Is NJ govenor Mcgreevey a gay mole?

Sorry Intrepid, it was a joke! I know you are married, I think. But anyways, Amuk, good point. Caz was angry about a pedo who got caught before he raped a child. Well, it was a girl, so the guy wasn't gay, he can't be evil.

Yeah Intrepid, we DEFINITELY agree on that! Sorry everybody, I'm done now, I just had to get that off my chest, I will not stand to basically be called a child molester for no reason whatsoever. I will calm down now. Sorry mods, if I've been offensive.



[edit on 25-8-2004 by 27jd]

27jd,
THIS WAS IN JEST....geese, its ok for you to call me names on multiple threads, (ive never seen your apology, i re-looked) yet when i take a poke at you you go off the deep end....
feels good to get picked on doesnt it? Perhaps now you'll consider how it feels to have someone take cheap shots at you before you launch into ridiculing them. You shouldnt let yourself be manipulated with words so easily, and your lack of self control is amusing. You presume to speak FOR me? Why cant I presume to question if you would support NAMBLA?
(exact wording was MABEY, not that you did) The inferance that you DID or DID NOT was yours to make. Why didnt you infer that DID NOT was the answer?
Im sorry if my words injured you in any way. (Sticks and stones?)

As to the rest of you...DO YOU ACTUALLY READ WHATS PRINTED OR ONLY WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE?

I was in no way endorsing NAMBLA. Except for the poke twords 27jd,
I qualified that NOONE would agree with their adgenda.
Oh but i guess you didnt READ that, only saw what you wanted to see there. Typical.

IN NO WAY DID I EVER IMPLY THAT GAYS AND NAMBLA HAD ANY RELATION OR EQUITY!!!!!!!!! Again, what kind of erronius LEAP from one brain cell to the other mangled this idea into being? Just the TERM NAMBLA, on any gay thread makes you blind to WHAT is being said, not what you THINK is being said. Predictable, easy to manipulate, and thanks for all the POINTS for allowing yourselves to be duped into a rant instead of actually looking at what was being said about the ISSUE.

THE ISSUE:
My EXAMPLE was supposed to show an unfavored minority special intrest group (one with no questions as to being unfavored), using subversive means to enact their views onto the majority of the culture that wouldnt approve and has enacted laws thru the recognized deomcratic channels to prohibit such behaivior.
Obviously we would all feel outrage IF NAMBLA was able to pull such a stunt...But i see why now....its more the WHAT of their position and less the HOW they got it done that bothers you. This is just as disturbing.

Well excuse me for pointing out that DEMOCRACY is one of the founding principals in this country. ANY minority special intrest group, that can use secret/subversive means to superimpose their "rules" upon the majority, by violating the laws and the practice of the democracy is and should be questioned.

Which minority special intrest group is next to attempt such actions?
Does it matter if id have said KKK instead of NAMBLA, or what about special intrest group A, B, C etc.....
To have allowed the gay marriaged in California to be upheld would have allowed that door to swing wide open. Our demorcacy would have been hijacked from the majority to a select minority.
Well who selected that minority? NOT the democracy? Heck it didnt even go thru the recognised channels for enacting laws, yet you all seem so willing to say it was FINE?

Even if you are FOR gay marriage, how can you support LIES to get it? McGreevey LIED to everyone by masquerading as a "compassionate str8" enacting gay civil unions, yet he was secretly gay the whole time?
You all seem to think that throwing democracy out the window to get what you want for your minority group is ok,
SO i thought id test that theory by using NAMBLA in the same fashion.
You are all blinded by the WHAT of the special intrest group and not the methods used by them.

It amazes me that "bush stole the election because every vote wasnt counted" yet when the votes ARE counted in california, Its ok that a local politician STOLE THEM ALL and tried to enact his minority position over the rest of the citizens.

How you people niether see this or understand the danger in allowing our democracy to be stolen right out from under you amazes me.
Nooo, there could never be a secret adgenda by ANY minority special interest group....yeah right.

What kind of government will special intrest group X try to install instead of democracy once they've used illegal means to get into power??

I find it amusing that mob justice rules in this thread
one pro side person recognizes a jest from another pro member
yet when a con side member jests in similar fashion, the pros rally to defense....
And you all fall together into the verbal trap. So between several of you, NOONE was able to read the point of my example thru your zeal to get the "homophobe child molester".....laughable, i wonder how many other brain dead, follow the leader types are in the world with examples like this.
Now you know why im in the media, because soo many brains are soo open to manipulation....LMAO more brains...mmmmmm.

Amuk and james, to be clear on the off topic attempt at tying me crossthreaded...

James,

Amuk, good point. Caz was angry about a pedo who got caught before he raped a child.

Amuk,

Yet on another thread he moans over the mistreatment of a childmolester who was caught before he had a chance to harm a child.

In no way shape or form do i support people convicted of sex crimes vs adults or children,
i do take exception to doling out justice in a preemptive vigilante fashion
(those that beat up a guy for j/o and peeping had no clue if this person had any convictions prior, nor did they have the right to enforce punishment as citizens, using violence on a non violent offender)
But thats a seperat thread.

Taking the law into your own hands is no different to me that using subversive means to allow a minority special interest to hijack democratic principals....it one and the same.
Its a violation of the cultural basis, the "glue" that we've all agreed to use to hold civilization together here.

Again people, exactly what means of governance other than democracy and the rule of law are you advocating we are using here?

Why is it ok for these basic tennants of society to be voided in order to support WHO's special interests over the culture?

[edit on 25-8-2004 by CazMedia]

[edit on 25-8-2004 by CazMedia]

Originally posted by CazMedia
Some of you people are soo easy to bait....and then your ignorance shines thru!!!

.

quote]Originally posted by CazMedia
27jd,
THIS WAS IN JEST....geese, its ok for you to call me names on multiple threads, (ive never seen your apology, i re-looked) yet when i take a poke at you you go off the deep end....
feels good to get picked on doesnt it? Perhaps now you'll consider how it feels to have someone take cheap shots at you before you launch into ridiculing them. You shouldnt let yourself be manipulated with words so easily, and your lack of self control is amusing. You presume to speak FOR me? Why cant I presume to question if you would support NAMBLA?
(exact wording was MABEY, not that you did) The inferance that you DID or DID NOT was yours to make. Why didnt you infer that DID NOT was the answer?
Im sorry if my words injured you in any way. (Sticks and stones?)

As to the rest of you...DO YOU ACTUALLY READ WHATS PRINTED OR ONLY WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE?

I was in no way endorsing NAMBLA. Except for the poke twords 27jd,

[edit on 25-8-2004 by CazMedia]

You do know that baiting members is strictly frowned upon don't you? I saw a half a dozen instances in just these 2 posts.

Oh, I see you've logged out again.

[edit on 25-8-2004 by intrepid]

Yeah so's name calling? and i was abused multiple times and nothing was done even after i asked...

I only ONCE, MIGHT have directly by name baited a member in this thread,
as far as the rest of you reading what you want and me armchair, after the fact saying i did..well thats interpretational, and vauge enough to not count as
"hey you member x, i say this about you to get you to respond"

Besides, isnt this baiting/attacking me again instead of my points? are we back to this?

Why do i expect better?

Originally posted by CazMedia

I only ONCE, MIGHT have directly by name baited a member in this thread,
as far as the rest of you reading what you want and me armchair, after the fact saying i did..well thats interpretational, and vauge enough to not count as
"hey you member x, i say this about you to get you to respond"

Besides, isnt this baiting/attacking me again instead of my points? are we back to this?

Why do i expect better?

I would call that bending the rules. Am I baiting/ attacking you? My last post was info concerning the rules, just helping you out man.

I've already attacked your posts. You keep coming back with this "majority" thing. I bring up "liberty and justice for all", you cannot answer it but fall back to your "one trick pony." You know what happens to those, don't you. People get bored and stop listening.

CazMedia,

Any of the "attacks" I had ever made against you were in jest as well, but you decided to go WAY over the line by accusing me of advocating child molesters, even though in my anti-homophobe comments, I never directly referenced you. I mocked your "gay agenda" idea, but never directly accused you of being a homophobe. I've made fun of your spelling and called you Bush's lapdog, if you had ever made any comments similar to that, I would laugh and rebut in similar fashion, I would NOT accuse you of something as disgusting as pedophilia. And there is no mob rule, just good people defending somebody who has been unjustly accused of the most disgusting crime known to man. I would do the same for them any day. As for the apology I made, you must not have looked very hard (in the why does everybody hate Bush thread). How could a "journalist" miss something so OBVIOUS?

27jd,
Indeed i can see a jest for a jest, but was trying to get you to stick to the topic and not digress from it thru jest, misdirection or other means.
No i was not "offended" by your jests, just annoyed that the points were being swept aside. Continued use of that tactic and also seemingly "following" me with its use on seperate threads became more disconcerting.

Disgust is a relative term. I feel the most disgusting crime known to man is MURDER, not molestation, after all, a kid that has had his peepee touched is still breathing and has a future, where as one thats murdered does not.
But we are debating off topic and somantically here.

As to your appology, again, i was refering to this thread, and had not yet worked my way to the other thread where indeed i saw it (and laughed when i saw you retracted it for things on this thread) NOT seeing it was my mistake in so much that i had not yet read the other post to see it.
As i had not yet see it at the time of my poke at you, i wrote what i did as if there was no appology offered. We seem to both be guilty of "mixing threads" in our minds and debates. understandable, but we both should exercise caution by doing so, as confusion at the least could and did occur.
I wouldnt be in the MudPit...eerr ahhh...Restricted Political Debate Forum if i wasnt ready to get blasted...AAHH uumm....seriously verbally challenged.

My apology still stands.

Intrepid,
You and I are both holding key pieces to the foundations of American Values up for review....but how will "liberty and justice" become realty if the process to get us there is thown out? (democracy) Its not just about the "majority" its about the PRACTICE of our democracy, thru the constitutionally laid out framework im talking about here. While the IDEAL of "liberty and justice for all" is stated in the constitution, the constitution SPELLS OUT the means we are to use to get there. (using democratic principals)
How is it right, just, fair or otherwise workable if we throw out these principals of the constitution, which are mechanical in nature in order to "shortcut" twords a goal which is more nebulous? (L+J)
The definitions, or meanings of "L+J" are in flux and review, yet the framework for getting there is not and is clear.
Is the democratic means perfect? NO, but its part and parcel of America, which is ultimatly what we Americans should be concerned with.

I created this thread using 2 examples of where this throwing out of the constitution appears to have occured. (for sure in CA case, questionable in McGreeveys)
As an American, i am upset because ANY special intrest group, has taken the constitution out of my hand, thrown it out the window and attempted to alter the society to fit their minority view. You should be too.


[edit on 25-8-2004 by CazMedia]

Originally posted by CazMedia
Disgust is a relative term. I feel the most disgusting crime known to man is MURDER, not molestation, after all, a kid that has had his peepee touched is still breathing and has a future, where as one thats murdered does not.
But we are debating off topic and somantically here.

I must disagree, I believe child molestation is equal to murder, an innocent child does not deserve to have his/her life ruined because of the sick whims of some extremely disturbed individual. Not to mention it almost always causes the child to grow up to become a pedophile due to the emotional and psychological trauma incurred, causing a vicious cycle. Yes murder is equally heinous, but equally, not more in my eyes. We talk about the degradation of society, pedophilia is the ultimate degradation. I was lucky enough to have never been molested as a child, nor was anybody close to me (that I know of), I could not imagine the shame a poor child would feel, I think effectively their childhood would be murdered. All I can say is if anybody even thought about molesting my child, and I found out, they would wish they were captured by Zarqawi and beheaded instead. But back on track....

My apology still stands.

Accepted, I in turn, will retract my retractions, LOL. And I removed my harsh rebuttal.

I understand your point about the constituton being disregarded, but I honestly don't think he planned the whole thing, I think he just couldn't live his lie anymore, so he decided to come clean and live the life he wanted (midlife crisis, I guess). Not to mention, there seems to be a lot of other disregards for the constitution going on nowadays, by many different parties, in my opinion.

[edit on 25-8-2004 by 27jd]

Caz, I understand what you are saying about gays taking their rights, in this instance. Sometimes it's the only way to embark on the road to equallity. Did someone give Rosa Parks that seat on the bus? No. They even asked her to give it up. This is considered a defining moment in the fight for rights for African Americans.
www.grandtimes.com...

Are you saying that blacks don't deserve the rights the have gained because Ms. Parks "took" that seat?

Wow Caz, again, gays want equal rights. This is wrong, evil, destroying society how? How is wanting the same rights as everyoe else wrong, evil, destroying society? Were black wrong, evil, destroying society for wanting the same rights as everyone? Is the person only equal if they are straight?

James says,

Wow Caz, again, gays want equal rights. This is wrong, evil, destroying society how? How is wanting the same rights as everyoe else wrong, evil, destroying society? Were black wrong, evil, destroying society for wanting the same rights as everyone? Is the person only equal if they are straight?

The quest for equality is not at issue, its the HOW IS THIS BEING DONE that is. There is an established means for effecting this, laid out in the Constutution, and indeed change has occured under its guidelines for over 220 years. Just because special interest group X isnt able to gain enough popular support now, to enact new favorable legislation, does NOT give group X license to take it thru alternate means (CA). Even the APPEARANCE that this could be happening (Mcgreevey) should be scrutinized. (where theres smoke theres fire)

WE the people, me and you...gay and str8...are all diminished as citizens when one of our most fundamental values as the Constitution is "side stepped" by anyone. This is the same reason why Vigilante justice is wrong. It might be well intended, and indeed the person might be guilty of the offence the mob is after him for,
BUT
The whole culture is harmed by this because it would deprive ANY citizen of their civil rights under the constitution and the laws. Any of us could become the mob's next victim, and there would be no checks, or safeguards for you. Your rights, innocent or guilty, would be gone.

When ANY special intrest minority group can ignore the constitution to do what they like, this is a serious offence to EVERY citizen. While group X's goals may be nobel....the road to hell is paved in good intentions.
Where is the protections of the rights already in existance for EVERY citizen if the Constitution is not being used?

Without this framework, this govenmental system we the +250 million people have adopted, what are we? How is this culture defined? How do we know our heritage ourselves, let alone be able to pass it to our posterity? If we are not united by these principals, then how long is the life of this Nation? What is the United States without our Constitution.

Now i understand that these are deep concepts for the average citizen to grapple with. We're much more prone to charge emotionally into the fray yelling "pervert going to hell" or "biggoted homophobe" to actually consider what it is were trying to do culturally, and HOW this can/should be accomplished.

How many times on this and other threads have I asked to see more than the give me gve me wish list, and instead hear about a strategy for identifying the effects of, and examining the resulting changes to the legal structure, in order for the cultural integration of this issue. (mostly the reason im against gay marriage. As well as the idea that a culture CAN say NO to this or any idea IF it has used the democratic framework and legitimate avenues to make this change happen or not.) ((cultural identity))

Noone in the mainstream pro-gay community has ever offered that ive seen, to address these issues, in an effort to further their cause and/or to garner additional cultural support so that thru the established democracy, they can get their adgenda enacted.

Instead I observe this special intrest group, use a name calling smear tactic against those in opposition. A devicive strategy that attempts to take the high road at the expense of labeling others with hatred.
Then I wittness the Attempted Hijacking of democracy and laws out west....
followed up by a politician in position to enact cultural change, HIDE his true nature during the time he effected the cultural change, yet im told no conflict of interest here. (intentional or not??)

Now personally, I'm for the traditional family/marriage values special intrest group and dont see why its being demonized and why its ok to do so, or why this special interest is any more/less valid than another "family definition". Why is it wrong to defend this view? (whatever reason you feel this way.)

I also personally find gay relationships "icky"...now before i get beat up on this, I know plenty of gay guys that say the EXACT same thing when they consider relationships with a woman. If its natural for one side to have these feelings, its only natural for the other to have similar. Feelings are not wrong...they are natural parts on humans...good and bad.

Overall id say that stepping on people, lies, theft, demonization of opposition, and defiance are not appropriate ways to motivate people,
and you expect that society will just accept this behaivior, reguardless of the goal? What selfish arrogance!
Yet im the evil one.

[edit on 26-8-2004 by CazMedia]

What about my post Caz? As I see it you the white guy telling Ms. Parks to give up her seat.

Caz, this is your thread, you put forth this issue, I think that after 4 pages you owe it to people to address issues that are brought forward. Would you please respond to this post. Please do not accuse me of thread stalking, as I said, you put forth this topic.

Originally posted by intrepid
Caz, I understand what you are saying about gays taking their rights, in this instance. Sometimes it's the only way to embark on the road to equallity. Did someone give Rosa Parks that seat on the bus? No. They even asked her to give it up. This is considered a defining moment in the fight for rights for African Americans.
www.grandtimes.com...

Are you saying that blacks don't deserve the rights the have gained because Ms. Parks "took" that seat?

CazMedia,

Even if what you're saying about some gay rights agenda side-stepping the Constitution is true, it's sad state of affairs in this country that they would have to resort to those measures just to be seen as equal. Even if we the straight people find it disturbing, how does that make them second-class citizens? They have jobs, they help America function, how can we deny them totally equal rights? You speak of family values, are you suggesting that good values to teach include intolerance and superiority? Not to mention that if the "stigma" and non-acceptance of that lifestyle were to be removed, it may even contribute to less people adopting that lifestyle, not those who are more physiologically attracted to it, but those who may ride the fence, but hate their father for some reason who hates gays, and they may choose the lifestyle either directly or indirectly to spite their father, you'd be amazed what people will do or who they'll date to get back at their parents or to rebel for some reason or another. The more you tell your kids not to do something, the more they'll wanna do it.

Dude, mole is not the preferred nomenclature.

Gerbil, please.

Intrepid,
The act of a private citizen, using peaceful protest, is not the same as a government official violating the law or appearing to have a serious conflict of interests and deceit proplem, in enacting institutional change.
Politicians and people in power have a "vested interest" in the exercise or restraint of power. They are supposed to be neutral when conducting the affairs of state. This is why there has been no ground swell support for the view that the san fran mayor is a "civil rights hero"...he isnt even close to Mrs parks calibre, he's a crooked politician...thats all there is to it.

The long form of the answer to you is my last major post on this thread called
equality at what price.

Originally posted by CazMedia
Politicians and people in power have a "vested interest" in the exercise or restraint of power. They are supposed to be neutral when conducting the affairs of state.

Neutral? Republicans neutral? Democrats neutral? You've got to be hitting the bottom here to even think this will fly, in an election year at that. I've shown you 2 different arguements, the second you had to think on for a while to come up with a lame response. I put forth that you don't want gays to be equal to you NO MATTER WHAT. Just admit it, don't hide behind a facade.

Even if he was putting forth legislation for the gay community, wouldn't that offset the troubles Bush is throwing their way?

EDIT: For neutral clarity.

[edit on 26-8-2004 by intrepid]

Rights, at what expense? What EXPENSES! Dude, you act like if gays get the rights that everyone has that the earth will blow up or something. What the hell do you think gays are? They are not Dr. Evil sitting on the moon threatning the planet. "If you do not give us equal right we will use our 'lazer' to wipe out every straight person on the planet."

Gays are people, they aren't planning on taking over the world, they aren't planning on making everyone gay. I swear, society will not fall because people get equal rights.

Caz, you are out of your mind! What the hell did the gays do to you? Did they do anything or is it just that they exist? Is this like in the 50's where blacks were hated because they existed? Why do people like you think gays are evil? Because the bible tells you? It also says earth is 6,000 years old and flat, and that women are to be slaves of men and are second class citizens. Also if you do any work on the sabbath you are to be killed. If you see someone do work on the sabbath you are to kill them immediatly. If you think a woman is thinking about sexual contact with an animal then you are to kill her. Not if she does, but if you think they are thinking about it.

There are no legal reasons, no moral reasons, no sane reason to ban the same rights to gays as to everyone else. First, you have brought no evidence to anything. Then you compare gays to pedophiles, well, gay pedophiles. You have no problem with straight pedophiles from looking at your other posts dealing with straight pedo's. Hell, you were angry when one was arrested for being a pedophile.

If you really think about it, there could be hidden agenda here, but not some gay takeover of the government. The person who really has stood to benefit is Kerry. It pretty much locks in the gay vote. If they could send the signal to gays that the Democrats will be more supportive of them, without actually saying it, thus saving whatever small town values votes they may have. And since the Governor has already stated he was stepping down, that keeps Kerry out of the awkward position of being confronted about it on some level and pressured to ask him to resign, which may have caused people to feel it was only because he was gay that he was asked to step down. I think somebody on Bush's team may have thought the same, and now Cheney is voicing his support for his gay daughter, it's now a gay tug-o-war, but I think the Dems will win the gay vote (hopefully) because it would be hard for the Bush administration at this point to do a complete 180 and make everybody believe they support gay people.