A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Ford Mustang
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________mixqec



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old November 11th 04, 07:51 PM
Abeness
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> Civil Unions for everyone, as far as the state is concerned -- religions
> free to promulgate whatever definition of marriage they wish within their
> own membership. Liberty and justice for all. What a concept.


Sounds good to me.
Ads
  #42  
Old November 11th 04, 07:52 PM
Abeness
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

stylesandsmiles wrote:
> PEOPLE PLEASE, UNLESS YOU HAVE A HONDA, KEEP THE POLITICS OUT OF HERE!


HAH! I HAVE A HONDA! GUESS THAT MEANS I CAN BOTH POLITICK AND SHOUT, AY??

;-))
  #43  
Old November 11th 04, 08:23 PM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Abeness wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:


> > I was just pointing how how the homosexual crowd is so quick to brand
> > anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle as being hateful.


> The question is, why does anyone in this country have the right to
> "disagree" with, and then legislate against, someone's lifestyle when it
> doesn't damage their property or personal liberties?


That's one good question, yes. Another question: What's with this
"homosexual lifestyle" nonsense? What, heterosexuals have *lives*, but
homosexuals just have a "lifestyle"? And only just *one* lifestyle, at
that? All homosexuals' lifestyles are the same? OK, I guess that does make
it easier, but then the same rules must apply to everyone: There is one
and only one heterosexual lifestyle. Some heterosexuals abuse drugs, have
casual and dangerous sex, kill themselves, commit domestic violence,
molest children, and smoke cigarettes. Therefore, the heterosexual
lifestyle involves drugs, violent crime, suicide, child molestation and
cigarette smoking. And these people want to teach our children! They want
to get married! They want to adopt! This is unacceptable; the heterosexual
lifestyle is incompatible with a hopeful, decent, moral society.


-DS (Hey, it works for "Doctor" Dobson and friends...)

  #44  
Old November 11th 04, 11:31 PM
vince garcia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Abeness wrote:
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
> > I wasn't at all comparing helmet laws to homosexual marriage. I was
> > just pointing how how the homosexual crowd is so quick to brand anyone
> > who disagrees with their lifestyle as being hateful. That is simply
> > rubbish and anyone with half a brain knows that. Hate and disagree are
> > worlds apart. I strongly oppose homosexual marriage legalization, but I
> > don't hate homosexuals.

>
> The question is, why does anyone in this country have the right to
> "disagree" with, and then legislate against, someone's lifestyle when it
> doesn't damage their property or personal liberties?



It's called DEMOCRACY.

I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed that
give people the right to forbid his going into their places of business
because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being
discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is!

And thank God!




Live and let live.
> It's fine if you don't want to live like someone else does, you have
> freedom of choice, but why do you feel it necessary to prevent them from
> doing so?


You're living in fantasy land. You do NOT have "freedom of choice".
"Freedom of choice" is nowhere in the constitution. And since this is a
constitutional republic, and since it is the people within that republic
who have the right to determine what laws they want to define the
parameters of the sort of society they wish to live in--the Gay marriage
crowd learned a lesson about how the system works the same way the
Mormons learned a hundred years ago when they were forced to give up
polygamy to become a state.

Allow Gay marriage, and polygamy must also be allowed. There would be no
constitutional grounds for restricting it. So let's use the same
arguments to legitimize IT:

"If two guys and three women want to enter into one 'marriage', what
right does anyone have to tell them that they can't?! They're not
hurting anyone. We should respect their commitment to each other even if
we, ourselves, wouldn't go the same route. No one has the right to
inflict their own morality on someone else!"



>
> Seems fairly simple to me. But then I have gay friends who are perfectly
> nice, kind, caring citizens out to make the world a better place just
> like other folks I respect, and I cannot imagine telling them that they
> can't get married if they so choose.


OK. But guess what? Not everyone agrees with your assessement. So what
happens when your group believes one thing and another group believes
something else on an issue affecting society? A decision must be made on
which side's agenda will become law. That's decided by either the
courts, the ballot box, or the gun.

In this case, the people overrode the acitivties of (some) courts which
were attempting to go too far in legistlating their ultra-Liberal views
on this issue which were unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of
Americans.

That's why John Kerry ultimately lost. That's also why some folks'
attempt to argue against it on the basis of its being 'unfair' or
'discriminatory' holds no real weight.

Discrimination happens every day, from restricting 10 year-olds from
driving, to preventing private citizens from owning Nukes. Only people
who don't understand the law and the constitution believe discrimination
is always unconstitutional.

I face that discrimination every day as a government employee who by law
is prevented from working on political campaigns, as one example. That's
discrimination since YOU can walk precincts for your candidate, and I
can't or I'll lose my job. So I'm prevented from becoming active in
politics when maybe I'd like to be. So I'm discriminated against and
you're not.


Think of some aspect of your
> lifestyle that you take seriously. How'd you like it if the majority of
> citizens in your state decided they didn't like your lifestyle and
> passed a law against it?


The guys from NAMBLA wholeheartedly agree.

Otherwise, yeah, it'd offend me. But that's life. That's how the system
works. Everyone doesn't have "freedom of choice" to do whatever the hell
they want. Society---not the individual--gets to decide what is and IS
NOT acceptable behavior and practice.
  #45  
Old November 12th 04, 12:29 AM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, vince garcia wrote:

> > The question is, why does anyone in this country have the right to
> > "disagree" with, and then legislate against, someone's lifestyle when it
> > doesn't damage their property or personal liberties?


> It's called DEMOCRACY.


No, it's actually called the tyranny of the majority. But why quibble over
nomenclature?

> I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed that
> give people the right to forbid his going into their places of business
> because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being
> discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is!


Do you know the difference between "discrimination" and "invidious
discrimination"? I suspect you do not, or you'd realize why a comparison
to "No shoes, no entry" laws and gay-marriage bans is fatuous at best.

> Allow Gay marriage, and polygamy must also be allowed.


Perhaps, perhaps not. ...So?

> Discrimination happens every day, from restricting 10 year-olds from
> driving, to preventing private citizens from owning Nukes.


See above, and learn what "invidious" means.

> I face that discrimination every day as a government employee who by law
> is prevented from working on political campaigns, as one example.


This also is not invidious.

  #46  
Old November 12th 04, 01:12 AM
vince garcia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, vince garcia wrote:
>
> > > The question is, why does anyone in this country have the right to
> > > "disagree" with, and then legislate against, someone's lifestyle when it
> > > doesn't damage their property or personal liberties?

>
> > It's called DEMOCRACY.

>
> No, it's actually called the tyranny of the majority. But why quibble over
> nomenclature?


So the minority should always have its own way?

Who decides what is moral and what is not moral in the society? A
minority who believes one thing, or a majority who believes another? It
is untenable to declare one position morally superior to another when
the position is at odds with that of the overwhelming majority in
society unless you can show a source from which you derive your beliefs
which is superior to the prevailing moral beliefs of the society as a
whole.


I don't want the minority of the Aryan Nations deciding what is and is
not right for America any more than I want the local Gay & Lesbian
Alliance to. But I do, in general, trust the majority of Americans, who
are the finest people on earth, to articulate the best course for
morality in this country. I haven't agreed with every position our
society has taken, but I can respect 95% of it, and I have been able to
live with all of it.


>
> > I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed that
> > give people the right to forbid his going into their places of business
> > because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being
> > discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is!

>
> Do you know the difference between "discrimination" and "invidious
> discrimination"? I suspect you do not, or you'd realize why a comparison
> to "No shoes, no entry" laws and gay-marriage bans is fatuous at best.


They are both limiting people from doing what they want to because the
society has decided that the majority has the right to have its
sensibilities protected from the minority who want to go their own way,
and to hell with anyone who doesn't like it.


>
> > Allow Gay marriage, and polygamy must also be allowed.

>
> Perhaps, perhaps not. ...So?
>


So our society, as a whole, does not want to become Sodom & Gomorrah in
order for the abberant views of a minority of people to be given legal,
and by implication, moral sanction. You may not like that, but that's
how the system works. I make no apology for it.

I'm offended at the thought of Gay marriage. I'm offended at the thought
of polygamy. And I have the legal right to use the ballot box to impose
my ethics upon you even if you resent it. Even if you're hurt by it. And
even if you feel it is discriminatory or unconstitutional. And vice
versa, by the way.



> > Discrimination happens every day, from restricting 10 year-olds from
> > driving, to preventing private citizens from owning Nukes.

>
> See above, and learn what "invidious" means.
>
> > I face that discrimination every day as a government employee who by law
> > is prevented from working on political campaigns, as one example.

>
> This also is not invidious.


But it IS discrimination* because I am being denied the right to do
something I'd like to do for reasons that don't seem valid to ME.

* I am using the term loosely, just as most everyone who doesn't get
their way tends to use the word.
  #47  
Old November 12th 04, 03:07 AM
Bill Putney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Abeness wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> I wasn't at all comparing helmet laws to homosexual marriage. I was
>> just pointing how how the homosexual crowd is so quick to brand anyone
>> who disagrees with their lifestyle as being hateful. That is simply
>> rubbish and anyone with half a brain knows that. Hate and disagree
>> are worlds apart. I strongly oppose homosexual marriage legalization,
>> but I don't hate homosexuals.

>
>
> The question is, why does anyone in this country have the right to
> "disagree" with, and then legislate against, someone's lifestyle when it
> doesn't damage their property or personal liberties? Live and let live.
> It's fine if you don't want to live like someone else does, you have
> freedom of choice, but why do you feel it necessary to prevent them from
> doing so?
>
> Seems fairly simple to me. But then I have gay friends who are perfectly
> nice, kind, caring citizens out to make the world a better place just
> like other folks I respect, and I cannot imagine telling them that they
> can't get married if they so choose. Think of some aspect of your
> lifestyle that you take seriously. How'd you like it if the majority of
> citizens in your state decided they didn't like your lifestyle and
> passed a law against it?


And to the guy who wants to marry his sister, or his dog, or a tree, or
a rock - what do you tell him? After all - who are you to forbid a
lifestyle to him.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #48  
Old November 12th 04, 03:34 AM
Matt Whiting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, vince garcia wrote:
>
>
>>>The question is, why does anyone in this country have the right to
>>>"disagree" with, and then legislate against, someone's lifestyle when it
>>>doesn't damage their property or personal liberties?

>
>
>>It's called DEMOCRACY.

>
>
> No, it's actually called the tyranny of the majority. But why quibble over
> nomenclature?
>
>
>>I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed that
>>give people the right to forbid his going into their places of business
>>because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being
>>discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is!

>
>
> Do you know the difference between "discrimination" and "invidious
> discrimination"? I suspect you do not, or you'd realize why a comparison
> to "No shoes, no entry" laws and gay-marriage bans is fatuous at best.
>
>
>>Allow Gay marriage, and polygamy must also be allowed.

>
>
> Perhaps, perhaps not. ...So?


How about marrying your dog? Then your dog could get much better health
benefits, Medicare, etc.



>>Discrimination happens every day, from restricting 10 year-olds from
>>driving, to preventing private citizens from owning Nukes.

>
>
> See above, and learn what "invidious" means.
>
>
>>I face that discrimination every day as a government employee who by law
>>is prevented from working on political campaigns, as one example.

>
>
> This also is not invidious.



Neither is restricting legal marriage to a man and a woman.


Matt

  #49  
Old November 12th 04, 05:12 AM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:

> And to the guy who wants to marry his sister, or his dog, or a tree, or
> a rock - what do you tell him?


Ah, Bill's true colors finally show through.

You tell him, Bill, that his dog, his tree or his rock is not sentient and
is therefore unable to give consent, and that family members are
prohibited from intermarrying for medical reasons.

DS
  #50  
Old November 12th 04, 07:39 AM
Abeness
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Very well said. I chalk it all up to sloppy thinking, and there's a
shameful amount of that in the world.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> That's one good question, yes. Another question: What's with this
> "homosexual lifestyle" nonsense? What, heterosexuals have *lives*, but
> homosexuals just have a "lifestyle"? And only just *one* lifestyle, at
> that? All homosexuals' lifestyles are the same? OK, I guess that does make
> it easier, but then the same rules must apply to everyone: There is one
> and only one heterosexual lifestyle. Some heterosexuals abuse drugs, have
> casual and dangerous sex, kill themselves, commit domestic violence,
> molest children, and smoke cigarettes. Therefore, the heterosexual
> lifestyle involves drugs, violent crime, suicide, child molestation and
> cigarette smoking. And these people want to teach our children! They want
> to get married! They want to adopt! This is unacceptable; the heterosexual
> lifestyle is incompatible with a hopeful, decent, moral society.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________==___ utivro Tim Klopfenstein VW air cooled 43 November 30th 04 05:10 AM
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________==___ utivro Napalm Heart Mazda 20 November 30th 04 05:10 AM
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ______ Z28_Sedan Saturn 1 November 15th 04 03:59 AM
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________-+__ isubtob Mark Davisons Simulators 33 November 11th 04 06:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.