(09-04-2015 03:07 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  I've addressed everything, you've failed to comprehend it. The fault isn't with me.

(09-04-2015 02:35 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 02:34 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:20 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  LOL the guy in this thread who just labelled the majority of all gay people as hateful and intolerant beings is calling other people bigots. Mind blowing the lack of self awareness in that.

They are bigots. So are you, and so am I. Is there a problem? Are you not a bigot? I'm honest enough to admit that I'm one, are you? If we weren't bigots, we wouldn't be political. As far as a lack of self awareness goes, you could use a mirror.

Being a bigot is not a requirement for being political, and I don't even begin to know how you got that impression.

If that was the case, we wouldn't be going back and forth attacking each other's opinions. The last several pages are all you, me, JD, and dcCid going back and forth. I enjoy the discussions but I won't lie, I'm getting tired of all this typing, plus it's almost quitting time.

At least we can all agree that we're excited that it's Friday, right?

(09-04-2015 03:10 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 02:35 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 02:34 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:20 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  LOL the guy in this thread who just labelled the majority of all gay people as hateful and intolerant beings is calling other people bigots. Mind blowing the lack of self awareness in that.

They are bigots. So are you, and so am I. Is there a problem? Are you not a bigot? I'm honest enough to admit that I'm one, are you? If we weren't bigots, we wouldn't be political. As far as a lack of self awareness goes, you could use a mirror.

Being a bigot is not a requirement for being political, and I don't even begin to know how you got that impression.

If that was the case, we wouldn't be going back and forth attacking each other's opinions. The last several pages are all you, me, JD, and dcCid going back and forth. I enjoy the discussions but I won't lie, I'm getting tired of all this typing, plus it's almost quitting time.

At least we can all agree that we're excited that it's Friday, right?

I think you're confused on the definition of the word intolerant. Intolerant doesn't mean I have to agree with you, or can't take issue with the factual basis of your opinions.

(09-04-2015 02:43 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 02:41 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:30 PM)dcCid Wrote:  Thanks for answering. On a couple of conservative boards I read they were saying this in the comments & it was not logical.

1 It is a "marriage license" not a "special privilege marriage licenses".

2 They need to follow current law which may be different than what the laws were when they were sworn in. Laws change all the time & people are not re sworn in every time there is a change.

Tomato, tomahto.

Then why say it at all?

Because a gay man was never banned from getting a marriage license and marrying a gay woman, or straight. There has always been gay marriage, but it would have had to be a unity between a gay man and gay woman. In order to make it two gay men, they had to pass a law to allow a special privilege in order to allow two gay men to get married. It was equal before, now it's a special privilege. That's why.

(09-04-2015 02:59 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:27 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  Ok, off topic question... Why do you keep quoting RWT, Kaplony, and UCF08 in all your posts?

Damn! That is a VERY god question. Even when I hit reply to this, all of the extra was there WITH it being repeated AGAIN! There must be a glitch in my system. I think I just assumed all the extra crap was there from the start.

Thanks for pointing it out. I will try to delete in the future.

No problem, lol...

(09-04-2015 03:14 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 02:43 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 02:41 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:30 PM)dcCid Wrote:  Thanks for answering. On a couple of conservative boards I read they were saying this in the comments & it was not logical.

1 It is a "marriage license" not a "special privilege marriage licenses".

2 They need to follow current law which may be different than what the laws were when they were sworn in. Laws change all the time & people are not re sworn in every time there is a change.

Tomato, tomahto.

Then why say it at all?

Because a gay man was never banned from getting a marriage license and marrying a gay woman, or straight. There has always been gay marriage, but it would have had to be a unity between a gay man and gay woman. In order to make it two gay men, they had to pass a law to allow a special privilege in order to allow two gay men to get married. It was equal before, now it's a special privilege. That's why.

Quoting this so that you can't edit it later. God that's just awful reasoning.

(09-04-2015 03:08 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 02:54 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 02:01 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:47 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 12:42 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Oh really now. Did you actually just post this? The majority of gays are hateful and intolerant...? And you claim to not be a bigot how?

Don't be weird on me. I'm one of the few posters that has stated several times that we're all bigots, including myself.

Anyways, go and tell a gay no and see what kind of response you get as opposed to the response you get for telling a normal guy no. One will call the media and all his pals to come protest, one will walk away and go elsewhere. Yes, most gays are intolerant and hateful. If not, then they're melodramatic drama queens.

Won't issue me a license? Ok, I'll go get the news media.

21 miles west is another clerk of court that can issue a special privilege marriage license. Some came all the way from Ohio to cry about this, surely they could have gone 21 miles west. Too much to ask though I guess. That's a long haul.

Again, it has nothing to do with whether or not they could drive elsewhere to get a license and everything to do with holding the government responsible to uphold the law. It doesn't matter if a law states they only had to wait 5 seconds longer or that their marriage license must be printed in a different font, it is unconstitutional to do so, and any good American would make an issue out of it. Why? Because any infringement upon the rights of any citizen, no matter how small, is an infringement upon the rights of us all.

Are you telling me that you don't understand the concept of going somewhere else instead of being a drama queen and calling up the media for national attention purposes? If they were truly concerned and not seeking attention, this would have been either handled quietly or they would have gone and gotten their piece of paper 21 miles west.

No, the fact they were truly concerned with asserting their constitutionally protected rights is why they refused to go elsewhere. It would be easier for them to go elsewhere and get on with their lives, but that would send the message that they won't stand up for their rights. It would have been easier for the founders of our nation to just pay the taxes, but that would have sent the message that they won't stand up for their rights.

Negative. I disagree that it would send the message that they aren't standing up for their rights. They could have done that without the media attention. When I contested two citations I'd received illegally, I didn't call in the media.

(09-04-2015 03:11 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 03:10 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 02:35 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 02:34 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:20 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  LOL the guy in this thread who just labelled the majority of all gay people as hateful and intolerant beings is calling other people bigots. Mind blowing the lack of self awareness in that.

They are bigots. So are you, and so am I. Is there a problem? Are you not a bigot? I'm honest enough to admit that I'm one, are you? If we weren't bigots, we wouldn't be political. As far as a lack of self awareness goes, you could use a mirror.

Being a bigot is not a requirement for being political, and I don't even begin to know how you got that impression.

If that was the case, we wouldn't be going back and forth attacking each other's opinions. The last several pages are all you, me, JD, and dcCid going back and forth. I enjoy the discussions but I won't lie, I'm getting tired of all this typing, plus it's almost quitting time.

At least we can all agree that we're excited that it's Friday, right?

I think you're confused on the definition of the word intolerant. Intolerant doesn't mean I have to agree with you, or can't take issue with the factual basis of your opinions.

See bold.

(09-04-2015 02:36 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:22 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, it's bigotry when unfairly people characterize groups he identifies with, it's just the truth when people unfairly characterize groups he doesn't like.

No, for the millionth time, it's only bigotry when you're intolerant to those holding different opinions. Try using it according to the definition of the word and not what Mother Jones tells you.

Actually for the first time that I have read, you may have an actual point. The second sentence however takes away from it in my opinion.

(09-04-2015 03:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 03:14 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 02:43 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 02:41 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:30 PM)dcCid Wrote:  Thanks for answering. On a couple of conservative boards I read they were saying this in the comments & it was not logical.

1 It is a "marriage license" not a "special privilege marriage licenses".

2 They need to follow current law which may be different than what the laws were when they were sworn in. Laws change all the time & people are not re sworn in every time there is a change.

Tomato, tomahto.

Then why say it at all?

Because a gay man was never banned from getting a marriage license and marrying a gay woman, or straight. There has always been gay marriage, but it would have had to be a unity between a gay man and gay woman. In order to make it two gay men, they had to pass a law to allow a special privilege in order to allow two gay men to get married. It was equal before, now it's a special privilege. That's why.

Quoting this so that you can't edit it later. God that's just awful reasoning.

What, you don't like my opinion? Special privilege marriage. I won't be editing anything.

(09-04-2015 03:20 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 02:36 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:22 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, it's bigotry when unfairly people characterize groups he identifies with, it's just the truth when people unfairly characterize groups he doesn't like.

No, for the millionth time, it's only bigotry when you're intolerant to those holding different opinions. Try using it according to the definition of the word and not what Mother Jones tells you.

Actually for the first time that I have read, you may have an actual point. The second sentence however takes away from it in my opinion.

Mother Jones is worse than MSNBC and almost as bad as Media Matters. That's not my fault man.

(09-04-2015 02:34 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 02:29 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:10 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:05 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:49 PM)dcCid Wrote:  And that matters because?????

Because she didn't swear under oath to issue special privilege marriage licenses.

Yes she did, she swore to uphold the law. You really look foolish arguing this.

I suppose a police officer can just not enforce any changes in the law if, in the time since they've become an officer, those laws have changed? Your position is downright stupid, wholly unrealistic, and it's clear to anyone even interested in reading your drivel that you have nothing backing up your claims except for the fact you agree with her in principle.

You're a progressive. God knows I would never expect you to understand where I'm coming from. I would expect the same snarky, childish insults that all progressives pull out of their garbage mouths, and that's exactly what I've gotten from you.

Did all the police in Arizona start profiling Mexicans to check for legal status when SB 1070 was passed?

LSU, look at this thread, you've not made a single cogent point, and instead have made bigoted claims, illogical assertions, and still continue to address the point multiple people have raised multiple times. It's not because you're a conservative though, I don't need labels in order to characterize you, it's because you simply don't know how to have a proper argument. You don't know how to respond to peoples claims, and you don't know how to stay on topic.

It's a running theme with a select few posters around here, and you're at the top of the list. So congrats at being the best at something I suppose.

I learned a long time ago when I was in Management to stick with/focus on the issue, not the person.

(09-04-2015 03:22 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 03:20 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 02:36 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:22 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, it's bigotry when unfairly people characterize groups he identifies with, it's just the truth when people unfairly characterize groups he doesn't like.

No, for the millionth time, it's only bigotry when you're intolerant to those holding different opinions. Try using it according to the definition of the word and not what Mother Jones tells you.

Actually for the first time that I have read, you may have an actual point. The second sentence however takes away from it in my opinion.

Mother Jones is worse than MSNBC and almost as bad as Media Matters. That's not my fault man.

Just saying that in my opinion it was irrelevant and potentially turned a logical statement into a talking point.

(09-04-2015 01:05 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:49 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  Of course the Supreme Court dramatically changed the law from when she took that oath.

And that matters because?????

Because she didn't swear under oath to issue special privilege marriage licenses.

She didn't swear under oath to specifically uphold any particular law.... just the law itself. Damn...This woman evidently has no problem with the rest of the fcking statutory nonsense he upholds and signs her name to...Its just this fcking law she has a problem with...a law that allows people to live together and share each other assets without any violation of the principle of non aggression. She is piece of work..this one.

(09-04-2015 01:57 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Okay. So now gays are hateful, intolerant, melodramatic, drama queens.


Keep the hate train rollin' LSU. Really reppin' rural Louisiana well here.

You are right...but...that is irrelevant to this case.

(09-04-2015 02:34 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 02:29 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:10 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:05 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:49 PM)dcCid Wrote:  And that matters because?????

Because she didn't swear under oath to issue special privilege marriage licenses.

Yes she did, she swore to uphold the law. You really look foolish arguing this.

I suppose a police officer can just not enforce any changes in the law if, in the time since they've become an officer, those laws have changed? Your position is downright stupid, wholly unrealistic, and it's clear to anyone even interested in reading your drivel that you have nothing backing up your claims except for the fact you agree with her in principle.

You're a progressive. God knows I would never expect you to understand where I'm coming from. I would expect the same snarky, childish insults that all progressives pull out of their garbage mouths, and that's exactly what I've gotten from you.

Did all the police in Arizona start profiling Mexicans to check for legal status when SB 1070 was passed?

LSU, look at this thread, you've not made a single cogent point, and instead have made bigoted claims, illogical assertions, and still continue to address the point multiple people have raised multiple times. It's not because you're a conservative though, I don't need labels in order to characterize you, it's because you simply don't know how to have a proper argument. You don't know how to respond to peoples claims, and you don't know how to stay on topic.

It's a running theme with a select few posters around here, and you're at the top of the list. So congrats at being the best at something I suppose.

I can't have an argument without being called a bigot.

Thanks for putting me at the top of the list, now we can be face to face.

(09-04-2015 02:41 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:30 PM)dcCid Wrote:  Thanks for answering. On a couple of conservative boards I read they were saying this in the comments & it was not logical.

1 It is a "marriage license" not a "special privilege marriage licenses".

2 They need to follow current law which may be different than what the laws were when they were sworn in. Laws change all the time & people are not re sworn in every time there is a change.

Tomato, tomahto.

If you consider them the same then there was no change in the law.

(09-04-2015 03:34 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:05 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:49 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  Of course the Supreme Court dramatically changed the law from when she took that oath.

And that matters because?????

Because she didn't swear under oath to issue special privilege marriage licenses.

She didn't swear under oath to specifically uphold any particular law.... just the law itself. Damn...This woman evidently has no problem with the rest of the fcking statutory nonsense he upholds and signs her name to...Its just this fcking law she has a problem with...a law that allows people to live together and share each other assets without any violation of the principle of non aggression. She is piece of work..this one.

I don't really care what happens to this democrat. My argument, concerning her actions, are if it's bad and worthy of jail time for her, what about the others that get away with it. That's my real concern.

As far as her religion goes, she almost reminds me of those crazy types like the chick from The Mist. Ironically, we're all looking for equality, it just so happens to be on different things.

(09-04-2015 03:43 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 02:41 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:30 PM)dcCid Wrote:  Thanks for answering. On a couple of conservative boards I read they were saying this in the comments & it was not logical.

1 It is a "marriage license" not a "special privilege marriage licenses".

2 They need to follow current law which may be different than what the laws were when they were sworn in. Laws change all the time & people are not re sworn in every time there is a change.

Tomato, tomahto.

If you consider them the same then there was no change in the law.

Gay marriage / special privilege marriage.

(09-04-2015 03:44 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 03:34 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:05 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:49 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  Of course the Supreme Court dramatically changed the law from when she took that oath.

And that matters because?????

Because she didn't swear under oath to issue special privilege marriage licenses.

She didn't swear under oath to specifically uphold any particular law.... just the law itself. Damn...This woman evidently has no problem with the rest of the fcking statutory nonsense he upholds and signs her name to...Its just this fcking law she has a problem with...a law that allows people to live together and share each other assets without any violation of the principle of non aggression. She is piece of work..this one.

I don't really care what happens to this democrat. My argument, concerning her actions, are if it's bad and worthy of jail time for her, what about the others that get away with it. That's my real concern.

As far as her religion goes, she almost reminds me of those crazy types like the chick from The Mist. Ironically, we're all looking for equality, it just so happens to be on different things.

I also see the double standard. Unfortunately...She failed to do as my dad always told me..."Pick your battles carefully and be prepared for the consequences when you decide to fight."