60
   

California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

 
 
RexRed
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2010 09:17 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
And is a militant outed lesbian any less moral than a militant (great Santini) straight man instructing 11-17 year olds in physical education...


How do I know. That doesn't answer the question I asked.

Ask a rhetorical question and I will give a rhetorical answer...

Quote:
If sports players are chosen based upon popularity rather than merit then it can mean the difference between winning and losing...Popular politicians may win their elections but the people ultimately lose if popularity wins out over merit. Also... charisma is not exactly the same thing as popularity. Charisma can sometime trump merit depending on the job needed to be achieved. Merit can be useless without a bit of finesse.


That's just a flat out insult to the electorate which is something very common in lefties. It's unscientific as well because it is a hypothesis that can't be tested.

You call me a leftie... Yet America is a republic not a democracy in a strict sense that you ignorantly endorse... Yet the conservatives call themselves republicans and complain about the republic... they want their cake and eat it too.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2010 11:27 am
@RexRed,
Their primary complaint is based on our Constitution. They don't like what our government under democrats make into laws that are based on the Constitution, but don't seem to apply the same standards when republicans govern.

It's simple hypocrisy; they're blind to their own rhetoric.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2010 09:42 pm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#39108132
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2010 09:49 pm
@RexRed,
I read about this in this morning's San Jose Merc. Good decision; finally!
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2010 04:57 am
@cicerone imposter,
Can organisations like Log Cabin Republicans just look around for a court that has a friendly judge?

It all seems very odd. The decision looks to be based on two assertions.

1--That the constitution (1st and 5th) is violated by DADT. Which begs the question why has the constitution not been violated all the years previously? If it has then all those who have been discriminated against under DADT have a case against "somebody" on the grounds that their constitutional rights have suddenly been discovered to have been violated by one judge.

2--That the operation of DADT has caused a deleterious effect on military efficiency. That's a serious charge against the military. It means that operations have been compromised and the military have been sending troops into battle in a less efficient state than they might have been.

It seems to me that the decision is naive in the sense that it assumes the military have no way of circumventing it even if it is adopted. Which is untrue. If military top brass don't want homosexuals in their ranks they will find ways of either removing them or sidelining them. It is military top brass who need persuading and not some maverick judge sat safely a long way from the action.

That this decision is presented as a victory for homosexuals shows how unrealistic the arguments for overturning DADT actually are. Judges are ten a penny. It's the Pentagon where you should direct your submissions and get real.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2010 09:03 am
@spendius,
spendi, How ignorant are you? But, I repeat myself.

Humans are not perfect, and even the most skilled can make mistakes.

When you have a country where the government changes every few years, and the environment changes, they are apt to make mistakes. That's because when a crisis strikes, they will make decisions that are not always the correct ones, although they believe they are doing the right thing.

Take the Great Recession as an example. Most governments across the Americas, Europe, and Asia (the whole world) handled their economic crisis in different ways. That's because nobody really knows the best solution to solve this world economic problem.

What we will learn from the actions taken is whether the actions of our government was good or bad. However, it may not be very clear cut in that economics is not science, and there are too many variables to determine effects from actions taken. It's been determined by 2/3rds of economists that the stimulus plan was needed and was a good decision. I agree, simply because without a banking system, no economy can survive. I disagree with how that was handled (sloppy control), and other parts of the stimulus plan that helped wall street and big business more than main street.

No government has ever run their country perfectly. To expect such is to show how ignorant one is. That would include you.

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2010 10:13 am
@cicerone imposter,
Address the sodding post will you or shut up. What does "sloppy control" mean?

Somebody chucks $200 billion into a cage of feeding monsters and what else do you expect but what you got? To call it sloppy implies you know how it should have been handled. Phooey!

Bloody armchair economists--they'll be the death of us.

Answer the post. The generals will know whether the troops want homosexuals in their bivouac. The admirals will know whether the sailors want homosexuals in a submarine on a twelve month cruise or swinging in hammocks. And if they don't want them there's nothing a lady judge out to get attention that way can do about it.

Anybody would think the military is an abstract concept fit for playing word games with.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2010 11:07 am
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/39107417#39107417
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2010 11:19 am
@RexRed,
Ex Lt Choi sure has some nasty looking bags under his eyes for so young a chap.
RexRed
 
  0  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2010 11:20 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Address the sodding post will you or shut up. What does "sloppy control" mean?

Somebody chucks $200 billion into a cage of feeding monsters and what else do you expect but what you got? To call it sloppy implies you know how it should have been handled. Phooey!

Bloody armchair economists--they'll be the death of us.

Answer the post. The generals will know whether the troops want homosexuals in their bivouac. The admirals will know whether the sailors want homosexuals in a submarine on a twelve month cruise or swinging in hammocks. And if they don't want them there's nothing a lady judge out to get attention that way can do about it.

Anybody would think the military is an abstract concept fit for playing word games with.


Uhh, it was Bush who was dumping cash on the banks and it was Obama who did not just dump cash on banks but he reformed banking rules and regulatory policies... That is what sloppy controls means... It was also Bush who dumped several billions dollars into Pakistan then asked a month later where it all went... In other word he lost several BILLION dollars and it was never found or accounted for. SLOPPY CONTROLS? I understand that terminology perfectly fine. I was an avid Bush supporter if many of you recall and when I heard he had lost several billion dollars in Pakistan, I was infuriated. It still burns my onion even to this day. That money Obama could have used to make the heath care transition go more smoothly but now it is in the hands of corrupt warlords in Pakistan. I have nothing against Pakistan per se and I truly love the people of Pakistan too. I do not approve one bit of SLOPPY CONTROLS from any administration representing and acting on behalf of the will of the American people.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2010 11:23 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Ex Lt Choi sure has some nasty looking bags under his eyes for so young a chap.


Maybe you would like to pluck his eyebrows for him and give him some beauty tips Spen... I imagine he has been up all night reading the judge's decision. Smile
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2010 12:11 pm
@RexRed,
It beats me how anybody can think quite that arrogantly. As if you know what's going on.

And how on earth does one "truly love the people of Pakistan?" There's 170 million of them. True love can't be spread that thinly and still mean anything. Just because you have helped shred one fine old English word doesn't mean you can get started on another.

Where's your evidence that several BILLION dollars were "lost" in Pakistan. Imagine the American people having all the "lost" dollars at their disposal. It would make for some global warming I should think. Surely the people who handle those sort of monies are America's brightest and best?

And you an avid supporter of George W Bush. Crikey.

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2010 12:15 pm
@RexRed,
Quote:
Maybe you would like to pluck his eyebrows for him and give him some beauty tips Spen... I imagine he has been up all night reading the judge's decision.


Yeah--well. I wouldn't have put a Het on looking like that.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2010 01:05 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

It beats me how anybody can think quite that arrogantly. As if you know what's going on.

And how on earth does one "truly love the people of Pakistan?" There's 170 million of them. True love can't be spread that thinly and still mean anything. Just because you have helped shred one fine old English word doesn't mean you can get started on another.

Where's your evidence that several BILLION dollars were "lost" in Pakistan. Imagine the American people having all the "lost" dollars at their disposal. It would make for some global warming I should think. Surely the people who handle those sort of monies are America's brightest and best?

And you an avid supporter of George W Bush. Crikey.




I have at least 100 people on my friends list from Pakistan and some of them I talk to quite frequently and know very well. And, YES, I love them all. Don't you love humanity or only your own stuck up, god hates gays kind... Don't you hope for people to turn from their sick religions of intolerance and learn to love people in general and leave behind unfounded hate and prejudice? I know what some of my Pakistani friends study in school and they know me well too (that I am an agnostic) and yes, we love one another. Being gays in Pakistan and the USA or any country for that matter transcends all cultures and religions. Just because you live in your fox news conservative world of prejudice and hate for homosexuals and those who don't speak English as perfectly as you, well, that does not mean I have to follow suit. I love all people in India, Scotland, the Philippines and Malaysia etc... do you have a problem with that too? When parents have a big family of siblings, how can they love all of their children, or... maybe they can love them all.

Yes I voted for George Bush over John Kerry. I supported the republicans until they decided to attach homosexuals (me) directly by parading with their hateful lying signs and denying gays and lesbians marriage equality in Maine. THAT is not love, and, THAT was when I left the republican party and I am SOOOOoooo glad I did. I am proud to be a liberal now and I have a great big giant liberal heart to go with it. Most gays don't hold universal love for all people hostage with their ties to Fox News and the sheer travesty of these ridiculous religions of the world.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  0  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2010 01:12 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
Maybe you would like to pluck his eyebrows for him and give him some beauty tips Spen... I imagine he has been up all night reading the judge's decision.


Yeah--well. I wouldn't have put a Het on looking like that.


I didn't even notice the, err, bags under his eyes (which were probably due to bright studio lights at MSNBC) because I was too intent upon receiving the content of his words and the great character of his opinion.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2010 03:17 pm
@RexRed,
Obviously you admired the effects. I can't say I was much impressed with anything about him. In my view your side would do better to keep him under wraps.

You get a lovely looking and intelligent widow who likes walking tours in Europe on your side and then you go and put a chump up.
RexRed
 
  0  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2010 04:01 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Obviously you admired the effects. I can't say I was much impressed with anything about him. In my view your side would do better to keep him under wraps.

You get a lovely looking and intelligent widow who likes walking tours in Europe on your side and then you go and put a chump up.
I don't think he is a chump at all, I think he is a beautiful and enlightened person. One doesn't have to want to sleep with a person to value their opinion.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2010 05:17 pm
@RexRed,
Really?
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Sep, 2010 01:02 am
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/39162068#39162068
wmwcjr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2010 12:05 am
@RexRed,
"This video is no longer available"
 

Related Topics

New York New York! - Discussion by jcboy
Prop 8? - Discussion by majikal
Gay Marriage - Discussion by blatham
Gay Marriage -- An Old Post Revisited - Discussion by pavarasra
Who doesn't back gay marriage? - Question by The Pentacle Queen
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 11/26/2024 at 07:25:31