It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is NJ govenor Mcgreevey a gay mole?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Thank god he confessed to his treason before the FBI closed in on him. You know what happens too all spies for "high crimes."




posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Tach, that pretty good. But yes, was the FBI after him? Has he been brought to court for treason? No, cause even the dumbass government knows he isn't a gay "mole", "gerbil", or "hamster".

And yes, trying to say that a politician is suppose to be neutral is rather ignorant. A politician is voted in by the people to support the people's ideas. If they are neutral, then why vote for one over the other? The people of a state votew in a republican senator, they obviously want the senator to follow the republican path and beliefs. If they vote in a democratic senator, they want him/her to follow the democratic path and beliefs. Not neutral.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:32 AM
link   
James,


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.

DUDE, you act like there is NO responsibillity that comes with rights, or that rights do not come into conflict with each other on occasion. (classic yell fire in movie house) As ive already shown at least ONE effect of gay marriage to society (tax revenue drop), it stands to reason there are other effects that have not been seen/discussed...yet still the wish list, attached to devisive hate language, keeps getting handed to society and still no discussion of responsibillities.

James asks,


I swear, society will not fall because people get equal rights.

No it wont, but it can fall because we throw the principals that society is founded upon like democracy, rule of law, and cultural identity out the window. Which is what it appears is being asked of by this special interest minority group.

James asks,


Caz, you are out of your mind! What the hell did the gays do to you?

Still trying to play "pin the tale on the homophobe"? Why are you still trying to put "blame" somewhere? Why are you assuming malice when ive stated NONE?

MOST importantly, why is it "wrong" to oppose this or ANY special interest minority group policy? It seems that you MUST DEMONIZE any opposition to your adgenda because otherwise your argument looses a target to "blame" and focus upon instead of talking about the issue?

Why is it "wrong" to point out that in CA, the voters, the will of the people and the law was hijacked from rule "by the people" to rule by an elite few?

Why doese there have to be malice behind asking if Mcgreevey had a serious credibillity and conflict of interest problem in the case of civil unions in NJ...? If this was Bush passing a law that favored big oil, and then we found out AFTER the fact that he profited somehow and HID his intentions, you all would be all over this, yet because it has something to do with gay issues, this is off limits? Which double standard are you in favor of using in monitoring government?

James launches his rant,


There are no legal reasons, no moral reasons, no sane reason to ban the same rights to gays as to everyone else.

There are no legal reasons...ohh except that thing called the US Constitution, which spells out the legal guidelines for how we the people are supposed to work out these societal issues?
There are no moral reasons.......except the right of a democratic society to set the boundaries for what defines it and holds it together, and operates with?
No sane reason to ban the same rights to gays as everyone else?
Excuse me for the 10th time here, but what rights are they not getting? What you are talking about here is NOT banning anything, but a special interest minority group asking for some new entitlement under the law that hasnt existed before, as well as altering the definition of marriage for everyone else. Where is the removal of rights here? In fact where is my right as a str8 man to get married? It doesnt exist...i have NO right to ever be married, it is not nessisary to function in the culture, and noone is going to gaurentee me a spouse ever.

So exaclty what rights are in question here? Hmmm mabey the removal of soddomy laws that would make the acts associated with gay sex NOT a crime.....hmmm how about the special protections under the laws (hate crime laws) that give gays and othe minorities special treatment under the law that I as a str8 white male doesnt have? (murder is murder, does it matter what slur the killer yells as he kills you?) Kill a gay, get more time than if you kill a str8? does this sound equal?

Jmaes, if your still confused by my example in which NAMBLA was mentioned, then there is no help for you...you will continue to read what you want to hear, instead of the actual case offered.

27jd,


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.

So which concerns you more here is what i really want to know?
Is it more important that gays can marry, or that the founding principals of this nation are being abused/side-tracked?

It is a sad state of affairs, that a minority special intrest group, that has never been denied the right to vote, the right to own property, been legally segregated, or had any restrictive legislative laws directed directly at causing their group to suffer, feels like theyre soo special/oppressed that they can take it upon themselves to hijack democracy to get their way.
No one is saying they are second class citizens, but im sure as hell not going to agree that they are more important that other citizens too. Just like the rest of us have to play by the rules, so does this special interest group.

27jd asks,


You speak of family values, are you suggesting that good values to teach include intolerance and superiority?

As far as "superiority" i cant see where ive advocated this idea. To me this is subjective...superior, equal, inferior, these are all degrees of measurment/comparison on a scale. Equality is not always a great place to be as some people can never be equal in certain circumstances. (i.e. the avg woman is not as strong physically as the avg man...therefore to expect them to be able to compete "equally" in say the NFL, would not be considered a fair match...yet under total equality, they would be expected to. How equal/fair would that be?)

As far as teaching your kid intolerance...DUH! Hell YES!
Certain types of behaivior is indeed intolorated by society...and if you fail to teach your kids these societal boundaries, you are setting them up to fail. Would you tolorate your 6yr old shoplifting while shopping with you at target? Would you tolorate your 10yr old being a bully and physically assaulting other kids?
The idea of intolorance, rules, laws are nessisary for a civilized society to function, and dont they always say, ignorance of the law is no excuse?
The idea of not instilling kids with these societal boundaries is a liberal, open ended, do anything idea that is only going to get the kid into trouble as he begins to have conflict with the society around him that expects him to not say pee in the street. Again, rights and responsibillities are2 sides of the same coin.

27jd continues,


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,
Hmm, do you think this will work with crimes too?
This is flawed logic. If you remove barriers (intolorance) to certain ideas that mankind will want to do them less??? Why do you think the law was made to start with? Because people wouldnt accept not doing what they wanted until there was a concequence for doing it. (theft per say)

27jd,


The more you tell your kids not to do something, the more they'll wanna do it.
This in no way means they will ever attempt to do it either. Kids want everything, but as adults we learn this idea is not always the best thing for us. Just because something CAN be done, doesnt mean it SHOULD. This is part of growing up...the learning that somethings can/should be intolerated. When did this idea of everything goes become good, and rules/boundaries become bad?

[edit on 30-8-2004 by CazMedia]



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Tach, that pretty good. But yes, was the FBI after him? Has he been brought to court for treason? No, cause even the dumbass government knows he isn't a gay "mole", "gerbil", or "hamster".
.....


I wouldnt be surprised if he had a dead drop arranged with some Gay and Lesbian society.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 05:39 AM
link   
There he is, that evil Cazmedia and his evil principals of cultural identity and democracy....get him!

Kinda hard to continue to defend a position built on devicive rhetoric, lies and undemocratic principals isnt it?

And as I stand alone here, lets ask, where did all the bible thumper, actual hate fags people go? youd think they would be right next to me saying "yeah!"
thats ok, my points dont need hate or god to defend.
(id have told them to leave god out of it anyway)

But Im amazed that NOONE seems to even understand the fundamental questions before/about society here, and no one will even acknowledge that what im asking is legitimate/reasonable?



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Caz, did you ever respond to my question in that other thread back on the ATSNN (or whatever it is) site? I went thru and took time out to respond to you, but I think you never did the same for me
It wouldn't be so bad if you didn't carry over your position to so many threads, but everywhere I look, there you are!



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
So which concerns you more here is what i really want to know?
Is it more important that gays can marry, or that the founding principals of this nation are being abused/side-tracked?


Please show me ANYTHING in the Constitution that bans gay marriage, ANYTHING. Whatever side-tracking of founding principles you have imagined could not apply at all, being as there are no founding principles which are being ignored here, and the only agenda that should be addressed, is the agenda of those who use what they call founding principles to further their own personal hatred and intolerance (call it what you like, but that's EXACTLY what it is).



It is a sad state of affairs, that a minority special intrest group, that has never been denied the right to vote, the right to own property, been legally segregated, or had any restrictive legislative laws directed directly at causing their group to suffer, feels like theyre soo special/oppressed that they can take it upon themselves to hijack democracy to get their way.
No one is saying they are second class citizens, but im sure as hell not going to agree that they are more important that other citizens too. Just like the rest of us have to play by the rules, so does this special interest group.


They HAVE been denied rights, the rights to marriage, in that respect you DO consider them second class citizens, period. I don't understand what it is with you, are you just sitting at home, and thinking "somewhere out ther gays could be getting married, I can't believe they have the nerve to request the same right to marriage as straight people"? I'm sorry but if that's the case, maybe you should try worrying about you OWN life, and not the lives of others whom you really have no business dictating and trying to use the founding principles of the "land of the free" to support your obvious (maybe not directly stated) homophobia.



As far as "superiority" i cant see where ive advocated this idea. To me this is subjective...superior, equal, inferior, these are all degrees of measurment/comparison on a scale. Equality is not always a great place to be as some people can never be equal in certain circumstances. (i.e. the avg woman is not as strong physically as the avg man...therefore to expect them to be able to compete "equally" in say the NFL, would not be considered a fair match...yet under total equality, they would be expected to. How equal/fair would that be?)


This is hillarious!
You are trying to draw a comparison between gays having the right to marry who they choose and men and women in football?! (by the way, there are some women at my gym that could do quite well in the NFL, have you ever watched Jenny Jones? Some of those women would snap your spine quite nicely.)



As far as teaching your kid intolerance...DUH! Hell YES!
Certain types of behaivior is indeed intolorated by society...and if you fail to teach your kids these societal boundaries, you are setting them up to fail. Would you tolorate your 6yr old shoplifting while shopping with you at target? Would you tolorate your 10yr old being a bully and physically assaulting other kids?


Now you're equating homosexuals to criminals?! And you're openly admitting that you advocate teaching your kids intolerance?! For you to say you are not homophobic is freakin comical!
You can look forward to your future neo-nazi skinhead children spending plenty of time in prison for beating your values into gay people.



Hmm, do you think this will work with crimes too?
This is flawed logic. If you remove barriers (intolorance) to certain ideas that mankind will want to do them less??? Why do you think the law was made to start with? Because people wouldnt accept not doing what they wanted until there was a concequence for doing it. (theft per say)


Again, how is somebody's sexual preference a crime? Please explain how you draw the comparison.


This in no way means they will ever attempt to do it either. Kids want everything, but as adults we learn this idea is not always the best thing for us. Just because something CAN be done, doesnt mean it SHOULD. This is part of growing up...the learning that somethings can/should be intolerated. When did this idea of everything goes become good, and rules/boundaries become bad?


You are soooooo ignorant, you must not have kids or have ANY experience with them. First off, nobody EVER said they should have no rules or boundaries, but you must expect kids to break them, they will, almost always, so if you set a rule that they must be straight, as soon as they become sexually active, you run the risk of them rebelling like teens ALWAYS do, and experimenting with "alternative" lifestyles that have been forbidden to them, or taking it to the other extreme and HATING gays. I'm not saying tell your kids its cool to be gay, just not telling them it isn't would suffice. Just an example, I have personally known several white girls who have grown up with racist fathers, and pretty much all of those girls only date men who are NOT white, does that tell you anything about kids? Go ahead and teach them your intolerance, you will either spawn hate mongers or flaming gays.




[edit on 31-8-2004 by 27jd]



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   
this thread topic is so gay, I hate looking at it... Why do you guys keep posting in it?? Oh wait, i'm sorry maybe ya'll are gay because ya'll seem to enjoy the drama of it all... Thorry, I let you get back to your thilly argumenths..



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 03:00 PM
link   
No "molasses" jokes? That's the first thing that came to my mind when I saw "gay mole".



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
this thread topic is so gay, I hate looking at it... Why do you guys keep posting in it?? Oh wait, i'm sorry maybe ya'll are gay because ya'll seem to enjoy the drama of it all... Thorry, I let you get back to your thilly argumenths..


TL, how is defending someones personal freedoms, or arguing that it's wrong to teach children hatred and intolerance a "thilly argumenth"? Are you truly a Libertarian?



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 03:21 PM
link   
sure! But i'm just sick of seeing this thread at the top... I mean you guys beat this subject to death already, and all I see here is a bunch of arguing... Don't try bait me too buddy i've seen your posts and your very good at getting people to argue with you... And you don't stop!! So i'm done after this, you can respond but I won't answer... So yes I am, but I don't have to be political in every aspect of my life... I mean, is this gay mole thing a joke?? It's just tiring to see... It's not funny, it's not interesting, it's not enlightening... It's just thilly...



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
sure! But i'm just sick of seeing this thread at the top... I mean you guys beat this subject to death already, and all I see here is a bunch of arguing...


This is not quite true TL. When Caz Answers people in this thread he conveniently forgets to answer my last post unless I jump up and down like this.
Can't really be argueing if only one person is willing to engage.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
Don't try bait me too buddy i've seen your posts and your very good at getting people to argue with you... And you don't stop!!


I guess I'm like the Terminator that way,
!



So i'm done after this, you can respond but I won't answer...


Yes you will.




So yes I am, but I don't have to be political in every aspect of my life... I mean, is this gay mole thing a joke??


I thought so too, but CazMedia is serious.



It's just tiring to see... It's not funny, it's not interesting, it's not enlightening... It's just thilly...


Well then don't look at it......anymore. Thilly. Oh, and you said we must be gay for arguing the point, which is altho thilly, I am straight as an arrow, and get a few drinks in my girlfriend and one of her girlfriends are over, and I'm twice as straight.



[edit on 31-8-2004 by 27jd]



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 04:31 PM
link   
I find it hard to argue with you 27, you make me smile too much...
I know your not gay but this thread is... And your right, I shouldn't of posted in here... Thilly me, I should of just let this thread wiggle down to the bottom of the screen... After this post i'll do just that...



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
Thilly me, I should of just let this thread wiggle down to the bottom of the screen... After this post i'll do just that...


I would like to do the same, but tomorrow or the next day, Caz will respond, and before he posts my quotes he will put things like 27jd says, or 27jd continues, because he knows that annoys me, then he will post his outrageously ignorant reasoning that makes my eyes want to bleed as I read them, and I will be forced to respond.


[edit on 31-8-2004 by 27jd]



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
I would like to do the same, but tomorrow or the next day, Caz will respond, and before he posts my quotes he will put things like 27jd says, or 27jd continues, because he knows that annoys me, then he will post his outrageously ignorant reasoning that makes my eyes want to bleed as I read them, and I will be forced to respond.


No you won't be......If anything he gets his rocks off by trying to make you respond to his ignorant comments... See he thinks he's right... All the time.. How can you respond to somebody who just looks for an argument? You give him satisfaction when you respond to him which will continue to fuel the fire and then i'm going to have to keep looking at the stupid subject line when I come into the pit... Which makes my eyes bleed too... Just don't respond, I know you respond to EVERYTHING someone says to you, but you don't have to, especially in this case... Please oh please don't, I can't take looking at this subject line anymore it's driving me crazy!



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
I would like to do the same, but tomorrow or the next day, Caz will respond, and before he posts my quotes he will put things like 27jd says, or 27jd continues, because he knows that annoys me, then he will post his outrageously ignorant reasoning that makes my eyes want to bleed as I read them, and I will be forced to respond.


[edit on 31-8-2004 by 27jd]


At least he answers you. I find his behavior to be undefendable. Twice I have blown his theories out of the water only to be ignored until he is pushed. How can anyone take this seriously?



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
No you won't be......If anything he gets his rocks off by trying to make you respond to his ignorant comments... See he thinks he's right... All the time.. How can you respond to somebody who just looks for an argument? You give him satisfaction when you respond to him which will continue to fuel the fire and then i'm going to have to keep looking at the stupid subject line when I come into the pit... Which makes my eyes bleed too... Just don't respond, I know you respond to EVERYTHING someone says to you, but you don't have to, especially in this case... Please oh please don't, I can't take looking at this subject line anymore it's driving me crazy!


OK, for you I will try.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
At least he answers you. I find his behavior to be undefendable. Twice I have blown his theories out of the water only to be ignored until he is pushed. How can anyone take this seriously?


It's a curse more than a blessing. Did you read in his last post that he actually advocates teaching intolerance to children? It will serve him right if he does have kids, when his kid grows up to be gay, he is so ignorant to the fact thats almost always what happens.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
It's a curse more than a blessing. Did you read in his last post that he actually advocates teaching intolerance to children? It will serve him right if he does have kids, when his kid grows up to be gay, he is so ignorant to the fact thats almost always what happens.


Yes I did. I weep for his children. I sure hope none of them are gay. Can you imagine the treatment he would give that child?




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join