A lawyer in California is pushing a ballot measure to legalize killing gay people

[dupe_account 0]

YMCA YMCA sing it.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

You know what would be really hilarious? If sometime, rather than freaking out about liberals attacking you and being oh so very mean and the site admin always siding with the libs, you actually addressed people's points. You regularly posit that the libs are discriminating against the Good Upstanding People Expressing Themselves, but you offer no evidence, no proof. You offer nothing but annoying, silly songs and pictures. It's not a matter of the site being weighted for libs, it's a matter of you not being able to construct a coherent argument.

Guilty as charged. Well, at least from the perspective for those who disagree with my position. Do you honestly think this is a forum in which folks engage in debate, and then one side concedes and then chooses the liberal or conservative point of view? No, of course not. Unless you are one of the few folks who absolutely have no opinion on anything, then our views are polarized.

This forum serves nothing more than a platform to post an opinion. How many conservatives do you see posting out there today? Well, there's me, and a couple of others, with the rest having been banned, or suspended, or reprimanded for not being nice to the liberal perspective. No ill will toward the current GandD, but the favorites are who they are, and they are entrenched.

I believe what I believe and it's very unlikely that someone here will change my point of view. That challenge is reserved for those who are close to me. I do not post to argue a point. Are there people here who are actually delusional enough to think their posts actually amount to anything more than their rah-rah section on VJ? Did they move a mountain, or did it just twitch a little if you play it backwards on tape?

It should be no surprise that the objective of this forum is to humiliate those who disagree. Don't think so? Go back in history and look at all the topics and you will find very few topics that have remained on level discourse where at least two of the posters had polarized positions.

So, with that said, I can tell you that I post carefully to keep myself from the line of fire. One false move here and folks jump on like sweat on muhammed ali's t-shirt. I am but one person. Just another conservative whose views agree with a whole lotta other folks in the USA, and the overwhelming majority of those who disagree are registered and post right here, in this forum.

It's not going to change. It is what it is. Immigration in itself is a topic that I suspect is dominated by those from a liberal perspective. No, I have not researched it, it is simply my personal observation. If everyone cut back a little and stopped taking it all so seriously, things would go a lot more smoothly. It's as if when a conservative posts a thought, the whole lot want's to jump on and rip to shreds and believe in their little universe that somehow they made a difference.

It just ain't nothin more than a little forum on the net. It just don't matter here.

Edited April 1, 2015 by xxClosedxx

[Not a Tailor 1,370]

Guilty as charged. Well, at least from the perspective for those who disagree with my position. Do you honestly think this is a forum in which folks engage in debate, and then one side concedes and then chooses the liberal or conservative point of view? No, of course not. Unless you are one of the few folks who absolutely have no opinion on anything, then our views are polarized.

This forum serves nothing more than a platform to post an opinion. How many conservatives do you see posting out there today? Well, there's me, and a couple of others, with the rest having been banned, or suspended, or reprimanded for not being nice to the liberal perspective. No ill will toward the current GandD, but the favorites are who they are, and they are entrenched.

I believe what I believe and it's very unlikely that someone here will change my point of view. That challenge is reserved for those who are close to me. I do not post to argue a point. Are there people here who are actually delusional enough to think their posts actually amount to anything more than their rah-rah section on VJ? Did they move a mountain, or did it just twitch a little if you play it backwards on tape?

It should be no surprise that the objective of this forum is to humiliate those who disagree. Don't think so? Go back in history and look at all the topics and you will find very few topics that have remained on level discourse where at least two of the posters had polarized positions.

So, with that said, I can tell you that I post carefully to keep myself from the line of fire. One false move here and folks jump on like sweat on muhammed ali's t-shirt. I am but one person. Just another conservative whose views agree with a whole lotta other folks in the USA, and the overwhelming majority of those who disagree are registered and post right here, in this forum.

It's not going to change. It is what it is. Immigration in itself is a topic that I suspect is dominated by those from a liberal perspective. No, I have not researched it, it is simply my personal observation. If everyone cut back a little and stopped taking it all so seriously, things would go a lot more smoothly. It's as if when a conservative posts a thought, the whole lot want's to jump on and rip to shreds and believe in their little universe that somehow they made a difference.

It just ain't nothin more than a little forum on the net. It just don't matter here.

If you think no one's thought processes or ideas have ever been affected by voices on the internet, you would actually be very wrong. I grew up in a conservative, Christian community. I held conservative views as a result. It wasn't until adulthood, when I had free reign access to the internet and university, when I had access to the peer-reviewed journals (which I accessed through the internet) to seek out the facts of matters that I became a liberal. And I am not, in fact, the only one to have changed. It may be hopeless to hope that you will become less self-righteous, but the fact is that others read. There are lurkers in every forum and some of those lurkers may see you espouse your views and me espouse mine and have their minds changed.

I'm not asking for concession. I'm asking for response to points, but since you have made it intensely clear that you won't do that, I am left with no other choice but to respond to you as you respond to others.

With a song. It seems to summarize your views incredibly well, with a similar coherency level.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

If you think no one's thought processes or ideas have ever been affected by voices on the internet, you would actually be very wrong. I grew up in a conservative, Christian community. I held conservative views as a result. It wasn't until adulthood, when I had free reign access to the internet and university, when I had access to the peer-reviewed journals (which I accessed through the internet) to seek out the facts of matters that I became a liberal. And I am not, in fact, the only one to have changed. It may be hopeless to hope that you will become less self-righteous, but the fact is that others read. There are lurkers in every forum and some of those lurkers may see you espouse your views and me espouse mine and have their minds changed.

I'm not asking for concession. I'm asking for response to points, but since you have made it intensely clear that you won't do that, I am left with no other choice but to respond to you as you respond to others.

With a song. It seems to summarize your views incredibly well, with a similar coherency level.

Well, I feel for you. I am an ordained Christian minister who graduated from Bible school, but chose a different path immediately upon graduation, because I just couldn't preach what I did not believe. That is about as far as I will go with a personal statement on the Internet, whether it's here, or on any site. You consider me self-righteous, and that's a perception I respect and cannot dispute. I cannot dispute it because it belongs to you.

To keep things a civil as possible, I try to keep things at high-level. I refuse to drill down in this forum to just how I arrived at my viewpoint, because those thoughts are reserved for face to face and very private discussions. We may agree about more things than you actually think we do. I've openly expressed my views and there is no mystery as to my position. I've been accused of being racist, homophobic, xenophobic, RNJ, looney, insane, too old to matter, in need of depends, stupid, ignorant, twisted, hopeless, and in general, just one of those folks that the left thinks is hiding in bunker waiting for the bomb to drop. The history is out there. Virtually every one of those personal attacks stands to this day.

I am what I am....

[Not a Tailor 1,370]

Well, I feel for you. I am an ordained Christian minister who graduated from Bible school, but chose a different path immediately upon graduation, because I just couldn't preach what I did not believe. That is about as far as I will go with a personal statement on the Internet, whether it's here, or on any site. You consider me self-righteous, and that's a perception I respect and cannot dispute. I cannot dispute it because it belongs to you.

To keep things a civil as possible, I try to keep things at high-level. I refuse to drill down in this forum to just how I arrived at my viewpoint, because those thoughts are reserved for face to face and very private discussions. We may agree about more things than you actually think we do. I've openly expressed my views and there is no mystery as to my position. I've been accused of being racist, homophobic, xenophobic, RNJ, looney, insane, too old to matter, in need of depends, stupid, ignorant, twisted, hopeless, and in general, just one of those folks that the left thinks is hiding in bunker waiting for the bomb to drop. The history is out there. Virtually every one of those personal attacks stands to this day.

I am what I am....

I've seen you express your views. I doubt I agree with you on much. I think that, even if you yourself are not a racist, homophobe or xenophobe, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between freedom of expression and freedom to oppress.

For example: A man may hold a personal view that all homosexuals should be put to death. I will defend to the death his right to say this thing in any forum that he so desires, so long as he is following, of course, the rules of that space--spaces DO have the right to select what is and is not appropriate or else it would be appropriate for me to shout fire in a movie theatre or walk into a church during service and offer a theatrical fake-blood sacrifice to satan. When that man stands up and attempts to make that viewpoint law or he gives financial support to make that viewpoint law, that is his attempt to oppress. His freedom of speech still exists, but when he makes an active attempt to put his money where his mouth is, so to speak, he is making an active attempt to oppress. And that's where I have a problem. You seem to believe that a man's attempt to oppress is an act of freedom of expression that must always be allowed and I cannot stand behind that argument. It is and has always been my belief that a person's freedoms end where they infringe on those of another person to live and prosper.

Once a person takes a stance of active oppression, their freedom of expression is harming another. A person writing on another's wall with spraypaint is an act of expression, but it infringes on the owner of the wall's right to have the wall unmarred. Such is the case with rights. A person can shout. But they are not shouting into a vacuum and should not expect those who disagree to lay down and shut up and take it. They should not expect those who would be harmed by their viewpoints coming into law, coming into a cultural consciousness in a way that makes those opinions fact, to not push back, to not protest and to not commit acts such as boycott.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

Well, I feel for you. I am an ordained Christian minister who graduated from Bible school, but chose a different path immediately upon graduation, because I just couldn't preach what I did not believe. That is about as far as I will go with a personal statement on the Internet, whether it's here, or on any site. You consider me self-righteous, and that's a perception I respect and cannot dispute. I cannot dispute it because it belongs to you.

To keep things a civil as possible, I try to keep things at high-level. I refuse to drill down in this forum to just how I arrived at my viewpoint, because those thoughts are reserved for face to face and very private discussions. We may agree about more things than you actually think we do. I've openly expressed my views and there is no mystery as to my position. I've been accused of being racist, homophobic, xenophobic, RNJ, looney, insane, too old to matter, in need of depends, stupid, ignorant, twisted, hopeless, and in general, just one of those folks that the left thinks is hiding in bunker waiting for the bomb to drop. The history is out there. Virtually every one of those personal attacks stands to this day.

I am what I am....

Ordained, Christian minister who holds hateful views towards almost every group in existence except for older, non-homosexual white men?

You just made God ashamed to say he called you to him.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

This thread has continued now for 19 pages. A topic in which not a single soul on this site, either by magic, or proxy, or direct post has taken it seriously. Have they? I saw the broad brush applied in a very sick manner to suggest the people in this forum lived on the bandwagon of the OP and actually think the topic has merit?

This topic is not deserving of the white space that's already been used. It's sick, and should not have been allowed to even be posted in a public forum. As I have said repeatedly in this thread and others: The US is a country that is founded and rooted on the first amendment. There is a reason that it's first. My opinion won't change here. I'm rooted deeply where I stand. Deference in human life is required to maintain peace. But, deference does not mean becoming a doormat. The bill of rights cannot be reworded into a bill of oppression. Rights are governed by laws that do not allow for oppression.

Edited April 1, 2015 by xxClosedxx

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Would you take it seriously? The lawyer proposing the law is clearly an extremist and short of some sort of neo fascist revolution taking hold of the nation it has no chance of becoming law.

Should it not be criticised?

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Would you take it seriously? The lawyer proposing the law is clearly an extremist and short of some sort of neo fascist revolution taking hold of the nation it has no chance of becoming law.

Should it not be criticised?

So, you really have no opinions I see. Just questions. Keep on the trail grasshopper. Sooner or later someone will either buy you a beer, or kick your bar stool from under you.

You seem to enjoy the topic. It's a silly thing. But, you enjoy it. Have you considered giving a call to the lawyer and discussing your beef with him or her? Lemme help you out, their name is buried in the article no one read:

California Attorney General Kamala Harris

Call em up and report back your findings.

The lawyer who filed: Matt McLaughlin, a lawyer

Edited April 1, 2015 by xxClosedxx

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So, you really have no opinions I see. Just questions. Keep on the trail grasshopper. Sooner or later someone will either buy you a beer, or kick your bar stool from under you.

Since you are expressing yourself candidly today, perhaps you might consider that a human response might provoke a more reasonabke response than a psychotic passive aggressive one.

I'm all for free speech. I just don't believe that it comes consequence free.

[Not a Tailor 1,370]

This thread has continued now for 19 pages. A topic in which not a single soul on this site, either by magic, or proxy, or direct post has taken it seriously. Have they? I saw the broad brush applied in a very sick manner to suggest the people in this forum lived on the bandwagon of the OP and actually think the topic has merit?

This topic is not deserving of the white space that's already been used. It's sick, and should not have been allowed to even be posted in a public forum. As I have said repeatedly in this thread and others: The US is a country that is founded and rooted on the first amendment. There is a reason that it's first. My opinion won't change here. I'm rooted deeply where I stand. Deference in human life is required to maintain peace. But, deference does not mean becoming a doormat. The bill of rights cannot be reworded into a bill of oppression. Rights are governed by laws that do not allow for oppression.

Perhaps I have spoken in jest a few times, but I assure you, I take the topic quite seriously. My posts have, for the most part, directly addressed issues of oppression having been attempted to be written into law, which is what the OP is about.

If you think freedom of speech is the be all and end all, why don't you walk into any building in your area, yell bomb, and tell us what happens. You can report back when you get out on parole. There are and should always be limits on free speech because, contrary to schoolyard chants (sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me) there are words and usages of words that can hurt people. Words put into a law are freedom of speech, but those words put into law can result in killing others.

In the real world, words can and do kill.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You seem to enjoy the topic. It's a silly thing. But, you enjoy it. Have you considered giving a call to the lawyer and discussing your beef with him or her? Lemme help you out, their name is buried in the article no one read:

California Attorney General Kamala Harris

Call em up and report back your findings.

The lawyer who filed: Matt McLaughlin, a lawyer

I'm not out to change the world. Its enough for me to read this and shake my head disapprovingly that in a first world nation there are supposedly educated people trying to create backward legislation to legitimise their own bigotry. I don't take it too seriously though as its not as if this lawyer is running for president.

[GandD 5,966]

One personal attack removed. C'mon guys, let's keep it civil.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You've accused me of having no opinions. I've given you at least two that you've ignored. What's the objective here?

Edited April 1, 2015 by Venkman

[LibCampFireClub 635]

I'm not out to change the world. Its enough for me to read this and shake my head disapprovingly that in a first world nation there are supposedly educated people trying to create backward legislation to legitimise their own bigotry. I don't take it too seriously though as its not as if this lawyer is running for president.

Where the hell on earth have you seen any televised US media even report this story? With all the racial and religious, territorial, strategic and tactical tension in the world today, it makes no sense to give this story any more credence than someone who didn't finish all their starbucks and only ate half a donut. But yet, it's easier talking about this rather than a president who seemingly is enjoying bringing America to its knees. It's kinda like why National Enquirer sells lots of magazines, and political mags don't.

Edited April 1, 2015 by xxClosedxx