will say so and of course, no Catholic hospital will ever perform abortions as a routine matter. Nor should they be required to do so, IMO, but I've seen it said that they should be required to perform those services, or close down. That would be a terrible thing to force those hospitals to do, IMO, since they provide a great deal of all sorts of medical services all around the country, and provide to people with little means.
So, yes, I think the prudent and mature thing to do would be to allay those fears that people have, put them to rest, get out of the way whatever objections people have to recognition of gay unions so that the protections of the law can apply to gay relationships just as they do to heterosexual relationships.
| 589 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:13:31am |
re: #575 JasonA
Anyone taking bets on whether or not that pic's photoshopped?
THEY ARE PHOTOSHOPPED
Look at the guy on the bow of each pic, leaning in.
It's the same guy in each.
| 590 |
subsailor68 Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:13:47am |
re: #575 JasonA
Anyone taking bets on whether or not that pic's photoshopped?
Ha Ha! Hmmm....given that it looks like the same guys, in the same positions, on all of 'em, I'd say it's a pretty good bet that someone's learning photoshop.
;-)
| 591 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:14:14am |
| 592 |
jaunte Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:14:25am |
re: #589 Fozzie Bear
I picked it up from lawhawks 548. Give me a little more time and I'll change the crew around...
| 593 |
Killgore Trout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:15:02am |
re: #582 lawhawk
Ah, there is another prop...
Image: Multimedia%5Cpics%5C1388%5C3%5Cphoto%5C1689.jpg
| 594 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:15:13am |
re: #589 Fozzie Bear
THEY ARE PHOTOSHOPPED
Look at the guy on the bow of each pic, leaning in.
It's the same guy in each.
Also, if you look at the second sub, you can still see the shoes of the guy who's standing on the back. This is a really bad copypasta. Wow.
| 595 |
Kragar Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:15:54am |
Strippers protest against local Church
Every weekend for the last four years, Dunfee and members of his ministry have stood watch over George's joint, taking up residence in the right of way with signs, video cameras and bullhorns in hand. They videotape customers' license plates and post them online, and they try to save the souls of anyone who comes and goes.
Now, the dancers have turned the tables, so to speak. Fed up with the tactics of Dunfee and his flock, they say they have finally accepted his constant invitation to come to church.
It's just that they've come wearing see-through shorts and toting Super Soakers.
They bring lawn chairs and - yesterday, anyway - grilled hamburgers, Monster energy drinks and corn on the cob.
They sat in front of the church and waved at passing cars but largely ignored the congregation behind them.
Likewise, the churchgoers largely ignored the dancers. Except for Stan Braxton. He stopped and held hands with Lola, a 42-year-old dancer who made $200 on her Saturday night shift, and prayed for her salvation.
Lola, who wouldn't give her last name, said she was grateful for Braxton's prayers and his time.
The women don't come here, after all, without their own version of religion. They bring signs with Scriptures written in neon colors:
Matthew 7:15: Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing
Revelations 22:11: He that is unjust, let him be unjust still
Greg Flaig is executive director of the Ohio Owners Coalition, a group of showbar and club owners. He called the women's protest extraordinary, saying he's never heard of anything like it in the country.
George said the protest has been a long time coming. He sued the church in federal court several years ago, claiming a violation of his constitutional rights, but he lost. Now, he said, turnabout is fair play.
"When these morons go away, we'll go away," George said. "The great thing about this country is that everyone has a right to believe what they want."
He said his club operates within the law. Dunfee said it does not, that it must close at midnight instead of its regular 2 or 3 a.m. Coshocton County Prosecutor Bob Batchelor said Friday only that he, the sheriff and the city prosecutor are "aware of the situation."
Gina Hughes spent the morning soaking up the sun in her striped bikini, mostly oblivious to the fire and brimstone being preached in the tidy church building.
The 30-year-old married mother of six said she has danced at the Foxhole for a decade and holds the title of "house mom." That means that even though she still dances, she also watches out for the six other women who work there.
She said she makes $2,000 a week.
"These church people say horrible things about us," Hughes said. "They say we're homewreckers and whores. The fact of the matter is, we're working to keep our own homes together, to give our kids what they need."
| 597 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:16:21am |
Couldn't they have at least taken four different pics with sailors in different positions? Jeez guys...
| 598 |
lawhawk Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:16:39am |
re: #558 Killgore Trout
It's not crumpled there; it's an oddly shaped protrusion where the sail meets the hull, along with ballast control ports as can be seen in several other photos.
| 599 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:17:51am |
| 600 |
garhighway Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:17:52am |
re: #588 reine.de.tout
think there are people with real and legitimate concerns about the possibility that the next thing up will be marriage between more than 2 people.
Please name or cite to three people that are publicly advocating that position.
There are those who believe that at some point, the government will begin to push for all religions to recognize and perform gay marriages.
Again, who is advocating this? Such a position is such a non-starter. The First Amendment is real clear on this.
| 601 |
reine.de.tout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:18:22am |
re: #588 reine.de.tout
and, there are others, I think they were discussed on a thread last night, I'm really hesitant to get back involved in this discussion, I might get really upset and take it out on Fozzie because he happens to be handy (sorry, Fozzie, JUST JOKING).
Anyhoooo - I'm gone for a minute or so, be back in a few.
| 602 |
DaddyG Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:18:49am |
| 603 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:19:02am |
re: #598 lawhawk
It's not crumpled there; it's an oddly shaped protrusion where the sail meets the hull, along with ballast control ports as can be seen in several other photos.
next question, what are the capabilities of these things...certainly nothing to do with any other armed warship...I think they will be used for smuggling heroin
| 604 |
NJDhockeyfan Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:19:56am |
re: #587 Walter L. Newton
You fucking know why I asked... don't play stupid.
You got me Tex...I'm busted. Go ahead and tell me what I was trying to do just in case I forgot.
//
| 605 |
reine.de.tout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:20:31am |
re: #600 garhighway
Again, who is advocating this? Such a position is such a non-starter. The First Amendment is real clear on this.
Yes, the First Amendment is clear, until it isn't clear.
Again, I think both ideas are pretty far-fetched. But tell me - what does it cost anyone to lay out in a document what will or will not be allowed? For instance, what would it cost anyone to put into a document, as lostlakehiker suggested, that marriage will be between no more than 2 people? Is that such a hard or awful thing to do that we have to call people names when it's suggested?
| 606 |
jamesfirecat Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:20:32am |
re: #588 reine.de.tout
I think there are people with real and legitimate concerns about the possibility that the next thing up will be marriage between more than 2 people. I happen to believe that's a pretty far-fetched idea, myself . . . but instead of calling people names, why not discuss and work out a solution that would put those fears to rest? Just seems to me to be the rational thing to do.
There are those who believe that at some point, the government will begin to push for all religions to recognize and perform gay marriages. I used to think this was pretty far-fetched, but as time moves on, this is less far-fetched in my mind. We've seen rumblings here about the the fact that Catholic hospitals won't perform abortions. Now, this is not entirely accurate, I have it from a good source (a person who served on the ethics panel at a Catholic hospital) that there are occasions when this procedure is performed in very extreme circumstances, and with the permission of the Bishop, but of course, no Catholic hospital will say so and of course, no Catholic hospital will ever perform abortions as a routine matter. Nor should they be required to do so, IMO, but I've seen it said that they should be required to perform those services, or close down. That would be a terrible thing to force those hospitals to do, IMO, since they provide a great deal of all sorts of medical services all around the country, and provide to people with little means.
So, yes, I think the prudent and mature thing to do would be to allay those fears that people have, put them to rest, get out of the way whatever objections people have to recognition of gay unions so that the protections of the law can apply to gay relationships just as they do to heterosexual relationships.
I still think it's silly to believe that Gay people are going to come banging down on the door of churches demanding they marry them, because personally and I really don't see it happening.
A marriage is a service that you can get taken care of for you at city hall with the minimum amount of fuss, muss and cost, unlike an abortion.
Being a single guy who has never had anything approaching a girlfriend, I don't know that much about how your typical marriage goes down, but don't people pay to hire the minister, to rent out the place where it will happen, and so on and so forth? Why would gay people honestly want to hire someone who or have their marriage in a place that has a problem with their relationship?
As for the idea of more than two people wanting to get married, well there will always be Utah.... [Link: www.rickross.com...]
| 607 |
Kragar Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:21:39am |
re: #603 albusteve
next question, what are the capabilities of these things...certainly nothing to do with any other armed warship...I think they will be used for smuggling heroin
But if you happen to be the Captain of a supertanker cruising the Gulf, thats another story.
| 608 |
Killgore Trout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:22:25am |
re: #603 albusteve
next question, what are the capabilities of these things...certainly nothing to do with any other armed warship...I think they will be used for smuggling heroin
I read a little bit of that MilitaryPhotos thread. They do have two torpedoes and "shoulder launched missiles" (probably an RPG fired my a crew member on deck). The tactical purpose is to not move around an hunt warships but they can putter out into the gulf, sink to the bottom and just wait to ambush something.
| 609 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:22:39am |
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- How much money do you need to feel rich?
Wealth is a subjective concept, but one thing is universal in most definitions: being able to live a comfortable life without having to work.
half a mil would do me nicely...cash
[Link: money.cnn.com...]
| 610 |
garhighway Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:22:40am |
re: #605 reine.de.tout
Yes, the First Amendment is clear, until it isn't clear.
Again, I think both ideas are pretty far-fetched. But tell me - what does it cost anyone to lay out in a document what will or will not be allowed? For instance, what would it cost anyone to put into a document, as lostlakehiker suggested, that marriage will be between no more than 2 people? Is that such a hard or awful thing to do that we have to call people names when it's suggested?
I haven't called you any names. I have just asked you to identify the proponents of the things you are so afraid of.
| 611 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:23:12am |
re: #608 Killgore Trout
I read a little bit of that MilitaryPhotos thread. They do have two torpedoes and "shoulder launched missiles" (probably an RPG fired my a crew member on deck). The tactical purpose is to not move around an hunt warships but they can putter out into the gulf, sink to the bottom and just wait to ambush something.
That thing probably can't dive all that deep. I hope they try it, though...
| 612 |
ShaunP Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:23:20am |
re: #608 Killgore Trout
I read a little bit of that MilitaryPhotos thread. They do have two torpedoes and "shoulder launched missiles" (probably an RPG fired my a crew member on deck). The tactical purpose is to not move around an hunt warships but they can putter out into the gulf, sink to the bottom and just wait to ambush something.
Yah, they save the real missions for the kamikaze dolphins...
[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]
| 613 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:23:46am |
re: #607 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
But if you happen to be the Captain of a supertanker cruising the Gulf, thats another story.
we've already decided these are sanctioned terrorists, in cool uni's
| 614 |
jamesfirecat Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:23:47am |
re: #605 reine.de.tout
Yes, the First Amendment is clear, until it isn't clear.
Again, I think both ideas are pretty far-fetched. But tell me - what does it cost anyone to lay out in a document what will or will not be allowed? For instance, what would it cost anyone to put into a document, as lostlakehiker suggested, that marriage will be between no more than 2 people? Is that such a hard or awful thing to do that we have to call people names when it's suggested?
Well to get that we'd need to have 8 republicans in the Senate (plus all the democrats) who would be willing to make an amendment allowing Gay Marriage.
So while it's not a horrible idea, it's an UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE ONE at the moment.....
| 615 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:25:51am |
re: #608 Killgore Trout
I read a little bit of that MilitaryPhotos thread. They do have two torpedoes and "shoulder launched missiles" (probably an RPG fired my a crew member on deck). The tactical purpose is to not move around an hunt warships but they can putter out into the gulf, sink to the bottom and just wait to ambush something.
one false move and I'd say it was time to punish the Iranians
| 616 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:26:37am |
| 617 |
Ericus58 Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:26:38am |
re: #607 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
But if you happen to be the Captain of a supertanker cruising the Gulf, thats another story.
Aye - these subs are much along the lines of being a threat to shipping, rather than a threat to other Naval vessels.
They're a one-way ticket for disruption of commerce.
then again, the sub that reportedly sunk the S.Korean Frigate a few months back wasn't all that sophisticated either.
| 618 |
RadicalModerate Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:27:41am |
In what will probably be spun into the latest 'outrageous outrage', this morning the New Orleans Saints were welcomed to the White House today for the traditional visit given to Super Bowl champions.
Champion Saints visit White House
Obama noted that he has to make tough decisions as president. "But I never decided on an onside kick in the second half of the Super Bowl," the president joked, referencing the bold play that helped the Saints clinch their victory.
| 619 |
Romantic Heretic Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:28:05am |
Finally watched the video. My questions to Mr. Perkins.
Why is it any of your goddamn business who people choose to love or marry?
What would you know about sanity, you supercilious little twit?
Buttwipe.
| 620 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:28:33am |
re: #605 reine.de.tout
Yes, the First Amendment is clear, until it isn't clear.
Again, I think both ideas are pretty far-fetched. But tell me - what does it cost anyone to lay out in a document what will or will not be allowed? For instance, what would it cost anyone to put into a document, as lostlakehiker suggested, that marriage will be between no more than 2 people? Is that such a hard or awful thing to do that we have to call people names when it's suggested?
I think a lot us feel it's unnecessary to do that. The rights bestowed upon a spouse through marriage cannot be shared. If a woman has two husbands and one dies... who gets custody of the kids? That sort of thing.
Reine, the whole point of the argument on this side is that while you can say that marriage is between two people, society doesn't get to decide what kind of people they can be, besides consenting adults.
| 621 |
lawhawk Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:29:39am |
re: #620 JasonA
All that can be spelled out in domestic relations law - in fact states specify the intestate succession - who gets what when someone dies without a will.
| 622 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:29:50am |
| 623 |
reine.de.tout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:29:53am |
re: #606 jamesfirecat
I still think it's silly to believe that Gay people are going to come banging down on the door of churches demanding they marry them, because personally and I really don't see it happening.
A marriage is a service that you can get taken care of for you at city hall with the minimum amount of fuss, muss and cost, unlike an abortion.
Being a single guy who has never had anything approaching a girlfriend, I don't know that much about how your typical marriage goes down, but don't people pay to hire the minister, to rent out the place where it will happen, and so on and so forth? Why would gay people honestly want to hire someone who or have their marriage in a place that has a problem with their relationship?
As for the idea of more than two people wanting to get married, well there will always be Utah... [Link: www.rickross.com...]
i'm not saying I necessarily agree with that either thing is close to happening.
All I'm saying is that there are people who believe it. And so . . . what cost is there to YOU or anyone else to discuss the issue and put it to rest?
I would like to see gay couples have the protections of unionhood. If what stands in the way is a notion that it will lead to polygamy - well, let's put that to rest, deal with it, get it out of the way, remove that obstacle. Calling people idiots doesn't go a long way toward that end, IMO.
| 624 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:29:54am |
re: #619 Romantic Heretic
Finally watched the video. My questions to Mr. Perkins.
Why is it any of your goddamn business who people choose to love or marry?
What would you know about sanity, you supercilious little twit?
Buttwipe.
Upding for using "supercilious" and "buttwipe" in the same post.
| 625 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:30:37am |
re: #621 lawhawk
All that can be spelled out in domestic relations law - in fact states specify the intestate succession - who gets what when someone dies without a will.
Gotcha. But then are you technically married to the spouse you chose to deny those rights to?
| 626 |
Wozza Matter? Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:30:48am |
re: #606 jamesfirecat
I still think it's silly to believe that Gay people are going to come banging down on the door of churches demanding they marry them, because personally and I really don't see it happening.
A marriage is a service that you can get taken care of for you at city hall with the minimum amount of fuss, muss and cost, unlike an abortion.
Being a single guy who has never had anything approaching a girlfriend, I don't know that much about how your typical marriage goes down, but don't people pay to hire the minister, to rent out the place where it will happen, and so on and so forth? Why would gay people honestly want to hire someone who or have their marriage in a place that has a problem with their relationship?
As for the idea of more than two people wanting to get married, well there will always be Utah... [Link: www.rickross.com...]
Progressive ministers and rabbis (etc) will perform ceremonies in the eyes of god, the established churches or synagogues need not be involved in any particular way.
| 627 |
reine.de.tout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:30:54am |
re: #620 JasonA
I think a lot us feel it's unnecessary to do that. The rights bestowed upon a spouse through marriage cannot be shared. If a woman has two husbands and one dies... who gets custody of the kids? That sort of thing.
Reine, the whole point of the argument on this side is that while you can say that marriage is between two people, society doesn't get to decide what kind of people they can be, besides consenting adults.
YOU think it's unnecessary.
Others think differently.
What would it "cost" you to put those fears to rest?
Nothing?
| 628 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:31:50am |
re: #621 lawhawk
All that can be spelled out in domestic relations law - in fact states specify the intestate succession - who gets what when someone dies without a will.
just a bump...I see no problem in this regard either...I'm for multicultipolygamy!....try it!, you'll like it!
| 629 |
albusteve Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:32:54am |
re: #625 JasonA
Gotcha. But then are you technically married to the spouse you chose to deny those rights to?
that's their business...one for the money, one for the show
| 630 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:33:02am |
I suggest that a constitutional amendment be passed to make it mandatory that Tony Perkins is not allowed to marry period. What a slime.
| 631 |
reine.de.tout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:33:17am |
re: #610 garhighway
I haven't called you any names. I have just asked you to identify the proponents of the things you are so afraid of.
1) Please go back and read my posts. I have articulated what I've heard others fear; these are not my fears. Please. Do not put words in my mouth.
2) I did not mean to suggest that you called me any names.
| 632 |
cliffster Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:33:41am |
Funny, I've heard very little actual logic or intelligence coming from any angle in the gay marriage debate.
| 633 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:34:21am |
re: #632 cliffster
Funny, I've heard very little actual logic or intelligence coming from any angle in the gay marriage debate.
You mean pro or con?
| 634 |
Wozza Matter? Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:34:30am |
re: #632 cliffster
Funny, I've heard very little actual logic or intelligence coming from any angle in the gay marriage debate.
Not even in the judges ruling?
That was pretty damn logical and pretty damn specific.
| 635 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:34:39am |
re: #627 reine.de.tout
YOU think it's unnecessary.
Others think differently.
What would it "cost" you to put those fears to rest?
Nothing?
Hm. Well, first of all I can't really say I have a dog in the fight since I have trouble caring whether or not polygamy is allowed. My problem is that this is being brought up in the gay marriage issue. It doesn't belong in this argument any more than it would have in miscegenation debates.
| 636 |
cliffster Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:36:27am |
re: #634 wozzablog
Not even in the judges ruling?
That was pretty damn logical and pretty damn specific.
I'm talking about in general. If you hear someone talking about this topic, there's a very good chance they are saying something based on emotion, and very likely it's stupid.
| 637 |
reine.de.tout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:36:46am |
re: #635 JasonA
Hm. Well, first of all I can't really say I have a dog in the fight since I have trouble caring whether or not polygamy is allowed. My problem is that this is being brought up in the gay marriage issue. It doesn't belong in this argument any more than it would have in miscegenation debates.
Probably not. But people have it, nonetheless. Maybe because there are folks like you who don't care whether nor not polygamy is allowed? YOU are who they fear.
| 638 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:38:13am |
re: #637 reine.de.tout
Probably not. But people have it, nonetheless. Maybe because there are folks like you who don't care whether nor not polygamy is allowed? YOU are who they fear.
More than they fear people who actually want to practice it? More than they fear people actually fighting for polygamy? And where are those people, anyway? I have yet to see them.
| 640 |
jamesfirecat Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:40:33am |
re: #627 reine.de.tout
YOU think it's unnecessary.
Others think differently.
What would it "cost" you to put those fears to rest?
Nothing?
Umm... Reine...
Is the only way to put their fears at rest to have a amendment passed saying what you suggested?
Do you have any idea how hard it would be to find at least 8 Republicans to go along with this?
We can't even work up a 60 person super majority to undo DADT let alone get 67 to make gay marriage happen...
| 641 |
reine.de.tout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:40:40am |
re: #638 JasonA
More than they fear people who actually want to practice it? More than they fear people actually fighting for polygamy? And where are those people, anyway? I have yet to see them.
They fear, yes, that there will be sufficient people who "don't care" that it will one day be a reality.
But you're not going to see them here, at LGF, that's for sure.
And I'm not certain you want to check out the places where you would find them.
| 642 |
b_Snark Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:42:16am |
re: #637 reine.de.tout
Probably not. But people have it, nonetheless. Maybe because there are folks like you who don't care whether nor not polygamy is allowed? YOU are who they fear.
Why do they fear polygamy?
| 643 |
reine.de.tout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:42:51am |
re: #640 jamesfirecat
Umm... Reine...
Is the only way to put their fears at rest to have a amendment passed saying what you suggested?
Do you have any idea how hard it would be to find at least 8 Republicans to go along with this?
We can't even work up a 60 person super majority to undo DADT let alone get 67 to make gay marriage happen...
I'm not saying the ONLY way to put their fears to rest is to have an amendment passed, or have it articulated in whatever documents currently exist. I'm saying it might be ONE way.
The one thing that will NOT put fears to rest is calling people names, and refusing to discuss things with logic, but resorting to just name-calling. That's all I've been trying to say.
| 644 |
jamesfirecat Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:42:59am |
| 645 |
trryhin Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:43:25am |
re: #570 jaunte
Looks like they have a whole fleet of the things.
Image: IranianSubs.jpg
Photoshopped. The guy on the front is leaned over and the top right sub still has the white shoes from the guy in the back they tried to remove.
| 646 |
NJDhockeyfan Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:43:34am |
U.S. citizen charged with trying to aid al Qaeda to appear in court
A U.S. citizen is scheduled to appear in court Monday after charges that he tried to provide material support to two terrorist organizations.
Shaker Masri is charged with trying to aid al Qaeda and al Shabaab, according to a criminal complaint. His status hearing is scheduled for 9 a.m.
Federal prosecutors in Chicago, Illinois, also charged Masri with a charge relating to weapons of mass destruction, according to a criminal complaint.
| 647 |
jamesfirecat Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:43:38am |
re: #643 reine.de.tout
I'm not saying the ONLY way to put their fears to rest is to have an amendment passed, or have it articulated in whatever documents currently exist. I'm saying it might be ONE way.
The one thing that will NOT put fears to rest is calling people names, and refusing to discuss things with logic, but resorting to just name-calling. That's all I've been trying to say.
Fine then, what other ways are there besides an Amendment which is clearly an idea that isn't going to get off the ground?
| 648 |
DaddyG Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:44:01am |
Polygamy is a very traditional and Biblical form of marriage.
| 649 |
reine.de.tout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:44:15am |
re: #642 b_sharp
Why do they fear polygamy?
re: #644 jamesfirecat
Because its different.
You would need to ask someone with a stronger opinion on that than I have.
I'm outta this discussion. When I try to articulate what it is I've seen people say they fear, somehow it seems to get turned into MY fears, and I'm not interested in playing that game.
| 651 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:44:48am |
re: #641 reine.de.tout
They fear, yes, that there will be sufficient people who "don't care" that it will one day be a reality.
But you're not going to see them here, at LGF, that's for sure.
And I'm not certain you want to check out the places where you would find them.
Honestly, Reine, I care about the pursuit of happiness. And if that pursuit doesn't hinder my own, then I have a hard time bringing myself to oppose it. I might not like it, I may find it distasteful, but there you have it.
| 652 |
cliffster Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:44:56am |
isn't fornication of any kind illegal? don't let us catch you doing that shit - we'll sew a letter right onto your chest.
| 653 |
lostlakehiker Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:45:35am |
re: #528 Fozzie Bear
First of all, the bolded pronouns are doing some seriously heavy lifting.
Secondly, there is no fucking "rest of the agenda", you ignorant piece of shit. Equal protection under the law IS THE AGENDA.
Thirdly, if you honestly feel that the constitution should be amended in order to "protect" marriage, you are out of your fucking mind.
There are three ways to legalize gay marriage: by changing the law, by changing the constitution, or by ditching the whole idea of letting people vote and just changing the system so that judges decide on their own whether or not they like a law, and then order it enacted or rescinded.
It looks as though you'll win, by one path or the other. Now you curse me for objecting to route 3, and offering to support route 1 or 2, asking only that it be limited to exactly two consenting adults. If you read some of the other comments on these pages, you will see that for many, there is so a 'rest of the agenda'.
You also put words in my mouth. I never suggested a constitutional amendment to buttress the status quo regarding marriage.
| 654 |
Darth Vader Gargoyle Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:46:10am |
Those Iranian subs are for real. Guess who they got the plans from?
| 655 |
b_Snark Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:46:26am |
re: #649 reine.de.tout
You would need to ask someone with a stronger opinion on that than I have.
I'm outta this discussion. When I try to articulate what it is I've seen people say they fear, somehow it seems to get turned into MY fears, and I'm not interested in playing that game.
I wouldn't put that on you.
I'm looking for information, partly to get a discussion going and partly to enhance and hone my own arguments.
| 656 |
jaunte Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:46:29am |
re: #645 trryhin
Photoshopped. The guy on the front is leaned over and the top right sub still has the white shoes from the guy in the back they tried to remove.
Yes, sorry, just a riff on the Iranian missile photo.
| 658 |
RadicalModerate Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:47:00am |
re: #635 JasonA
Hm. Well, first of all I can't really say I have a dog in the fight since I have trouble caring whether or not polygamy is allowed. My problem is that this is being brought up in the gay marriage issue. It doesn't belong in this argument any more than it would have in miscegenation debates.
I can't say that I have any morality-based issues in regards to polygamy, as long as all parties involved are legally consenting. This means "arranged" marriages where one (or more) of the people involved have no say is not included in this statement.
From a legal/civil standpoint, the legal profession would be turned on its head because of laws required to change the family arrangement from a partnership to a corporation.
| 659 |
reine.de.tout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:47:09am |
re: #651 JasonA
Honestly, Reine, I care about the pursuit of happiness. And if that pursuit doesn't hinder my own, then I have a hard time bringing myself to oppose it. I might not like it, I may find it distasteful, but there you have it.
What you're talking about is a lawless society.
I can't go along with that.
| 660 |
trryhin Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:47:17am |
re: #645 trryhin
Doh, guess I should have read through the rest of the comments...
| 661 |
jamesfirecat Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:47:45am |
re: #653 lostlakehiker
"or by ditching the whole idea of letting people vote and just changing the system so that judges decide on their own whether or not they like a law, and then order it enacted or rescinded."
Hey it was how we got inter-racial marriage legalized!
If it was good enough for our fathers and all that...
| 662 |
webevintage Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:48:06am |
re: #650 b_sharp
True to a degree, but beside that?
Putting aside the folks who think God would have an issue with 2 or more folks being married there are those who, because of groups like the Warren Jeffs folks, see sister-wives as an inherently abusive situation.
(I have no issues with polygamy as long as no one is made to take part)
| 663 |
Wozza Matter? Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:48:43am |
re: #636 cliffster
I'm talking about in general. If you hear someone talking about this topic, there's a very good chance they are saying something based on emotion, and very likely it's stupid.
I am emotive - but i reach for the equal protection clause.
| 664 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:49:02am |
re: #659 reine.de.tout
What you're talking about is a lawless society.
I can't go along with that.
No it's not. Someone shooting in the head hinders my pursuit of happiness. I want there to be laws against that.
| 665 |
jamesfirecat Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:49:20am |
re: #659 reine.de.tout
What you're talking about is a lawless society.
I can't go along with that.
There's a big difference between a society with no consensual crimes and one with no laws....
| 666 |
lawhawk Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:49:54am |
re: #654 rwdflynavy
They're suspiciously similar and it's well known that both countries have been sharing all manner of weapons tech.
| 667 |
reine.de.tout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:50:05am |
re: #655 b_sharp
I wouldn't put that on you.
I'm looking for information, partly to get a discussion going and partly to enhance and hone my own arguments.
Ah, Ok.
Well, I don't really know.
It happens now . . . people get a church blessing for having multiple wives and consider themselves married in the eyes of God.
It's not the sort of arrangement I would be happy about. But that's me.
| 669 |
lostlakehiker Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:50:22am |
re: #642 b_sharp
Why do they fear polygamy?
Because polygamy makes our society too much of a winner-take-all society. It's profoundly destabilizing. It's degrading to women. What's not to fear? Does every man expect to be among the elite who score multiple wives? Does no woman fear the consequences of a Darwinian struggle to make it into that elite, a struggle which in its nature will be no-holds-barred?
Show me the worked example, an advanced industrial civilization where polygamy is legal and has been so for quite some time.
| 670 |
reine.de.tout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:50:55am |
re: #664 JasonA
No it's not. Someone shooting in the head hinders my pursuit of happiness. I want there to be laws against that.
yeah, but maybe it adds to someone else's pursuit of happiness to engage in that sort of thing. Who are you to say their pursuit of happiness is more important than yours?
| 672 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:51:03am |
re: #668 Varek Raith
PH34R TEH GHEYS!
My only fear is that they've raised the bar of what women expect from us straight guys...
| 673 |
'K.' Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:52:49am |
'Kre: #438 sagehen
Gay men are more likely to have partners outside marriage, only because their marriages to women are shams. They weren't allowed to marry someone they can really give their whole heart and soul and libido to.
Gay relationships don't last as long as hetero relationships because they're not allowed to get married.
Relationships between gay men are less likely to last than either heterosexual relationships or lesbian relationships. Right there, you know it's not just because of lack of marriage, because otherwise lesbians would see the same effect. So gay marriages between men should be less likely to last.
This article from Time is good reading. Lack of marriage is a factor, but not the only one by any means.
In a 2004 paper, psychology professor Lawrence Kurdek of Wright State University in Ohio reported that over a 12-year period, 21% of gay and lesbian couples broke up; only 14% of married straight couples did. Too many gay relationships are pulled by the crosscurrents of childhood pain, adult expectation and gay-community pathologies like meth addiction. Kurdek has also found that members of gay and lesbian couples are significantly more self-conscious than straight married people, "perhaps due to their stigmatized status," he writes.
Some other studies:
[Link: radicalreference.info...]
| 674 |
Gus Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:53:09am |
re: #383 Dark_Falcon
I disagree. i prefer strong marital commitment and I really do think letting gay men marry will erode it. I also prefer to draw gender distinctions. If they leave some outliers miserable, that means little to me. They make things much neater and more orderly. I admit that I strongly favor order over compassion.
Really? Allowing gay marriage is going to erode the man made construct of marriage between men and women? That's not based on the reality of marriage and divorce rates which already stands at:
The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%
This sounds like something from the Family Research Council or even Tony Perkins himself. It's not based on science and is purely based on fear, conjecture, and heterocentrism.
50 percent of marriages end in divorce. I suppose there's another anti-liberal meme we can blame that on such as feminist movements, the 60s, etc.
Many on the right always likes to talk about "personal responsibility" but they are quick to blame their own faults (including their unstable marriages) on others.
Oh, and the divorce rate in red states are 27 percent higher than those in blue states.
| 675 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:53:14am |
re: #670 reine.de.tout
yeah, but maybe it adds to someone else's pursuit of happiness to engage in that sort of thing. Who are you to say their pursuit of happiness is more important than yours?
Reine, please pick a better scenario than that to argue. I only used it to easily express that, yes, I do think we need laws.
| 676 |
reine.de.tout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:53:26am |
re: #647 jamesfirecat
Fine then, what other ways are there besides an Amendment which is clearly an idea that isn't going to get off the ground?
Perhaps a logical discussion here, rather than name-calling, to influence people's opinions? Hmmm?
| 677 |
Killgore Trout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:53:39am |
re: #669 lostlakehiker
Show me the worked example, an advanced industrial civilization where polygamy is legal and has been so for quite some time.
I don't think it's particularly relevant to society in general. Show me a society that actually practices monogamy. I don't think there's ever been a truly monogamous society in the history of mankind.
| 678 |
Wozza Matter? Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:53:50am |
re: #672 JasonA
My only fear is that they've raised the bar of what women expect from us straight guys...
Specially as they can now marry other girls - we are sooo screwed (and not in a good cable tv miniseries type way).
/
| 679 |
reine.de.tout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:53:54am |
re: #675 JasonA
Reine, please pick a better scenario than that to argue. I only used it to easily express that, yes, I do think we need laws.
That was your scenario, not mine.
| 680 |
NJDhockeyfan Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:53:54am |
Mutilated Afghan Woman Now on U.S. Soil for Months-Long Surgery
The Young Afghan Woman's Nose, Ears Were Severed by Husband; She Is With a Host Family in Calif.
| 681 |
Varek Raith Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:54:11am |
IIRC, the most common form of marriage through the ages was a niece to an uncle.
| 682 |
zora Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:54:24am |
If these so called christians cared so much about the sanctity of marriage then they should be trying to make divorce illegal instead of gay marriage. Divorce is the biggest threat to marriage not gay marriage. It's kind of hard to argue the sanctity of marriage when you are on your second or third wife. If they want to be bigots, so be it. Doing it in God's name is despicable.
| 684 |
Kragar Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:55:49am |
re: #673 'K.'
Kurdek has also found that members of gay and lesbian couples are significantly more self-conscious than straight married people, "perhaps due to their stigmatized status," he writes
So if their marriages were more accepted and they weren't ostracized by the community, their marriages would be more stable?
Sounds like another reason to accept them let them marry to me.
| 685 |
jamesfirecat Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:56:32am |
re: #669 lostlakehiker
Because polygamy makes our society too much of a winner-take-all society. It's profoundly destabilizing. It's degrading to women. What's not to fear? Does every man expect to be among the elite who score multiple wives? Does no woman fear the consequences of a Darwinian struggle to make it into that elite, a struggle which in its nature will be no-holds-barred?
Show me the worked example, an advanced industrial civilization where polygamy is legal and has been so for quite some time.
To be fair, if we make polygamy the law of the land, it would obviously have to run both ways... so it would be just as degrading to men as it is to women as we might see powerful women who have multiple husbands.
The rest of this is at least a possibility that I can't refute right of the top of my head...
| 686 |
Nervous Norvous Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:56:40am |
re: #670 reine.de.tout
yeah, but maybe it adds to someone else's pursuit of happiness to engage in that sort of thing. Who are you to say their pursuit of happiness is more important than yours?
That's a nonsense argument and you know it, reine.
Laws typically provide security to promote societal stability.
Security provided comes in three areas:
Personal safety
Safety of Property (people can't just go around taking other people's stuff)
Safety of Relationships (contract, civil law)
| 687 |
Nervous Norvous Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:57:43am |
re: #685 jamesfirecat
To be fair, if we make polygamy the law of the land, it would obviously have to run both ways... so it would be just as degrading to men as it is to women as we might see powerful women who have multiple husbands.
The rest of this is at least a possibility that I can't refute right of the top of my head...
Frankly I have enough trouble keeping one spouse happy, I can't imagine trying to do that with two or three.
Polygamy is its own punishment.
| 688 |
jamesfirecat Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:57:50am |
re: #670 reine.de.tout
yeah, but maybe it adds to someone else's pursuit of happiness to engage in that sort of thing. Who are you to say their pursuit of happiness is more important than yours?
All I want is a society with no co-sensual crimes personally.
That's not too much to ask (I hope) and its quite clearly obvious where you draw the lines.
| 689 |
DaddyG Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:58:01am |
re: #662 webevintage
Putting aside the folks who think God would have an issue with 2 or more folks being married there are those who, because of groups like the Warren Jeffs folks, see sister-wives as an inherently abusive situation.
(I have no issues with polygamy as long as no one is made to take part)
I argue that if Polygamy were legal people like Warren Jeffs would have a much more difficult time using it as a basis for a secretive society that lends itself to abuse.
| 690 |
reine.de.tout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:58:28am |
re: #686 PT Barnum
That's a nonsense argument and you know it, reine.
Laws typically provide security to promote societal stability.
Security provided comes in three areas:
Personal safety
Safety of Property (people can't just go around taking other people's stuff)
Safety of Relationships (contract, civil law)
Agreed. But I didn't start that train of thought, someone else did, who was basically arguing that in the pursuit of happiness, there should be no laws which protect the "safety of relationships".
| 691 |
'K.' Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:58:35am |
re: #574 garhighway
Thx for this tip. I probably ought to get around to reading the opinion at some point :)
| 692 |
Nervous Norvous Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:58:44am |
re: #689 DaddyG
I argue that if Polygamy were legal people like Warren Jeffs would have a much more difficult time using it as a basis for a secretive society that lends itself to abuse.
God didn't appear to have an issue with it in the Old Testament as far as I can tell.
| 693 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:59:31am |
re: #690 reine.de.tout
Agreed. But I didn't start that train of thought, someone else did, who was basically arguing that in the pursuit of happiness, there should be no laws which protect the "safety of relationships".
I don't think he's saying what you think he's saying.
| 694 |
reine.de.tout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:59:39am |
re: #689 DaddyG
I argue that if Polygamy were legal people like Warren Jeffs would have a much more difficult time using it as a basis for a secretive society that lends itself to abuse.
Agreed.
| 695 |
Varek Raith Mon, Aug 9, 2010 10:59:46am |
re: #692 PT Barnum
God didn't appear to have an issue with it in the Old Testament as far as I can tell.
The OT god is an asshole.
Couldn't have that, now could we?
| 696 |
Nervous Norvous Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:00:01am |
re: #690 reine.de.tout
Agreed. But I didn't start that train of thought, someone else did, who was basically arguing that in the pursuit of happiness, there should be no laws which protect the "safety of relationships".
I would agree that those laws belong in the civil arena, but not the criminal.
| 697 |
DaddyG Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:00:31am |
re: #692 PT Barnum
God didn't appear to have an issue with it in the Old Testament as far as I can tell.
I know Christians who use Jacob's family as a warning.
| 698 |
Gus Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:00:49am |
re: #695 Varek Raith
The OT god is an asshole.
Couldn't have that, now could we?
All books are written by man!
/Teach the controversy.
/
| 699 |
Nervous Norvous Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:01:23am |
re: #695 Varek Raith
The OT god is an asshole.
Couldn't have that, now could we?
Yeah I much prefer Buddy Christ
| 700 |
Nervous Norvous Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:02:06am |
re: #698 Gus 802
All books are written by man!
/Teach the controversy.
/
Religion is about deciding what God isn't more than it is about understanding what God is.
| 701 |
reine.de.tout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:02:24am |
| 702 |
sattv4u2 Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:02:59am |
re: #701 reine.de.tout
If there were no laws defining what is consent (and at what age consent is considered valid), then . . . what?
ouch
| 703 |
NJDhockeyfan Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:03:11am |
After burqa, France plans to ban polygamy practice
France’s interior minister Brice Hortefeux has called for the withdrawal of citizenship of immigrants who practice polygamy or female genital mutilation.
Hortefeux said there were “possibilities to have nationality withdrawn in the case of polygamy, genital mutilation and serious wrongdoing”, The Telegraph reported.
It follows president Nicolas Sarkozy calling for all foreigners who attack police in the kind of riots which blighted Muslim housing estates earlier this month to also lose their nationality.
The punishment would not apply only to immigrants, but also to those who have a foreign background, even if they were born in France.
Hortefeux spoke out after an Algerian-born French Muslim was questioned by the police about regularly raping a woman he was involved with between 2003 and 2007.
| 704 |
Varek Raith Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:03:11am |
One day Satan came to heaven.
Jesus was like, "OMFG wallhax!"
| 705 |
reine.de.tout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:03:30am |
re: #696 PT Barnum
I would agree that those laws belong in the civil arena, but not the criminal.
Sorry.
I believe crimes like rape, for instance, do indeed belong in the criminal arena.
| 706 |
Nervous Norvous Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:04:47am |
re: #701 reine.de.tout
If there were no laws defining what is consent (and at what age consent is considered valid), then . . . what?
But wouldn't that also fall under personal safety, since children are considered too young to be able to give conscious consent?
| 707 |
Varek Raith Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:04:47am |
| 708 |
Nervous Norvous Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:05:19am |
re: #705 reine.de.tout
Sorry.
I believe crimes like rape, for instance, do indeed belong in the criminal arena.
But those crimes are not about safety in relationships but personal safety, which falls under the criminal.
| 709 |
reine.de.tout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:05:23am |
What this discussion highlights, of course, is that there are very complicated things to be considered that need to be discussed rationally, and all things considered, not some views just dismissed via name-calling. Which is all I wanted to point out in the beginning.
| 710 |
Gus Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:05:24am |
re: #700 PT Barnum
Religion is about deciding what God isn't more than it is about understanding what God is.
Perhaps. But the fact remains. All books were written by man (men or women) and that includes the Bible. All thoughts are also inspired within the confines of human society and the cognitive process. The ability to transmit ideas supernaturally is a scientifically unproven "theory" and remains so to this day.
| 711 |
reine.de.tout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:06:25am |
re: #706 PT Barnum
But wouldn't that also fall under personal safety, since children are considered too young to be able to give conscious consent?
By law, correct?
And yes, there are so many things to consider, easy quick answers aren't available.
| 712 |
Nervous Norvous Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:06:25am |
re: #710 Gus 802
Perhaps. But the fact remains. All books were written by man (men or women) and that includes the Bible. All thoughts are also inspired within the confines of human society and the cognitive process. The ability to transmit ideas supernaturally is a scientifically unproven "theory" and remains so to this day.
I agree with you completely. REligion is nothing more than the finite (humans) trying to define the infinite (god)
Hubris doesn't even begin to describe it.
| 713 |
Four More Tears Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:06:34am |
re: #701 reine.de.tout
If there were no laws defining what is consent (and at what age consent is considered valid), then . . . what?
He's not arguing that there doesn't need to be an age of consent. He's arguing for the decisions made between consenting adults. And even then, we're not daft enough to claim that there are absolutely no limits on that. I can't choose to sell myself into slavery to another party, for example, and that's a good thing.
| 714 |
darthstar Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:06:46am |
re: #704 Varek Raith
One day Satan came to heaven.
Jesus was like, "OMFG wallhax!"
Revelations 13: LOLCat style (my favorite verse from the LOLCat Bible)
Heds up! A monstar cum outta oshun!1 An I r in ur sandz looking at ur waterz: an OH NOES! A monstar camez out. He can has severn hedz an ten hornz: an can has ten crouwnz.2 An teh monstar I saws It iz layk big spotteded kitteh, an It can has pawz layk bear, an It can has mout layk big neck-fur kitteh. An Teh dragn gaved it teh powurz an teh chairz an teh autoritiez.3 An I sawz teh munster hurtz in teh hed: An laterz teh monstar hed he getz bettar: An evry pepls goes layk: OMFG! in wunder.4 An evry1 goes wrship teh munster an Evry1 goes wrship teh dragn bcuz he r haveing teh powurz. Any1 stolez hiz cheezburgerz? No wai!
| 715 |
Nervous Norvous Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:07:27am |
re: #711 reine.de.tout
By law, correct?
And yes, there are so many things to consider, easy quick answers aren't available.
I think the issue is what falls under consensual and what doesn't.
Personally I think that prostitution should be legal, but pimping should not.
| 716 |
reine.de.tout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:07:32am |
re: #713 JasonA
He's not arguing that there doesn't need to be an age of consent. He's arguing for the decisions made between consenting adults. And even then, we're not daft enough to claim that there are absolutely no limits on that. I can't choose to sell myself into slavery to another party, for example, and that's a good thing.
see:
re: #709 reine.de.tout
What this discussion highlights, of course, is that there are very complicated things to be considered that need to be discussed rationally, and all things considered, not some views just dismissed via name-calling. Which is all I wanted to point out in the beginning.
And I have errands to run, see you good folks later.
| 717 |
ihateronpaul Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:08:09am |
Awww wittle tony perkins is s000 sad about teh gays getting rights. he can eat shit, in this gay marriage debate he is using the same bizarre and ridiculous argument tactics you normally hear from people like David Duke
| 718 |
darthstar Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:08:54am |
| 719 |
Nervous Norvous Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:09:14am |
re: #717 ihateronpaul
Awww wittle tony perkins is s000 sad about teh gays getting rights. he can eat shit, in this gay marriage debate he is using the same bizarre and ridiculous argument tactics you normally hear from people like David Duke
same cat, different color.
| 720 |
Gus Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:09:30am |
re: #717 ihateronpaul
Awww wittle tony perkins is s000 sad about teh gays getting rights. he can eat shit, in this gay marriage debate he is using the same bizarre and ridiculous argument tactics you normally hear from people like David Duke
Social studies science! -- Tony Perkins
Just another helmet head.
| 722 |
jamesfirecat Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:11:37am |
re: #701 reine.de.tout
If there were no laws defining what is consent (and at what age consent is considered valid), then . . . what?
Thank you for putting words my mouth.
We can keep the same standards of consent we have now while doing away with co-sensual crimes, what is so hard to grasp about that?
| 723 |
webevintage Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:13:23am |
This Palin story with video (that is all over the place) is just delish:
[Link: www.huffingtonpost.com...]
Palin kid being rude, Todd trying to block cell phone camera, woman letting Palin know how she feels, Palin group tearing down sign.
I love these folks.....
| 725 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:13:39am |
re: #669 lostlakehiker
Because polygamy makes our society too much of a winner-take-all society. It's profoundly destabilizing. It's degrading to women. What's not to fear? Does every man expect to be among the elite who score multiple wives? Does no woman fear the consequences of a Darwinian struggle to make it into that elite, a struggle which in its nature will be no-holds-barred?
Show me the worked example, an advanced industrial civilization where polygamy is legal and has been so for quite some time.
Holy red herring, batman!
| 726 |
jamesfirecat Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:13:40am |
| 727 |
darthstar Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:13:41am |
re: #707 Varek Raith
By the way, apparently the prison break happened at 9:30 pm, and an alarm sounded that there was activity between the two fences (I guess one of the guys wives/girlfriends threw wire cutters over the fence). It wasn't until 11:30pm that they called the sheriff to report the escape.
| 728 |
jamesfirecat Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:15:01am |
re: #724 Firstinla
What are "co-sensual" crimes?
Well Prostitution is a good example.
An exchange is made between two consenting people one of them giving up a service in exchange for goods (money) provided by the other with both parties having reached an acceptable agreement....
At least that's how it is suppose to work in theory....
| 729 |
RadicalModerate Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:16:48am |
Who here would have guessed that Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice would be blatantly hypocritical in their opposition to the Park51 project in Manhattan?
After saying the building was "arguably one of the most significant properties in New York," Joshpe said he would not be pursuing the case if a Christian church were being built on the same site.
"Would I be personally involved in this matter if this were a church? No," he said. "And the reason why is because if it were a church it wouldn't be offending and hurting the 9/11 victims' families."
Just imagine the rhetoric from this group if someone tried to stop the building of a Christian church a few blocks from an abortion clinic that was bombed by some Christian fanatic. They'd be screaming about religious freedom -- and they'd be right, and those trying to stop the building of the church would be wrong. See, that's what intellectual consistency looks like rather than special pleading and disingenuous nonsense.
Given this mission statement that is on the front page of the ACLJ's website, I think that someone might consider taking a look at that tax-exempt status they're claiming.
The ACLJ is an organization dedicated to the defense of constitutional liberties secured by law.
American Center for Law and Justice is a d/b/a for Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism, Inc., a tax-exempt, not-for-profit, religious corporation as defined under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, specifically dedicated to the ideal that religious freedom and freedom of speech are inalienable, God-given rights. The Center's purpose is to educate, promulgate, conciliate, and where necessary, litigate, to ensure that those rights are protected under the law. The organization has participated in numerous cases before the Supreme Court, Federal Court of Appeals, Federal District Courts, and various state courts regarding freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
| 730 |
garhighway Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:17:05am |
re: #627 reine.de.tout
YOU think it's unnecessary.
Others think differently.
What would it "cost" you toput those fears to restrespond to my straw man?
FTFY
| 731 |
reine.de.tout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:26:28am |
re: #730 garhighway
FTFY
Not my straw man.
He brought that particular scenario up, not me.
I responded to it.
I never expressed any personal "fears" but did express the "arguments" I've heard others make.
sheesh. Can you keep anything straight?
| 732 |
'K.' Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:26:38am |
Because polygamy makes our society too much of a winner-take-all society. It's profoundly destabilizing. It's degrading to women.
The first sentence I get. The third one I'm not sure about, though. There are studies that say polygamy actually benefits most women, although it disadvantages most men.
Clearly polygamy has nothing to do with gay marriage. Actually, less than nothing. Societies with polygamy usually have stronger gender roles.
| 733 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:27:06am |
re: #701 reine.de.tout
If there were no laws defining what is consent (and at what age consent is considered valid), then . . . what?
re: #705 reine.de.tout
Sorry.
I believe crimes like rape, for instance, do indeed belong in the criminal arena.
The definition of "consensual" crimes isn't what you have apparently taken it to mean.
NOBODY is arguing that people be allowed to have sex with children, or rape people. People ARE arguing that adults be allowed to do whatever the hell they want.
| 734 |
b_Snark Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:32:34am |
re: #662 webevintage
Putting aside the folks who think God would have an issue with 2 or more folks being married there are those who, because of groups like the Warren Jeffs folks, see sister-wives as an inherently abusive situation.
(I have no issues with polygamy as long as no one is made to take part)
Systems like that are natively misogynistic/paternalistic because of their particular interpretation of the Bible, particularly the OT. Most views I've heard on the subject focus on the abuse of children and women instead of the religious aspect without trying to untangle which is the cause and which is the result. It is easy to imagine a system without that abuse if misogyny and paternalism is removed.
They also tend to assume that polygamy equals polygyny because that has been the default in cultures already cursed with misogynistic and/or paternalistic attitudes. Going back to those attitudes, now that we are on the road to correcting it is a very real danger but one that can be dealt with through those laws resulting from the civil liberties movements.
| 735 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:32:40am |
re: #727 darthstar
By the way, apparently the prison break happened at 9:30 pm, and an alarm sounded that there was activity between the two fences (I guess one of the guys wives/girlfriends threw wire cutters over the fence). It wasn't until 11:30pm that they called the sheriff to report the escape.
Apparently the free market had decided that this man should go free.
| 736 |
Varek Raith Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:33:42am |
re: #727 darthstar
By the way, apparently the prison break happened at 9:30 pm, and an alarm sounded that there was activity between the two fences (I guess one of the guys wives/girlfriends threw wire cutters over the fence). It wasn't until 11:30pm that they called the sheriff to report the escape.
Wow...
| 737 |
garhighway Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:37:03am |
re: #731 reine.de.tout
Not my straw man.
He brought that particular scenario up, not me.
I responded to it.I never expressed any personal "fears" but did express the "arguments" I've heard others make.
sheesh. Can you keep anything straight?
And I have repeated and politely asked you to name just a few proponents of the positions you think people fear. And you can't. That is the very essence of a straw man argument, is it not? One that has no proponents in reality, but was instead invented to make some other point?
How is this not that?
| 738 |
reine.de.tout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:37:52am |
re: #722 jamesfirecat
Thank you for putting words my mouth.
We can keep the same standards of consent we have now while doing away with co-sensual crimes, what is so hard to grasp about that?
james - you stated you would be agreeable to doing away with laws that interfere with your pursuit of happiness, as defined, I suppose, by YOU.
Who are you to say other people's pursuit of happiness is less valid than yours? You seem to advocate keeping the laws you personally agree with but getting rid of others that are in your way.
If you mean something very specific, then please say exactly what you mean. You've given a broad statement that can be interpreted any number of ways, which is what I'm trying to point out.
| 739 |
b_Snark Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:42:24am |
re: #667 reine.de.tout
Ah, Ok.
Well, I don't really know.
It happens now . . . people get a church blessing for having multiple wives and consider themselves married in the eyes of God.It's not the sort of arrangement I would be happy about. But that's me.
Human adults, and we are talking adults here, not children, are, or should be, quite capable of determining who they want to live with and have an emotional, financial and sexual relationship. I hear conservatives barking about the 'nanny state' a lot, but it seems to me that predetermining the legal and moral relationships of rational adults is the biggest nanny statism possible.
We do need to get away from the polygyny only view of multiple-partner relationships because it carries with it the baggage of centuries of paternalistic and sometimes misogynistic cultures and the abuse of women and children.
These types of relationships are certainly not for everybody, I know being in one would probably bother me a lot, but I do see in each generation a cumulative freeing up of the 'ownership' issues spousal abuse partially stems from and an acceptance of less dependent relationships.
| 740 |
JamesWI Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:46:27am |
re: #509 RadicalModerate
I know it's YouTube and all, but a quick scan of the 7,000-odd comments on that video have to be some of the ugliest stuff I've seen this side of the fever swamp, or VDARE. Open racism, conspiracy lunacy, and support for armed rebellion abounds. And those are the ones that haven't been deleted yet - I'd hate to see what was in the dozens that were removed.
Any large site with many comments, where there is no real effort at moderation (besides profanity filters) will be just as disgusting. The one I always see is Yahoo News. They have their own thumbs up/thumbs down where you can see what other people have bothered to rate posts. Calls for revolution, calls for gays being treated as second class citizens or even killed, get positive ratings.
The other day, there was a story about "trackers" - people who go to campaign events, fundraisers, etc. with video cameras or other recording devices to try to catch people making gaffes. The most prominent recent example in that story was Ken Buck and his "tea party dumbasses asking birther questions on camera" comment. I decided to leave a comment along the lines of "In the current state of the right wing, referring to birther dumbasses as dumbasses is considered a potentially election-losing gaffe." When I checked on the ratings a little later, it was about 20 up to 20 down.
All these sites make places like HotAir and the stalker blogs look like bastions of tolerance, friendliness and intelligence. I don't know what it is. Simply the lack of moderation to kick out the most disgusting, or the increased anonymity of a news site vs. a blog where you still have some sort of personal connection to.
| 741 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:51:08am |
re: #362 jaunte
This story says the unemployment rate there is 24%.
[Link: thevalleychronicle.com...]
So, plenty of time to work on kidnapping the neighbors and attempting to deport them.
| 742 |
b_Snark Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:53:13am |
re: #669 lostlakehiker
Because polygamy makes our society too much of a winner-take-all society. It's profoundly destabilizing. It's degrading to women. What's not to fear? Does every man expect to be among the elite who score multiple wives? Does no woman fear the consequences of a Darwinian struggle to make it into that elite, a struggle which in its nature will be no-holds-barred?
Polygamy is not exclusively polygyny, nor does it require one of one sex and many of the other.
You are making far too much of the 'Darwinian struggle' which is just a red herring at best. As humans, evolution has given us a very 'plastic' brain capable of, when working as a rational group, overcoming genetic impulses. That is how we were able to create functional large groups the size of countries.
Show me the worked example, an advanced industrial civilization where polygamy is legal and has been so for quite some time.
Show me a culture that has bested it's historical paternalism and misogynous attitudes and I'll show you a culture capable of having a multiple partner system work.
The one has to precede the other.
| 743 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:55:26am |
re: #367 'K.'
Darn, I missed this thread after posting on the original one by Thanos. Bummer.
Much of this issue depends on what "harm" is. If you think that undercutting traditional gender roles or norms of marital commitment (gay men are more likely to have partners outside marriage, and gay relationships on average don't last as long) then there is seemingly a good case to make against gay marriage. If you think eroding these ideas doesn't do harm, say because you think traditional gender roles hurt women, then gay marriage may be a no-brainer. "Harm" here is very subjective. Either way, you're making a moral judgment: it's not just the conservatives doing it.
Not clear what your argument for society is here. Do you think gay men will cheat less and stay with partners longer if they can't marry?
Given that the straight divorce rate is hovering around 50%, I would say you might have an excellent case to make that straight people also shouldn't marry.
| 744 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:55:53am |
re: #369 Taqyia2Me
Meth largely hecho en Mexico these days...
Oh, hell no. They cook it up anywhere.
| 745 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:56:24am |
re: #375 Killgore Trout
Today's outrageous outrage seems to be that Mrs. Obama is secretly meeting with Muslims on her lavish vacation in Spain.
So they can admire her beautiful bare shoulders?
| 746 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:56:53am |
| 747 |
jamesfirecat Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:57:01am |
re: #738 reine.de.tout
james - you stated you would be agreeable to doing away with laws that interfere with your pursuit of happiness, as defined, I suppose, by YOU.
Who are you to say other people's pursuit of happiness is less valid than yours? You seem to advocate keeping the laws you personally agree with but getting rid of others that are in your way.
If you mean something very specific, then please say exactly what you mean. You've given a broad statement that can be interpreted any number of ways, which is what I'm trying to point out.
You are confusing me with Jason A all I ever said was "All I want is a society with no co-sensual crimes personally.
That's not too much to ask (I hope) and its quite clearly obvious where you draw the lines."
A "Co-sensual crime" is an act that both/all parties have completely agreed to and yet is still considered illegal.
Prostitution is a good example of a Co-sensual crime, as is buying certain drugs.
Pursuit of happiness never even entered into my argument.
| 748 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:58:28am |
re: #383 Dark_Falcon
I disagree. i prefer strong marital commitment and I really do think letting gay men marry will erode it. I also prefer to draw gender distinctions. If they leave some outliers miserable, that means little to me. They make things much neater and more orderly. I admit that I strongly favor order over compassion.
I couldn't disagree more, and I think your argument is silly.
That said, I want to tell you how impressed I am that you're willing to simply say that you're opposed to this, instead of coming up with nonsense about the judicial process, or playing 'what if' games. Classy and honest as always, even when I think you're totally wrong.
Thanks, Dark.
| 749 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:59:37am |
re: #396 JasonA
But damn do they look good...
Lesbians will be able to do home repairs for you, though.
/
| 750 |
b_Snark Mon, Aug 9, 2010 11:59:47am |
re: #680 NJDhockeyfan
Mutilated Afghan Woman Now on U.S. Soil for Months-Long Surgery
I understand your purpose in posting that in this thread but Afghanistan is just coming out of a religiously controlled, and highly misogynistic, culture. The US and other western countries are well past that and have laws, and now social contracts, punishing that kind of behaviour.
| 751 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:00:48pm |
re: #402 'K.'
I think it's pretty obvious that gay marriage will undercut traditional gender roles.
A lot of times liberals don't seem to realize that by dismissing these traditional roles as useless or even harmful, they are making a moral judgment.
Don't get why. I'm a woman married to a man. Our marriage doesn't change because we know gay and lesbian couples.
Can you explain what traditional roles you're thinking of, and give me an example of how my friends Keyle and Mirele getting married will influence them?
| 752 |
b_Snark Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:01:06pm |
re: #684 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
So if their marriages were more accepted and they weren't ostracized by the community, their marriages would be more stable?
Sounds like another reason to accept them let them marry to me.
I agree. Their marriages are under higher stress because of the stigma.
| 753 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:01:28pm |
re: #404 JasonA
Yeah, what the hell were we thinking when we gave dem broads the right to vote?
Barefoot & preggers is how it's gotta be.
///
Republican broads also got the right to vote!
| 754 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:03:00pm |
re: #748 SanFranciscoZionist
I couldn't disagree more, and I think your argument is silly.
That said, I want to tell you how impressed I am that you're willing to simply say that you're opposed to this, instead of coming up with nonsense about the judicial process, or playing 'what if' games. Classy and honest as always, even when I think you're totally wrong.
Thanks, Dark.
That's what makes him so cool.
He says what he feels, admits it is what it is, and that's that. I can respect that even if I disagree extremely strongly.
| 755 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:04:50pm |
re: #425 Stonemason
Actually the first one is moot as well. 'Traditionally' billions of kids have been raised by people who didn't biologically parent them.
Marriage is an outdated concept to begin with, how the heck is this going to hurt something that is dying anyway?
Mirele and Keyle, BTW, raised a son. I think it would be cool if his mothers could get married before he does.
| 756 |
b_Snark Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:05:16pm |
re: #700 PT Barnum
Religion is about deciding what God isn't[,] more than it is about understanding what God is.
Commas are your friends and make ideas easier to understand for old farts like me.
| 757 |
b_Snark Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:06:42pm |
re: #701 reine.de.tout
If there were no laws defining what is consent (and at what age consent is considered valid), then . . . what?
I don't think anyone would agree with removing those standards. Emotional and physical damage to kids is not something we want to play with.
| 758 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:07:01pm |
re: #436 calochortus
I remember way back when (college) when my sociology prof pointed out that in the vast number of cultures out there, child rearing was done in many different ways. It didn't matter if the people with the same biological relationship to the child took on the exact same role in each culture, but that there were general similarities in the roles that someone filled. It could be mom or grandma, dad or eldest maternal uncle, whatever. So the must-have-biological-father-and-mother crowd aren't paying attention to reality.
Then there's the equating gay marriage with divorce argument. These people want to get married, not divorced (though that will happen too.)
The final irony is that the Mormon church got behind the 'one man, one woman-that's the way its always been' meme. Really? There has never been polygamy? Amazing.
It's the Biblical argument that slays me. The Bible says that marriage is between one man and one woman?
My ancestor Yaakov, and his wife Leah, and his wife Rachel, and his concubine Bilhah, and his concubine Zilpah would like to have a word with you about that.
| 759 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:08:21pm |
re: #443 jaunte
Nashville has the largest Kurdish population in the U.S., more than 11,000. Mostly from Iraq. Massive!
OH GOD, IT'S THE KURDS.
Wait. Don't we like them?
Were we told they were Muslims when we were told we liked them?
I'm so confused now.
| 760 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:12:38pm |
re: #455 publicityStunted
You just reminded me of something that happened about a dozen years ago - I was in the break room of the store where I worked at the time, and one of my co-workers came across a magazine article about same-sex marriage illustrated with a photo of two women in wedding dresses. Her exact words? "Two women getting married? That turns my stomach."
A gentleman of my acquaintance put it to me this way. He said:
"The thought of two men making love to each other makes me physically sick. It really grosses me out.
You know what else grosses me out? The thought of doctors doing surgery on a human eyeball, like cutting into it, and ick, I can't even think about it. And I'm not suggesting that they should stop doing eye surgery just so I don't feel sick. I can just not think about it."
| 761 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:17:42pm |
re: #522 garhighway
What the hell are you talking about?
Yesterday the big concern was polygamy.
I have no idea why.
| 762 |
b_Snark Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:18:04pm |
re: #705 reine.de.tout
Sorry.
I believe crimes like rape, for instance, do indeed belong in the criminal arena.
Rape is a crime of violence more than it is of sex. Any act that forces an adult to do something against his/her will outside of societal norms, needs to be examined closely and made criminal if needed.
| 763 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:20:11pm |
re: #557 garhighway
I haven't heard or read anything about anyone wanting to interfere with how churches determine who they will or will not marry. The Catholic Church has imposed requirements over and above those of the law since forever, and no one is suggesting that is a legal problem for the state.
The First Amendment pretty much addresses that.
My rabbi wouldn't marry me to a gentile.
My cousin's church won't marry him to a man.
This is protected.
| 764 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:23:45pm |
re: #627 reine.de.tout
YOU think it's unnecessary.
Others think differently.
What would it "cost" you to put those fears to rest?
Nothing?
I disagree. We may, eventually, have the polygamy debate as society. We're not having it now.
The idea that this is such a big deal that we have to sign some sort of oath in blood that we'll never allow plural marriage strikes me as pretty damn silly.
| 765 |
Ben G. Hazi Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:23:59pm |
re: #394 Stonemason
There are none, everyone who opposes the building of the Park 51 Center is either a bigot or a loser tool of a bigot.
If the shoe fits...
| 766 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:24:35pm |
re: #638 JasonA
More than they fear people who actually want to practice it? More than they fear people actually fighting for polygamy? And where are those people, anyway? I have yet to see them.
This does strike me as the world's biggest red herring.
| 767 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:28:08pm |
re: #659 reine.de.tout
What you're talking about is a lawless society.
I can't go along with that.
That's not a lawless society, that's a society that doesn't interfere with the rights of the individual without a compelling interest.
| 768 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:30:32pm |
re: #669 lostlakehiker
Because polygamy makes our society too much of a winner-take-all society. It's profoundly destabilizing. It's degrading to women. What's not to fear? Does every man expect to be among the elite who score multiple wives? Does no woman fear the consequences of a Darwinian struggle to make it into that elite, a struggle which in its nature will be no-holds-barred?
Show me the worked example, an advanced industrial civilization where polygamy is legal and has been so for quite some time.
Are you actually stupid enough to believe that polygamy being legalized would lead to a Hobbesian struggle of all against all, as the people of United States abandon traditional cultural patterns?
No, I don't 'fear the Darwinian consequences'. Because this is a society of laws.
| 769 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:30:36pm |
re: #588 reine.de.tout
I think there are people with real and legitimate concerns about the possibility that the next thing up will be marriage between more than 2 people. I happen to believe that's a pretty far-fetched idea, myself . . . but instead of calling people names, why not discuss and work out a solution that would put those fears to rest? Just seems to me to be the rational thing to do.
There are those who believe that at some point, the government will begin to push for all religions to recognize and perform gay marriages. I used to think this was pretty far-fetched, but as time moves on, this is less far-fetched in my mind.
This reminds me of people who are constantly bringing up Obama's birth certificate because they have "legitimate concerns".
"I have legitimate concerns that a man may be able to marry a turtle, let's spend a whole lot of time worrying about it and looking for a "solution".
No. That's crap. That's an anti-gay dominionist think-tank talking point. That's right own the line of the Dobsons and the Perkins. That's keeping the political ball in the air, it's the political equivalent of a concern troll.
Imagine if after interracial marriage was decriminalized, this same line was taken. 'I have legitimate concerns about a white woman marrying two black men." What does that do?
Well of course it keeps the political ball in the air about a racist notion. Just like this whole line about a priest of any religion being FORCED to marry gay people is keeping a bigoted notion in play, that gays are "taking over" or "ruining" or "violating" religion.
| 770 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:30:38pm |
If you can't identify a victim or victims, or a tangible environmental harm, then an act should not be illegal, now matter how offensive it may be.
It seems incredibly ironic that small-government conservatives would be so reliably in favor of making laws regarding victimless, private, sexual behavior.
| 771 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:31:08pm |
re: #673 'K.'
'K
Some other studies:
[Link: radicalreference.info...]
You're right. Men are unsuitable for marriage. Only women should be allowed to marry.
| 772 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:32:50pm |
re: #737 garhighway
And I have repeated and politely asked you to name just a few proponents of the positions you think people fear. And you can't. That is the very essence of a straw man argument, is it not? One that has no proponents in reality, but was instead invented to make some other point?
How is this not that?
It is totally a straw man argument
| 773 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:34:00pm |
re: #770 Fozzie Bear
If you can't identify a victim or victims, or a tangible environmental harm, then an act should not be illegal, now matter how offensive it may be.
It seems incredibly ironic that small-government conservatives would be so reliably in favor of making laws regarding victimless, private, sexual behavior.
There's always suddenly so many "legitimate concerns" the instant a second class citizen starts getting their rights under the constitution. Yeah.
| 774 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:37:24pm |
re: #643 reine.de.tout
I'm not saying the ONLY way to put their fears to rest is to have an amendment passed, or have it articulated in whatever documents currently exist. I'm saying it might be ONE way.
The one thing that will NOT put fears to rest is calling people names, and refusing to discuss things with logic, but resorting to just name-calling. That's all I've been trying to say.
How about this, reine:
Sometimes people with irrational fears don't get to have their fears put to rest, because they are non-sensical and irrational fears. People with crazy irrational fears about polygamy don't get to be catered to.
| 775 |
Ben G. Hazi Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:39:33pm |
re: #383 Dark_Falcon
I disagree. i prefer strong marital commitment and I really do think letting gay men marry will erode it. I also prefer to draw gender distinctions. If they leave some outliers miserable, that means little to me. They make things much neater and more orderly. I admit that I strongly favor order over compassion.
I respect you, Dark, but I have to strongly disagree with you here. Allowing gay couples to "marry" in civil ceremonies wouldn't erode shit, but they would get the same legal protections hetero married couples have enjoyed (tax status, inheritance, power of attorney, etc.)...churches would still be free to marry whoever they want (or not).
Your "strongly favor order over compassion" quip makes you sound like a Borg...it doesn't become you.
| 776 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:39:49pm |
re: #623 reine.de.tout
i'm not saying I necessarily agree with that either thing is close to happening.
All I'm saying is that there are people who believe it. And so . . . what cost is there to YOU or anyone else to discuss the issue and put it to rest?
I would like to see gay couples have the protections of unionhood. If what stands in the way is a notion that it will lead to polygamy - .
Polygamy doesn't stand in the way. It's not a legitimate obstacle. it's a social conservative smear against gay people, that legislation of their unions will lead to polygamy, but straight peoples' unions don't.
| 777 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:41:51pm |
re: #383 Dark_Falcon
I disagree. i prefer strong marital commitment and I really do think letting gay men marry will erode it. I also prefer to draw gender distinctions. If they leave some outliers miserable, that means little to me. They make things much neater and more orderly. I admit that I strongly favor order over compassion.
Wow, okay, I guess I'm pretty much done with you.
I wish you had just told me outright you don't consider gay people to be equal citizens under the law, it would have been a little more honest on your part
so yeah, pretty disgusted right now
| 778 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:43:35pm |
re: #409 Walter L. Newton
Many updings for this, Walter :)
| 779 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:44:24pm |
re: #421 Dark_Falcon
Sorry to disappoint you. I don't have reason to defend, because my position is not based on it. It's an emotion -based position, I admit it. That's all I have time to say.
BBT for real.
So is racism.
I don't give white supremacists a pass either.
| 780 |
Ben G. Hazi Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:47:58pm |
re: #466 Fozzie Bear
The thing is, letting gays marry changes almost nothing about the "ick factor" for those who have a problem with it. Gays will still be living together, whether or not it bothers people. They will still be having sex.
The only thing gay marriage will change is things like insurance coverage, power of attorney, hospital visitation, etc.
In other words, it will hurt noone, and it will fix several long-standing injustices.
Precisely, but some people get hung up on the word "marriage" and get all apoplectic. Folks, we're talking about extending the same legal protections to gay couples that hetero married couples have had for the longest time...nothing more, nothing less.
| 781 |
Ben G. Hazi Mon, Aug 9, 2010 12:49:57pm |
re: #471 DaddyG
It's kind of embarassing. The boys should have kept it classy no matter what. Then again I've been camping with the Boy Scouts and classy isn't always what you get when you take mobs of teenage boys into the woods. sigh.
I know that one...
/fellow Scouter here
| 782 |
Eclectic Infidel Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:04:11pm |
re: #653 lostlakehiker
There are three ways to legalize gay marriage: by changing the law, by changing the constitution, or by ditching the whole idea of letting people vote and just changing the system so that judges decide on their own whether or not they like a law, and then order it enacted or rescinded.
It looks as though you'll win, by one path or the other. Now you curse me for objecting to route 3, and offering to support route 1 or 2, asking only that it be limited to exactly two consenting adults. If you read some of the other comments on these pages, you will see that for many, there is so a 'rest of the agenda'.
You also put words in my mouth. I never suggested a constitutional amendment to buttress the status quo regarding marriage.
Route 1 0r 2 may come into play sometime in the future. Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional, however. You have no problem with an unconstitutional law existing on the books. Why is that? What's your agenda?
| 783 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:09:15pm |
re: #748 SanFranciscoZionist
I couldn't disagree more, and I think your argument is silly.
That said, I want to tell you how impressed I am that you're willing to simply say that you're opposed to this, instead of coming up with nonsense about the judicial process, or playing 'what if' games. Classy and honest as always, even when I think you're totally wrong.
Thanks, Dark.
I don't think this is classy, because nicely stated it's still bigotry.
Sorry, not exactly feeling the love here.
| 784 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:11:16pm |
I'm curious if Dark Falcon said it would just be "neater" and "more orderly" if whites married whites and blacks married blacks
If that would still get the same reaction
Just curious here
| 785 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:12:02pm |
re: #783 WindUpBird
I don't think this is classy, because nicely stated it's still bigotry.
Sorry, not exactly feeling the love here.
I get that, but on the other hand, I'm so glad to deal with someone in opposition who's not babbling about polygamy and the coming Darwinian war.
It's a lot easier to talk to someone who knows they're having an emotional reaction and will say why.
| 786 |
Eclectic Infidel Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:13:01pm |
lostlakehiker's irrational rant against multiple spouses reeks of the kind of piss poor reasoning that the ass clown Michael Savage uses to bash the idea of gay marriage.
| 787 |
windsagio Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:13:24pm |
re: #783 WindUpBird
Man everybody just feels bad for him. He's pretty messed up in the head.
| 788 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:14:25pm |
re: #784 WindUpBird
I'm curious if Dark Falcon said it would just be "neater" and "more orderly" if whites married whites and blacks married blacks
If that would still get the same reaction
Just curious here
Probably not.
| 789 |
windsagio Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:15:54pm |
Oh let me say it again, I think it should be legal to enter a binding social contract with your dog, if that's what really floats your boat ;)
| 790 |
'K.' Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:16:31pm |
re: #684 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
That's part of it, but not the whole thing. There's something about gay relationships between men that makes them less stable.
Now a guy can argue, so bloody what? And by itself this definitely wouldn't be a good enough reason not to recognize their relationships, but length does factor into what we all agree is a "good" marriage.
Just for the record, I have nothing against gay relationships. A person's own time is their own time. Not my business.
| 791 |
windsagio Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:17:18pm |
re: #790 'K.'
Maybe its the deep social condemnation and bigotry that makes them less stable?
| 792 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:17:34pm |
re: #789 windsagio
Oh let me say it again, I think it should be legal to enter a binding social contract with your dog, if that's what really floats your boat ;)
Will the dog be able to own property? Make decisions for you when you're in the hospital on life support?
(You're being weird again.)
| 793 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:18:07pm |
re: #785 SanFranciscoZionist
I get that, but on the other hand, I'm so glad to deal with someone in opposition who's not babbling about polygamy and the coming Darwinian war.
It's a lot easier to talk to someone who knows they're having an emotional reaction and will say why.
It strikes me the wrong way because here's a guy I thought was sorta friendly to me and here he is just saying it straight up, that he doesn't believe I'm equal under the law.
All bigotry is at its core emotional, I guess I just don't want to smile and break bread with people who are suspicious of me and believe I should be denied rights because of their gut feeling
| 794 |
windsagio Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:19:12pm |
re: #792 SanFranciscoZionist
Oh dammit, last time I put that caveat in, but I forgot this time!
add: *with the understanding that a dog has no actual legal rights
to the end of that.
The point is yeah its really weird, but it doesn't threaten anyone else really, so why the hell not?
| 795 |
jamesfirecat Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:19:31pm |
re: #790 'K.'
That's part of it, but not the whole thing. There's something about gay relationships between men that makes them less stable.
Now a guy can argue, so bloody what? And by itself this definitely wouldn't be a good enough reason not to recognize their relationships, but length does factor into what we all agree is a "good" marriage.
Just for the record, I have nothing against gay relationships. A person's own time is their own time. Not my business.
If we only allowed "Good marriages" to take place then Vegas would have to put in more slot machines to make up for the revenue it looses no longer being able to marry off any two poor smucks to drunk off their ass to realize what they're doing...
| 796 |
Eclectic Infidel Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:19:31pm |
re: #383 Dark_Falcon
I disagree. i prefer strong marital commitment and I really do think letting gay men marry will erode it. I also prefer to draw gender distinctions. If they leave some outliers miserable, that means little to me. They make things much neater and more orderly. I admit that I strongly favor order over compassion.
Let's run with the half-baked speculation and theory that if gay men can marry, more than often, gay men will end up divorcing their husbands. Even if that were so, the only thing eroded would be the state of marriage within the gay community. The hetero community would continue, untouched, since heteros by their own nature, don't wed gay men.
I'm not sorry when I say this, DF, but on this issue, I think you're letting prejudice interfere with your ability to reason.
| 797 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:19:47pm |
re: #790 'K.'
That's part of it, but not the whole thing. There's something about gay relationships between men that makes them less stable.
Now a guy can argue, so bloody what? And by itself this definitely wouldn't be a good enough reason not to recognize their relationships, but length does factor into what we all agree is a "good" marriage.
Just for the record, I have nothing against gay relationships. A person's own time is their own time. Not my business.
Except that you're making it your business now, by arguing that society has a compelling interest in preventing those relationships from being recognized as marriages.
A man who cannot marry his partner faces considerable social disadvantage. What possible counter-advantage to society do you see from not permitting him to marry?
Please consider, as you answer, the actual, rather than idealized, state of heterosexual marriage.
| 798 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:20:38pm |
re: #786 eclectic infidel
lostlakehiker's irrational rant against multiple spouses reeks of the kind of piss poor reasoning that the ass clown Michael Savage uses to bash the idea of gay marriage.
Reine is dropping the same lines, same thought patterns in the thread, just in a far more gentle way
We've got legitimate questions about polygamy!!!1111
UGGH.
| 799 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:20:56pm |
re: #791 windsagio
Maybe its the deep social condemnation and bigotry that makes them less stable?
Nah, I just think men aren't able to really understand or enter into true marriage. It should be reserved for women only.
(Lesbians cleave to each other like damn limpets!)
| 800 |
windsagio Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:21:06pm |
re: #794 windsagio
And I'm not just exaggerating to make a point either. If it makes the owner happy, and doesn't hurt the dog, I have no problem with it.
| 801 |
wrenchwench Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:22:23pm |
re: #787 windsagio
Man everybody just feels bad for him. He's pretty messed up in the head.
I probably shouldn't say this, but one of my first thoughts was that he seems educable, like you on Israel. (Would a smiley face be any help here?)
re: #793 WindUpBird
It strikes me the wrong way because here's a guy I thought was sorta friendly to me and here he is just saying it straight up, that he doesn't believe I'm equal under the law.
All bigotry is at its core emotional, I guess I just don't want to smile and break bread with people who are suspicious of me and believe I should be denied rights because of their gut feeling
I wouldn't expect you to feel any differently. In fact, I would expect myself to feel more like you do (despite the fact that I'm straight) but I do have this feeling that D_F can learn and change.
| 802 |
windsagio Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:22:28pm |
re: #799 SanFranciscoZionist
So its not gays, we have to hate, its MEN! :D
| 803 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:22:58pm |
re: #799 SanFranciscoZionist
Nah, I just think men aren't able to really understand or enter into true marriage. It should be reserved for women only.
(Lesbians cleave to each other like damn limpets!)
gays have bars, lesbians have coffeeshops ;-)
| 804 |
windsagio Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:23:53pm |
re: #801 wrenchwench
A smiley would help probably :D
I don't think he is, the only thing he's learned since I've been here is how to usually hide his more whackjob positions. Oh and how to whine effectively.
As per Israel, its more me educating you guys, 'cuz I'm right, DAMMIT :p
| 805 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:24:08pm |
re: #793 WindUpBird
It strikes me the wrong way because here's a guy I thought was sorta friendly to me and here he is just saying it straight up, that he doesn't believe I'm equal under the law.
All bigotry is at its core emotional, I guess I just don't want to smile and break bread with people who are suspicious of me and believe I should be denied rights because of their gut feeling
I get that. And now I'm feeling a bit guilty over my response. But I would like us to be able to actually discuss what's going on with people--I've spent twenty-four hours on hack-and-scream and been rewarded with nothing but intense concern about polygyny taking over the United States.
You OK?
| 806 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:24:39pm |
re: #794 windsagio
Oh dammit, last time I put that caveat in, but I forgot this time!
add: *with the understanding that a dog has no actual legal rights
to the end of that.
The point is yeah its really weird, but it doesn't threaten anyone else really, so why the hell not?
Because dogs deserve to be left out of the insanity people create for themselves.
| 807 |
windsagio Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:26:43pm |
re: #806 SanFranciscoZionist
Because dogs deserve to be left out of the insanity people create for themselves.
Dammit, I can't argue with that.
I'll add its different if They're boning their pets (thanks to WUB I know of some people like that, at least via rumor).
Shall I scroll back to just saying Poly should be totally legal? :D
| 808 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:26:46pm |
re: #798 WindUpBird
Reine is dropping the same lines, same thought patterns in the thread, just in a far more gentle way
We've got legitimate questions about polygamy!!!1111
UGGH.
See, THIS is why I prefer the guy who flat-out says "this messes with my idea of what society is supposed to look like". He may be wrong, but he ain't lying.
| 809 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:28:19pm |
re: #790 'K.'
Where the rubber meets the road is, it's none of my business, and none of yours. It CERTAINLY is none of the government's business.
It is a contractual issue. The government's only legitimate involvement is to provide civil courts in which disputes regarding those contracts can be resolved.
Beyond that, the issue of whether such arrangements are stable, or offensive, or useful to society is moot, because it is none of the government's business WHO you marry.
| 810 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:28:35pm |
re: #805 SanFranciscoZionist
I get that. And now I'm feeling a bit guilty over my response. But I would like us to be able to actually discuss what's going on with people--I've spent twenty-four hours on hack-and-scream and been rewarded with nothing but intense concern about polygyny taking over the United States.
You OK?
Oh I'm fine, just uh...grumpy about the last few threads :P Don't feel guilty, he's a dude you've gotten to know.
I mean I'm not going to go nova or anything of course, but it's sorta like there's a lot of the veil being lifted about how some people feel about gay rights here, and it's sorta weirding me out. Even among the conservatives I know (and they get into the sorta libertarian weeds) they're 100% full on go go gay rights. Then Icome here and go wait wait WHAT?!?!
| 811 |
Eclectic Infidel Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:28:42pm |
re: #803 WindUpBird
gays have bars, lesbians have coffeeshops ;-)
Reminds me..
Going on ten years now, a good friend of mine realized he wasn't straight and found himself discharged from the military when he came clean to his CO. Since he wanted to explore gay establishments in the city but didn't want to do so alone, I went with him. ON one such occasion, we found a flier about some dance party at the End Up in SF. Turns out the flier was wrong and it was a lesbian dance party instead. Two guys standing in the door way, mouths open, completely stunned. The bartender thought it was a hoot, however, and she poured us a couple drafts, to keep the good will going and all that.
| 812 |
windsagio Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:28:57pm |
re: #808 SanFranciscoZionist
I think its the difference between people that are underexposed and just not comfortable with the idea (like for instance Reine) and people that really don't think gays are as good as the rest of us.
To misquote WW, the former are educable and will come around. The latter are broken.
| 813 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:29:24pm |
re: #803 WindUpBird
gays have bars, lesbians have coffeeshops ;-)
What does a lesbian bring on a second date?
| 814 |
wrenchwench Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:29:25pm |
re: #804 windsagio
A smiley would help probably :D
I don't think he is, the only thing he's learned since I've been here is how to usually hide his more whackjob positions. Oh and how to whine effectively.
I have been fooled in the past. I still hope. :) :) :)
As per Israel, its more me educating you guys, 'cuz I'm right, DAMMIT :p
I do like seeing you try. Keep it up. :p
| 815 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:29:27pm |
re: #808 SanFranciscoZionist
See, THIS is why I prefer the guy who flat-out says "this messes with my idea of what society is supposed to look like". He may be wrong, but he ain't lying.
I see the point here, heh. The polygamy concern line really turns my stomach.
| 816 |
windsagio Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:30:21pm |
Is it bad that I give old/sheltered people more of a pass than I give young people on this subject? >>
| 817 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:30:46pm |
re: #811 eclectic infidel
Reminds me..
Going on ten years now, a good friend of mine realized he wasn't straight and found himself discharged from the military when he came clean to his CO. Since he wanted to explore gay establishments in the city but didn't want to do so alone, I went with him. ON one such occasion, we found a flier about some dance party at the End Up in SF. Turns out the flier was wrong and it was a lesbian dance party instead. Two guys standing in the door way, mouths open, completely stunned. The bartender thought it was a hoot, however, and she poured us a couple drafts, to keep the good will going and all that.
hahaha nice :D I've done that at club nights, showed up at the wrong night, all ready to get my industrial-goth on and the clientele is totally NOT THOSE PEOPLE and then I realize it was actually Tuesday, whoops!
| 818 |
windsagio Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:30:52pm |
re: #814 wrenchwench
hehehe its fun :D
well mostly, the freakouts aren't necessarily that fun. They're just kinda the price of admission tho'.
| 819 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:31:10pm |
re: #813 SanFranciscoZionist
What does a lesbian bring on a second date?
hahaha is this a trick question? :D
| 820 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:31:20pm |
re: #807 windsagio
Dammit, I can't argue with that.
I'll add its different if They're boning their pets (thanks to WUB I know of some people like that, at least via rumor).
Shall I scroll back to just saying Poly should be totally legal? :D
I have no issue there, as long as someone can convince me we could ever get through a Poly divorce and custody battle without the courts losing their damn minds.
| 821 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:31:55pm |
re: #810 WindUpBird
Oh I'm fine, just uh...grumpy about the last few threads :P Don't feel guilty, he's a dude you've gotten to know.
I mean I'm not going to go nova or anything of course, but it's sorta like there's a lot of the veil being lifted about how some people feel about gay rights here, and it's sorta weirding me out. Even among the conservatives I know (and they get into the sorta libertarian weeds) they're 100% full on go go gay rights. Then Icome here and go wait wait WHAT?!?!
I do know the feeling.
| 822 |
windsagio Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:33:06pm |
re: #820 SanFranciscoZionist
The ugliness last year was pretty easy as far as divorce goes. There were no kids, so I can see that being a problem yes :p Its my impression that these things don't just explode every which way tho'.
Seems like its usually 2 groups that come out of it >
| 823 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:33:47pm |
re: #821 SanFranciscoZionist
I do know the feeling.
I have a good friend (friend who built my costume head actually) who is from San Francisco, like right there grew up in the city proper, and she gets culture shock in Portland. Portland! :D
| 824 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:33:54pm |
re: #811 eclectic infidel
Reminds me..
Going on ten years now, a good friend of mine realized he wasn't straight and found himself discharged from the military when he came clean to his CO. Since he wanted to explore gay establishments in the city but didn't want to do so alone, I went with him. ON one such occasion, we found a flier about some dance party at the End Up in SF. Turns out the flier was wrong and it was a lesbian dance party instead. Two guys standing in the door way, mouths open, completely stunned. The bartender thought it was a hoot, however, and she poured us a couple drafts, to keep the good will going and all that.
A friend's brother and his buddy, both straight, once wandered into the Wooden Horse in SF, very late at night, at the end of a pub crawl.
When they figured out where they were, they thought about leaving, but friend's brother is unbelievably beautiful, and guys were already buying him drinks, so they stayed. Planned to go back another time. They enjoyed themselves greatly.
| 825 |
wrenchwench Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:34:32pm |
re: #816 windsagio
Is it bad that I give old/sheltered people more of a pass than I give young people on this subject? >>
They equally deserve and do not deserve a pass. The young are more likely to be sheltered. I've seen old people suddenly grow up, so I don't think they deserve a pass.
| 826 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:34:48pm |
Windy, you gotta tell the story about your parents and the gay bar
| 827 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:37:21pm |
re: #815 WindUpBird
I see the point here, heh. The polygamy concern line really turns my stomach.
Blows my mind.
Who put this in the water? It's too weird and specific to not be coming from somewhere.
Also, I see hints of the usual weirdness about how churches will be forced to perform same-sex weddings, which makes no sense at all.
| 828 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:39:06pm |
re: #827 SanFranciscoZionist
Blows my mind.
Who put this in the water? It's too weird and specific to not be coming from somewhere.
Also, I see hints of the usual weirdness about how churches will be forced to perform same-sex weddings, which makes no sense at all.
I've heard the polygamy concern line as a softer argument from AFA/FotF/FRC sorta of places.
Also yeah, the "religion must be saved from the gays" thing. That's a zombie talking point that just keeps crawling out of the morgue!
| 829 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:39:08pm |
re: #819 WindUpBird
hahaha is this a trick question? :D
No, it's an old joke.
Q: What does a lesbian bring on a second date?
A: A U-Haul
Q: What does a gay man bring on a second date?
A: Second date?
Gender stereotyping at work.
| 830 |
Decatur Deb Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:39:35pm |
re: #816 windsagio
Is it bad that I give old/sheltered people more of a pass than I give young people on this subject? >>
Agist punk.
| 831 |
windsagio Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:39:44pm |
re: #826 WindUpBird
Oh god I hate you :p
BUT OK! I love telling stories (note that this one doesn't do so well in the retelling :p)!
Note this was back in the late '50s very early '60s.
My dad was NROTC, basketball jock, PhiGammaDelta frat, etc etc.
So, he and his damn Frat buddies decided to go downtown in Seattle to 'laugh at the queers', and brought their girlfriends along (I don't quite get that part).
So naturally, they meet a guy(lady) who my mom had spent her whole school career with, but at some point had discovered himself. The pain at the memory still creeps into her face to this day.
On the other hand, it was an excellent moment for her, 'humanizing the other.'
Was a different time I guess. I think a bunch of buzz-cut fratboys going into a gay bar to mock htem would be lucky to come out with most of their teeth at this point :)
| 832 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:41:14pm |
re: #829 SanFranciscoZionist
No, it's an old joke.
Q: What does a lesbian bring on a second date?
A: A U-Haul
Q: What does a gay man bring on a second date?
A: Second date?
Gender stereotyping at work.
heeheehee
We totally have the stereotypical Lesbian Subaru Outback happening here. If you lit up a density map of Lesbian Subies, I think Portland would be visible from space :D
| 833 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:41:29pm |
re: #828 WindUpBird
I've heard the polygamy concern line as a softer argument from AFA/FotF/FRC sorta of places.
Also yeah, the "religion must be saved from the gays" thing. That's a zombie talking point that just keeps crawling out of the morgue!
There's this rabbi I love and adore. He wouldn't perform my marriage, and he wouldn't come to the wedding, because I was marrying a gentile. And he didn't get sued, nor would I have won if I'd tried.
| 834 |
windsagio Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:41:32pm |
My theory on the poly concern is that it's even more foreign than the gay thing.
Even back in the day everyone knew some homosexuals (if they'd admit it), but polyamory is strange and foreign and weird, so there's that increased resistance.
| 835 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:43:13pm |
re: #834 windsagio
My theory on the poly concern is that it's even more foreign than the gay thing.
Even back in the day everyone knew some homosexuals (if they'd admit it), but polyamory is strange and foreign and weird, so there's that increased resistance.
LDS people get kicked a lot for it too :P
| 836 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:43:55pm |
re: #833 SanFranciscoZionist
There's this rabbi I love and adore. He wouldn't perform my marriage, and he wouldn't come to the wedding, because I was marrying a gentile. And he didn't get sued, nor would I have won if I'd tried.
That's just mean.
I have little respect for people who can't have friendships outside their "group", whatever that is. I know you like this rabbi, but already, having never met him, I dislike him.
| 837 |
windsagio Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:44:29pm |
re: #835 WindUpBird
(apologies to any LDS people here, this isn't my own opinion, but rather speculation)
The fact that 'weird cults' are into it and crazy apocalyptic fringes makes it even more threatening to people, yes :p
| 838 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:44:40pm |
re: #836 Fozzie Bear
I mean, I respect him not wanting to do the wedding, but refusing to attend... not cool.
| 839 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:44:55pm |
though the stereotypical gay miata driver doesn't exist here. Miatas here are driven by car guys, track-day guys, they have roll cages and they're beat up and they have aftermarket wheels. Gay guys here lean towards VWs and Audis :D
| 840 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:45:27pm |
re: #831 windsagio
Oh god I hate you :p
BUT OK! I love telling stories (note that this one doesn't do so well in the retelling :p)!
Note this was back in the late '50s very early '60s.
My dad was NROTC, basketball jock, PhiGammaDelta frat, etc etc.
So, he and his damn Frat buddies decided to go downtown in Seattle to 'laugh at the queers', and brought their girlfriends along (I don't quite get that part).
So naturally, they meet a guy(lady) who my mom had spent her whole school career with, but at some point had discovered himself. The pain at the memory still creeps into her face to this day.
On the other hand, it was an excellent moment for her, 'humanizing the other.'
Was a different time I guess. I think a bunch of buzz-cut fratboys going into a gay bar to mock htem would be lucky to come out with most of their teeth at this point :)
Oh, Lord.
| 841 |
windsagio Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:45:59pm |
re: #840 SanFranciscoZionist
To her credit, she still feels awful about it >
| 842 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:46:13pm |
re: #834 windsagio
My theory on the poly concern is that it's even more foreign than the gay thing.
Even back in the day everyone knew some homosexuals (if they'd admit it), but polyamory is strange and foreign and weird, so there's that increased resistance.
Except that it's not remotely an issue.
My kids will argue this one out. Maybe.
| 843 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:47:11pm |
re: #836 Fozzie Bear
That's just mean.
I have little respect for people who can't have friendships outside their "group", whatever that is. I know you like this rabbi, but already, having never met him, I dislike him.
Friendships sure. Marriages, no.
It's a community thing. Major complicated.
My only point here is that he was totally within his legal rights, and so is any church that won't marry same-sex couples.
| 844 |
windsagio Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:48:47pm |
re: #842 SanFranciscoZionist
It's not a legal issue no, and slippery slope arguments are stupid.
That being said, sometimes concern is legitmately concern.
| 845 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:49:05pm |
re: #831 windsagio
yeah, the laugh at the queers types in Portland would not last long, because at Embers or Eagle there WILL be some big bear dude with massive sleeves of tats who listens to Motorhead and Clutchs and rocks a V-twin bike, and he will be showing those frat guys their own teeth
| 846 |
Eclectic Infidel Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:49:06pm |
re: #827 SanFranciscoZionist
Blows my mind.
Who put this in the water? It's too weird and specific to not be coming from somewhere.
Also, I see hints of the usual weirdness about how churches will be forced to perform same-sex weddings, which makes no sense at all.
The red herring aside, and the fact that it's obviously being used to cloak how one really feels about gays getting married under the law, EVEN IF polygamy WAS LEGAL, it would only affect a tiny portion of the population. TINY. Less than that of the gay community even. You're so right SFZ. I'd also prefer folk to just be honest and say that they don't like the idea of gays marrying, or that they actually dislike them, rather than spew forth this obfuscation.
| 847 |
windsagio Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:50:43pm |
re: #844 windsagio
note: not in the sense that they're right, but more in the sense that its not concern-troll bs >>
| 848 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:51:15pm |
re: #846 eclectic infidel
The red herring aside, and the fact that it's obviously being used to cloak how one really feels about gays getting married under the law, EVEN IF polygamy WAS LEGAL, it would only affect a tiny portion of the population. TINY. Less than that of the gay community even. You're so right SFZ. I'd also prefer folk to just be honest and say that they don't like the idea of gays marrying, or that they actually dislike them, rather than spew forth this obfuscation.
Yes
yes yes yes
yes
| 849 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:53:27pm |
re: #843 SanFranciscoZionist
Friendships sure. Marriages, no.
It's a community thing. Major complicated.
My only point here is that he was totally within his legal rights, and so is any church that won't marry same-sex couples.
I understand. His role as a rabbi is his. I just think if he were a friend, he would come and offer his informal blessing as a friend, even if he cannot offer his formal blessing as a rabbi.
It still sticks in my craw, and I don't even know the man. It is too close to fears of miscegenation for comfort, for me.
It's also none of my business, so I'll shut up now.
| 850 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:54:03pm |
Now is a good time for me to post one of my favorite motivator internet things
| 851 |
'K.' Mon, Aug 9, 2010 4:10:28pm |
re: #797 SanFranciscoZionist
It could be argued that when the state is involved, as you advocate, it becomes my business. What I'd prefer is complete lack of involvement by the government on the whole issue. No sodomy laws or illegality, but no promotion either. This is basically how it works in Japan. I really like their model.
re: #751 SanFranciscoZionist
"Traditional gender roles" in a marriage have the man more as breadwinner and the woman more as homemaker and in charge of child care, all things being equal. C'mon, you know that. Judge Walker leans extensively on them being dead as a doornail in his ruling, of which I've read only a couple of excerpts at the moment:
Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law. Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage...
I completely disagree. Reading his logic, it's easy to see how the stage for the ruling was set by the new idea of marriage as being completely sex-neutral. If that is the only route to legalizing same-sex marriage, then I don't want to see it legalized. The more you build on a certain foundation, the harder it gets to yank away that foundation because the more is going to topple over when it goes down.
This is my biggest reason. I'm less concerned about the same-sex and more about sex! So think what you want of me, but please don't imagine it's mainly about religion.
I've got to quit this topic until I've read the ruling.
| 852 |
bratwurst Mon, Aug 9, 2010 4:15:54pm |
re: #790 'K.'
There's something about gay relationships between men that makes them less stable.
.
Heterosexual relationships have sure set that stability bar high, eh?
| 853 |
RogueOne Mon, Aug 9, 2010 4:48:14pm |
re: #852 bratwurst
Heterosexual relationships have sure set that stability bar high, eh?
"k" sorta has a point, any relationship with a man in it is going to have problems. Just saying...
| 854 |
jamesfirecat Mon, Aug 9, 2010 4:54:18pm |
re: #851 'K.'
It could be argued that when the state is involved, as you advocate, it becomes my business. What I'd prefer is complete lack of involvement by the government on the whole issue. No sodomy laws or illegality, but no promotion either. This is basically how it works in Japan. I really like their model.
re: #751 SanFranciscoZionist
"Traditional gender roles" in a marriage have the man more as breadwinner and the woman more as homemaker and in charge of child care, all things being equal. C'mon, you know that. Judge Walker leans extensively on them being dead as a doornail in his ruling, of which I've read only a couple of excerpts at the moment:
I completely disagree. Reading his logic, it's easy to see how the stage for the ruling was set by the new idea of marriage as being completely sex-neutral. If that is the only route to legalizing same-sex marriage, then I don't want to see it legalized. The more you build on a certain foundation, the harder it gets to yank away that foundation because the more is going to topple over when it goes down.
This is my biggest reason. I'm less concerned about the same-sex and more about sex! So think what you want of me, but please don't imagine it's mainly about religion.
I've got to quit this topic until I've read the ruling.
"I've got to quit this topic until I've read the ruling."
Maybe you should have read the ruling first before you decided you had a problem with it?
| 855 |
reine.de.tout Mon, Aug 9, 2010 6:14:05pm |
re: #798 WindUpBird
Reine is dropping the same lines, same thought patterns in the thread, just in a far more gentle way
We've got legitimate questions about polygamy!!!1111
UGGH.
I do have questions about it, and I've been upfront about it.
you can "UGGH" me all you want, but why you would want to is - odd.
Do you have any independent thoughts about anything? Your responses seem to be reserved to expressing your disdain for others, rather than pro-active arguments in favor of whatever it is you're in favor of. I don't get it.
re: #808 SanFranciscoZionist
See, THIS is why I prefer the guy who flat-out says "this messes with my idea of what society is supposed to look like". He may be wrong, but he ain't lying.
I've not hidden it at all. I posted a page earlier; WUB saw it and knows I've not hidden my position. I'm very surprised (and disappointed) that you are falling for that seed of distrust that WUB and windy have managed to plant about me, my motives.
| 857 |
ClaudeMonet Tue, Aug 10, 2010 12:44:11am |
re: #645 trryhin
Photoshopped. The guy on the front is leaned over and the top right sub still has the white shoes from the guy in the back they tried to remove.
The flags are all "rippling" in the exact same way, and a part of the periscope is cut off in the three subs that cut off all but the lower leg and feet of the man at the stern.
As for the sub in front (presumably the original), I think that's a fake too. I built better models when I was in grade school. And the sky is too uniform.
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Alone in a Bathroom: The Fear and Uncertainty of a Post-Roe Medication Abortion Angel tucked two white pills into each side of her mouth, bracing herself as they began to dissolve. Her deepest fears and anxieties took over. Angel had wanted to talk to a doctor before she took the pills to ... Cheechako
They Were Desperate to Get Pregnant. Then IVF Gave Them Extra Embryos. One morning last spring, Ashley Harrolle put her 1-year-old daughter down for a nap and went to the kitchen. She pulled up her fertility clinic’s contact information. It was time to make the call. In a freezer several hundred ... CheechakoJoe Bacon ✅
March FavoritesYou've seen these all already but looking back, just because. These are my favorite shots of this last month. That 1937 Zeiss Sonnar is such a gloriously wonderful bit of glass. Thanks for looking.
William Lewis
Russia’s New Combat Robots Blown Up by Drones Near Avdiivka When we landed on the moon, I thought about how science fiction had become real. Now, the robot wars have begun. It's more poignant somehow on the ground than in the missile wars we have in the air as ...
Rightwingconspirator
Why Did More Than 1,000 People Die After Police Subdued Them With Force That Isn’t Meant to Kill? An investigation led by The Associated Press has found that, over a decade, more than 1,000 people died after police subdued them through physical holds, stun guns, body blows and other force not intended to be lethal. More: Why ... CheechakoKGxvi
Abortions Outside Medical System Increased Sharply After Roe Fell, Study Finds The number of women using abortion pills to end their pregnancies on their own without the direct involvement of a U.S.-based medical provider rose sharply in the months after the Supreme Court eliminated a constitutional right to abortion, according ... Cheechako
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ... Cheechako
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ... Cheechako
