Voting is the best revenge! (Election results 2012)

[Glurin]

Pfft. What a ridiculous notion. Like anyone really wants to force priests to marry *** couples. Nobody is gonna force people to do things they don't want to. There's no movement to force employers to provide insurance. Nobody wants to force catholic institutions to provide contraception. Nobody is going to force people to give up their guns, large sodas, salt, trans fats, or styrofoam coffee cups. And it's completely absurd to think anyone would ever force a particular religious group to wear some kind of identifying marker.



Wait a minute......

[jmervyn]

Wait a minute......

You forgot having your domicile tossed searched inspected by the Police on an annual basis to ensure compliance with the law*.

No, wait, I'm completely out of bounds here - that was a completely honest mistake and was totally misinterpreted by evil fascist wingnuts like myself. Honest. Would they lie to you?


*

Spoiler

"the law". Whatever that means. Of course, it will mean whatever it's supposed to mean to justify the ends.

[BobCox2]

2 out of every 3 Americans lost Fourth Amendment protections to DHS




Two out of every three people reading this could have your electronic devices searched, without there being any reasonable suspicion, because the Department of Homeland Security has decided that such search and seizures do not violate your Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Border agents don’t need probable cause and they don’t need a stinking warrant since they don’t need to prove any reasonable suspicion first. Nor, sadly, do two out of three people have First Amendment protection; it is as if DHS has voided those Constitutional amendments and protections they provide to nearly 200 million Americans.

Those numbers come from the ACLU’s estimates of how many people live within 100 miles of the United States border, since Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CLCR) concluded that border searches of electronic devices do not violate the Fourth Amendment. Previously, the ACLU called this area the Constitution-Free Zone and provided a map showing how many people within states along the all our borders are affected without constitutional rights. The estimate is that nearly two out of three Americans live in the Constitution-Free Zone..

“Your constitutional rights have been repealed in ten states. No, this isn't a joke. It is not exaggeration or hyperbole. If you are in ten states in the United States, your some of your rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights have been made null and void.”

Thats a fact Jmervyn..
Hand me your phone so I can plug this in and check you out.

[jmervyn]

Thats a fact Jmervyn..
Hand me your phone so I can plug this in and check you out.

Plug in? Pish. All the kool kids use mobile phone surveillance, and the News of the World scandal was for pikers.

[Stevinator]

So because your wall-to-wall cavalcade of Progressive Leftist buddies didn't marry for that reason, that reason is invalid? You Lefties always have such incredibly open minds...

Did you marry to secure your wife's property? and not because you love her or anything cute and smooshy like that? Really?

Takes a lot more than that, as you hopefully know. I'm pointing out that much of this angsty crap from you on the Left is completely pointless, and really is nothing more than another method of attack against the traditional family unit (one of the most resistant institutions to Progressive dependency). This issue will apply to a fraction of a fraction of under 2% of the population, so let's make it the cornerstone of the 2012 Presidential Campaign! Lady Parts!

I've never spoken out against family. I just don't think all families have to look like mine. It's sad that you think your family is threatened by what other people do. My is very close and i can't imagine any law that would change that.

First, you compare the passing of a state law to your desire to pass a Federal one.

Fake argument, it's not like you would suddenly support it if the venue changed to your state.

How ignorant are you, again? Second, the passing of state laws allow exactly the sort of asinine situation as the suit against the baker, the one against the church hall, and several others that I can't be bothered to rehash. How DARE you talk about "ruining someone else's life" when these filthy little shytes are trying to destroy religious institutions just to get their name in the paper. I wouldn't be disgusted by their sexual perversity, but I sure as hell am for their litigious viciousness.

And I've many many many many times said i wouldn't support forcing a church to marry someone who they don't want to.

YOU'RE THE ONE WHO WON'T LET IT GO! THEY ALREADY CAN GET MARRIED!

But the state won't recognize it, so it's like it doesn't count. All those list of benefits only come with recognition.

Given that you don't believe evolution can be taught in public school, there's very little point in my bothering.

If you put intelligent design next to evolution, you're not teaching it, you're doing your best to NOT teach it.

Well, I certainly am not going to waste my time per the above. Here's a starter - a significant portion of the legal code is dedicated to children that are the direct product of a marriage, so much so that one Left-leaning state (with the cooperation of the lesbian "mom") recently went after a sperm donor for child support. You think it's such a horrible, EEEEEVILLL thing for someone with an abnormal marital desire to go through extra effort to ensure their legal circumstances, but apparently don't give a gawdamn that much of the legal code will be up-ended because of the sudden elimination of a traditional societal point of reference.

Children aren't a product of marriage. they're a product of sex. The legal standing of mom & dad's marriage doesn't change much for the kids--the benefits are mostly for the two who are married. You're dodging.

Every time I hear this duplicitous and maliciously false argument, I throw up in my mouth just a little bit.

A quick google search says there's 1,138 federal benefits to marriage.
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/a...arried-couples

False, as always. Of course, Kinsey was also a blatant fraud, and he's in no small part responsible for your diseased thinking.

So, I'm wrong because kinsey said so, but kinsey is a fraud? Okay. moving on.

Because you want to change Federal Law, you little fascist.

So if the states go one by one, then it's okay? Something tells me you don't really think that.

Also, the statist one here is you. I'm on the side of freedom to marry. you're on the side of religion dictating to government who can do what with their lives. You can twist it all you want, but it will always come back to this. if you take the moral (yuck) factor away, there's no reason not to let them marry. You can say you're against a federal law, but that's not true. state by state you'd still be against it. that's a false argument. All you have left is start talking about pedos. Something tells me you will somewhere below.

So why deny the rights of pedophiles? Or adulterers? Or anything else? 'You don't have the right to tell people how to live their lives.'

oh, there it is. that was fast.

I don't know why I bother since this is blatantly slippery slope and has NOTHING to do with the convo, but here goes:
Pedos - consent.
Adulterers - What about them? I don't think cheating on your spouse should be a crime. Laws != morals. That's the problem with theocrats, they think they do.
Anything else - You forgot interracial marriages, I'm okay with them too.

Don't you ever tire of being SO stupid? I would think it causes physical pain. If at some point our culture becomes so debased that it eliminates the meaning of marriage, so be it. However, there's significant difference between tolerance and what you claim tolerance actually is - the trump of others rights.

How does recognizing *** marriage trump your rights? Don't tell me about forcing priests to do *** weddings, because i've already said that's not my stance. Name a real one.

Why? You ought to be completely comfortable with the concept that someone else plans to take a ride up your Hershey Highway. You're not some kinda bigot, are you?

People do all sorts of weird things. Doesn't mean i have to think about it. Gross should not mean illegal, or everything would be illegal. How about let's ban fattie sex. that's gross. Let's ban those people like like it when you hit them. Totally creepy. Or when they wear those furry costumes (WTF!). Anything that involves pooping, peeing, puking, or other bodily fluids being smeared on people. Jeez, I just ate. I'm sure someone somewhere thinks it's gross of she takes her shirt off (Patmygroin? you still here?) Ban it all!

The point is what I'm into doesn't matter. Consenting adults should be able to do what they want to do. Two girls or two guys who want to live together as a family unit doesn't tear the fabric of the universe.

Oddly enough, "they" didn't. America did. Marx kept a sex slave, as it happens.

Lots of places in history had slaves. i would argue that slavery was legal somewhere for the vast majority of human civilization.

Along with your insistence that the Papacy secretly runs the U.S. Gov't, right? Hey, at least you don't think it's da J00z.

You said that. I said the christian coalition is destroying the republican party.

I've done so repeatedly, and you still won't recognize it.

Your arguments to date have been the following:
-creation of a special class (not true)
-pedos will kidnap your children (not true)
-buttsecks is gross (true, but not relevent)
-you are a communist (untrue, and more revealing about the accuser than the accused)

Because you can't get what you want through Democracy, you want it through fascism/Statism.

umm, the state is there either way. recognizing *** marriage doesn't increase the power of the state. that's some fantasy you've dreamt up.

Plus, every time it's on the ballot, the minorities shoot it down in flames - and you Liberals have a hard time not resorting to your traditional bigotry in reaction.

What? it doesn't matter who's voting against it. they're wrong whatever color they are. i don't see the world in US vs Them. that's your schtick. Every issue is different. in fact it's annoying that politicians follow party lines so closely. I think it's because of all the money that's buying their campaigns, but that's a big detour.

Happily, no.

New york then? I forget. my apologies.

They sought out and attacked the one that did.

Who sought out a specific business? my teller? When the baker said no, she just went elsewhere.

So because the Democrats stopped being the party of the KKK in 1964, it means that the GOP is the party of racism now? Such a sad, mysterious world you inhabit.

I think both parties play racial politics, but in different ways. I don't like either of them. but then, I don't particularly like either party either.

It's happened already, more than once IIRC, and it's not a matter of having someone trap the baker's hand in an iron apparatus and electrocuting him for not using the frosting cone. It's a matter of him being sued into bankruptcy by you and your merry band of fascists. Hey, maybe next you'll be demanding that I wear a cross on my exterior clothing when in public?

Again, I've said many many many many many many times that I wouldn't force a church to marry anyone. that's a position you made up. I even said i wouldn't force the baker to bake a cake for my goofy teller OR the *** couple. But for some reason, when i write things, you read the exact opposite.


Oh, and sorry for the disappearance, I haven't been home a lot this week.

[LozHinge the Unhinged]

Best thread ever

[Dredd]

Best thread ever

I admit that I'm enjoying this particular round of sparring too.

[Stevinator]

Best thread ever

because of buttsecks?

[LozHinge the Unhinged]

because of buttsecks?

It'll take more than that particular offer to get me off the sidelines

No, I am still seeing in my mind's eye the owner training a puppy scenario that I mentioned a while back. Carry on!

[jmervyn]

Did you marry to secure your wife's property? and not because you love her or anything cute and smooshy like that? Really?

Why does this need to be personalized? If you want anecdotes, I'm surrounded by them - commonly known as "future debs" (for 'debutante'). Have you never heard of someone marrying for money?

It's sad that you think your family is threatened by what other people do. My is very close and i can't imagine any law that would change that.

You have no clue what my family is like, nor those of my progenitors'. Furthermore, if you can't imagine that laws could change that, you're in for a very sad awakening. A facile example is the way your family all but certainly consigns their elderly to retirement homes or other forms of hospice care, while I do not and will not. I'm not trying to point this difference out in an explicit "I'm so much better than you" way, because my familial behavior is that of a very small minority nowadays, but I definitely take a certain amount of pride in not throwing away Gramps' life like a used tissue. Have you ever even considered that viewpoint?

Fake argument, it's not like you would suddenly support it if the venue changed to your state.

Hardly; it's the demonstration of your inherent statism/fascism. I WOULD support the law if it changed in my state, though I wouldn't like it, just as I support the prohibition of both guns and weed even though I don't practice like those laws. They're THE LAW. You can definitely pick which ones you're going to follow, but the fact is that the state is the body legally empowered to make those decisions, while the Feds are specifically not thus empowered. I know you probably don't like it, but there's a great bit of text that nobody likes any more - it's known as the Tenth Amendment.

And I've many many many many times said i wouldn't support forcing a church to marry someone who they don't want to.

And I'm pretty much considering you an open liar from now on. That's SPECIFICALLY what you're demanding, even though you pretend it isn't. Because once you have legalized queer marriage, which grants them the previously unavailable protected class status, they can sue churches for not performing the rite. It's happened already, and will be more widespread. Incidentally, that's why I've started to refer to you in terms of "fascism" - there's not a gun to the priest's head (though you'd love that too) but instead it's the Obama "make you an offer you can't refuse" model enforced by legislating alternatives out of financial possibility. Churches won't be able to operate without being lawsuit magnets, in the way that the attacks against the Boy Scouts left it financially damaged.

But the state won't recognize it, so it's like it doesn't count. All those list of benefits only come with recognition.

I'm hard pressed not to resort to obscenity here. So I'll have to resume later.

Spoiler

If you put intelligent design next to evolution, you're not teaching it, you're doing your best to NOT teach it.


Children aren't a product of marriage. they're a product of sex. The legal standing of mom & dad's marriage doesn't change much for the kids--the benefits are mostly for the two who are married. You're dodging.


A quick google search says there's 1,138 federal benefits to marriage.
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/a...arried-couples


So, I'm wrong because kinsey said so, but kinsey is a fraud? Okay. moving on.


So if the states go one by one, then it's okay? Something tells me you don't really think that.

Also, the statist one here is you. I'm on the side of freedom to marry. you're on the side of religion dictating to government who can do what with their lives. You can twist it all you want, but it will always come back to this. if you take the moral (yuck) factor away, there's no reason not to let them marry. You can say you're against a federal law, but that's not true. state by state you'd still be against it. that's a false argument. All you have left is start talking about pedos. Something tells me you will somewhere below.




oh, there it is. that was fast.

I don't know why I bother since this is blatantly slippery slope and has NOTHING to do with the convo, but here goes:
Pedos - consent.
Adulterers - What about them? I don't think cheating on your spouse should be a crime. Laws != morals. That's the problem with theocrats, they think they do.
Anything else - You forgot interracial marriages, I'm okay with them too.


How does recognizing *** marriage trump your rights? Don't tell me about forcing priests to do *** weddings, because i've already said that's not my stance. Name a real one.



People do all sorts of weird things. Doesn't mean i have to think about it. Gross should not mean illegal, or everything would be illegal. How about let's ban fattie sex. that's gross. Let's ban those people like like it when you hit them. Totally creepy. Or when they wear those furry costumes (WTF!). Anything that involves pooping, peeing, puking, or other bodily fluids being smeared on people. Jeez, I just ate. I'm sure someone somewhere thinks it's gross of she takes her shirt off (Patmygroin? you still here?) Ban it all!

The point is what I'm into doesn't matter. Consenting adults should be able to do what they want to do. Two girls or two guys who want to live together as a family unit doesn't tear the fabric of the universe.




Lots of places in history had slaves. i would argue that slavery was legal somewhere for the vast majority of human civilization.


You said that. I said the christian coalition is destroying the republican party.


Your arguments to date have been the following:
-creation of a special class (not true)
-pedos will kidnap your children (not true)
-buttsecks is gross (true, but not relevent)
-you are a communist (untrue, and more revealing about the accuser than the accused)


umm, the state is there either way. recognizing *** marriage doesn't increase the power of the state. that's some fantasy you've dreamt up.


What? it doesn't matter who's voting against it. they're wrong whatever color they are. i don't see the world in US vs Them. that's your schtick. Every issue is different. in fact it's annoying that politicians follow party lines so closely. I think it's because of all the money that's buying their campaigns, but that's a big detour.


New york then? I forget. my apologies.


Who sought out a specific business? my teller? When the baker said no, she just went elsewhere.


I think both parties play racial politics, but in different ways. I don't like either of them. but then, I don't particularly like either party either.


Again, I've said many many many many many many times that I wouldn't force a church to marry anyone. that's a position you made up. I even said i wouldn't force the baker to bake a cake for my goofy teller OR the *** couple. But for some reason, when i write things, you read the exact opposite.


Oh, and sorry for the disappearance, I haven't been home a lot this week.