The OAO State of the Union address thread

[Guest The Iron Yuppie]

There is one aspect of Bush's State of the Union speech that stood out to me, that I’ve seen mentioned on some left-leaning political blogs. On the issue of tort reform, Bush stated

 

To make our economy stronger and more competitive, America must reward, not punish, the efforts and dreams of entrepreneurs. Small business is the path of advancement, especially for women and minorities. So we must free small businesses from needless regulation and protection honest job creators from junk lawsuits. Justice is distorted and our economy is held back by irresponsible class actions and frivolous asbestos claims, and I urge Congress to pass legal reforms this year.

 

While I agree that tort reform and preventing frivolous law suits is an important issue facing many nations, particularly with the current insurance crisis, I am uncertain as to why President Bush would single out asbestos claims (something that some on the left have deemed suspicious, or at the very least, poor timing due to this piece of news one day later). Is (illegitimate) asbestos litigation usurping court resources from legitimate causes of action in the United States? Let me reiterate, I am not suggesting that there is no need for tort reform, I am merely curious as to whether it is necessarily class actions and asbestos that are major problems in the American legal system.

[Guest BDC]

If I were to take a stab at the dark, I'd guess it's because those are the most common of the tort he was referring to. I mean, you could make more examples, but asbestos suits have been around as a group for quite a while.

[Guest Loss]

I'd consider an unborn child to be far more vulnerable then your ass.

 

Take your crying elsewhere and stop polluting threads with your "Woe is me, I'm gay" bullshit.

Fuck you, you racist, homophobic piece of shit. Maybe I should add illiterate to that list of insults since you obviously didn't care to notice that I WASN'T COMPARING THE TWO. I even said so. There's no "woe is me" about what I'm saying. You obviously can't see homosexuality in any context outside of fucking, which makes you a bigot.

 

The point I was making -- the real point -- is that for him to go on and on about denying rights to a minority in his home country while at the same time constantly using buzzwords like FREEDOM and LIBERTY shows that he is using the words irresponsibly, since he quite clearly doesn't want everyone to be free. He sure as Hell doesn't want me to be free. If he did, he wouldn't be pushing for the amendment. It's a case of the tail wagging the dog with Bush, as I doubt he even wanted to support this stupid amendment anymore, but he needs all the backing he can get trying to push this absurd social security reform and Christians Who Hate Everyone Not Exactly Like Them are quickly coming the biggest power brokers in the country, if they're not already there.

 

And for him to actually say that society is judged by how we treat the vulnerable when his administration and the whackos who support him are targeting everything from cartoons like Spongebob and Arthur to picketing the funerals of those who have died of hate crime violence *is* ironic. That *is* a war on the vulnerable. I'm not sitting here really trying to pretend that I have my own drinking fountain or that I'm about to miss out on the opportunity for a promotion at work, but you should also understand that I'm not just pulling this shit out of my ass. Having a President backing this amendment and having a new department of education head that says that parents don't want their children to learn the values of tolerance gives a big, fat greenlight to every fag-hating nutcase on the streets to beat up that couple with the picket fence down the block, just as it gives religious fundamentalists even more ammo to declare war on a group that doesn't really have the power to fight back because there are almost no politicians on our side. If you don't understand the power of the President's words and actions to shape the tone of everyday life, you have bigger problems than I can possibly address.

 

Racism is not really socially acceptable in 2005. I know that's news to you, since you hate "niggers and chinks", but when the government at large and the mass media endorses this line of thinking, it does bleed over into society, and people bite their tongues publicly, even if they don't do so in the privacy of their own homes. Right now, there's nothing discouraging Joe Redneck from shouting obscenities at that lesbian couple that just wants to hold hands in public like married couples do, but if we had a President who promoted tolerance and acceptance, those sorts of outbursts would be kept to a minimum.

 

Your existence is plenty of reason to support abortion.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Speaking of gay-hating nutcases...

 

I work at a bookstore. The other day I was working in the children's department and these two older ladies came in to find a book. They didn't know the title or the author so I spent like 20 minutes searching around and looking up stuff on the internet. Finally, I found the one they were looking for, King & King. This children's book is about a prince who marries another prince.

 

So, after I spent all that time searching (while a long line of customers was building up) I finally found the book for them. It turns out the only reason they wanted to find it was so they could tell me how disgusting it was and berate me because our store carries it.

 

Fuck bigoted old bitches.

[SuperJerk 0]

Rather than starting a new thread for this, I thought this was related to the State of the Union Address, since it deals with Bush's proposals.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/05/...t.ap/index.html

 

Dramatic cuts part of Bush budget

President to send $2.5 trillion plan to Congress on Monday

 

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's budget will propose slashing grants to local law enforcement agencies and cutting spending for environmental protection, American Indian schools and home-heating aid for the poor, The Associated Press learned Saturday.

 

Bush molded the roughly $2.5 trillion spending plan for 2006 as a response to a string of record federal deficits, and is sends it to Congress on Monday.

 

The budget, the toughest he has written since entering the White House four years ago, seeks about half the increase for school districts in low-income communities he requested last year and a slight reduction for the National Park Service.

 

Many proposals face an unclear fate in Congress, where members of both parties are sure to defend favorite initiatives. Democrats blame the cuts on the tax reductions Bush has enacted and say that other items his budget omits -- a Social Security overhaul and costs for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- will only make matters worse.

 

"What it will lead to is growing pressure for draconian cuts," Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the Senate Budget Committee's top Democrat, said Saturday. "It's inescapable, the course he's led us on, whether it's this year or next year, is for very, very heavy cuts."

 

Bush has said his budget will assemble federal resources for war, domestic security and other priorities and cull inefficient or redundant programs. Administration officials have said he will hold overall nondefense spending -- excepting domestic security -- to less than next year's expected 2.3 percent increase in inflation, meaning the programs will lose purchasing power.

 

"I stand with the president that we need to eliminate wasteful spending and we need to look through all the programs," said House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa. "There's no question that's not the easiest thing to do in Washington."

 

The details obtained Saturday are the latest in a budget that will also seek savings from programs ranging from Amtrak and farmers' subsidies to Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor and disabled.

 

According to figures obtained by the AP, Bush would slice a $600 million grant program for local police agencies to $60 million next year. Grants to local firefighters, for which Congress provided $715 million this year, would fall to $500 million.

 

He would eliminate the $300 million the government gives to states for incarcerating illegal aliens who commit crimes. It's a proposal he has made in the past and one that Congress has ignored. Also gone would be assistance for police departments to improve technology and their ability to communicate with other agencies.

 

The Environmental Protection Agency's $8.1 billion would drop by $450 million, or about 6 percent, with most of the reductions coming in water programs and projects won by lawmakers for their home districts.

 

The Bureau of Indians Affairs would be sliced by $100 million to $2.2 billion. The reduction would come almost entirely from the agency's effort to build more schools.

 

The $2.2 billion program that provides low-income people -- in large part the elderly -- with home-heating aid would be cut to $2 billion. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said the reduction would be "wrong-headed an inappropriate," especially with this season's jump in oil prices.

 

White House budget office spokesman Chad Kolton said Bush has added hundreds of millions of dollars to the program since taking office and said his budget will provide "adequate resources to make sure we can assist low-income Americans."

 

The park service's budget would drop nearly 3 percent to $2.2 billion, largely due to a reduction in its construction account.

 

Several cultural agencies will get about the same as this year's levels, including the Smithsonian Institution and the national endowments for the arts and humanities, which distribute money to local groups.

 

Even on the plus side, Bush's budget will show constraint compared with previous years. That in part reflects his pledge to cut last year's projected $521 billion in half by 2009. One lawmaker said the budget will estimate that year's shortfall at about $230 billion -- well under the record $427 billion it will project for 2005.

 

Bush will seek about 5 percent more, or about $600 million, for the $12.8 billion program for low-income area school districts. Last year, he requested a $1 billion increase.

 

Defense Department documents obtained Friday show the Pentagon's budget would grow by 4.8 percent to $419.3 billion -- $3.4 billion less than he planned to seek for 2006 a year ago.

 

Other areas would fare better.

 

The Coast Guard -- part of the Homeland Security Department -- will get $8.1 billion, $600 million over this year. Included will be a healthy increase for its plans to buy more oceangoing vessels, a boon to the new chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Mississippi, in whose state many of the ships are built.

 

Community health centers would grow to over $2 billion, an increase of $304 million, or almost 18 percent, over this year. Bush said he wants to every poor county to have one of the centers, which are widely used by the poor.

 

Okay, maybe he left all of that out of his speech for a reason.

[Guest sek69]

You gotta love the sheer level of balls this bunch has. I mean, once they blew the surplus and started mounting huge debt you just knew they were going to make up for it by cutting social programs.

 

What's even better is that conservatives have already set the groundwork for the next round of liberal bashing by saying that since Dems were so outraged by the deficits they have to support all these cuts or be labled Bush-hating hypocrites.

 

 

He would eliminate the $300 million the government gives to states for incarcerating illegal aliens who commit crimes. It's a proposal he has made in the past and one that Congress has ignored. Also gone would be assistance for police departments to improve technology and their ability to communicate with other agencies.

 

So when someone comes across the border and does another 9/11 like most conservatives predict, how will they spin this to not be Bush's faut?

 

 

 

The Bureau of Indians Affairs would be sliced by $100 million to $2.2 billion. The reduction would come almost entirely from the agency's effort to build more schools.

 

 

This is just sad. Native Americans are the most abused group in American history and whats sadder is neither the left or right seems to care. My girlfriend is about 1/4 Sioux and we went to a pow wow at a Native American school around here and it really broke your heart to see how they pretty much have to whore their heritage to raise money to keep their school going.

 

The $2.2 billion program that provides low-income people -- in large part the elderly -- with home-heating aid would be cut to $2 billion. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said the reduction would be "wrong-headed an inappropriate," especially with this season's jump in oil prices.

 

 

This one kills me. Republicans always bitch about Dems trying to scare old people, and they bitch about people exaggerating their relationship with Big Oil.

 

So what do they do? Give old people a big "fuck you" to make sure they pay their full oil bill.

 

According to figures obtained by the AP, Bush would slice a $600 million grant program for local police agencies to $60 million next year. Grants to local firefighters, for which Congress provided $715 million this year, would fall to $500 million.

 

 

This pretty much cements that no cop should ever support Bush. For all the talk the administration gives about how important police are, they haven't missed an opportunity yet to stick it in their asses.

[Guest Coffey]

..."Woe is me, I'm gay" bullshit.

Fuck you, you racist, homophobic piece of shit

 

It's too bad we don't have a thread rating system here at TSM. This thread would be a 5 for sure.

 

*sits back and opens popcorn*

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

You obviously can't see homosexuality in any context outside of fucking, which makes you a bigot.

 

What other context is there, besides wearing snappy threads and having matching colors to go with the master room futon and drapes?...

[MrRant 0]

My turn to play quote and respond. Lets see....

 

Fuck you, you racist, homophobic piece of shit. Maybe I should add illiterate to that list of insults since you obviously didn't care to notice that I WASN'T COMPARING THE TWO. I even said so. There's no "woe is me" about what I'm saying. You obviously can't see homosexuality in any context outside of fucking, which makes you a bigot.

 

As KKK said the whole point of being gay is being attracted to/fucking a member of the same sex. Unless it's just an excuse for a lisp and glory holes...

 

The point I was making -- the real point -- is that for him to go on and on about denying rights to a minority in his home country while at the same time constantly using buzzwords like FREEDOM and LIBERTY shows that he is using the words irresponsibly, since he quite clearly doesn't want everyone to be free. He sure as Hell doesn't want me to be free. If he did, he wouldn't be pushing for the amendment. It's a case of the tail wagging the dog with Bush, as I doubt he even wanted to support this stupid amendment anymore, but he needs all the backing he can get trying to push this absurd social security reform and Christians Who Hate Everyone Not Exactly Like Them are quickly coming the biggest power brokers in the country, if they're not already there.

 

"Woe is me. Not everyone agrees with the lifestyle I lead"

 

And for him to actually say that society is judged by how we treat the vulnerable when his administration and the whackos who support him are targeting everything from cartoons like Spongebob and Arthur to picketing the funerals of those who have died of hate crime violence *is* ironic. That *is* a war on the vulnerable. I'm not sitting here really trying to pretend that I have my own drinking fountain or that I'm about to miss out on the opportunity for a promotion at work, but you should also understand that I'm not just pulling this shit out of my ass. Having a President backing this amendment and having a new department of education head that says that parents don't want their children to learn the values of tolerance gives a big, fat greenlight to every fag-hating nutcase on the streets to beat up that couple with the picket fence down the block, just as it gives religious fundamentalists even more ammo to declare war on a group that doesn't really have the power to fight back because there are almost no politicians on our side. If you don't understand the power of the President's words and actions to shape the tone of everyday life, you have bigger problems than I can possibly address.

 

By golly, the day that the Pres'odent says that, I can I'm a runnin' on up to that fruity fellers house and layin' a whoopins on them.

 

Racism is not really socially acceptable in 2005. I know that's news to you, since you hate "niggers and chinks", but when the government at large and the mass media endorses this line of thinking, it does bleed over into society, and people bite their tongues publicly, even if they don't do so in the privacy of their own homes. Right now, there's nothing discouraging Joe Redneck from shouting obscenities at that lesbian couple that just wants to hold hands in public like married couples do, but if we had a President who promoted tolerance and acceptance, those sorts of outbursts would be kept to a minimum.

 

Still bitter eh? Sorry you can't handle a quote from a movie. I guess Blazing Saddles isn't funny anymore because if offends a minority of people in this country and isn't socially acceptable anymore? I'm sure you'd like to regulate Mel Brooks movies on out wouldn't you? I don't see you up in arms about his slander towards Jews. Or is it only ok to make fun of a group if you are of that group? Politically correct fuckwads like you that want to regulate language can take the fastest possible way to hell.

 

Oh wait... you're already on track for that ain't ya?

 

Someone cursing at a gay couple as they walk up the street isn't that big of a deal really. There are plenty of straight white people that curse at other straight white people on the streets too for looking at each other the wrong way. Again with your mindless "woe is me, I'm gay and people look at me wrong~!" bullshit.

 

Your existence is plenty of reason to support abortion.

 

I wonder what your Dad would have done if he knew how you would have turned out?

[Guest Loss]

You obviously can't see homosexuality in any context outside of fucking, which makes you a bigot.

 

What other context is there, besides wearing snappy threads and having matching colors to go with the master room futon and drapes?...

I know you're joking (I think so, anyway), but when it's politicized by the Religious Right, it becomes a bigger issue than Who You Fuck. And that's what has happened. Look at it from a heterosexual viewpoint -- marriage, partnership, whatever you want to call it has political, social and legal implications. The same applies to homosexuality. It became a bigger issue than Who You Fuck a long time ago when gays weren't allowed in the military and homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. It's not exactly the sort of thing I choose to have my identity wrapped up in either, but when our President says these things and encourages this sort of behavior (directly or indirectly), I can't help but respond to it. Had he not mentioned the SOTU, I would have talked more about the holes in his social security plan, since that's a more important issue anyway. Republicans are the ones who keep making this an issue.

 

Hope that helps.

[Guest Loss]

As KKK said the whole point of being gay is being attracted to/fucking a member of the same sex. Unless it's just an excuse for a lisp and glory holes...

How you can say these things and NOT be banned is way beyond me. OH ... yeah, your sister is a lesbian. That sure shows me.

 

"Woe is me. Not everyone agrees with the lifestyle I lead"

 

You still don't get it, but that's because you're going out of your way not to get it. Disagree with my lifestyle all you want. I don't really give a shit. But don't start lobbying for laws that prohibit me from enjoying the same types of benefits in society as everyone else.

 

By golly, the day that the Pres'odent says that, I can I'm a runnin' on up to that fruity fellers house and layin' a whoopins on them.

 

This sounds about like you.

 

Still bitter eh?  Sorry you can't handle a quote from a movie.  I guess Blazing Saddles isn't funny anymore because if offends a minority of people in this country and isn't socially acceptable anymore?

 

PRECISELY. Blackface isn't funny anymore and neither is Tar Baby. Disney no longer sells Song of the South. And just so you know, Blazing Saddles is a two-hour movie with plenty of funny lines, and the quote you have in your sig is completely unnecessary when there are so many others at your disposal.

 

I'm sure you'd like to regulate Mel Brooks movies on out wouldn't you?

 

No, actually. My problem isn't with the movie itself, the problem is with backwoods hillbillies like yourself using it as an excuse to say "nigger" on a public forum and get away with it.

 

You should *really* move to Arkansas. You'd fit in perfectly here.

 

I don't see you up in arms about his slander towards Jews.

 

That's because you haven't quoted anything anti-Semitic in your signature. If you had, you'd get the same criticism. That's not the issue at hand here.

 

Or is it only ok to make fun of a group if you are of that group?

 

I'm a white male and I've bashed people who have said racist and misogynist things in this forum plenty of times. Pay attention.

 

Politically correct fuckwads like you that want to regulate language can take the fastest possible way to hell.

 

And people like you who think you can say anything you want without consequence can meet me there. What the Hell is WRONG with at least attempting to use language that is non-confrontational and doesn't try to offend? Or is that the only way you know how to communicate with people?

 

Oh wait... you're already on track for that ain't ya?

 

If I go to Hell, I can assure you that you'll be there as well.

 

Someone cursing at a gay couple as they walk up the street isn't that big of a deal really.

 

You've never had that happen to you, so you don't really know that it "isn't that big of a deal", do you? If you ever tried to put yourself in someone else's shoes, maybe you'd become a tad more compassionate.

 

There are plenty of straight white  people that curse at other straight white people on the streets too for looking at each other the wrong way.

 

Because they're white? No, there aren't. At all.

 

Again with your mindless "woe is me, I'm gay and people look at me wrong~!" bullshit.

 

You've seen none of that here, nor have you ever seen that type of behavior exhibited by me, I can assure you.

 

I wonder what your Dad would have done if he knew how you would have turned out?

 

My dad is proud of me. Assumptions will get you nowhere.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Hope that helps.

 

Not really, but through no fault of your own -- I view homosexuality the same way I view other "minorities." I just treat them like I do anyone else, which I think is my problem.

 

And I find it funny that Loss lives in AK and Rant lives in Seattle, when I think it should be the other way around...

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Hope that helps.

 

Not really, but through no fault of your own -- I view homosexuality the same way I view other "minorities." I just treat them like I do anyone else, which I think is my problem.

 

And I find it funny that Loss lives in AK and Rant lives in Seattle, when I think it should be the other way around...

He lives in Alaska?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Sonofabitch (and I thought I was bad with the "M" states) -- no wonder I flunked geography as a kid...

[MrRant 0]

How you can say these things and NOT be banned is way beyond me. OH ... yeah, your sister is a lesbian. That sure shows me.

 

Probably because I'm the one who is actually level headed about the whole gay issue. If you bothered to read my past posts you would see where I stand and know that your kind of gay is the worst kind and setting the gay community back in acceptance.

 

Congrats.

 

You still don't get it, but that's because you're going out of your way not to get it. Disagree with my lifestyle all you want. I don't really give a shit. But don't start lobbying for laws that prohibit me from enjoying the same types of benefits in society as everyone else.

 

Dress up in leather and blow each other while hitting yourselves with ballpin hammers. I really don't care about your lifestyle. Again if you read my posts I have lobbied for gays to have the same benefits of marriage as straights. But to appease the MAJORITY, gays need to back off the word marriage and accept the civil unions term with all the benefits therein. But no... whiny bitches like you have to piss everyone off over a word.

 

PRECISELY. Blackface isn't funny anymore and neither is Tar Baby. Disney no longer sells Song of the South. And just so you know, Blazing Saddles is a two-hour movie with plenty of funny lines, and the quote you have in your sig is completely unnecessary when there are so many others at your disposal.

 

I like Songs of the South. Not because I'm a racist but because it was actually pretty good. Blazing Saddles is full of lots of funny, offensive lines. Perhaps I should change it to a Jew quote. Would that make you feel better? I bet the "Where the white women at?" quote would make you feel better as a black guy said it.

 

No, actually. My problem isn't with the movie itself, the problem is with backwoods hillbillies like yourself using it as an excuse to say "nigger" on a public forum and get away with it.

 

You should *really* move to Arkansas. You'd fit in perfectly here.

 

I must have missed all the times I called someone a nigger on a public forum. Nigger what?

 

That's because you haven't quoted anything anti-Semitic in your signature. If you had, you'd get the same criticism. That's not the issue at hand here.

 

Face it. You'd like to make this world so clean that no one can make a joke. You take everything far to seriously. Humor is what brings people together. I have a feeling if I had Richard Pryor joke on white people in my sig you'd be mighty fine by that since there isn't a minority being made fun off. Odd that you aren't up in arms about the Irish part of the quote, you know... the group it is actually SLAMMING? But it should be alright since I'm white and Irish by your philosphy.

 

I'm a white male and I've bashed people who have said racist and misogynist things in this forum plenty of times. Pay attention.

 

Read again junior. My point is that gays can make fun of gays all they want in your world but the minute a straight man makes a gay joke, you'll get your GLAAD painties in a bunch, grab some signs and hot pants and have a parade about gay rights.

 

And people like you who think you can say anything you want without consequence can meet me there. What the Hell is WRONG with at least attempting to use language that is non-confrontational and doesn't try to offend? Or is that the only way you know how to communicate with people?

 

Everyone has the right to say what they want as long as they aren't committing violence against someone. I have no problem with the KKK having parades and speaking out against what they don't believe in as long as they aren't going out and stringing up people (some groups do but some don't).

 

If I go to Hell, I can assure you that you'll be there as well.

 

I'm straight and I can repent. Ha.

 

You've never had that happen to you, so you don't really know that it "isn't that big of a deal", do you? If you ever tried to put yourself in someone else's shoes, maybe you'd become a tad more compassionate.

 

It's not a big deal. Remember the whole "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me?" Accept the fact that no matter what you do, people won't like your lifestyle and move on.

 

Because they're white? No, there aren't. At all.

 

No. Just for looking at them the wrong way.

 

You've seen none of that here, nor have you ever seen that type of behavior exhibited by me, I can assure you.

 

I wouldn't have brought it up if you hadn't been a whiny little bitch about peoples views on your lifestyle.

 

My dad is proud of me. Assumptions will get you nowhere.

 

Pot. Meet Kettle.

[Guest Loss]

My kinda gay is the worst kinda gay. Funny. You don't even know what "my kinda gay" is, but you think you do considering that you have this vision of me dressed in leather chaps pouring hotwax on some kid who's been a "bad boy" or something. Not my game at all, but I can refer you to someone if you're really that intrigued by the idea. You have no idea what you're talking about, nor do you know me like you think you do. You'd be surprised at how conservative I am, Rant, but this is one issue where compromise just won't do. You're basically asking me to rationalize hate. I can't do that. I can accept that some are morally opposed to the way I live my life. I can NOT accept those people bullying politicians into fighting their battles.

 

It's interesting that you bring up civil unions. I'm FINE with civil unions, actually. It's not ideal, but I could accept it, and the idea of getting the word "marriage" years down the road would be plausible. The ongoing War On Gays *includes* a ban on civil unions though. Most of the state-level marriage amendments also include language that specifically says domestic partnerships or civil unions will not be recognized by the states. So what do you suggest? Just standing by and letting whatever happens happen? No way in Hell. Besides, the majority have a moral obligation to protect the minority. When that dies, one of America's best qualities dies.

 

You tried to use the Jewish example again, and I've already refuted that. Hell, I think "I like both types of music -- country *and* western" is one of the funniest parts of the movie myself, and I can't see how it could possibly be offensive to anyone. I have no problems with the movie because the movie sets out to offend EVERYONE, not just a select few. The quote you pulled, and the context in which you're using it, takes the movie and turns it into something it was never meant to be quite frankly. You use the word "nigger" in your sig, which means it's part of EVERY POST YOU MAKE. It's a way to safely say something you could never publicly say in real life.

 

I'd like to make this world a little cleaner, actually. There's all sorts of humor out there that doesn't play on racial stereotypes, sexuality, religion, nationality or gender. Using those methods is just pandering to the lowest common denominator. It's the academic equivalent of a fart joke. You don't see The Simpsons or Seinfeld setting out to offend anyone, and they're two of the funniest television shows of all time. The funniest movie I've ever seen, or one of the funniest anyway, is Young Frankenstein. I can watch it without being offended. I have no desire to zap all the humor out of the world. I've love to keep it all intact. Some things just aren't funny. Some things may have been at one point, but the goal is to constantly progress as a society, and therefore, Archie Bunker's viewpoint on life isn't as endearing as it was 30 years ago.

 

I'm not in GLAAD, for the record, nor do I wear panties, but gays have the right to joke about themselves, just as blacks have the right to joke about themselves -- Hell, just as whites or any other stereotyped group has a right to joke about themselves. If you're not part of that group, you don't understand the weight your words carry, and you don't have that right. It *is* different, because when someone else says it, it's intended to be malicious. The quote in your sig is intended to be malicious. I can say fag and another gay person knows I'm not out to offend them. Ditto for an African American using the word nigger. Anyone else saying those terms is saying them with the intent to offend.

 

I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for me for being gay. I do expect people to be sympathetic to the fact that the gay community as a whole doesn't have equal rights. And I can say with full confidence that it's the Jerry Falwells and Fred Phelpses of the world that are "setting back" the gay rights movement, not gays actually standing up for themselves.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Re: Falwell.

 

Is homosexuality somehow a worse sin that gluttony?

 

 

I'm asking this seriously.

[MrRant 0]

My kinda gay is the worst kinda gay. Funny. You don't even know what "my kinda gay" is, but you think you do considering that you have this vision of me dressed in leather chaps pouring hotwax on some kid who's been a "bad boy" or something. Not my game at all, but I can refer you to someone if you're really that intrigued by the idea. You have no idea what you're talking about, nor do you know me like you think you do. You'd be surprised at how conservative I am, Rant, but this is one issue where compromise just won't do. You're basically asking me to rationalize hate. I can't do that. I can accept that some are morally opposed to the way I live my life. I can NOT accept those people bullying politicians into fighting their battles.

 

Your kinda gay is the type that is intolerant to those that do not agree with the choices you have made and want to force acceptance.

 

 

It's interesting that you bring up civil unions. I'm FINE with civil unions, actually. It's not ideal, but I could accept it, and the idea of getting the word "marriage" years down the road would be plausible. The ongoing War On Gays *includes* a ban on civil unions though. Most of the state-level marriage amendments also include language that specifically says domestic partnerships or civil unions will not be recognized by the states. So what do you suggest? Just standing by and letting whatever happens happen? No way in Hell. Besides, the majority have a moral obligation to protect the minority. When that dies, one of America's best qualities dies.

 

Again. I want all the benefits for gays the same as there are for straights. But let the word go for now and maybe in 10 years it will change but even if not... it's just a word. The part that causes conflict for me is that I think states should be the ones deciding this by vote of the population, but that is me.

 

You tried to use the Jewish example again, and I've already refuted that. Hell, I think "I like both types of music -- country *and* western" is one of the funniest parts of the movie myself, and I can't see how it could possibly be offensive to anyone. I have no problems with the movie because the movie sets out to offend EVERYONE, not just a select few. The quote you pulled, and the context in which you're using it, takes the movie and turns it into something it was never meant to be quite frankly. You use the word "nigger" in your sig, which means it's part of EVERY POST YOU MAKE. It's a way to safely say something you could never publicly say in real life.

 

I'd like to make this world a little cleaner, actually. There's all sorts of humor out there that doesn't play on racial stereotypes, sexuality, religion, nationality or gender. Using those methods is just pandering to the lowest common denominator. It's the academic equivalent of a fart joke. You don't see The Simpsons or Seinfeld setting out to offend anyone, and they're two of the funniest television shows of all time. The funniest movie I've ever seen, or one of the funniest anyway, is Young Frankenstein. I can watch it without being offended. I have no desire to zap all the humor out of the world. I've love to keep it all intact. Some things just aren't funny. Some things may have been at one point, but the goal is to constantly progress as a society, and therefore, Archie Bunker's viewpoint on life isn't as endearing as it was 30 years ago.

 

I'm glad that you are an opponent of free speech, actions and thought. Unless it's your type of thought and speech. You are that much better than the Christian Right/Southern Baptists how again?

 

I'm not in GLAAD, for the record, nor do I wear panties, but gays have the right to joke about themselves, just as blacks have the right to joke about themselves -- Hell, just as whites or any other stereotyped group has a right to joke about themselves. If you're not part of that group, you don't understand the weight your words carry, and you don't have that right. It *is* different, because when someone else says it, it's intended to be malicious. The quote in your sig is intended to be malicious. I can say fag and another gay person knows I'm not out to offend them. Ditto for an African American using the word nigger. Anyone else saying those terms is saying them with the intent to offend.

 

What? You continue to prove yourself less intelligent with each exchange.

 

I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for me for being gay. I do expect people to be sympathetic to the fact that the gay community as a whole doesn't have equal rights. And I can say with full confidence that it's the Jerry Falwells and Fred Phelpses of the world that are "setting back" the gay rights movement, not gays actually standing up for themselves.

 

Again. You feel (well actually you DEMAND) that people be sympathetic to your cause. You need to take off your Gucci glasses and see that not everyone agrees with your cause/beliefs. You are the gay and possibly thinner equivalent of Falwell.

[Guest Loss]

Your kinda gay is the type that is intolerant to those that do not agree with the choices you have made and want to force acceptance.

There. Right there. There's what I'm talking about. What choices have I made? Please tell me. I'm dying to know. And yes, I do want to force acceptance. Acceptance shouldn't really have to be forced, though. Am I asking for anything difficult? I mean, really, what am I asking people to do? Live and let live. That's it. I'd be willing to let the haters live if they'd be willing to not try to thwart any attempts for equality. It's that simple.

 

Again.  I want all the benefits for gays the same as there are for straights.  But let the word go for now and maybe in 10 years it will change but even if not... it's just a word.  The part that causes conflict for me is that I think states should be the ones deciding this by vote of the population, but that is me.

 

Hell, I'm willing to let the word go myself, but putting gay marriage to a vote is ridiculous and something that should either be decided on a legislative or judicial level. The public isn't voting on the new social security plan. The public doesn't vote on tax increases. Why should the public vote on gay marriage? The whole point of elections is to vote in officials who you trust to make the right decision. It's not like giving blacks the right to vote was put to a vote.

 

I'm glad that you are an opponent of free speech, actions and thought.  Unless it's your type of thought and speech.  You are that much better than the Christian Right/Southern Baptists how again?

 

I am intolerant of intolerance. I make no qualms about that. People can say whatever they want, practice whatever religion they want or think however they want. They have no right to impose those things on anyone else. You'll probably say I'm hypocritical for that, considering that I want to "impose" gay marriage on people, but nothing is being imposed with same-sex marriage being legalized. NOTHING. We're not asking for laws to be made that require Billy Bob's youngest son to marry the other little boy down the street.

 

I'm better than the Christian Right because I'm not out to make sure they don't get rights.

 

What?  You continue to prove yourself less intelligent with each exchange.

 

I wouldn't have expected you to understand that. You hear an African American use the word "nigger" and get bent out of shape that you can't use it too. That's what's happening.

 

Again.  You feel (well actually you DEMAND) that people be sympathetic to your cause.

 

I expect basic human decency out of all people, yes. Denying a minority rights is immoral and very Un-American.

 

You need to take off your Gucci glasses and see that not everyone agrees with your cause/beliefs.

 

You need to get the fucking point. I've acknowledged that about 10 times and you ignore it every time I say it.

 

You are the gay and possibly thinner equivalent of Falwell

 

You'll have a point when I start picketing the funerals of Christians who die, saying they deserved to be killed. I'll never do such a thing. I'm sorry to burst your bubble that I'm not one of those pinko hippies or whatever you call them that's out to ban Christmas.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Your kinda gay is the type that is intolerant to those that do not agree with the choices you have made and want to force acceptance.

Your kinda Jews is the type that is intolerant to those that do not agree with the choices you have made and want to force acceptance.

 

Your kinda blacks is the type that is intolerant to those that do not agree with desegregation and want to force acceptance.

[MrRant 0]

You all say live and let live but you only wish to let certain groups do so...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So very sorry if those opposed to gay relationships go the same way as the people opposed to interratial relationships.

 

It's all cut from the same cloth, anyway.

[MrRant 0]

Like I said. You're not that far away from Falwell in wanting to regulate thought.

 

Do not attempt to hold yourself above him until you show to me you can surpass him and tolerate those that disagree with you.

 

*Note: I'm talking about the nonviolent ones.

[MrRant 0]

On a side note... arguing this with Loss is like arguing with a gay version of Mike as he lets no other thoughts enter his head and believes himself to be right in all instances.

 

JOTW comes close as well in this case.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Loss, do the words "living will" and "durable power of attorney" mean anything to you?

[Guest sek69]

You all say live and let live but you only wish to let certain groups do so...

Yeah, the homophobic are such a persecuted group these days.

 

I hate to run-in on this thread but I hate when the anti-gay crowd makes it seem like gay people are asking for special treatment when all they want is to not be used as the lightning rod for the Religious Right.

 

I mean, your whole argument seems to boil down to "how dare you infringe upon my right to hate and discriminate against gays!"

 

Trying to equate people who want gay rights with Falwell makes so little sense just trying to figure out the logic made my nose bleed. How you can even put the two in the same zip code is beyond me.

 

On a side note... arguing this with Loss is like arguing with a gay version of Mike as he lets no other thoughts enter his head and believes himself to be right in all instances.

 

A small but key difference is that Loss actually lives his side of the argument. You can't accuse him of being a "someone else do the fighting for me" type like Mike.

 

Ever stop to ponder that Loss might be a bit more militant in this debate because he's probably had to deal with people who share your point of view giving him shit in real life?

[MrRant 0]

It's very simple. People are allowed to hate who they want and should be allowed to voice their opinions in whatever way they choose providing it's not violent or advocating violence. I don't think people should be able to harrass someone by following them down the street calling them names either, but if they wish to have a website saying that they believe homosexuality is a sin and is wrong then they should be allowed to do so.

 

I personally don't care one way or another about gay people. I have no issues with homosexuality and have gay/lesbian friends. I have issues with a certain type of person that exists throughout the spectrum of this nation. The Falwell/Loss type that seek to control thought and language if there is something they don't believe/agree with. The gay/lesbian people that I hang around are more open to other people having their own opinions that are non violent and harrassing like I have set forth and understand that they have no right to force acceptance of something that people do not believe in.

 

Edit: And no I don't ponder why Loss is more militant because I'm a racist, hate mongering bigot remember?

[NoCalMike 0]

It's very simple. People are allowed to hate who they want and should be allowed to voice their opinions in whatever way they choose providing it's not violent or advocating violence. I don't think people should be able to harrass someone by following them down the street calling them names either, but if they wish to have a website saying that they believe homosexuality is a sin and is wrong then they should be allowed to do so.

 

I personally don't care one way or another about gay people. I have no issues with homosexuality and have gay/lesbian friends. I have issues with a certain type of person that exists throughout the spectrum of this nation. The Falwell/Loss type that seek to control thought and language if there is something they don't believe/agree with. The gay/lesbian people that I hang around are more open to other people having their own opinions that are non violent and harrassing like I have set forth and understand that they have no right to force acceptance of something that people do not believe in.

Sure no one should be forced to accept something. Hell, people to this day in some parts of this country don't accept Interracial relationships/marriage, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. If people don't want to accept or tolerate gay marriage, then they don't have to. They can make sure they don't marry the same sex, and in the process will never have to worry about it affecting them.

[MrRant 0]

I think there should be gay civil unions that have the benefits of marriage.

 

But unlike Loss I don't seek to control thought.

[EricMM 0]

God, Rant, you've spewed so much shit, I can't even mop it all into one post to respond, so I'll just stick to the recent shit.

 

Even if you believe people should be allowed to hate anyone, even if you believe the government shouldn't try and promote acceptance and integration instead of bigotry, you must realize this: it is one thing to allow people to hate. It is another thing to allow people to create laws that make their hate law. There are a lot of REALLY stupid people in this country Rant, look in the mirror. Your views on so many things make you as moral as a nazi or klansman. Whatever, thats your bag. But it is the place of government to prevent intolerant idiots from making America into an unjust place for ANYONE. Thats what a lot of our constituion MEANS.

 

I would love to meet your so-called Gay/Lesbian friends, and find out if you're actually friends, and find out if they know you feel this way about them. Because your opinions in this are pretty terrible.