|
Post by Hook on Nov 5, 2008 19:41:56 GMT -8
Can they kick him out? Does the party have that kind of power? Or can he declare himself an independent like Lieberman and face no consequences? It's still weird to me that a convicted felon can make laws. That is so backwards.
|
|
cheno
Conductor
Posts: 1,012
|
Post by cheno on Nov 5, 2008 23:48:30 GMT -8
Can they kick him out? Does the party have that kind of power? Or can he declare himself an independent like Lieberman and face no consequences? It's still weird to me that a convicted felon can make laws. That is so backwards. If 67 members of the Senate vote to expel him, he's gone. And with both parties disapproving, that shouldn't be a problem.
|
|
|
Post by Jockolantern on Nov 6, 2008 1:48:05 GMT -8
Definitely a case of voting for the seat and not the Senator. It won't be long before Stevens is rightfully given the boot. It's a shame Pennsylvania didn't kick out their own statewide embarassment, John Murtha.
|
|
cheno
Conductor
Posts: 1,012
|
Post by cheno on Nov 7, 2008 0:22:28 GMT -8
Definitely a case of voting for the seat and not the Senator. It won't be long before Stevens is rightfully given the boot. It's a shame Pennsylvania didn't kick out their own statewide embarassment, John Murtha. Murtha was likely telling the truth...
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Nov 10, 2008 16:34:04 GMT -8
They're out to take over the definition of "marriage" just like they did with the definition of "gay"! Gay means happy; deal with it, you homosexual sinners. Really, WTF? One of the reasons I have to dislike Bill Maher's Religulous is because of Maher's obvious hatred of religion and his assumption that religion makes people stupid and ignorant. I'm willing to bet (and it's a good bet because I can actually prove it) that if you made a film not about religion, but about politics, science, history and whatever else you can come up with, you'll get similar results to Maher's in Religulous: most people know jack shit of what they're talking about. For example, most people have strong convictions on Iran and its nuclear weapons program. Most people also can't point Iran in a map or tell you whether the nuclear bomb works by fission or fusion, or what fusion and fission actually mean. Which brings me to the gay thing: do Americans know what the separation of Church and State means? Do they know the American government can't do anything on how a Church conducts itself? That a state grants rights to a couple and calls them married doesn't mean your Church should or would, or can be forced to recognize it as such. That's the stupidest thing... no, wait, I think I just remembered something stupider: the idea that "gay marriage" will bring about terrible consequences. I actually heard a guy on TV say that "studies show gay couples make terrible parents". Really? You know what else makes terrible parents? Poor people. They have a shit-ton of kids, can't take care of them because they're either working all the time or just won't (and may be felons or criminals) and won't be able to provide for their future. Do you know who else makes for shitty parents? People with personality disorders. Here I can prove it: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16651515?dopt=Abstract Take their right to get married. Another thing I hear, dontcha know, is that if the government grants gay couples the right to get married, then what's next? a. Treating muslims as people? b. give women adequate role models in their pursuit of science and other male-dominated careers? Nope, turns out it's c. people marrying children, their pets, and automobiles! If you believe C, congratulations on never having to work again in your life on account of your totally being a retard.
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Nov 15, 2008 19:19:21 GMT -8
DON'T LOOK AT THIS
SERIOUSLY: DON'TI'll describe it: It's a girl, I don't know her age but she'll be dead soon, who self-mutilates. No, not in the cutesy, "emo" borderline way. Really, really cutting herself. She's slashed her legs, bled (I don't understand how she remains alive) copious amounts of blood into the floor, has had numerous, gross stitches making up what's left of her skin, her wrist cut off (the entire skin, all the layers, all the nerves, what's left is disturbing, brutalized remains of her skin (again, how the hell does she manage not to cut her veins and arteries?). And yet, because I've forbid you to see it, you'd think I'm describing Gary Oldman in Hannibal. No, she remains somewhat normal-looking. From the picture, yeah, "you've seen the type". No, you haven't. I'm not even going to post the link to the really disturbing stuff. I'm asking you if you've seen this and will you weep with me?
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Anderson on Nov 15, 2008 22:44:11 GMT -8
Which brings me to the gay thing: do Americans know what the separation of Church and State means? Do they know the American government can't do anything on how a Church conducts itself? That a state grants rights to a couple and calls them married doesn't mean your Church should or would, or can be forced to recognize it as such. I'm not going to jump into this jumbo-sized squirmy can of worms, but I will just point out that a vote against California's prop 8 doesn't really have anything to do with church/state separation. The U.S. separation of church and state means that the U.S. government will not impose or sponsor a religion. Prop. 8 was a vote on how Californian's citizens wanted to structure their society, not a vote for a belief in a god. The majority of Californians in this case decided that they want a society where marriage defined as between a man and a woman. Individual voter motivations vary, sure, but that's true of a vote on ANY issue having to deal with societal structure. At the end of the day, a proposition was put forth to the public, and the public voted. That's how it works, no? -Brendan
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on Nov 15, 2008 23:01:46 GMT -8
At the end of the day, a proposition was put forth to the public, and the public voted. That's how it works, no? No, Brendan, it's actually rather terrifying, leaving the question of minority rights up to the majority, hence marginalizing minorities and setting a very dangerous precedent. No popular vote should be allowed to deny or restrict the basic rights of a minority group.
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on Nov 16, 2008 0:13:48 GMT -8
Indeed. I wonder what would happen if the majority voted in favor of banning inter-racial marriages, which was a similarly contentious issue in the 1960s.
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on Nov 16, 2008 0:26:23 GMT -8
Indeed. I wonder what would happen if the majority voted in favor of banning inter-racial marriages, which was a similarly contentious issue in the 1960s. Just imagine a similar proposition in pre-civil rights Alabama, intended to protect the tradition of racial segregation. It would have very, very likely passed back then.
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Nov 16, 2008 0:51:12 GMT -8
I'm not going to jump into this jumbo-sized squirmy can of worms, but I will just point out that a vote against California's prop 8 doesn't really have anything to do with church/state separation. The U.S. separation of church and state means that the U.S. government will not impose or sponsor a religion. Prop. 8 was a vote on how Californian's citizens wanted to structure their society, not a vote for a belief in a god. The majority of Californians in this case decided that they want a society where marriage defined as between a man and a woman. Individual voter motivations vary, sure, but that's true of a vote on ANY issue having to deal with societal structure. At the end of the day, a proposition was put forth to the public, and the public voted. That's how it works, no? *cough* www.californiansagainsthate.com/dishonorRoll.html*cough* You often complain about Hollywood types not organizing or giving money or whatever it is instead of going on talk shows and talk stupid about politics. Here's the other side of the coin. These people should not have so much money to impose their will on stupid, stupid issues. Imagine if they gave all this money to research on renewable fuels or disabilities (as Palin would say, fruit flies in France, I kid you not!). They don't. Because they're retarded. That's all there is to it. Money well spent, eh? What I meant by what I said is simple: people act like their own rights are being persecuted and that marriage will be corrupted and redefined... where are they getting all these ideas? Their Church. The disgust they all have against gays. That's it. There is absolutely no compelling reason States shouldn't grant rights so that individuals can marry their own sex. There isn't. And there's no reason people who marry "by the book" should feel threatened by a State law. They do know they're still going to fuck and do every icky thing they can think of? And what about the, over 60 types of transgendered people? Put that to vote, too? Just imagine a similar proposition in pre-civil rights Alabama, intended to protect the tradition of racial segregation. It would have very, very likely passed back then. I don't know if it would pass, but I bet the numbers would be scary even today. What's so funny is we're not talking about special, "gay" rights. It applies to everyone. Happen to be born gay and want to marry accordingly? You're covered. Same deal if you want to drink from a fountain but you're this: Or want to vote, but you're this: Yes, I think all these would not pass if they were put to a vote in "certain areas".
|
|
|
Post by TJ on Nov 19, 2008 15:12:54 GMT -8
Which brings me to the gay thing: do Americans know what the separation of Church and State means? Do they know the American government can't do anything on how a Church conducts itself? That a state grants rights to a couple and calls them married doesn't mean your Church should or would, or can be forced to recognize it as such. I'm not going to jump into this jumbo-sized squirmy can of worms, but I will just point out that a vote against California's prop 8 doesn't really have anything to do with church/state separation. The U.S. separation of church and state means that the U.S. government will not impose or sponsor a religion. Prop. 8 was a vote on how Californian's citizens wanted to structure their society, not a vote for a belief in a god. The majority of Californians in this case decided that they want a society where marriage defined as between a man and a woman. Individual voter motivations vary, sure, but that's true of a vote on ANY issue having to deal with societal structure. At the end of the day, a proposition was put forth to the public, and the public voted. That's how it works, no? -Brendan Changing a state constitution should require far more than 50.1% of the vote, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Anderson on Nov 28, 2008 11:03:23 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by muckle dabuckle on Nov 28, 2008 14:41:54 GMT -8
Not to mention two people were murdered inside of a Toys R' Us too. There is cellphone video of the paramedics trying to revive the Walmart worker while people just continue to step around them and shop. Here is an example of the stupidity: www.liveleak.com/view?i=f59_1227894726The good thing is these assholes are usually only around during the early morning hours and the stores should be safe now. I need groceries. And I think this behavior is a reflection of a huge chunk of the soundtrack collecting "community."
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on Nov 28, 2008 15:15:48 GMT -8
Truly sickening.
|
|