If yall are bored and looking for something to get mad at

Kismet · Post by **Kismet** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:17 am

Ok no it isn't game related but it does fall into the "anything" slot nicely.

Here is a website that will make you mad at someone and make you think at the same time. I do not suport the site but I do think it has a right to be.

www.911citizenswatch.org

If it does anything it does make ya think. toodles yall

Kopopo · Post by **Kopopo** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:26 am

Yeah uhm... what a weird little site.

Kismet · Post by **Kismet** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:51 am

If ya thought that one was odd check out this one.....it will make ya spit out your drink.

http://www.reopen911.org/

Eviticus · Post by **Eviticus** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 9:30 am

Whenever I'm bored and want something to get mad at, I just look at Rick Santorum.......oooh...he pisses me off something fierce.....rawr.......hiss....

The first site deserves a

The second deserves a

Post by **Tivia** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 1:44 pm

Kismet wrote:Ok no it isn't game related but it does fall into the "anything" slot nicely.

Here is a website that will make you mad at someone and make you think at the same time. I do not suport the site but I do think it has a right to be.

www.911citizenswatch.org

If it does anything it does make ya think. toodles yall

The fact that they could not even spell Kerry's name correctly destroyed any chance of me reading anything they had to say.

Kismet · Post by **Kismet** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 7:54 pm

I don't think they are talking about the hopefull President here this is a differant guy all together and after all it is a cut and paste from CNN's PAULA ZAHN so there ya go. But hey It's not like we can do anything....I like being a Sheep. Baaaaaa Just worry a little when they start passing around tha lamb chops.

mozyr · Post by **mozyr** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 9:30 pm

Tivia -- Kerrey = the last name of one of the 911 commissioners (Robert Kerrey), not John Kerry.

I've been directed to that website many times. It's really quite frightening.

Eviticus -- I lack the knowledge of Rick Santorum, though I do know that he's a Republican senator from PA. Why don't you care for him? Although by reading this article I can sort of see why.)

-- Sarah[/url]

Eviticus · Post by **Eviticus** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:59 am

Santorum Quotes.

"I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts." My Reply: Who-huh-wha? It's like saying I'm all for the death sentance, but don't kill anyone...

"And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. " My reply: Sodomy will lead to Incest like allowing Women to vote led to allowing Hamsters to vote...

"If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in." My Reply: But earlier in that very same interview, he was talking about the Supreme Court intervining in a way he agreed with, and he didn't oppose that...

In short, Santorum is too far right for me. I grew up conservative (Don't worry, I got better.) and am now pretty much in between the two parties. Financially conservative, socially liberal. One of my biggest issues is Gay Marrige, and Santorum stands against it.

<End Rant>

Prrsha · Post by **Prrsha** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 10:04 am

Eviticus wrote:"And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. " My reply: Sodomy will lead to Incest like allowing Women to vote led to allowing Hamsters to vote...

I think they are worried about legal precedence but I could be wrong...

Eviticus · Post by **Eviticus** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 3:34 pm

In my opinion, there is one end of the specturm in which actions are regulated by personal morals. On the other end of the spectrum, your actions are regulated by law. It all depends on where one sees certain forms of deviancy....

mozyr · Post by **mozyr** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 4:21 pm

Okay, yeah, Santorum is an idiot. I had to read up on him a bit yesterday. It was rough.

And I'm of the mind that people decide their own morals and that the government needs to butt out.

Politics is FAR from being a moral business.

-- Sarah

Post by **Nivez** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 4:24 pm

Eviticus wrote: "I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts." My Reply: Who-huh-wha? It's like saying I'm all for the death sentance, but don't kill anyone...

well if you change it to this, it makes sence.

"I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts [in my presence]."

could be what he meant, or he could be a dumb politician; either way the statement has to be revised to be understandable.

Clayn · Post by **Clayn** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 7:31 pm

Its not a problem if you have a problem with homosexualtity. IF you do have a problem with that, please keep your opinion for yourself.

I mean, were not in holland! Are we?

Editted: sorry

Post by **Nimonie** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 8:02 pm

I see homosexuality as a choice as any sexual preference it is not a right it is an option. That is why people say that if you open the door for one option it will lead to the other options coming closer to being legitimized. In simplistic terms I look at it this ways (flame me if you need to) a man has a desire to be with another man. Just as when that jerk cut me off I had a desire to drag him from his car kicking and screaming and beat him silly. Both are choices. My main problem is the fact that there is an agenda by 2 or 3% of the US population to impose their desires on the rest of the US using the courts I am truly tired of judges making laws instead of interpreting them, and to top it off when they start using international laws to make policies in the US it really makes my blood pressure rise. This is the US we make our own laws if I wanted to be subject to the thoughts of Europe I would move there. For Texas however the supreme court decided that they should be subject to common British law i.e. Last year in the landmark Lawrence v. Texas decision that struck down the state’s sodomy statute, Kennedy, writing the majority opinion, referred approvingly to the British Parliament decriminalizing sodomy in 1967, the European Convention on Human Rights, and a 1981 European Court of Human Rights case.

Post by **Nimonie** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 8:22 pm

Clayn this is a friendly board. I realize that I have not got to speak with you yet on the previous issues, but you really need some tact my friend. Just saying Keep your opion to yourself is not productive nor is it desired it reeks of a Provoke macro

. Please refrain from being confrontational in this situation. If you have nothing productive to say please dont say anything.

Kopopo · Post by **Kopopo** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 8:28 pm

How does Holland figure into this?

Post by **Nimonie** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 8:31 pm

Not sure kopopo I really didnt understand clayns comment either it just didnt make any sense

.

Clayn · Post by **Clayn** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 8:33 pm

Dont judge my comment before you understand it

It refers to a TV-show that is made in Holland. It was very cool because in holland, you can do everything you want on tv. Even Jack-O from Jackass was in that show. Im trying to remember the name of that show. It was something with Mark.... Mark ?? in holland or so

.... wtf? what was wrong with my comment? (before the above one)
:arrow: It doesnt matter if you have anything against homosexuality, as long as you dont say that you do, or say anthing that could hurt someone else!

Post by **Nimonie** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 8:37 pm

Okie so it refers to a TV show clayn in the future when you use a reference to something like that please make sure you clarify cause not everyone watches Holland TV, and assuming everyone did I doubt anyone would have made the connection to that TV show from your post.

Clayn · Post by **Clayn** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 8:38 pm

It was an american tv-show, holland is well known as a country were you can do anything you want!

A few weeks ago a moviemaker got shot there because he made movies about turks. He did so for like 20 years! They kileld him, but also because there is a discrimination meltdown there. Which could make holland to most racistic country off the world

Post by **Rekahkun** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 8:39 pm

you mean "Steve-O"? i don't recall a "Jack-O"... not that it matters a whit

Clayn · Post by **Clayn** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 8:40 pm

>.< Yes i mean Steve-O lol

Post by **Nimonie** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 8:40 pm

Clayn wrote:Its not a problem if you have a problem with homosexualtity. Keep your opinion for yourself tho. I mean, were not in holland! Are we?

Its not what you said clayn its how you said it Keep your opinion for yourself is a blatant attack on that person and will be viewed by all as an attempt to provoke them into an argument.

edit Hmmm the quote button didnt work right.

Clayn · Post by **Clayn** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 8:44 pm

Damn! your right. i will edit it inmediately

Still not a good arguement to respond whit so much aggression. You know that its some sort off typpo, that i didnt tought about it on that way.

Post by **Golddess** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 9:02 pm

Nimonie wrote:I see homosexuality as a choice as any sexual preference it is not a right it is an option. That is why people say that if you open the door for one option it will lead to the other options coming closer to being legitimized. In simplistic terms I look at it this ways (flame me if you need to) a man has a desire to be with another man. Just as when that jerk cut me off I had a desire to drag him from his car kicking and screaming and beat him silly. Both are choices. My main problem is the fact that there is an agenda by 2 or 3% of the US population to impose their desires on the rest of the US using the courts I am truly tired of judges making laws instead of interpreting them, and to top it off when they start using international laws to make policies in the US it really makes my blood pressure rise. This is the US we make our own laws if I wanted to be subject to the thoughts of Europe I would move there. For Texas however the supreme court decided that they should be subject to common British law i.e. Last year in the landmark Lawrence v. Texas decision that struck down the state’s sodomy statute, Kennedy, writing the majority opinion, referred approvingly to the British Parliament decriminalizing sodomy in 1967, the European Convention on Human Rights, and a 1981 European Court of Human Rights case.

Um, I'm confused at what you were trying to say with that post.

Post by **Nimonie** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 9:03 pm

Just read it from a stand point that will people take this as a verbal attack. if it seems that it will be taken that way if that is not what you intended then dont post it its always a good rule of thumb to reread your post a time or 2 before you post it ^^.

Post by **Nimonie** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 9:08 pm

Golddess wrote:
Nimonie wrote:I see homosexuality as a choice as any sexual preference it is not a right it is an option. That is why people say that if you open the door for one option it will lead to the other options coming closer to being legitimized. In simplistic terms I look at it this ways (flame me if you need to) a man has a desire to be with another man. Just as when that jerk cut me off I had a desire to drag him from his car kicking and screaming and beat him silly. Both are choices. My main problem is the fact that there is an agenda by 2 or 3% of the US population to impose their desires on the rest of the US using the courts I am truly tired of judges making laws instead of interpreting them, and to top it off when they start using international laws to make policies in the US it really makes my blood pressure rise. This is the US we make our own laws if I wanted to be subject to the thoughts of Europe I would move there. For Texas however the supreme court decided that they should be subject to common British law i.e. Last year in the landmark Lawrence v. Texas decision that struck down the state’s sodomy statute, Kennedy, writing the majority opinion, referred approvingly to the British Parliament decriminalizing sodomy in 1967, the European Convention on Human Rights, and a 1981 European Court of Human Rights case.
Um, I'm confused at what you were trying to say with that post.

Sorry Goldess it was a bit of a rant they where discussing judges and homosexual issues and I just chimed in with my 2 cents on the courts and how I viewed homosexuality as it being a choice. Personally I don’t care if someone chooses to live their life that way it’s their choice to make. But it does bother me when they take it to the courts to over turn a law voted on by the people/legislature of that respective state and it further infuriates me when said courts instead of interpreting the constitution look to outside court rulings to make their decisions.

Cyndrax · Post by **Cyndrax** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 7:50 pm

Nimonie wrote:Sorry Goldess it was a bit of a rant they where discussing judges and homosexual issues and I just chimed in with my 2 cents on the courts and how I viewed homosexuality as it being a choice. Personally I don’t care if someone chooses to live their life that way it’s their choice to make. But it does bother me when they take it to the courts to over turn a law voted on by the people/legislature of that respective state and it further infuriates me when said courts instead of interpreting the constitution look to outside court rulings to make their decisions.

I think you are missing the point of the checks and balances in this country. The courts are there to determine when the people/legislature overstep their boundaries.

I imagine during the civil rights movement, the majority of people in some states were for segregation and "Jim Crow" laws. However, that doesn't make it right. Courts are there to step in with instances such as that.

It also seems slightly problematic to me that in your original post you compare a "decision" to be gay to you wanting to drag a man from his car and beat him silly. At its most basic the two are completely different. How does someone's sexual preference interfere with someone else's rights/life. Contrast that to how you "beating someone silly" affects their rights/life.

Eviticus · Post by **Eviticus** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 11:37 pm

Sexual preference is not on trial here. A good portion of people who voted against Gay Marrige are perfectly fine with homosexuals. The issue is, should Marrige be redifined? My opinion, yes and no.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but both the Church and State have unions between a man and a woman. Taxes, rights, and other such things 'shift' a bit when you are married in the State's eyes. Man/woman, man/man, woman/woman. All three pairings happen because those two people love eachother, very rarely do they wish to legally bind themselves together for purely legal reasons. (Green card and such)

In that light, I say that the US should allow any gender combo unions. Physical sex has nothing to do with it. They love eachother, and justice is supposed to be blind, right? Give medical technology enough time and there soon won't be any gender at all if you throw enough money at it.

The church though? That's a horse of a different color. The church is an organization led by Bishops, Cardinals, and depending on specifics, the Pope. It is considered a private organization. They make their own rules for their memebers, and that's fine by me. I'm confident that like a dinosaur, it will eventually turn around and change it's mind, but it'll take a bit.

Sadly enough though, way too many people forget seperation of Church and State, and think that if they vote against their Church, that God won't like them.

Cyndrax · Post by **Cyndrax** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:17 am

I agree with that entirely, I certainly don't think the state has any right to tell the Catholic Church (or any other) that they have to let two men or two women get married in one of their services. HOWEVER, I also feel that the Catholic Church (or any other) has no right to tell the government that they should not allow a civil union (or a marriage, or whatever) between two men or two women.

MithraPride

If yall are bored and looking for something to get mad at

If yall are bored and looking for something to get mad at

Re: If yall are bored and looking for something to get mad a

well I dont see it that way

Clayn

Re: well I dont see it that way

inresponse to clayn

Re: well I dont see it that way

Re: well I dont see it that way