[quote=“Okami”]
DD opposes govt banning of sodomy which has no constitutional protections yet has no problem with govt denying people gun rights that are protected by the 2nd amendment and doesn’t understand why those gun rights are so important. It’s on pages 46-48 of the recent supreme court decision iirc, but you’re a racist so I doubt you will read it.
[quote=“Deuce Dropper”]Your group is in bed with those who promote this cracker-Taliban puritan ideology. In fact it is party platform.[/quote]The difference is we respect constitutional protections and we don’t execute people without judicial review based on laws decided on by the legislative branch enforced by the executive branch. Your ignorance of the basic functions of govt would damn us to some 3rd world Latin American caudillo-style regime that tramples individual rights in the name of political party power for the self-enrichment of the politically connected. I suggest you read the Declaration of Independence to get a better understanding.
It’s not “Billy Bob” that has to worry about gun rights, but the law-abiding minorities trapped in crap neighborhoods without the means to defend themselves. Take a map, a few Google searches, and check the minority make up of places that ban guns. You’re a racist cracker and wouldn’t understand that though.[/quote]
where did I state I oppose gun rights?
please link me…
and who honestly gives a fuck if someone wants to throw it in someone else’s ass? Seriously… Are you into legislating the bedroom now?
I am a racist because I think the puritan ideology that they are trying to jam down people’s throat is outdated?
nice work.
as per usual you are making shit up or drawing ridiculous conclusions.
Banning strip clubs in my home town of Portland, Oregon would be devastating to 85% of the women aged 18-25 living in that city. Without working the poles how are they going to afford their tats???
Many of the most conservative people end up being total perverts at heart (once you get to know them). I could tell you stories about a preacher’s daughter I once dated. Pure as the driven snow on the outside but once we were alone I feared for my physical well being, or at least hoped there would be no visible wounds. She probably lives in Utah now with a litter of kids.
Anyhoo… Those neo-cons should really consider the unintended consequences of enacting anti-sodomy laws. What hardcore heterosexual porn flick worth it’s salt doesn’t peak with a grand anal/oral performance? I suppose there could be an exclusion for women taking it up the drain pipe from a man. Better add an exclusion for female/female performances as well because for the vast majority of men that’s not abhorrent sexual behavior at all, it’s just hot. Things get all messed up when it’s man on man, then we have a real crime against nature, god, families, marriage, christianity, little puppy dogs with wet noses, all that shit. Right?
[quote=“Shaktipalooza”]Banning strip clubs in my home town of Portland, Oregon would be devastating to 85% of the women aged 18-25 living in that city. Without working the poles how are they going to afford their tats???
Many of the most conservative people end up being total perverts at heart (once you get to know them). I could tell you stories about a preacher’s daughter I once dated. Pure as the driven snow on the outside but once we were alone I feared for my physical well being, or at least hoped there would be no visible wounds. She probably lives in Utah now with a litter of kids.
Anyhoo… Those neo-cons should really consider the unintended consequences of enacting anti-sodomy laws. What hardcore heterosexual porn flick worth it’s salt doesn’t peak with a grand anal/oral performance? I suppose there could be an exclusion for women taking it up the drain pipe from a man. Better add an exclusion for female/female performances as well because for the vast majority of men that’s not abhorrent sexual behavior at all, it’s just hot. Things get all messed up when it’s man on man, then we have a real crime against nature, god, families, marriage, christianity, little puppy dogs with wet noses, all that shit. Right?[/quote]
Most neocons aren’t even social conservatives at all. That you equate anti-sodomy laws with neo-con politics illustrates your political ignorance.
Let’s get to DD, the Tourette’s version of the online poster, no facts nor reasoning needed.
First- You make some derogatory remark to a “Billy Bob” getting his guns demonstrating your ignorance of gun laws and how and why they are applied in a discriminatory fashion.
Second- You are all torn up by an anti-sodomy platform for a state you don’t live nor probably vote in about a political party you neither support nor would vote for. Not because it actually effects you personally but because you are able to demonstrate what you see as your moral superiority.
Third- States and municipalities have a right to dumb, stupid and just plain ignorant laws as long as those laws do not infringe on your God given rights as outlined in the constitution. Maybe you should apply to have an amendment added to protect your right to sodomy.
Maybe you can show how cool you are with your left crowd by throwing in more American Taliban references to people who don’t saw people’s heads off nor execute disbelievers.
[quote=“CraigTPE”][quote=“Okami”]Which rights would those be?[/quote]The right to equal protection under the law.[/quote]Examples? On the scale of persecuted groups, gays rank really really low and generally have more to fear from infighting within their own political groups than from outside forces. Still waiting on hearing how you guys reconcile the African American dislike within your own political party.
Are you being intentionally witty? If you are, Good one! Your God-given rights as outlined in the constitution??? Where’s a braying-donkey-laugh emoticon when you need one!! Yeah, so God had a little chat with Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Madison, Morris et al, did he? Well, that must have been a good meeting!
Okami, the constitution - as impressive a document as it is - was written in the 18th century.There has been a tad of progress since then. For example, we can’t own slaves, women can now vote, things like that. Banning gay sex is ridiculous and against the spirit of liberty in the constitution. I think that’s the point that is being made here.
Unless you were asleep when they taught it in civics class, I’d suggest doing what happened all those other times and amend the constitution. Judicial activism is nothing but a form of tyranny that will bite us all in the ass.
[quote=“Okami”]oh geez, got all the queers into a ruffle today.
Let’s get to DD, the Tourette’s version of the online poster, no facts nor reasoning needed.
First- You make some derogatory remark to a “Billy Bob” getting his guns demonstrating your ignorance of gun laws and how and why they are applied in a discriminatory fashion. [/quote]
I love how you start off with ‘queers’ and then take ‘Billy Bob’ as derogatory…pure comedic gold :roflmao:
I make a comment about Billy Bob getting ornery without his porn and you think I am anti-guns. You RWBHs are like Teddy Ruxpin, you never know what talking point will come out next…best to rewind the tape and start over I say, or better yet, give that farm sounds toy string another pull “the cow goes moo!” “queers want to take your guns.”
I just figured you and the anti-big gov crowd would be less than thrilled at the millions of tax payer dollars that could be potentially burned contemplating or, Science help us, enacting these laws. but ‘whoa’ ‘hey’ a couple of fags might get hitched, a single man might watch porn…GODDAMN IT NO!!!
Big government is ok in these scenarios…what’s that? not OK? Oh right, because you don’t agree with THAT part of the party, hmm…but you are still in full support?!?
must be nice to cherry pick your agenda, and then slam everyone else for theirs.
Call it what it is, this social policing is BS, and even a sniff of it should have you going in the other direction…
You should know better than that - referendums reflect the majority vote and often violate human rights and constitutional rights. There was a time when the majority of voters thought blacks were separate but unequal (I bet there are still majorities) but equal protection and the basic rights of freedom override the public vote. The fact that the Supreme Court has not yet ruled in absolute favor of some sort of legally recognized union between same sex people is entirely due to the social conservatism of the court in general. These are basic rights being violated, whether it’s democrats or republicans, it’s social conservatism and the religious right - and left - driving this bigotry.
Oh, and, the Second Amendment does not provide for individual private ownership of guns, it is clearly militia-related. The current Supreme Court and its recent rulings (just the past few days I believe, plus in 2008) are being conservative “activists” in interpreting the second amendment in a way it was not meant to be interpreted, in a way favored by the gun extremists, in a way supported by those wonderful people leading the NRA. Hopefully one more conservative justice will leave while Obama’s still around, and maybe things’ll return to sanity.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]The ideas stated are PROPOSED additions to the Texas GOP Platform. Not actual parts of its ideology.
Maybe its just a bit journalistic jihad by Aliyah Shahid?
Maybe its just an embarrassing excursion in to another public display of being eat-up by the dumbass for those who want the readers of this thread to think this actually what the Texas GOP has as its platform?
Who knows.
Here is the Texas GOP website - texasgop.org/index.asp
Look carefully…you’ll see how these items are NOT listed as on its political platform.
This particular proposal was voted down. Not even sent to committee for further discussion. [/quote]
Why do you say it was voted down? It’s on the actual website, and it says it’s the 2010 Platform, not a rejected proposal, not a proposal at all:
When you open it up, it contains:
[quote=“2010 Platform”]Marriage Licenses – We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for such.
Texas Sodomy Statutes – We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.
Pornography – We urge our governmental bodies to enforce laws regarding all forms of pornography. We urge more stringent legislation to prohibit all pornography including virtual pornography and operation of sexually–oriented businesses. We oppose the sale of “Not Rated” (NR) movies and video games to minors.[/quote]
Seems to me the Texas GOP is pushing exactly what DD quoted them as pushing, despite the original tabloid source.
[quote=“2010 Platform”]Marriage Licenses – We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for such.
Texas Sodomy Statutes – We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.
Pornography – We urge our governmental bodies to enforce laws regarding all forms of pornography. We urge more stringent legislation to prohibit all pornography including virtual pornography and operation of sexually–oriented businesses. We oppose the sale of “Not Rated” (NR) movies and video games to minors.[/quote]
Man, outlawing sodomy would sure put a damper on many many hetero couplings. Remember, it’s still sodomy regardless of whether it’s in the rectal passage of a man OR a woman. I bet they didn’t think of THAT before jerking the knee.
(Don’t you just love it when people reduce something so loving to harsh clinical language?)
Actually I read once that sodomy technically includes Fellayshhh, lemme check… Oh yes indeed:
[quote=“Merriam Webster”]Main Entry: sod·omy
Pronunciation: \ˈsä-də-mē
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1–11
Date: 13th century
: anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also : copulation with an animal
[/quote]
Oh boy that covers a lotta ground! My favorite part of that web entry (besides “copulation with an animal” of course) is what follows immediately:
[quote=“Merriam Webster”]
Learn more about “sodomy” instantly with Bing![/quote]
Who is this Bing, and what can he teach me about sodomy I wonder…
:bravo: :bravo: :bravo: That’s why I support Ron Paul. All you expat lefties can hate on him all you want, but you can never call him a phony or a hypocrite.
:bravo: :bravo: :bravo: That’s why I support Ron Paul. All you expat lefties can hate on him all you want, but you can never call him a phony or a hypocrite.[/quote]
Yeah, but you can call him a schwanz.
But all rhetoric aside, do you seriously see “Dems and Pubs are essentially the same economically”? I agree they’re both heavily swayed by big corporations, but there are still HUGE differences in what they would do if they had the power to do so - their platforms. Just look at the Obama in the first 2 years, the efforts he’s pushed - right or wrong, successful or failures - are almost totally different from what W and the Republicans did or would have done. And remember, that’s just what Obama was able to get through - barely most of the time, because of Republican anti-democratic filibustering - when he started the health insurance debate, he had the Public Option on the table for christs sake. That’s in polar opposition to what 99% of Republicans would have put forward. Or his beating up of the banking industry - do you really see W doing ANY of that? No way in hell.
It’s simply not true to say they’re the same economically. To say they’re controlled by business interests, yes, but don’t abandon the party or get disillusioned with Democrats just because of that, you’re feeding into the Republican and Libertarian propaganda trap.
Unless you were asleep when they taught it in civics class, I’d suggest doing what happened all those other times and amend the constitution. Judicial activism is nothing but a form of tyranny that will bite us all in the ass.
Civically-minded,
Okami[/quote]
Is judicial activism the new buzz word for right wingers that want to use the constitution to tell other people how to live their lives?
[quote=“TwoTongues”][quote=“TainanCowboy”]The ideas stated are PROPOSED additions to the Texas GOP Platform. Not actual parts of its ideology.
Maybe its just a bit journalistic jihad by Aliyah Shahid?
Maybe its just an embarrassing excursion in to another public display of being eat-up by the dumbass for those who want the readers of this thread to think this actually what the Texas GOP has as its platform?
Who knows.
Here is the Texas GOP website - texasgop.org/index.asp
Look carefully…you’ll see how these items are NOT listed as on its political platform.
This particular proposal was voted down. Not even sent to committee for further discussion. [/quote]
Why do you say it was voted down? It’s on the actual website, and it says it’s the 2010 Platform, not a rejected proposal, not a proposal at all:
When you open it up, it contains:
[quote=“2010 Platform”]Marriage Licenses – We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for such.
Texas Sodomy Statutes – We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.
Pornography – We urge our governmental bodies to enforce laws regarding all forms of pornography. We urge more stringent legislation to prohibit all pornography including virtual pornography and operation of sexually–oriented businesses. We oppose the sale of “Not Rated” (NR) movies and video games to minors.[/quote]
Seems to me the Texas GOP is pushing exactly what DD quoted them as pushing, despite the original tabloid source.[/quote]
[i]
Where have all the blowhards gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the blowhards gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the blowhards gone?
Facts have proven them wrong
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
Where have all the righties gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the righties gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the righties gone?
All retorts proven wrong
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?[/i]
