|
Author
|
Topic: Caroline Kennedy talks about Obama
|
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 5229
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 14, 2012 08:19 AM
  
Well katatonic, I'm all FOR any man marrying any woman of his choice AND I'm foresquare FOR any woman marrying any man of her choice. That's the "equal rights" guaranteed by the 14th Amendment..that all citizens be treated "equally" under the laws of the United States.Tell me Aquacheeka, when did the Canadian government submit the issue of "gay marriage" to a vote by the citizens of Canada?  Yes katatonic, I'm for our Republican Form of Government...which is not a Democracy. In our Republican Form of government the rights of the minority are protected. That doesn't mean minorities...not talking about racial minorities here...have or should have superior rights to the majority. IP: Logged |
Aquacheeka
Knowflake Posts: 1378
From: Toronto
Registered: Mar 2012
|
posted May 14, 2012 11:25 AM
Having trouble understanding how the same rights as the majority becomes superior rights.
Conservative logic = wtf?
IP: Logged |
Aquacheeka
Knowflake Posts: 1378
From: Toronto
Registered: Mar 2012
|
posted May 14, 2012 11:27 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Node:
why would anyone oppose a civil right?
gay marriage boosts the economies in all of the states that have done it. Statistics also show that the elderly are the ones that oppose the most.
IP: Logged |
Aquacheeka
Knowflake Posts: 1378
From: Toronto
Registered: Mar 2012
|
posted May 14, 2012 11:30 AM
quote:
Originally posted by katatonic:
you're right, YTA, a single course, or even a whole college career, does not indicate one thing about a person's intelligence. einstein was such a bad student he was asked to leave school. steve jobs couldn't even hack a full year of college. the list is almost endless.
My Bostonian friend's brother has an IQ of 140 (it's been tested) and assembles furniture for a living. He hates classrooms. I am not ashamed to admit he is much smarter than I!
I often wonder if the early start times, among many other things like the structure of schools today, are indeed one big deterrent to excellence for some of the brightest students. Also, Bill Gates was another college dropout. IP: Logged |
Aquacheeka
Knowflake Posts: 1378
From: Toronto
Registered: Mar 2012
|
posted May 14, 2012 11:31 AM
quote:
Originally posted by katatonic:
as i understand it our last president not only tried those substances but had a serious drink problem for quite some time AFTER college. so please, get off the pulpit. it looks like a glass house on you.
The last three presidents (including current one) were all reputed to have experimented with drugs in college. #justsayin'.
IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 5229
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 14, 2012 11:31 AM
Well Aquacheeka, the majority have the right to marry. Any man may marry any woman and any woman may marry any man. Gay marriage would give superior rights to gay...single gender couples to marry. That's the superior rights for gays I was talking about!This isn't really rocket science Aquacheeka and it's very easily understood. IP: Logged |
Aquacheeka
Knowflake Posts: 1378
From: Toronto
Registered: Mar 2012
|
posted May 14, 2012 11:36 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jwhop:
Well Aquacheeka, the majority have the right to marry. Any man may marry any woman and any woman may marry any man. Gay marriage would give superior rights to gay...single gender couples to marry. That's the superior rights for gays I was talking about!This isn't really rocket science Aquacheeka and it's very easily understood.
That's not even accurate. There are restrictions such as marrying relatives. If society can recognize the implications of SOME restrictions, then it can also recognize the implications of OTHERS (not allowing gay couples to marry denies rights to the gay spouse/partner upon that person's hospitalization or death, the adopted or-natural-born children of gay couples will encounter potentially severe separative or custody disputes upon the death of one gay partner, possibly forced into foster care when their other parent is able to provide care, etc.). It is not equal rights under the law by any stretch of the imagination.
IP: Logged |
Aquacheeka
Knowflake Posts: 1378
From: Toronto
Registered: Mar 2012
|
posted May 14, 2012 11:40 AM
Here is one such video in which a man testifies before DC City Council and gives a personal testimony of the impact not having same-sex marriage legalized in his state would have on his family and on his partner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPmTaQDwEH8
SSM was subsequently legalized in his state and the couple of four years went on to wed.
IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 5229
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 14, 2012 02:24 PM
Yes, yes Aquacheeka, there are certain restrictions in man/woman marriages. I already covered those in another post on this subject. BUT....in general, a man can marry any woman AND a woman can marry any man. Since that's true, giving gay couples...same gender couples the right to marry..within their gender, would grant them superior rights to hetrosexual couples.IP: Logged |
YoursTrulyAlways
Knowflake Posts: 2898
From:
Registered: Oct 2011
|
posted May 14, 2012 03:23 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Aquacheeka:
Also, Bill Gates was another college dropout.
And so was Michael Dell, Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg, Pierre Omidyar, Scott McNealy and Steve Jobs. These are all billionaires who founded Dell, Oracle, Facebook, Ebay, Sun Microsystems and Apple respectively.
The most successful in the business world are often not the most academically gifted, but they are also the most motivated and diligent. The difference, though, is their achievement. A community activist does not compare to an iconic IT company founder. IP: Logged |
Aquacheeka
Knowflake Posts: 1378
From: Toronto
Registered: Mar 2012
|
posted May 14, 2012 04:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jwhop:
Yes, yes Aquacheeka, there are certain restrictions in man/woman marriages. I already covered those in another post on this subject. BUT....in general, a man can marry any woman AND a woman can marry any man. Since that's true, giving gay couples...same gender couples the right to marry..within their gender, would grant them superior rights to hetrosexual couples.
???? That has got to be the stupidest distortion of logic I have ever heard. What, do you have like zero air in your chart or something? That amendment would also give straight couples to marry within their gender, if they were so inclined, so again, no one would have any more rights than anyone else.
Just hilarious! I am lol'ing so hard right now. Conservative state education at work, folks! . IP: Logged |
katatonic
Knowflake Posts: 8113
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 14, 2012 06:10 PM
all this effort to protect the "traditional marriage values" is a red herring in any case. though it is not always true now, TRADITIONALLY the marriage vow was "till death do us part". no one seems to have had much trouble assimilating the modern allowance for divorce, now, do they? those whose religious tenets do not forbid divorce are perfectly fine with it, and even those religions who do not allow it don't try to stop others from practicing what is now considered NORMAL.aquacheeka is right, jwhop is really stretching logic to say that gay couples would be enjoying "superior" rights. the law making same sex marriage legal would not include testing or swearing one is homosexual, it would just allow same gender folk to marry, whatever their orientation. though i can't think why they would want to, straight people could marry someone of their own gender...just as NOW, gay people can and DO marry people of the other gender... @aquacheeka, i believe jwhop was educated in california back in the day when they actually had pretty good schools. YTA, i think you are giving your opinion there, which is fine, but sorry, i think martin luther king jr was at least as ICONIC as steve jobs. community organizing was EXACTLY what he did. since when is "community organizer" synonymous with "no count"? since fox news, mostly! IP: Logged |
shura
Knowflake Posts: 359
From:
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted May 14, 2012 06:21 PM
Jwhop, you're still in favor of treating gays as second class citizens? Could have sworn we had this argument years ago. Do we need to talk it through again, sweetie?
Where is my pro-small government friend???? quote:
Originally posted by Randall:
I'm not in favor of marriage...period. It's also the number one cause of divorce.
Why won't you answer the question? IP: Logged |
YoursTrulyAlways
Knowflake Posts: 2898
From:
Registered: Oct 2011
|
posted May 14, 2012 06:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by katatonic:
YTA, i think you are giving your opinion there, which is fine, but sorry, i think martin luther king jr was at least as ICONIC as steve jobs. community organizing was EXACTLY what he did. since when is "community organizer" synonymous with "no count"? since fox news, mostly!
Likewise. You are also providing an opinion. As great a man as Martin Luther King was, I would never have voted for him for any public office position. Dittos for Ghandi or Nelson Mandela. Neither of those heroes and legends had any Chief Executive experience. I had the same problem with Ronald Reagan and John Kennedy myself. Except that Reagan was Chairman of SAG/AFTRA. It still was only a union but at least he was President of an organization. Bill Clinton was a law firm partner and Jimmy Carter ran his own agricultural business. Papa Bush was a law firm partner and Jr Bush ran a failing oil company but he was a successful owner of a mid-level baseball enterprise. I just don't have high regard for the organizational skills of folks with no business experience. Sorry. IP: Logged |
shura
Knowflake Posts: 359
From:
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted May 14, 2012 06:48 PM
Are we inching our way toward the old "run government like a business" angle here? ^ Fantastic. Because, yk, when big business and government get together good things happen.a pleasure to meet you, YoursTrulyAlways  IP: Logged |
YoursTrulyAlways
Knowflake Posts: 2898
From:
Registered: Oct 2011
|
posted May 14, 2012 06:54 PM
The pleasure is mine, shura. I never said run government like big business. I did say I want competent, professional management and I want the country's finances run like a tight ship. Two missed quarters of earnings expectations is enough to get any CEO in the limelight, and one year of stock price declines is enough to get the entire senior management replaced. I want black ink, and not red ink. I want positive free cash flow. I want massive de-leveraging. I want accountability and heads to roll. Anyway, give the job to Lee Raymond and the country would have a glorious newfound history of success. Except any astute business leader wouldn't want this sinking Titanic. Who's Lee? The retired Chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil. IP: Logged |
katatonic
Knowflake Posts: 8113
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 14, 2012 06:57 PM
careful, YTA, jimmy carter is lumped in with the "no experience" crowd around here.so head of the harvard law review is no experience? being a senator is no experience? the callow youth straight out of school is a very wornout image, sorry. plenty of business people have no idea how to run a government. profit margins should not, IMO, be the main driver of a government. if only because that is basically a green light to tax WAY more than we do now. just as i object to a profiteer running the food supply, i don't want one in the white house. IP: Logged |
YoursTrulyAlways
Knowflake Posts: 2898
From:
Registered: Oct 2011
|
posted May 14, 2012 07:07 PM
The Harvard Law Review is a student organization and an academic one. It's not a business. A Senatorship is a participatory role in Congress. It's an administrative executive position but it's not that of a Chief Executive. There is no P&L or Balance Sheet attached to that. I would have said the same thing about Bob Dole. If he had been Governor of Illinois or even Mayor of Chicago, I would have given due consideration. Sorry. Not impressed. And you guys would call the Governorship of Alaska, a state which contains the world's largest proven energy reserves, as an insignificant role. But the Harvard Law Review is significant?? IP: Logged |
Aquacheeka
Knowflake Posts: 1378
From: Toronto
Registered: Mar 2012
|
posted May 14, 2012 08:21 PM
I, too, have obtained a community college certification for a non-math- or science-related field of study. I, too, attended multiple schools over multiple years before I finally did so.Theoretically, as a northerner, I, too, should be able to see Russia from my house. Why won't somebody let me run a whole state? Is it because I'm Canadian? IP: Logged |
Ami Anne
Moderator Posts: 32340
From: Pluto/house next to NickiG
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted May 14, 2012 10:37 PM
quote:
Originally posted by YoursTrulyAlways:
The Harvard Law Review is a student organization and an academic one. It's not a business. A Senatorship is a participatory role in Congress. It's an administrative executive position but it's not that of a Chief Executive. There is no P&L or Balance Sheet attached to that. I would have said the same thing about Bob Dole. If he had been Governor of Illinois or even Mayor of Chicago, I would have given due consideration. Sorry. Not impressed. And you guys would call the Governorship of Alaska, a state which contains the world's largest proven energy reserves, as an insignificant role. But the Harvard Law Review is significant??
------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal
http://www.mychristianpsychic.com/
IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 5229
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 14, 2012 11:45 PM
"What, do you have like zero air in your chart or something?"...AquacheekaNo Aquacheeka, I do have "air" in my chart. I just don't have "air" between my ears or a vacuum either. Please explain exactly why heterosexuals...men and women would want to marry into their own genders????? quote:
Jwhop, you're still in favor of treating gays as second class citizens? Could have sworn we had this argument years ago. Do we need to talk it through again, sweetie?
Where is my pro-small government friend????...shura
Hmmm shura, I think I liked you better as TINK. So much more can be done with the screen name TINK than shura. But no, I'm not trying to make gays second class citizens. Gay men can marry any woman of their choice and lesbian women can marry any man of their choice...just like the rest of us. But, if you want to take me through this again...as you say you did before, I'll be a game "sweetie" Your "small government friend" is alive and well and working to throw out all the big government RINOS. Now shura, if we could get the demoscats to do the very same thing, we might actually get smaller, less intrusive, less overreaching, less costly and more constitutional government. So, are you going to join me in voting to throw O'Bomber out of the White House on his incompetent, unconstitutional butt? Or, am I going to have to call you "sweetie" and give you a tutorial on all the reasons O'Bomber didn't even deserve a 1st term...let alone a second term as prez?
IP: Logged |
katatonic
Knowflake Posts: 8113
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 15, 2012 12:16 AM
yes and many gays do marry the opposite gender, thereby depriving both partners of a real partner who understands them sexually as well as otherwise. lovely arrangement. and all to protect the innocent heteros around them.perhaps the straight community is afraid they will find out their partner was actually just in the closet all this time and desert? or perhaps you consider it "equal rights" to have to marry someone you do not fancy or stay single...what exactly is equal about that? it's not even "separate but equal" which was supposed to be good enough for the cuhluhd folk before desegregation; it's an incredibly condescending piece of crpp, really. gays are people, jwhop, not pets you can mate with whom YOU please. many gay couples are raising the next generation, and doing a good job of it DESPITE the fact that they will eventually have to explain to little johnny and susie why they are not ALLOWED to be married. and the NC amendment thumbs its nose at unmarried couples just the same. marriage being essentially a social CONTRACT that bestows property, conjugal and legal sharing rights, those who don't choose marriage are making that conscious choice, NOW, but gays are not allowed. so, if you are a traditionalist in marriage as in many other things (i surmise) do you, did you, enjoy owning your chattel wife and kids? i believe you said you were divorced, that is just too brazen, as you are apparently still alive, but did you show your ex the door with just the shirt on her back when you parted? or were you and she required to settle your community property according to the law? i smell fear of the queer here. for why? ever been assaulted in a locker room? most of the "perversion" associated with gays was a direct result of having to hide who they were for so long, lest some lovely romney type decide to disfigure them one day for a laugh...or much worse. IP: Logged |
katatonic
Knowflake Posts: 8113
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 15, 2012 12:39 AM
and, yoohoo, YTA, please drop the SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS yourself? "you guys" ..etc ... happens to include a bunch of individuals with ideas of their own.as for palin, yep, big state, with less than a million people in it who mostly like to take care of themselves. and she lasted a hot minute, as she has with every other endeavour on her resume. the big lights called and away she went.. i give her BIG credit for realizing that being president ain't all it's cracked up to be, and that washington would eat her alive just like they did hillary...who not only TOOK the beating and the bleating and all the rest, but came out thumbing her nose at the piranhas. IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 5229
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 15, 2012 08:43 AM
"gays are people, jwhop, not pets you can mate with whom YOU please"Don't think I ever suggested gays were "pets" or making any decisions to mate gays with my choice of "mates" to improve the breed...katatonic. How about this katatonic. Desist with the mischaratization of what I say here.
IP: Logged |
Ami Anne
Moderator Posts: 32340
From: Pluto/house next to NickiG
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted May 15, 2012 09:14 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jwhop:
"gays are people, jwhop, [b]not pets you can mate with whom YOU please"Don't think I ever suggested gays were "pets" or making any decisions to mate gays with my choice of "mates" to improve the breed...katatonic. How about this katatonic. Desist with the mischaratization of what I say here.[/B]
YES You do this a lot, Kat. You said you try to be kind in your dealings with people. Lets see a little of that Kat sunshine 
------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal
http://www.mychristianpsychic.com/
IP: Logged |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
