Jobber of the Week

You're still trying to avoid the question. What can I say? At least I'm consistant. No it's not. It's making a mountain out of a molehill. It has no more evidence than OMG THE ACLU IS GOING TO MARRY MAN AND DOG Rick Santorum trash. Because I'm talking about people's rights to consentual sex. Sexual predators, rapists, pedophiles aren't practicing consentual sex. Way to be a preacher or a backwater yokel. I can't choose which. Divorce didn't just suddently appear out of a bunch of political fighting and a free love orgy. If people want to be able to divorce, they will campaign for the ability to. And hey, I'd rather have ALL of that, as ugly as it is (although only one thing you mention [sexual assault] is actually illegal), than the government enforcing morality. If you truly believed in the independence of the people then you would, too. Even if satanism is our leading religious, the government shouldn't care unless people are hurting one another. Just like how, to compare to a REAL problem affecting the country, we must learn to deal with Islam while applying swift punishment on those who try and use Islam as a reason to kill. Okay, but you can't blame leftists on that. The point of the story is that if people want something, even drive-through wedding chapels with ministers dressed like Klingons, they'll do it. It's called the lowest common denominator. Nobody voted on California's ability to hold gay marraiges. They voted on recognizing other states' gay marriage. Even before that vote, nothing was different. From the legislative analysis of that very vote:

FACT: Want to get people to vote against gay marraige? Masquerade it as an amendment to keep your state from having to recognize other states' marriages instead.

No. That is not a partisan thing. This is simply a change that came with the times. If there's so many people who find divorce offensive, they wouldn't divorce even when they and their S.O. want to wring each other's necks. Most people just choose to take the oppertunity when it's presented. Stupid little Elvis wedding chapels all over Las Vegas weren't a liberal notion. So? Doesn't mean that people aren't using them and finding themselves in relationships they don't want, then want to do something about that.

Right but the question related to the topic at hand was whether cities handle gun registration. Thanks for playing. Unless that rational, thinking person doesn't care to have the law involved in what people are doing in private, no matter how disgusting that person may think it is. That's not a very powerful arguement. What a wonderful reason to give people these privelages, regardless of who they "bang." You may notice that I tend to base my arguements on either legal precedent (such as the courts role in solving consitutional conflicts) or actual research (the existance of homosexual traits in animals.) You seem to base your arguements on assumptions and theoretical conclusions (If we give Group X an inch, Group Y will take a quarter.) I think we all know which one most people would go with.

This is not the problem. The problem is that that their business dealings have been sketchy enough that the government is opening a fraud probe into their activities. Certainly if the criticism was only "OMG GIVING CONTRACTS AWAY CANT YOU SEE CHENEY WORKED FOR THEM" then that wouldn't be happening, now would it?

Oh god no. I remember the letters page was trashed as one of the editors talked about the demigod he thought up in his head and then other people wrote in and said their demigod could beat his and.... I *AM* thinking of the right magazine, right? 90% of the letters were crazy bullshit. Today's magazines? At least OXM will trash a game they had previously hyped and given cover space (see: Superman)

... So was gay marriage. A city does issue marriage licenses, which is how this whole thing got started.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...NGIM5A56225.DTL

I'm not exactly sure what functions a city has in regards to gun registration and licensing. That's more a state thing, if I remember right. And it's MY problem you want these things outlawed? And you STILL have no good answer to the question I keep asking: How is gay marraige going to open the door to these things that can't be opened with the way things already are? Gee, sir, I'm sorry they're not "acceptable" to you. You know those animals who do it with the animals of the same sex? Yeah. They made a lifestyle choice. That's why if you look in their nest you find frilly tablecloths, well-aligned curtains, and "Queer Eye" on the TV set.

The thing is, all the political rhetoric about "American values" is bull.

Winner prediction is in bold. Best Picture Lord of The Rings: The Return of The King Lost in Translation Mystic River Seabiscuit Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World Best Director Peter Jackson, Lord of the Rings: The Return of The King Clint Eastwood, Mystic River Sofia Coppola, Lost in Translation Peter Weir, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World Fernando Meierelles, City of God Best Actor Bill Murray, Lost in Translation Johnny Depp, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Cure of the Black Pearl Sean Penn, Mystic River Jude Law, Cold Mountain Ben Kingsley, The House of Sand and Fog Best Actress Keisha Castle-Hughes, Whale Rider Naomi Watts, 21 Grams Charlize Theron, Monster Diane Keaton, Something's Gotta Give Samantha Morton, In America Best Supporting Actor Benicio Del Toro, 21 Grams Tim Robbins, Mystic River Dijmon Hounsou, In America Alec Baldwin, The Cooler Ken Wantanabe, The Last Samurai Best Supporting Actress Patricia Clarkson, Pieces of April Renee Zellewegger, Cold Mountain Shoreh Aghdashloo, The House of Sand and Fog Holly Hunter, Thirteen Marcia Gay Harden, Mystic River Best Original Screenplay Denys Archand, The Barbarian Invasions Steven Knight, Dirty Pretty Things Andrew Stanton, Bob Peterson and David Reynolds, Finding Nemo Jim Sheridan, Naomi Sheridan and Kristen Sheridan, In America Sofia Coppola, Lost in Translation Best Adapted Screenplay Robert Pulci and Sherri Springer Berman, American Splendor Braulio Mantovani, City of God Fran Walsh, Phillipa Boyens and Peter Jackson, Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King Brian Helgeland, Mystic River Gary Ross, Seabiscuit Best Animated Feature Finding Nemo Brother Bear The Triplets of Belleville I have no clue about foreign language. Sorry.

So far, they've just done Russo-style stuff. How did Eddy go to jail twice in a night? Once they start the inevitable tag matches and stuff, and we see how the crowds react, we can judge if it's doing well or not.

Guess who gives him all his information? He admits he gets all his news from the people he surrounds himself with.

Let's try. Okay. I already explained this one to you, but you seem to have some sort of vendetta against the whole court system and believe it should just simply rule on popular opinion. Appearantly the sheep are supposed to decide the rules, not the constitution. Right, it's breaking the law, and the court stuff is already underway. You know, there's nothing to KEEP you from breaking the law. It's not a do or die thing. It's a line that presents consequences if you cross. The line was crossed, and the courts are hashing through it all right now. But what if the law is unconstitutional? Nobody has heard of any of that happening. This assumption is pretty damn offensive that someone is going to get so angry about a court case and the legislation that follows as to extract violence on someone.

That interview was great. Hannity: Stay tuned for more news, fair and balanced... Stewart: AHAHAHHAHAHAH!!! YOU GUYS STILL SAY THAT!? Well, that's true. Still, they had a Paula Zahn impersonator who, like Paula Abdul, is giving props to everybody. Paula: OH MY GOD THAT'S BRILLIANT! THANK YOU THANK YOU! Bill: Paula, he didn't say anything that anybody else hasn't said! He's for healthcare, so what! I'M for healthcare! Paula: You are? *trying to climb on him* Bill: Uh, no, wait, have a copy of my new book, "Who's Looking Out For You." *Paula proceeds to make out with the cover* I think in the segment where Kerry was constantly going on about the war, Al Roker was about to cry, Paula Zahn was asleep, and Bill was signing books and not paying attention.

Obviously, being in the East Coast morning, not many saw it. If your cable or satelite provider gets "Discovery Times" (a Discovery/NYTimes partnership station) it will replay at 7PM ET.

Gigli? Pfft. These people never saw House Of The Dead.

It was actually like, in the first thirty minutes. I watched it then switched to the start of SNL. The Family Feud skit that followed was alright but only had one really funny line. "The only time it got this bad was when we had the Bush family versus those Queer Eye guys." The appearance by the Dean guy made me think there was going to be a scream, but it was a joke based on that AIdol guy who's become popular for bombing so badly. Then again, it does seem odd that you talk about "hours of unfunny programming" but watch O'Reilly pretty regularly. But hey, it's only to get to Hannity & Colmes in the next hour, right?

Orton is pretty much one of the big reasons to watch Raw anymore, along with Benoit and the occasional "Flair acting like Ric Flair" promo. People like AngleSault don't like him because his push hasn't resulted in a lot of good business sense. But when you get over that, he's still kind of entertaining compared to what else is being put on TV. If I like it, it doesn't matter if the rest of the building is sitting on their hands.

YOU THREATEN ME YOU THREATEN MY CORPORATION YOU THREATEN MY FAMILY WELL YOU BETTER STAY IN JAIL BECAUSE I'M GOING TO GET YOU WHEN YOU GET OUT! I'M GOING TO GET YOU! I'M GOING TO GET YOU! I'M GOING TO GET YOU, YOU SON OF A BITCH! I'M GOING TO GET YOU! I'M GOING TO GET YOU! YOU'RE GOING TO JAIL WHERE YOU BELONG! I'M GOING TO GET YOU! I'M GOING TO GET YOU! (ad nauseum)

Whoa. Because I supported state's rights in situations X and Y, I must support them in Z. Why can't it be so right now? What's so special about gay marriages that somehow gives credibility to polygamy or incest marriage that it doesn't have right now? And that's why I've been saying that if the President wanted truly equal marriage reform, the government would simply hand out same and opposite sex union licenses and let the church perform marriage ceremonies at sees fit.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html Posted for importance.

Cerebus, nobody's usually presented any real solid evidence to the contrary either, except "that don't sit well with me." Meanwhile, the DA is getting to his job now: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNG1Q5ALU11.DTL

This makes twice now that I've seen Village Voice used as an actual source. It is normally the kind of publication that one would toss aside as "lefty trash." I guess desperation really can make miracles happen.