So everyone advocating for Santorum to step down from his post thinks like that?
No, just you Mr. Mix. Mix, Meow Mix. I don't make idiotic sweeping generalizations like some other people here do.
It comes down to this. There are mainly two ways of interpreting his statements: either he is gay-bashing or calling the legal situation as he sees it. You automatically assume gay bashing and call for his head on a spike. Others automatically assume he's just speaking legalese and demand for him to be left alone. I fall somewhere in between. I'm sure his view on homosexuality did play into his decision to speak out the way he did, however, whether your like it or not, there is some legal backing for his position.
I support Santorum's right to say whatever he wants, but I think his remarks should be reason for him to step down from his leadership position. I'm not alone on this one.
And many people support the Dixie Chicks' right to say whatever they want, but they think their remarks should be reason for them to suffer some fallout or some lost record sales (the musicians equivalent to Santorum being removed from his leadership position).
They, too, are not alone on that one.
I hate to drag out the "h" word, but there you go...
Dixie Chicks ding Bush. People respond. You don't like it or agree.
Santorum offends gays. People respond. You support it and agree.
How would people feel if a politician* stepped up and said 'niggers shouldn't be able to marry white people'?
EDIT: *changed from 'someone' to 'a politician'.
I'd think he's an ignorant ass of the highest order. And I think the situation would QUICKLY take care of itself. He'd be out of a job by that afternoon.
Was that a rhetorical question or just a post-count padder?
Dixie Chicks ding Bush. People respond. You don't like it or agree.
Santorum offends gays. People respond. You support it and agree.
Isn't it a bit different for one individual to 'bash' another individual rather than an individual to 'bash' a group or race or whatever? Is there a psychological or simple vocabulary term for attacking a group in this manner?
How would people feel if a politician* stepped up and said 'niggers shouldn't be able to marry white people'?
EDIT: *changed from 'someone' to 'a politician'.
I would think he's an idiot and if that view does not represent the views of his state, let those from his state do what they will. However, this is a horrible analogy. There isn't any legal backing here. There is the blatant use of racial epithets here. In other words, you have come up with a seemingly poignant analogy which upon closer examination is utter crap specifically designed to turn this into something it isn't.
I really don't know where to begin considering:Your selective recalling of arguments presented in the thread Your use of logical fallacies while addressing points long after you should have addressed them. Your refusal to admit to blatant name-calling throughout the thread
Don't ever instant message me again. I don't want any contact from you. You don't resort to dissing my career prospects just because you disagree with me. You know nothing about me.
That was low.
It's not a diss, it's reality. Look at you, you are out of control. You are calling names, detesting our culture, disagreeing with those who support your own views and see you as a likeable young man at times. (which I suppose you still are even if you don't want any IM's again)
Lawyers first and foremost must understand that it isn't just about the evidence and what you think about it. You are in this forum declaring that people hate homosexuals and that your Senator should lose his job for nothing more than thinking out loud about a court case. That is facist.
If you think that acting like a facist and flying off the handle at one small personal jab is going to make you a good lawyer, you are wrong. If a simple little comment is going to throw you off of your game plan (of which you have none to be thrown off of in this thread) then good luck defending people.
If you were to go back and look at all your posts, they are simple little one - three sentence assertions. They have no proof, they have no reasoning, they have nothing.
You know Shawn you are helping me become a little more liberal. I seriously doubted "white privelege" and that people in this country would get ahead just because they are white. With you supposedly being a student receiving a scholarship and being on your debate team because of your supposed intellectual brilliance, I've had to reconsider that view because I see nothing within your intellect that makes you deserving of those things.
There are many more deserving women and minorities that I have encountered that are much brighter, lucid, and deserving than you. I think you should give back these items you obviously received for no other reason than being white.
It is obvious there is some real talent out there and perhaps they are pushing you along because they know it takes a white face to get some place. I suppose they will be the talent behind the blank eyes staring at the teleprompter someday. Perhaps you will have some truly gifted paralegals who help you figure out and win cases since you expose your own limits here. It is obvious that you have what you have because of your parents owning a $400k home and not because of merit.
You know Shawn you are helping me become a little more liberal. I seriously doubted "white privelege" and that people in this country would get ahead just because they are white. With you supposedly being a student receiving a scholarship and being on your debate team because of your supposed intellectual brilliance, I've had to reconsider that view because I see nothing within your intellect that makes you deserving of those things.
maybe he just made that stuff up?
in all honesty, arguments like that wouldn't hold up for 5 min. on a highschool debate team.
How would people feel if a politician* stepped up and said 'niggers shouldn't be able to marry white people'?
EDIT: *changed from 'someone' to 'a politician'.
Hopeful someone with a different opinion will stand up and challenge that view.
He is elected. He is not only free to express his opinion but is expected to. I sincerely hope that he won´t get elected again but that is an issue between him and his voters.
That this should have any consequences against him is as stupid as "Mein Kampf" is illegal in Germany and not counting Shi?as in when forming a democracy in Iraq
Isn't it a bit different for one individual to 'bash' another individual rather than an individual to 'bash' a group or race or whatever? Is there a psychological or simple vocabulary term for attacking a group in this manner?
I think the gist and overall meaning still stand, bunge. But for the sake of argument, what if the Chicks' dinged all conservatives or, say, pro-lifers? Or rednecks? Or blue collar types? Or Christians?
Was that a rhetorical question or just a post-count padder?
It was a serious question actually. No one should lose their job for what they say. There should be no law that says you're immediately fired for saying X, Y, or Z. But the political party has to support what the politician says. He's a spokesperson for the Republican party.
What he said is 'gay bashing'. What he meant might be legally justifiable, but what he said was derogatory. Does the party stand by what he says? The President does. His party apparantely does. Fine. He won't lose his job.
But don't twist the meaning of his words to pretend they weren't derogatory.
In other words, you have come up with a seemingly poignant analogy which upon closer examination is utter crap specifically designed to turn this into something it isn't. [/url]
What examination? Why is it a poor analogy? OK, we can remove the word nigger.
How would you all feel if a politician said 'Blacks shouldn't be able to marry whites. If they're allowed to, they could do anything.'
He is elected. He is not only free to express his opinion but is expected to. I sincerely hope that he won´t get elected again but that is an issue between him and his voters.
Thanks Anders for being somewhat rational and sane.
No, just you Mr. Mix. Mix, Meow Mix. I don't make idiotic sweeping generalizations like some other people here do.
It comes down to this. There are mainly two ways of interpreting his statements: either he is gay-bashing or calling the legal situation as he sees it. You automatically assume gay bashing and call for his head on a spike. Others automatically assume he's just speaking legalese and demand for him to be left alone. I fall somewhere in between. I'm sure his view on homosexuality did play into his decision to speak out the way he did, however, whether your like it or not, there is some legal backing for his position.
Meow mix, meow mix, please deliver.
That's what I think too.
I believe my FIRST post in this thread dealt with the need to discuss privacy law in this issue. So you're saying that I haven't acknowledged that? I believe it was YOU who pointed that out when the issue was still young, and me who acknowledged that by editing my post two days ago.
But after reviewing the arguments I think, just like you, that "his view on homosexual played into his decision to say what he did."
The only difference is that I along with many many others think that he should step down from his leadership position. It's certainly not me alone here.
I think the gist and overall meaning still stand, bunge. But for the sake of argument, what if the Chicks' dinged all conservatives or, say, pro-lifers? Or rednecks? Or blue collar types? Or Christians?
Then?
Then I'd still agree with them.
If you're wondering about Dick losing his job, I don't think he should. But if he's not asked by the party to step down from his leadership position (I don't even know what that position is), then his views are representative of the party.
In any case, individuals in the country should decide if they do or don't want to listen to the Chicks' albums, not Clear Channel Communications.
Thanks Anders for being somewhat rational and sane.
OMG. Hahahaha. Incredible. I think that's pretty much what others have been saying here. But when THEY do it, they're supporting "gay bashing".
Don't break your arm giving Anders props just because he often shares your side of it and - this late in the game - steps in and says something that most everyone here (except maybe Shawn) believes to be so.
Wow. That was pretty blatant.
He IS free to express his opinions (and suffer any fallout). But he's elected and if this gets him tossed out now (or voted out in the future), then that's the price he pays for saying what he said.
...I along with many many others think that he should step down from his leadership position. It's certainly not me alone here.
He can keep his position, but the party should be held accountable. They should be honest and just admit that they don't believe gays should be legally allowed to have sex.
It's not a diss, it's reality. Look at you, you are out of control. You are calling names, detesting our culture, disagreeing with those who support your own views and see you as a likeable young man at times. (which I suppose you still are even if you don't want any IM's again)
Lawyers first and foremost must understand that it isn't just about the evidence and what you think about it. You are in this forum declaring that people hate homosexuals and that your Senator should lose his job for nothing more than thinking out loud about a court case. That is facist.
If you think that acting like a facist and flying off the handle at one small personal jab is going to make you a good lawyer, you are wrong. If a simple little comment is going to throw you off of your game plan (of which you have none to be thrown off of in this thread) then good luck defending people.
If you were to go back and look at all your posts, they are simple little one - three sentence assertions. They have no proof, they have no reasoning, they have nothing.
You know Shawn you are helping me become a little more liberal. I seriously doubted "white privelege" and that people in this country would get ahead just because they are white. With you supposedly being a student receiving a scholarship and being on your debate team because of your supposed intellectual brilliance, I've had to reconsider that view because I see nothing within your intellect that makes you deserving of those things.
There are many more deserving women and minorities that I have encountered that are much brighter, lucid, and deserving than you. I think you should give back these items you obviously received for no other reason than being white.
It is obvious there is some real talent out there and perhaps they are pushing you along because they know it takes a white face to get some place. I suppose they will be the talent behind the blank eyes staring at the teleprompter someday. Perhaps you will have some truly gifted paralegals who help you figure out and win cases since you expose your own limits here. It is obvious that you have what you have because of your parents owning a $400k home and not because of merit.
It was a serious question actually. No one should lose their job for what they say. There should be no law that says you're immediately fired for saying X, Y, or Z. But the political party has to support what the politician says. He's a spokesperson for the Republican party.
What he said is 'gay bashing'. What he meant might be legally justifiable, but what he said was derogatory. Does the party stand by what he says? The President does. His party apparantely does. Fine. He won't lose his job.
But don't twist the meaning of his words to pretend they weren't derogatory.
Sorry , real life cancelled on me.
There was nothing about his statement that was "gay-bashing." Please feel to quote the statement and show how it made gays out to be bad.
The Supreme Court has ruled in the past, that the state has an interest in legislating sexual actions that overides the right to privacy.
This is just like Roe v. Wade because they are seeking a federal case to dictate all state law. In doing so they are likely to throw out the baby with the bathwater if they prevail on both counts. (equal protection and privacy)
As I posted from LAMBDA, 37 states no longer have any sort of law against sodomy. That means they could target those remaining 13 states and create change in them that would allow sodomy without fear of legal repercussions.
Instead they want the whole enchalada and that is saying that the federal government has no right to govern sexual relations between adults (including number of adults) due to privacy concerns.
Pointing out that it could affect other groups does not equal hate for that group.
I pointed out that this case law could affect whether adultery could be used to grant a divorce and also in alimony and child custody hearings.
If you don't agree with my position on how this could harm women are you a sexist pig?
Comments
Originally posted by BR
YOU CAN SAY WHAT YOU WANT BUT IF I DON'T LIKE IT YOU MUST LOSE YOUR JOB!
How would people feel if a politician* stepped up and said 'niggers shouldn't be able to marry white people'?
EDIT: *changed from 'someone' to 'a politician'.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
So everyone advocating for Santorum to step down from his post thinks like that?
No, just you Mr. Mix. Mix, Meow Mix. I don't make idiotic sweeping generalizations like some other people here do.
It comes down to this. There are mainly two ways of interpreting his statements: either he is gay-bashing or calling the legal situation as he sees it. You automatically assume gay bashing and call for his head on a spike. Others automatically assume he's just speaking legalese and demand for him to be left alone. I fall somewhere in between. I'm sure his view on homosexuality did play into his decision to speak out the way he did, however, whether your like it or not, there is some legal backing for his position.
Meow mix, meow mix, please deliver.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
I think that's great.
But I don't support silencing anyone.
I support Santorum's right to say whatever he wants, but I think his remarks should be reason for him to step down from his leadership position. I'm not alone on this one.
And many people support the Dixie Chicks' right to say whatever they want, but they think their remarks should be reason for them to suffer some fallout or some lost record sales (the musicians equivalent to Santorum being removed from his leadership position).
They, too, are not alone on that one.
I hate to drag out the "h" word, but there you go...
Dixie Chicks ding Bush. People respond. You don't like it or agree.
Santorum offends gays. People respond. You support it and agree.
How would people feel if someone stepped up and said 'niggers shouldn't be able to marry white people'?
i would reread the mantra at the ACLU on the subject, and educate the person in question.
http://archive.aclu.org/library/aahate.html
of course, those two statements are nothing alike.
if you really think that example you just gave is at all similar to what's being discussed here.......
Originally posted by bunge
How would people feel if a politician* stepped up and said 'niggers shouldn't be able to marry white people'?
EDIT: *changed from 'someone' to 'a politician'.
I'd think he's an ignorant ass of the highest order. And I think the situation would QUICKLY take care of itself. He'd be out of a job by that afternoon.
Was that a rhetorical question or just a post-count padder?
Originally posted by pscates
Dixie Chicks ding Bush. People respond. You don't like it or agree.
Santorum offends gays. People respond. You support it and agree.
Isn't it a bit different for one individual to 'bash' another individual rather than an individual to 'bash' a group or race or whatever? Is there a psychological or simple vocabulary term for attacking a group in this manner?
Originally posted by bunge
How would people feel if a politician* stepped up and said 'niggers shouldn't be able to marry white people'?
EDIT: *changed from 'someone' to 'a politician'.
I would think he's an idiot and if that view does not represent the views of his state, let those from his state do what they will. However, this is a horrible analogy. There isn't any legal backing here. There is the blatant use of racial epithets here. In other words, you have come up with a seemingly poignant analogy which upon closer examination is utter crap specifically designed to turn this into something it isn't.
Take your false analogy and go home.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
I really don't know where to begin considering:Your selective recalling of arguments presented in the thread
Your use of logical fallacies while addressing points long after you should have addressed them.
Your refusal to admit to blatant name-calling throughout the thread
Don't ever instant message me again. I don't want any contact from you. You don't resort to dissing my career prospects just because you disagree with me. You know nothing about me.
That was low.
It's not a diss, it's reality. Look at you, you are out of control. You are calling names, detesting our culture, disagreeing with those who support your own views and see you as a likeable young man at times. (which I suppose you still are even if you don't want any IM's again)
Lawyers first and foremost must understand that it isn't just about the evidence and what you think about it. You are in this forum declaring that people hate homosexuals and that your Senator should lose his job for nothing more than thinking out loud about a court case. That is facist.
If you think that acting like a facist and flying off the handle at one small personal jab is going to make you a good lawyer, you are wrong. If a simple little comment is going to throw you off of your game plan (of which you have none to be thrown off of in this thread) then good luck defending people.
If you were to go back and look at all your posts, they are simple little one - three sentence assertions. They have no proof, they have no reasoning, they have nothing.
You know Shawn you are helping me become a little more liberal. I seriously doubted "white privelege" and that people in this country would get ahead just because they are white. With you supposedly being a student receiving a scholarship and being on your debate team because of your supposed intellectual brilliance, I've had to reconsider that view because I see nothing within your intellect that makes you deserving of those things.
There are many more deserving women and minorities that I have encountered that are much brighter, lucid, and deserving than you. I think you should give back these items you obviously received for no other reason than being white.
It is obvious there is some real talent out there and perhaps they are pushing you along because they know it takes a white face to get some place. I suppose they will be the talent behind the blank eyes staring at the teleprompter someday. Perhaps you will have some truly gifted paralegals who help you figure out and win cases since you expose your own limits here. It is obvious that you have what you have because of your parents owning a $400k home and not because of merit.
Nick
You know Shawn you are helping me become a little more liberal. I seriously doubted "white privelege" and that people in this country would get ahead just because they are white. With you supposedly being a student receiving a scholarship and being on your debate team because of your supposed intellectual brilliance, I've had to reconsider that view because I see nothing within your intellect that makes you deserving of those things.
maybe he just made that stuff up?
in all honesty, arguments like that wouldn't hold up for 5 min. on a highschool debate team.
Originally posted by bunge
How would people feel if a politician* stepped up and said 'niggers shouldn't be able to marry white people'?
EDIT: *changed from 'someone' to 'a politician'.
Hopeful someone with a different opinion will stand up and challenge that view.
He is elected. He is not only free to express his opinion but is expected to. I sincerely hope that he won´t get elected again but that is an issue between him and his voters.
That this should have any consequences against him is as stupid as "Mein Kampf" is illegal in Germany and not counting Shi?as in when forming a democracy in Iraq
Originally posted by bunge
Isn't it a bit different for one individual to 'bash' another individual rather than an individual to 'bash' a group or race or whatever? Is there a psychological or simple vocabulary term for attacking a group in this manner?
I think the gist and overall meaning still stand, bunge. But for the sake of argument, what if the Chicks' dinged all conservatives or, say, pro-lifers? Or rednecks? Or blue collar types? Or Christians?
Then?
Originally posted by pscates
Was that a rhetorical question or just a post-count padder?
It was a serious question actually. No one should lose their job for what they say. There should be no law that says you're immediately fired for saying X, Y, or Z. But the political party has to support what the politician says. He's a spokesperson for the Republican party.
What he said is 'gay bashing'. What he meant might be legally justifiable, but what he said was derogatory. Does the party stand by what he says? The President does. His party apparantely does. Fine. He won't lose his job.
But don't twist the meaning of his words to pretend they weren't derogatory.
Originally posted by BR
In other words, you have come up with a seemingly poignant analogy which upon closer examination is utter crap specifically designed to turn this into something it isn't. [/url]
What examination? Why is it a poor analogy? OK, we can remove the word nigger.
How would you all feel if a politician said 'Blacks shouldn't be able to marry whites. If they're allowed to, they could do anything.'
Originally posted by Anders the White
He is elected. He is not only free to express his opinion but is expected to. I sincerely hope that he won´t get elected again but that is an issue between him and his voters.
Thanks Anders for being somewhat rational and sane.
Originally posted by BR
No, just you Mr. Mix. Mix, Meow Mix. I don't make idiotic sweeping generalizations like some other people here do.
It comes down to this. There are mainly two ways of interpreting his statements: either he is gay-bashing or calling the legal situation as he sees it. You automatically assume gay bashing and call for his head on a spike. Others automatically assume he's just speaking legalese and demand for him to be left alone. I fall somewhere in between. I'm sure his view on homosexuality did play into his decision to speak out the way he did, however, whether your like it or not, there is some legal backing for his position.
Meow mix, meow mix, please deliver.
That's what I think too.
I believe my FIRST post in this thread dealt with the need to discuss privacy law in this issue. So you're saying that I haven't acknowledged that? I believe it was YOU who pointed that out when the issue was still young, and me who acknowledged that by editing my post two days ago.
But after reviewing the arguments I think, just like you, that "his view on homosexual played into his decision to say what he did."
The only difference is that I along with many many others think that he should step down from his leadership position. It's certainly not me alone here.
Originally posted by pscates
I think the gist and overall meaning still stand, bunge. But for the sake of argument, what if the Chicks' dinged all conservatives or, say, pro-lifers? Or rednecks? Or blue collar types? Or Christians?
Then?
Then I'd still agree with them.
If you're wondering about Dick losing his job, I don't think he should. But if he's not asked by the party to step down from his leadership position (I don't even know what that position is), then his views are representative of the party.
In any case, individuals in the country should decide if they do or don't want to listen to the Chicks' albums, not Clear Channel Communications.
Originally posted by bunge
Thanks Anders for being somewhat rational and sane.
OMG. Hahahaha. Incredible. I think that's pretty much what others have been saying here. But when THEY do it, they're supporting "gay bashing".
Don't break your arm giving Anders props just because he often shares your side of it and - this late in the game - steps in and says something that most everyone here (except maybe Shawn) believes to be so.
Wow. That was pretty blatant.
He IS free to express his opinions (and suffer any fallout). But he's elected and if this gets him tossed out now (or voted out in the future), then that's the price he pays for saying what he said.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
...I along with many many others think that he should step down from his leadership position. It's certainly not me alone here.
He can keep his position, but the party should be held accountable. They should be honest and just admit that they don't believe gays should be legally allowed to have sex.
Originally posted by trumptman
It's not a diss, it's reality. Look at you, you are out of control. You are calling names, detesting our culture, disagreeing with those who support your own views and see you as a likeable young man at times. (which I suppose you still are even if you don't want any IM's again)
Lawyers first and foremost must understand that it isn't just about the evidence and what you think about it. You are in this forum declaring that people hate homosexuals and that your Senator should lose his job for nothing more than thinking out loud about a court case. That is facist.
If you think that acting like a facist and flying off the handle at one small personal jab is going to make you a good lawyer, you are wrong. If a simple little comment is going to throw you off of your game plan (of which you have none to be thrown off of in this thread) then good luck defending people.
If you were to go back and look at all your posts, they are simple little one - three sentence assertions. They have no proof, they have no reasoning, they have nothing.
You know Shawn you are helping me become a little more liberal. I seriously doubted "white privelege" and that people in this country would get ahead just because they are white. With you supposedly being a student receiving a scholarship and being on your debate team because of your supposed intellectual brilliance, I've had to reconsider that view because I see nothing within your intellect that makes you deserving of those things.
There are many more deserving women and minorities that I have encountered that are much brighter, lucid, and deserving than you. I think you should give back these items you obviously received for no other reason than being white.
It is obvious there is some real talent out there and perhaps they are pushing you along because they know it takes a white face to get some place. I suppose they will be the talent behind the blank eyes staring at the teleprompter someday. Perhaps you will have some truly gifted paralegals who help you figure out and win cases since you expose your own limits here. It is obvious that you have what you have because of your parents owning a $400k home and not because of merit.
Nick
YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ME.
Originally posted by bunge
It was a serious question actually. No one should lose their job for what they say. There should be no law that says you're immediately fired for saying X, Y, or Z. But the political party has to support what the politician says. He's a spokesperson for the Republican party.
What he said is 'gay bashing'. What he meant might be legally justifiable, but what he said was derogatory. Does the party stand by what he says? The President does. His party apparantely does. Fine. He won't lose his job.
But don't twist the meaning of his words to pretend they weren't derogatory.
Sorry , real life cancelled on me.
There was nothing about his statement that was "gay-bashing." Please feel to quote the statement and show how it made gays out to be bad.
The Supreme Court has ruled in the past, that the state has an interest in legislating sexual actions that overides the right to privacy.
This is just like Roe v. Wade because they are seeking a federal case to dictate all state law. In doing so they are likely to throw out the baby with the bathwater if they prevail on both counts. (equal protection and privacy)
As I posted from LAMBDA, 37 states no longer have any sort of law against sodomy. That means they could target those remaining 13 states and create change in them that would allow sodomy without fear of legal repercussions.
Instead they want the whole enchalada and that is saying that the federal government has no right to govern sexual relations between adults (including number of adults) due to privacy concerns.
Pointing out that it could affect other groups does not equal hate for that group.
I pointed out that this case law could affect whether adultery could be used to grant a divorce and also in alimony and child custody hearings.
If you don't agree with my position on how this could harm women are you a sexist pig?
Nick