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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
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?


Likely, the child would keep it a secret until he ran away or moved out, then he would likely act out in a manner that would be unfortunate, he would likely rebel against his oppressive father by having indiscriminate relations with many people, that's the way it usually works. He and his father would likely have no relationship at all, and it would likely all be because he was pushed all his life to hate gays, and if he even had the slightest gay thought early on, he would feel ashamed and it would build into a complex, which can turn to an obsession, and like I said, he will either embrace it balls to the wall, or viciously hate gays and attack them whenever given the chance. Either way it won't pretty, hopefully Caz will think about that.




posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Yet after my last post, instead of attacking my POINTS, I WAS ATTACKED AS AN INDIVIDULE!?! My family was attacked...Leave my children (If i even have any) OUT of this. Attack my POINTS not the PERSON!
Diversionary tactics are soo pathetic.
Incredible. The demonization of opponents continues because actually admitting that you advocate violating the principals and practice of democracy in action, in order to push a minority special intrest adgenda into being, raises serious questions about your motivations, form of governance you think your under, and participation in society as a citizen.

Also astounding is the abillity to READ WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE not what is actually being said.
CONFUSING examples which ive used to illistrate a point about an idea (like intolornce or equality) is in NO WAY trying to equate gays to any of the examples....if i wanted to do this, i would spell it out clearly and say "GAYS ARE LIKE....(fill in blank)."

now to specifics,
First of all, i put "27jd says", before the quoted text to qualify who said this, not to annoy you 27jd. ive been identifying quotes like this long before you showed up here...and well, the additional adjectives attached such as "xxxx rants, or xxxx spews, or xxxx goes of on a tangent" etc etc etc are my opinions about the quoted text, and Im entitled to them....personally im glad they seem to disconcert some people....if they cant handle that, they sure as hell arent gonna be able to keep their crap straight to properly debate the TOPIC, not the PERSON. Talk about nit-picking! LMAO!!!

Quotes from 27jd,


Even if what you're saying about some gay rights agenda side-stepping the Constitution is true,

If you really think about it, there could be hidden agenda here,

I understand your point about the constituton being disregarded,

Faster than j.Kerry can flip flop, 27jd then says,


there are no founding principles which are being ignored here,

Obviously you understand the points im raising, yet then you turn back to old devicive rhetoric and deny the points??? You seemed to actually CONSIDER the points raised, yet in your blind zeal to push ANY special interest minority adgenda upon the people, you seem to advocate continued abuse of the rights of the people (all citizens) by using alternate means to get what you want??? What kind of 2 faced, sit on the fence crap is that? You cant have this both ways, either a society has the right and abillity to define itself, thru democratic means, or it doesnt.
You cant say yes it does but its ok for ANY S.I.M.G. to then violate that same right of the society by not playing by the same rules.

By doing so you are trying to allow the removal of rights of all citizens in support of a few. Which minority rule shall we adopt thru non democratic means today? How about the KKK, or NAMBLA, or PETA, or christians, or which unelected minority gets to go around the legitimate democratic process?
How will we make this decision if we dont use the framework of this society, I.E. the constitution? Hmm lets put everyone in a ring and the last person standing gets to decide? Mabey we should let the king decide, or the dictator, or what?

THE RIGHTS TO MARRIAGE...
Hmm, where is my garuntee of this? IT DOESNT EXIST....just because men and women can choose this doesnt mean its a civil right. Its a S.I.M.G.'s special privilage, just like social security is for the retired....do i have to dredge up my post about DISCRIMINATION IS LEGAL again? Just because some black kid can get a black only scholorship, doesnt mean I should be able to force them to give a white kid some of their funds. There is a laundry list, all based off the 1rst amendment right to associate, and right to assembly in S.I.M.G.'s as we choose, where some people get entitlements that others do not....BIG DEAL. why is marriage any different?

As far as being denied this right, again....how is asking for a new S.I.M.G. entitlement that DID NOT EXIST PRIOR, qualify as denial of something.
EVEN if the society, thru democratic means, determines that they do not want to grant this request, why cant they as a democratic society make this choice? "right or wrong" which is subjective. Because a culture does not grant this request (for any reasons) does not make that culture "evil, bad, wrong, homophobes etc"...it makes them a unique democratic culture when compared to a culture that might grant this same request to the S.I.M.G.

Assuming malice (homophobia, hate etc) is the exact name calling devicive tactic that attempts to divert attention from a weak counter argument to lay blame on the otherside. Pathetic. Actually i assume this hatred is comming from the loosing side...in this case, anyone thats trying to ram their S.I.M.G. adgenda onto the culture unsuccessfully.


The idea of intolorable behaiviors:
Are you saying that you do not lay down ground rules for kids that spell out what behaiviors are tolerated and which are not? I know many spoiled brats that come from homes where there are lax/no rules. The department of children and families is overflowing with kids like this.
Again, astonishing that a parent is "bad" for instilling their kids with ideas of acceptable/intolorable behaivior. Obviously im talking about the IDEA of intolerance, not advocating certain ASSUMED principals that could be construed as BEING intolerant. (but lets take away parents rights to raise their kid as a neo nazi if they believe that creedo, because someone else doen not and says they are wrong for doing so. Man talk about intolerance, who is pushing moral values on whom now? Equality and tolerance would mandate that both gay families and neo nazi ones are equal, weather you like it or not. PS, Im NOT a nazi of any kind, before you assume this, or make any assumptions about what and to what degree i would say to my family that an unnamed behaivior is not tolerable.
Pushy and assumptive, and just as bigoted to assume you have any right to tell anyone what they may/may not teach their kids.

27jd says,


you run the risk of them rebelling like teens ALWAYS do, and experimenting with "alternative" lifestyles that have been forbidden to them

You are trying to get me to believe that this will happen 100% of the time?
Im not stupid. This is a fallicy of logic to make any "all are/none are" type of statement, unless you can show the evidence that this is true. Who would be ignorant for believing this LIE? I'll give you this is likely, but even if this rebellion occurs, who is to say it wont pass as well? Kids never come back to parents and say..."i understand now what you were trying to tell me then"?

TrueLies flames,


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
While i realize this was most likley a jest, i would think this is a very derogatory, and insensitive jest at the expence of GAYS!
If i uttered anything of the kind i would have a line of people waiting to brand me a homophobe. This negative referance of the term gay was used again by TL a few posts later....Yet no one condemed this slur against gays?
A shocking double standard...where is the equality here? LMAO!!!

TL's assesment of 27jd's debate style,


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!!

Very accurate, and i'd seccond this idea.
Please dont take this too hard 27jd, Im really NOT trying to flame war with you again, i just think this idea about you is getting around...LOL. I couldnt resist this observation.

Back to verbally slappng TL around tho, he says,


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...

Hold on a second here, the fact that this thread keeps gravitating twords the top surley indicates some interest in the topic...just look at the hits to post ratio, its above average for threads.
Also, isnt this why we're here? to debate back and forth? Why else would i come here?

TL discusses me instead of the topic,


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
I get no pleasure in continued discussions with close minded ignorant people, its more frustrating than pleasurable.
As far as thinking Im right...please show me almost ANY members posts that do not appear to take this same stance. Like 27jd, or intrepid have been any less fixed in their position being right? I think as most members dont have their minds changed on about any thread, this idea runs rampant. (the idea that a members post is "right" from their perspective)
TLare you any less guilty of this crime? Casting the first stone?

TL questions,


How can you respond to somebody who just looks for an argument?

Hmm, You must have read my signature....LMAO!!!
I look for ignorance to deny, and then expose it for what it is.

Intrepid says,


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.
The only thing youve blown is perhaps another members member!
Your willingness to trample on cultural values and the practice of democracy to support ANY S.I.M.G. is disturbing....
I have answered you, just because you dont like the answer i gave is irrelavent to me. In my defense, to quote TL,


I know you respond to EVERYTHING someone says to you, but you don't have to,
There is another answer for you. Did you like this one more or less?

W Hamilton,
I havnt forgotten you, just got sidetracked....please read this entire thread and jump in....I actually began a responce to you several times but had to abandon them due to time constraints before i could finnish. Im sure you'll find this thread has been whitled down to the same points we've discussed. Im also sure you'll ask your same question again which ill address as long as i dont get "lost" again.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
Yet after my last post, instead of attacking my POINTS, I WAS ATTACKED AS AN INDIVIDULE!?! My family was attacked...Leave my children (If i even have any) OUT of this. Attack my POINTS not the PERSON!
Diversionary tactics are soo pathetic.
Incredible. The demonization of opponents continues because actually admitting that you advocate violating the principals and practice of democracy in action, in order to push a minority special intrest adgenda into being, raises serious questions about your motivations, form of governance you think your under, and participation in society as a citizen.

Intrepid says,


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.
The only thing youve blown is perhaps another members member!
Your willingness to trample on cultural values and the practice of democracy to support ANY S.I.M.G. is disturbing....
I have answered you, just because you dont like the answer i gave is irrelavent to me. In my defense, to quote TL,


Caz, your ignorance is only equalled by you homophobia. Blown another member, even though I do like the double entendre, doesn't bother me. Actually I think it's a bit off color, if I said that you would be screaming for my head. Like that double entendre Caz? You looking for my "head"? Just remember, you went here first. It basically shows that your arguements are based in an archaic belief system, that you are either unable or unwilling to get past. Don't play the martyr, you are far from it, you are a persecutor.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 04:11 AM
link   
In case you "forgot" this is from 2 pages back, still unanswered:

Originally posted by intrepid

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]


Waiting Caz.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 06:05 AM
link   
Hells bells, why have I waited so long to enter this muddy portal? I’ve only read from page 4 so far, but this is already the best laugh I’ve had all day.

My first reaction was one of despair at the continual homophobic rantings, & the comment on child molestation being a lesser crime than murder – well, that musta blown my blood pressure clean off the scale.

But wait – you’re not all homophobes after all. What I said in the previous paragraph is all issuing from the one person, someone who makes assertions like


[I]Originally posted by CazMedia

I get no pleasure in continued discussions with close minded ignorant people, its more frustrating than pleasurable


That had me howling with laughter – this looks like the pot calling the kettle black, I've not had the pleasure in a long time of hearing such a "close minded” etc, rant like this

And this takes the biscuit

[I]Originally posted by CazMedia

Your willingness to trample on cultural values
[snip]


Excuse me? What century’s cultural values are you referring to? Maybe you should be living back in Victorian times.

Well carry on folks – if you so much enjoy being baited by someone who obviously enjoys stirring the pot with his constant reiterations of the same old same old – he’s been out-debated & doesn’t realise that he hasn’t a feather to fly with now. And to those still waiting for a reply to your post, rotsaruck, when it comes, it's still gonna be the same old same old.

Like so many in this thread, I sure feel sorry for his kids.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
Faster than j.Kerry can flip flop, 27jd then says,


The only thing I meant by understanding your point, was if the constitution WAS actually side-stepped, but since you have provided NO proof of this whatsoever, understanding your concerns and agreeing with them are two different things. Very predictable for a conservative to use the flip-flop label on somebody who has the ability to see where somebody is coming from (no matter how incorrect they are), and acknowledge that, but still disagree and give the reasons why. Truly a diversion of the argument. I'm still waiting for you to explain how the constitution was side-stepped here.
So basically, somebody must be entirely one-sided to "deny ignorance"?

27jd correctly states,


there are no founding principles which are being ignored here,


Still waiting for you to show me where the founding fathers specifically stated gays must be denied ANY rights that straights are afforded.



You cant have this both ways, either a society has the right and abillity to define itself, thru democratic means, or it doesnt.
You cant say yes it does but its ok for ANY S.I.M.G. to then violate that same right of the society by not playing by the same rules.


The "society" you're referring to (neo-con right?), is not the society I know, we were NEVER given a chance through democratic means, or otherwise to voice our opinions that all NON-CRIMINAL lifestyles be accepted as Americans and given EVERY right that EVERY citizen should have.



How about the KKK, or NAMBLA, or PETA, or christians, or which unelected minority gets to go around the legitimate democratic process?


The first two are CRIMINAL organizations, PETA does go around the democratic process in many instances (although I agree with them, that's another subject completely), and christians? LMFAO! They have hijacked the democratic process most blatantly (something you condone) through our President who supports the Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson agenda of hateful, intolerant christianity, and creates faith-based initiatives and such.



THE RIGHTS TO MARRIAGE...
Hmm, where is my garuntee of this? IT DOESNT EXIST....just because men and women can choose this doesnt mean its a civil right. Its a S.I.M.G.'s special privilage, just like social security is for the retired....do i have to dredge up my post about DISCRIMINATION IS LEGAL again? Just because some black kid can get a black only scholorship, doesnt mean I should be able to force them to give a white kid some of their funds. There is a laundry list, all based off the 1rst amendment right to associate, and right to assembly in S.I.M.G.'s as we choose, where some people get entitlements that others do not....BIG DEAL. why is marriage any different?


It is vastly different, it is telling somebody for no good reason other than you don't agree with their lifestyle, that they cannot be married to the person they love. It has nothing to do with money, and again, where in the first amendment does it state gays cannot marry the person they love? Do not falsely use the first amendment to suit your purposes.



Assuming malice (homophobia, hate etc) is the exact name calling devicive tactic that attempts to divert attention from a weak counter argument to lay blame on the otherside.


It is what it is.



Pushy and assumptive, and just as bigoted to assume you have any right to tell anyone what they may/may not teach their kids.


Assumptive is right, but on your part, please show me where I TOLD you what you can teach your kids. I just informed you of the consequences, believe me or not, it's up to you.



You are trying to get me to believe that this will happen 100% of the time?
Im not stupid.


Not 100%, there are exceptions, but it takes an extremely gifted and intelligent child to see that what he has been taught all his life is wrong, why do you think they can so easily cut somebody's head off with a knife in the middle east? Because they have known and been taught that violence all their lives, they believe what their parents have taught them and think it's no big deal, and it's justified. So teach your kids hate all you want, hopefully your children will be the intelligent exception, otherwise they will violently attack gays, and probably go to prison, or again, if they choose to rebel against YOU, you may have a gay son that YOU inadvertantly created. But again it IS your choice how you raise your children, you can choose to ignore the possible consequences of your actions.




TL's assesment of 27jd's debate style,
Very accurate, and i'd seccond this idea.
Please dont take this too hard 27jd, Im really NOT trying to flame war with you again, i just think this idea about you is getting around...LOL. I couldnt resist this observation.


TL and I have engaged in a few heated debates, but she understands that I am mostly just kidding.



Back to verbally slappng TL around tho, he says,


TL is a she.



[edit on 1-9-2004 by 27jd]



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Well, i tried to leave this alone, I couldn't read Caz's posts without getting sick and wanting to go get a rope and lynch someone. But can't, cause he is just sad.

Man, as Intrepid posted awhile ago, Republicans/Democrats are NOT suppose to be neutral The reason they were voted for is because the voters want the trian of thought the candidate believe in to be voiced. If you are neutral, how do you get votes? "Do you believe in Abortion?" I am neutral. "Do you believe in tax cuts?" I am neutral. "Do you believe in the war?" I am neutral. It doesn't make sense, why would they vote for you if you are neutral? Now if you had answers to those outside of "I am neutral" you might get votes.

Teaching intolerance to kids, welcome to the fifties, down with the blacks.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Well, i tried to leave this alone, I couldn't read Caz's posts without getting sick and wanting to go get a rope and lynch someone. But can't, cause he is just sad.

[snip]

Teaching intolerance to kids, welcome to the fifties, down with the blacks.


I've read many excellent & thoughtful responses here, so it's near impossible for me to choose one to quote from, so seeing as it's been such a lo-o-ng thread, I focussed on the emotions you're feeling about it all!

As someone who [thankfully] hasnt been involved in this topic, I can fully appreciate how you're feeling about this tiresome debate. It must be like trying to debate a brick wall, if you get my drift. And in my only other response here, you'll maybe notice that I fully agree with the last bit I've quoted here - about "teaching intolerance to kids" - & that's the saddest part of all.

Caz's whole brief reminds me so much of religious zealotry - I mean in the fanaticism of his whole arguments, & I don't think I'm drawing too long a bow here. You ever tried debating with one of those fanatics - waste of time, isn't it? They won't budge an inch, or concede a point that's been obviously made, even if it's staring them in the face.

And the other thing I've noticed here - & as a "fly on the wall", so to speak [cos I haven't been involved in this whole thing], so it's staring me in the face now that I've read the whole topicf - is that Caz has being going on & on ad nauseam about "hidden aqendas" - but he's the one who's had a hidden agenda all along.

Just [if you can bear it] check out how his tone has changed from his original post as the topic progressed. Some of you have already commented on this, but he has ducked & weaved & side-stepped this all the way through. He's the one with the hidden agenda, which he was careful not to reveal in his early posts.

Save your breath, guys - is my [unsolicited!] advice - you might as well waste your words on the wind.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 09:18 PM
link   
I would have to agree with Caz at this point. All those things add up very nicely, too nicely if you add me. He is definetly a mole.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 05:52 AM
link   
27jd,
i applaud your abillity at this point to still at least seemingly be reasonable in the discussion...you are sticking to points and not assaulting the person, nor are you using devicive name calling (bigot, homophobe etc) Ill get back to you later.

Tachyon says,


I would have to agree with Caz at this point. All those things add up very nicely, too nicely if you add me. He is definetly a mole.

Hmm, id like to think that someone would have the guts to stand up in a room full of people blinded by their own projected hatred and reverse predjudice and agree with at least some of the points ive made....but why am i skeptical that this support is genuine? Please elaborate Tachyon.
Did you really mean IM the mole?

Lets talk about the politicians being neutral thing.
YES, while politics have mostly bi-polar political parties....
once elected...an official is there to do the business of ALL CITIZENS...while they might have allegiance to their party...they must act in the best interests of ALL the people or they are CROOKED...I think we'd all agree that there is too much special interest minority groups influencing our politicians of both parties. (just pick a S.I.M.G. of your choice on this, it doesnt have to be gays, which is why i switched to the use of the term S.I.M.G. as my theory here applies to ANY of these groups that attempt to circumvent democracy.)

Now while say a republican candidate wins a local election, did ANY democrats vote for this person? Did any republicans vote against?
How the hell is the candidate to know who voted for him on a blind ballot?
Now im sure that he knows which groups backed him with $$$, but for this politician to only cater to them is BAD politics....WE the people have allowed this to get more prevalent not less, thru our complacency. Yes this occurs, but that doesnt make it right.

Did the govenor of florida only send aid after the hurricane to republican districts? NO, he sent it to all the people in need....
when signing a budget for fire services, do they break down the money by voting blocks? NO they spread it out to all areas...what about the school budgets or street budgets or trash pick-up?
If any politician is caught pandering to a SIMG, then the people in his area should hold them accountable. because once elected, they need to be concerned with every citizen, not just the ones that voted for him.
For anyone to say that a democratic politician should only do things for democrats is rediculous...that is truely devicive and counter productive to accountabillity by the people...all the people.

Now before you all go nuts, of course we see this political pandering in affairs of government, but does that make it right to you?
Talk about blind party alliegance....
If you do then it says alot about why youd think it is ok for ANY SIMG to effectivly steal away the voters rights in CA, that passed the no gay marriage thing into law, and allow some local politician to circumvent the law and democratic process to give away gay marriages....its NOT about gay being good/bad/other...its about ANY SIMG pulling the wool over ALL citizens eyes in this fashion. Why in the hell do you think the higher courts put a stop to this?

Bastet joins in,


the comment on child molestation being a lesser crime than murder well, that musta blown my blood pressure clean off the scale.
How in the hell do you all think that murder is less than an aggravated assault(sexual) is beyond me....Hmm dont the scales of justice have death as the top penalty for murder, but not for sexual assault against a minor?? Hmm imagine that...one crime seems to be lesser than another under the law. But this is diversionary, just an interesting indicator of some peoples mentality when it comes to allowing emotions to intrepret the law/constitution.

Bastet asks,


Excuse me? What centurys cultural values are you referring to? Maybe you should be living back in Victorian times.
Well if you had read the entire thread then you would already know the answer as this exact question was already asked,
but
the answer about what cultural value is threatened is
the abillity of a democratic culture to determine its cultural boundaries (laws, rules, morals,) thru recognised, legitimate means established, in this case the constitution....this applies to the practice of democracy and the sociological principals of "cultural identity" which is what distinguishes say, the USA from France. This has little to do with passing judgment on the right/wrongness of whatever special interest minority groups adgenda we're talking about (in this case the gay marriage adgenda), and more about the process and practice of our form of governance. Get it? or do you still wish to push your homobhobe hatred upon me for asking a sociological question?

Hey if this SIMG could get the majority of the voters to pass this into law, id be fine with it, but dont try to steal your way past the rest of us, by sacrifising others rights for the sake of your own, how selfish and greedy is that?

commenting on this thread, Bastet says,


I've read many excellent & thoughtful responses here, so it's near impossible for me to choose one to quote from, so seeing as it's been such a lo-o-ng thread, I focussed on the emotions you're feeling about it all!
exactly a point ive raised before, (if you read and comprehended thru your discriminating foggy glasses) CHECK YOUR EMOTIONS AT THE DOOR!!! lets try a logical discussion of issues and not allow our emotions, including devisive name calling (bigot, homophobe, fag, pervert..whatever) to get in the way.n if you had actually read this thread youd have seen this request MANY times...but just read what you want to see...LMAO
talk about the same old tired bag of tricks, (why am i even entertaining this newbie to this discussion?) This also applies for you trying to put your discrimination onto me. Dont assume motive where it hasnt been stated mr "hidden adgenda".

Bastet drones on,


It must be like trying to debate a brick wall, if you get my drift
Yeah? the feelings mutual....

by the way on teaching intolorance....
dont presume that you are the sole authority that gets to decide what is and is not tolorable for anyones kids but your own....or are you continuing to discriminate and push YOUR values around onto others? Go find where ive EVER said judgmentaly that being gay was wrong, immoral, against god, evil etc.....You assume motive here again where none has been stated....if a neo-nazi couple wants to teach their kids their (twisted) version of intolorance than it is their RIGHT TO DO SO...or are you advocating removing their rights like you want to steal away the practice of democracy from citizens here too? Hmm Bastets scales of justice seem to be weighted to bastet's side only and seem far from being blind as bastet has already passed judgment....no different than anyone elese's judging someone else eh? Same to James...hmm welcome to the era where kids have no rules, arent taught right from wrong, and where passing down your cultural heritage "for ourselves AND our posterity" (preamble to constitution) is a BAD thing to do...

Intrepid,
yes i did actually like your double entendre....i spose i violated my own general rule and allowed emotions to cause me to use one on you. As for this comment being off color, well, you are advocating that this behaivior is acceptable, so why would this be problematic?

Ahh 27jd,
the kkk is a legally recognized and PROTECTED SIMG...they have the rights to their philosophy and its exposition to anyone that will listen....while some individules have committed violations under the law using this mentality, the group itself is perfectly legal, they own lots of land, have big printing/distribution centers, and lots of legal guns..
the same is true of NAMBLA, they can legally expouse their ideas all day long legally, but if they are caught actually DOING them its a different story.
Are you sure you live in the USA? cause these things are widely known.
i used christians as i knew id get agreement that that SIMG is also trying questionable manuvers with laws/process...LMAO too.

27jd,


it is telling somebody for no good reason other than you don't agree with their lifestyle, that they cannot (insert do whatever the SIMG in question wants)

Again are you saying that a democratic society, thru established methods of the democracy does NOT have the right to say "this is not for our culture"? can this be a yes or no answer.

27jd clarifies for me,


TL is a she.

Hmm we too have had some "terse" discussions, and from the tone and style id have sworn this member was male...LOL
and NO i usually dont go reading profiles...i have RARELY viewed them but am skeptical of them as they really could type anything in there.

27jd,


we were NEVER given a chance through democratic means, or otherwise to voice our opinions that all NON-CRIMINAL lifestyles be accepted as Americans
No we didnt get this chance with this issue did we? and this doesnt bother you? Obviously it bothers me....and id suspect it doesnt bother you because if that vote was taken nation wide now, polls indicate youd loose the vote....so why ask for a vote your gonna lose? Lets violate the laws to get our way instead...yeah thats it....

27jd requests proof,


The only thing I meant by understanding your point, was if the constitution WAS actually side-stepped, but since you have provided NO proof of this whatsoever, understanding your concerns and agreeing with them are two different things

I agree that understanding a point and agreeing with it are 2 seperate things (and who says i dont EVER agree/cnceed a point? Wouldnt this be like the 3rdtime in this thread ive done this, admittedly on small ones...he he he)

lets look at the proof
story.news.yahoo.com.../nm/20040812/ts_nm/rights_gays_marriage_dc

please note a few things from exerpts,



SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California's Supreme Court annulled more than 4,000 gay marriages in San Francisco on Thursday after finding the city acted improperly in granting marriage licenses earlier this year in defiance of state law.
DEFIANCE OF STATE LAW




"Local officials in San Francisco exceeded their authority by taking official action in violation of applicable statutory provisions," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote. "The same-sex marriages authorized by the officials are void and of no legal effect."
EXCEEDED AUTHORITY...VIOLATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS




In its decision, the justices focused on whether the mayor had the authority to marry gays rather than on the broader arguments whether the state constitution must allow gay marriage
HMM QUESTIONS OF IF THE STATE CONSTITUTION EVEN ALLOWS THIS....YET IM A BIGOT HOMOPHOBE FOR RAISING THESE SAME ISSUES??? INCREDIBLE!!!



In an unusual twist on the day of the California decision, New Jersey Democratic Gov. James McGreevey, an opponent of gay marriage, abruptly resigned, announcing that he was gay and had had a homosexual affair.
ILL HAVE TO CHECK ON MCGREEVEY BEING AN OPPONENT OF GAY MARRIAGE ON THIS ONE....IM NOT SURE THIS IS THE CASE...BUT IF IT IS...WOW WAS I RIGHT ABOUT HIS HIDDEN ADGENDA OR WHAT?



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Since Caz is trying to dodge my question the same way he did in that other thread, I'll post it here again. If you refuse to answer it (which would now be the 4th time), I'll just assume you have no reasonable explanation, in which case you're just proving right all these people that are calling you these things.

How can you advocate governmental discrimination against gay people when the Constitution provides equal rights for ALL of our country's citizens? Why should we go against the most basic principle of the Constitution of the United States to discriminate against a certain group of people? How can you possibly advocate that?

I'm waiting...



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Droning? You could give lessons, CazMedia.

You twist words to suit yourself - either that, or your reading comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired. The point at which I came in to make my last post was focussed on not MY emotions, but the emotions of the previous poster, emotions pertaining ONLY to your EXTREME verbosity, & not referring to emotions generated by the topic – as you’re trying to make out. Read again what I actually quoted


[I]Originally posted by James the Lesser[/I]
Well, i tried to leave this alone, I couldn't read Caz's posts without getting sick and wanting to go get a rope and lynch someone. But can't, cause he is just sad


Then you MISquoted what I actually said regarding child molestation & murder – read more carefully in future.

You somehow managed to read into my post a whole lot of thing that weren’t there or even implied & you attacked me for beliefs & opinions I don’t even hold, but I very much doubt you’ll even bother to check this out – after all, you said it yourself in a particularly condescending manner


[I]Originally posted by CazMedia[/I]

why am i even entertaining this new member to this discussion


Well pardon me for breathing, Mr Elitist – there’s plenty more I could say about your response to me, but I’m too discriminating to spend time with someone like yourself who questions the value to himself of “entertaining a NEW MEMBER”.

But in parting from your lame excuse for a reply, I’ll offer you some ever-so-polite advice. Cut out the verbosity, & in keeping with your indeterminate position in media, learn to spell agenda & all the other words you throw around.





posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
In case you "forgot" this is from 2 pages back, still unanswered:

Originally posted by intrepid

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]


Waiting Caz.


You addressed the double entendre but you didn't address my points. Not in the least surprised.


[Edited on 2-9-2004 by intrepid]



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 12:30 AM
link   
I see the "only what we want to see" blinders are still being used.

Intrepid,
see the 3 paragraphs about this near the top of my last post. No i didnt say HEY INTREPID LOOK HERE...but if you actually read it, how did you miss the paragrap starting
"Lets talk about the politicians being neutral thing."

Bastet,
thanks for the hit and run cheap shots....
i titled my last post your whining about "WELCOME NEW DEBATORS"
I hope my welcome was warm enough for you.
i have little time to RE-HASH crap from previous pages with you...try actually reading the thread instead of a jump in to assault the messenger instead of talking the POINTS at hand.
You in several threads only commented directly on ME and offered NOTHING about the issues being discussed...you actually avoided making direct statements by sympathizing with other posters views...this implies that you agree with their positions but didnt have the balls to make it as a direct statement yourself. dont tip toe around, stand up and speak directly.
distracting to say the least. Diversionary as a debate style.
What did i misquote from a direct cut and paste off your posting?
Your statement about your blood preassure concerning comparitive laws implies that you were very agitated by my remarks, how was this misconstrued.
Your more than welcome to continue discussing things here, my remark about entertaining a new poster to this thread was because you were dragging us back in time with your re-hashed contributions....IF you had read this entire post, youd be able to play on page 6 like the rest of are, instead of dwelling on past pages already addressed.
As far as verbosity and spelling...I have writers to do this tedious work for me, but you arent paying me/them to edit copy, it is not mandatory that there are no spelling/punctuation errors for postings, ATS does not have a spell checker for conveniance...soo
continue to attack the person not the message and take your cheap shots.
Your not contributing to the discussion, only bashing a member....great debate style...(ps all spelling/grammar errors left in for your enjoyment, have fun checking them at your leisure....besides, you seem to have no problems understanding what is being communicated...misspelled or not.)
I think 27jd said the same and got the same reply...LOL
AGAIN A RE-HASH!!! LOL

[edit on 3-9-2004 by CazMedia]



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
Now while say a republican candidate wins a local election, did ANY democrats vote for this person? Did any republicans vote against?
How the hell is the candidate to know who voted for him on a blind ballot?
Now im sure that he knows which groups backed him with $$$, but for this politician to only cater to them is BAD politics....WE the people have allowed this to get more prevalent not less, thru our complacency. Yes this occurs, but that doesnt make it right.

Did the govenor of florida only send aid after the hurricane to republican districts? NO, he sent it to all the people in need....
when signing a budget for fire services, do they break down the money by voting blocks? NO they spread it out to all areas...what about the school budgets or street budgets or trash pick-up?
If any politician is caught pandering to a SIMG, then the people in his area should hold them accountable. because once elected, they need to be concerned with every citizen, not just the ones that voted for him.
For anyone to say that a democratic politician should only do things for democrats is rediculous...that is truely devicive and counter productive to accountabillity by the people...all the people.

Now before you all go nuts, of course we see this political pandering in affairs of government, but does that make it right to you?
Talk about blind party alliegance....
If you do then it says alot about why youd think it is ok for ANY SIMG to effectivly steal away the voters rights in CA, that passed the no gay marriage thing into law, and allow some local politician to circumvent the law and democratic process to give away gay marriages....its NOT about gay being good/bad/other...its about ANY SIMG pulling the wool over ALL citizens eyes in this fashion. Why in the hell do you think the higher courts put a stop to this?


Yes I did miss that, you didn't put my name there like you usually do. You are putting apples and oranges on the table and calling all of them apples.

"Did the govenor of florida only send aid after the hurricane to republican districts? NO, he sent it to all the people in need....
when signing a budget for fire services, do they break down the money by voting blocks? NO they spread it out to all areas...what about the school budgets or street budgets or trash pick-up?"

OK, I'll go along, so where are the rights of gay to marry just like anybody else? Supposed to spread it around, right. But wait.

"If you do then it says alot about why youd think it is ok for ANY SIMG to effectivly steal away the voters rights in CA, that passed the no gay marriage thing into law, and allow some local politician to circumvent the law and democratic process to give away gay marriages....its NOT about gay being good/bad/other...its about ANY SIMG pulling the wool over ALL citizens eyes in this fashion."

Your first arguement settles this:


Originally posted by intrepid
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.




But your second takes it back. Basically nullifying the first. I know why you don't want gay marriage, everybody that reads this does. I just want you to be honest about it and it will be done.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Intrepid,

I am not clear on what you are trying to say about one of my arguments nullifying another concerning political neutrality.
Please clarify.
Tho this is getting off thread some...



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
Intrepid,

I am not clear on what you are trying to say about one of my arguments nullifying another concerning political neutrality.
Please clarify.
Tho this is getting off thread some...


Read page 4 again to get the drift. You've obfuscated to avoid it. I won't do you're homework for you.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 02:54 AM
link   
OK Caz, as you are so fond of "the Majority" , I went through this whole thread and the #'s break down like this:
15- against you.
2- humour posts
1- abstain
1- party vote, because the gov. was Dem., a Rep. had to take a stab at him.
1- supports you.

Get rid of the ones that don't matter and the vote is 15 - 1, you're wrong. Hey, you said it, majority rules. Thanks for this lovely exercise in democracy. Next topic.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 04:14 AM
link   
W Hamilton,
You have been patient and persistant...I really have not been ducking you.
just too many thread involvmentsand soo many ripe targets to hit.
Actually I began responces several times but aborted as i got distracted by reality and had to leave cyberspace.
Lets try this now and ignore the others since your question IS at the core of this debate.

You ask,


How can you advocate governmental discrimination against gay people when the Constitution provides equal rights for ALL of our country's citizens? Why should we go against the most basic principle of the Constitution of the United States to discriminate against a certain group of people? How can you possibly advocate that?

Lets either remove the term "gay" and leave it just people, or replace it with "any special interest minority group" as this concept is bigger than only applying to gays.

HERE WE GO...

Discrimination is LEGAL!
A given society must discriminate in order to define itself. All freedoms and no rules/responsabillity = ANARCHY.

We have laws (in the USA) that discrimate based on age, (Retirement, child labor)....Drivers license, drinking age, ciggarettes purchases, heck even some laws and punnishments are different if you are a minor or an adult. (someone please explain how you can go to Iraq in the army and kill people, yet not buy a beer afterwards, but you can smoke your brains out....if the law says at 18 yrs your an adult legally, shouldnt the drinking age be 18 too then?)

The right to association (yes you can legally have a black only scholorship, or a men's only golf club, no gays/girls in the boy scouts ect)...this is related to the right to be left alone.....or not to be forced by others that do not share in your groups core beliefs.

We discriminate based on immigration status. If you are not a citizen, you dont have the same rights as citizens do. Arnold Schwartenegger can only ever become a member of congress...He'll never get to be President here, because he was not BORN American.

Some pay more/less/no taxes based on their income...How fair is that?
qualifying religous institutions pay NO taxes. (legal bennifits for some religions but not all)

Criminal status.....Once youve been convicted of a felony, you lose your rights to vote and bear arms. (even if you didnt use any weapon.....Once youve sevred out your sentance, why are you then still discriminated against when your "debt to society" has been fufliied?) If your a convicted sex offender, you never regain your liberty either, big brother will require you to register so they can track you FOREVER...even tho youve served out your sentance...Why dont wedo this with murders? Id rather have a perv that wants to give a 12 yr old a BJ walking around, than a guy that would just kill the 12 yr old.

VOTING....in our 2 party system, anyone thats an independant doesnt get to have any say in voting during the primary elections....I thought all votes were equal....ohh only if you sign up to the 2 "official" parties?

Hell on a really basic level, we've got segregated bathrooms by sex....
we all need to go....were all doing the same thing...why are some toilets for one sex or the other? Yet we say men and women are equal? Could I be arrested for using a womens rest room?

There are TOO MANY private groups that have "exclusionary" status/situations, these situations have not been struck down and in fact have been upheld in most cases...the biggest difference between the legally sanctioned discrimination and private groups discriminating is that a private group HAS THE RIGHTS TO DO THIS under their right of freedom of association and freedoms to gather with whom they choose to. (See supreme court ruling for the Boy scouts vs gays and interpretations of the first amendment))

Examples,
Colleges....you cant attend unless your "smart" enough to pass an entrance test...."We here at Harvard have high standards that you dont meet, but there is the community college down the street for you."
Hmm colleges do recieve federal funds, yet can exclude based on an intelligence quotient

How about the hippocrits at he United Way? They've got exclusive programs for all kinds of "member only" niche groups....womens health programs, elderly programs, childrens programs, programs for the poor...all dolling out "bennifits" that others cant get (because they are not part of the exclusionary criteria)....and then they have the balls to pull funds from the scouts AFTER the supreme court sides with the scouts...The UW says the scouts are discrimitory??? Whos discriminating now against whom? They used to give $$ to the scouts (for decades!), but after the public stink (which the scouts WON) they still chose to pull funding....but they'll still support other "exclusive" groups under their wing. Some example of tolorance there eh?
I will not, no one in my extended family, my grand kids will not EVER donate anything but spit to the 2 faced bastards at the United Way EVER AGAIN! Ill find other charities to be generous with.

I could go on and on about the private forms of institutionalized discriminations but these examples should MORE than suffice...speciffically the ones in the laws.

So now that we've toured US culture and can see where things arent fair, and that some "gropus" can and do get bennifits that others do not.
Why is marriage any different of an "exclusive" situation? If its ok to have an affrican american club or scholorship(bennifit), why cant we have a male/female only club/bennifits called marriage?

Also MARRIAGE IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHT! It is in essence a special interest minority group....no one will garuntee you a spouse...how in the heck would the government be able to enforce a violation of your "civil rights" because nobody will agree to marry you? How can government protect this "right" for citizens? Not all citizens even desire to be married, in effect they gave up this right? Civil rights cant be given up as they are inherent. Being married is NOT nessisary for a happy, productive live as a citizen or even a human.
thats for another time, but this fundamental differance in approach
(Marriage a right/not a right) will definatly flavor which/how you will support your position.

I can and wish to be more clear on this, but efforting hurricane coverage is becomming more intensive as it approaches....



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 04:17 AM
link   
NO, you are not going to play that #. Try something else, this isn't for sale.

You are also not going to back track, filling in things that are past.

[edit on 3-9-2004 by intrepid]




top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join