Longhornmaniac
Posts: 3126
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:33 pm

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sat Jun 26, 2010 3:23 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 47):
dance naked around bonfires

I didn't know you were an Aggie!  

Cheers,
Cameron
Cheers,
Cameron
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10202
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sat Jun 26, 2010 3:38 am

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 50):
I didn't know you were an Aggie!

I'm insulted! I'm a Longhorn, class of '86.
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
Longhornmaniac
Posts: 3126
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:33 pm

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sat Jun 26, 2010 3:51 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 51):

I'm insulted! I'm a Longhorn, class of '86.

Good for you! Then you can definitely appreciate the joke!  

Cheers,
Cameron
Cheers,
Cameron
 
us330
Posts: 3506
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2000 7:00 am

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sat Jun 26, 2010 4:09 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 29):
Texas is doing OK right now, but was part of Oil Patch that was really suffering in the mid-80s when Reagan flew the economy at the expense of the oil companies. Major unemployment, mortgage crisis & home values diving. The rest of the country enjoyed good times at the expense of Oil Patch.

Basically the oil industry would have severe problems again if OPEC decided to drive the prices down for 18 to 24 months.

And Texans (as well as others in Oil Patch) are living in glass houses because of that.

True, but Texas has diversified since then--Houston may still be largely reliant on oil companies, but Dallas has greatly diversified in recent years in terms of attracting a whole bunch of different companies to relocate.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 42):
That's a pretty good indication of intellect as Rice isn't a local JC

Rice is a very good school--the problem is that it is comparatively isolated from other "very good schools"--it would probably get a ton more press and recognition if it were located on the west coast, eastern seaboard north of atlanta, or near chicago.

It does tend to be stronger in the maths and sciences, though--maybe this is selection bias, as the only kids I knew from my private school in Dallas who went to rice were all math and science types.

The nearest schools that it is in the same league as, academically, are Wash U in St Louis, Vanderbilt, and Emory, and is just a notch below Duke.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10202
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sat Jun 26, 2010 4:12 am

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 52):
Good for you! Then you can definitely appreciate the joke!

Yeah, ltbewr seems to think we're all Aggies...

Haven't been back in Austin in 20 years. Is Antone's still the greatest place ever?
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
BAKJet
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:58 pm

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sat Jun 26, 2010 4:14 am

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 25):
Then produce,not to me,but to the american public,you're claim, a valid,unbaised reseach of the scientific evidence.

Otherwise,the that old zombie theory still stands.

Take it to the public.Because you're case needs a lot of people to get convinced.

The people you're talking about are probably the same people whose children commit suicice when [their children] realize they are gay.

I know a lot of gay/lesbian people and I can tell you that it is definitely not a "lifestyle choice". Because of their sexuality, my friends have been the victims of repeated hate crimes, have been "thrown out" of their familes and have had various other bad things happen to them. Why on earth would anyone choose that?!

Quoting Crosscheck007 (Reply 32):
I've lived most my life in red states, a few years in a particularly backwards region. Doesn't mean they were willing to outlaw human beings for being who they were!
Quoting Crosscheck007 (Reply 39):

I should have been more specific. My red states did not.

Mine either, well I've only lived in one red state (Indiana-where I live right now) and sure most of the people here don't want same-sex couples to be allowed to marry (though I do), but the ones I have met are perfectly all-right with same-sex couples living with eachother, having/adopting childre....etc.
 
Longhornmaniac
Posts: 3126
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:33 pm

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sat Jun 26, 2010 4:38 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 54):
Is Antone's still the greatest place ever?

Yeah, but he died a couple years ago, don't know if you saw that or not. Sad day in Austin, for sure.

What's keeping you from coming back? You'd be absolutely blown away.

Cheers,
Cameron
Cheers,
Cameron
 
Crosscheck007
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:25 pm

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sat Jun 26, 2010 6:00 am

Quoting n229nw (Reply 45):

Or Poland for that matter (Most Polish parties both left and right have platforms similar to the Texas GOP's on this issue...though again I would guess it will change in a generation...)

Oh yes, I am painfully aware of this. There are many backwards positions on homosexuality in Poland, however the restrictions faced by homosexuals in Poland are far fewer than those in the United States.


   Homosexuality was decriminalized in 1932, far before any states in the U.S.
   Gays are allowed to serve in the military
   Homosexual men can donate blood

The late President Lech Kaczynski and former Mayor of Warsaw once said, "I respect your right to demonstrate as citizens. But not as homosexuals.” and he banned pride parades in 2004 and 2005.

While attitudes (heavily influence by the Catholic church in Poland) can be fairly hostile against homosexuals, the coming out of celebrities such as Jacek Poniedziałek, Michał Piróg, and Tomasz Raczek have helped to acclimate the general public to homosexuality.

Poland is certainly not the worst nation in the world for LGBT, better in some respects than the U.S. and worse in others than the U.S. It is all how you look at it.

Cheers,

007
Je l'attends pas un homme. J'apporte le parti, j'apporte le feu d'artifice.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Topic Author
Posts: 21603
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sat Jun 26, 2010 8:44 am

Quoting Crosscheck007 (Reply 2):
I really hope these people do not wield any serious power in that state! Yikes...

It's the Texas GOP. Um... yeah. That's some serious power.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 6):
Gay marriage for instance should not be taught to kids as being perfectly normal - that's a values call that should be taught by parents, and should not even be discussed in school, IMHO. It's indoctrination.

What about interracial marriage?

Shouldn't children be taught that they are free to do anything between consenting adults that doesn't hurt anyone? I thought that's what freedom was. If I want to be in a polyamorous open relationship, that's not your beeswax.

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 25):

Then produce,not to me,but to the american public,you're claim, a valid,unbaised reseach of the scientific evidence.

I don't need to. I'm gay. I'm an Eagle Scout and a physician. On every oath I have taken, I swear that I did not choose to be gay and that I would not have chosen to be gay. If you ever meet in person, will you call me a liar to my face?

But I will point out that religion is most certainly a choice.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10202
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sat Jun 26, 2010 12:50 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 58):

What about interracial marriage?

Since I'm in one myself, I don't expect I'd have a problem with that.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 58):

Shouldn't children be taught that they are free to do anything between consenting adults that doesn't hurt anyone? I thought that's what freedom was. If I want to be in a polyamorous open relationship, that's not your beeswax.

I agree totally. And I won't bother you about it. Just don't go around asking me to approve of it by demanding the definition of marriage be changed accordingly, that adoption laws should be changed accordingly etc. There is a big difference between live-and-let-live and asking me to be an accomplice.

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 56):
Yeah, but he died a couple years ago, don't know if you saw that or not. Sad day in Austin, for sure.

What's keeping you from coming back? You'd be absolutely blown away.

Damn, Clifford Antone wasn't even that old. Hope his place is in good hands. It was up on the North Drag when I was there, but I know it's moved since then.
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
Continental
Posts: 5223
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 3:46 am

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sat Jun 26, 2010 1:26 pm

#@%! this these guys are nuts. Canada, here I come!
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 7683
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sat Jun 26, 2010 1:59 pm

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 48):
That is also a form of free speech.

Not when it interferes with someone's right and is being done in a public place. If it's in your house, you're more than free to kick the person out. If it's at a local park or street, the person has as much right to be there as you. Since burning the flag is a form of expression, the person is free to do it.

Quoting n229nw (Reply 45):
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 43):
Ask Iran, Israel and any other place where religion and the state are the same thing...

Well, big difference on this issue. Israeli culture is overall pretty gay-friendly. Iranian is...erm...not so much.

I didn't mean the gay issues. I meant how these states are religious ones, involving religion into their citizens' lives (and what does religion teach us?) and yet they serve the military and go against the very thing they're taught. Quite a contradiction there.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 21020
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sat Jun 26, 2010 3:17 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 58):
Shouldn't children be taught that they are free to do anything between consenting adults that doesn't hurt anyone?

Including a legally binding contract between two consenting adults, which is what the basic definition of "marriage" is by the state. Dreadnought, please explain the difference between what the church defines as marriage and what the state defines as marriage? The only difference I can see is the church includes God in the contract. So, then, why should the state limit what kind of legal contract two consenting adults could/should enter into?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
Ken777
Posts: 9961
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sat Jun 26, 2010 3:47 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 59):
There is a big difference between live-and-let-live and asking me to be an accomplice.

Probably the flip side of the coin, but living & letting live might actually mean giving others the same benefits you enjoy as a spouse. Taxes (wouldn't gay marriages result in increases in taxes?), survivor rights, workplace benefits, the authority and rights of a spouse when the other is in a severe medical situation. Why should guts married to gals be against someone enjoying all the pleasures of marriage that we have?

And some people hold onto the word "marriage" like it was the most holy thing in the world. Over half of the marriages in this country end in divorce. That is sufficient for us to bring the term "marriage" to a civil relationship under the law, leaving the various religious beliefs alone. We've greatly simplified divorce, now lets simplify marriage.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10202
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sat Jun 26, 2010 4:39 pm

Quoting seb146 (Reply 62):
Including a legally binding contract between two consenting adults, which is what the basic definition of "marriage" is by the state. Dreadnought, please explain the difference between what the church defines as marriage and what the state defines as marriage? The only difference I can see is the church includes God in the contract. So, then, why should the state limit what kind of legal contract two consenting adults could/should enter into?

It's not the church or the state, but society, of which those two are a reflection. In our (western) society, marriage has been 1 man and 1 woman for millennia.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 63):

Probably the flip side of the coin, but living & letting live might actually mean giving others the same benefits you enjoy as a spouse. Taxes (wouldn't gay marriages result in increases in taxes?), survivor rights, workplace benefits, the authority and rights of a spouse when the other is in a severe medical situation. Why should guts married to gals be against someone enjoying all the pleasures of marriage that we have?

They do have the same rights as I do. They have the right to marry. Just not someone of the same sex.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 63):

And some people hold onto the word "marriage" like it was the most holy thing in the world. Over half of the marriages in this country end in divorce. That is sufficient for us to bring the term "marriage" to a civil relationship under the law, leaving the various religious beliefs alone. We've greatly simplified divorce, now lets simplify marriage.

We've greatly simplified divorce, and that is part of the reason of many of our problems. No-fault divorce was a terrible mistake.
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sat Jun 26, 2010 4:51 pm

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 46):
The basic premise of too many Republicans is simple: Reduce taxes to nothing. Reduce regulation of businss and property use to near zero. Round up the illegals and send them home (except those picking fruit, butchering meet, working in resturant kitchens for slave wages). Then give the poor nothing and the military everything, including unnessary high-tech equipment.



So are you saying there is something wrong with this philosophy?

By the way "Check Spelling" is working!!!!
 
GST
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:27 am

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sat Jun 26, 2010 5:41 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 6):
Gay marriage for instance should not be taught to kids as being perfectly normal

I strongly disagree.

Quoting mbmbos (Reply 8):
I wonder how you feel about teaching gay marriage as being neutral? Such as acknowledging that some kids who attend school have two fathers or two mothers and shouldn't be persecuted because of it. Or do you believe that gay marriage is something that schools dare not mention?

Closer, but I would expand on that. How about teaching kids that people can only live with the cards that they are given, and that it is perfectly fine for a man to love another man, a woman to love another woman, or for either to love both. When marriage comes up, define it as a partnership between two people, regardless of gender, with same sex marriages being perfectly normal and acceptable, as thankfully it is becoming more and more.

Quoting LH459 (Reply 27):
The perception of homosexuals in society is, in my experience, largely a generational issue. I challenge you to find a majority of 20 and 30 somethings in the USA who believe that being gay is a choice.

I would put that down to education rather than generations. Even with political opposition educated views have shifted to reflect scientific consensus, and the facts of both viewpoints generally laid out to kids, who usually side with the most compelling evidence.

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 37):

I'm all for the abolition of marriage as a legal term. Let religion have marriage, and do with it as they please. But there is no logical reason that can be presented to deny homosexuals basic rights in a civil sense.

Which is why I am ecstatic that we in the UK have civil partnerships, and that it is on the rise in the US and elsewhere. As the church is accepting more and more clergy, I would love to see a day when gay couples can get a religious marriage, as there are a great many god fearing (members of all religions) homosexuals, why should they denied their loving relationship being recognised under their god?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 58):

Shouldn't children be taught that they are free to do anything between consenting adults that doesn't hurt anyone? I thought that's what freedom was. If I want to be in a polyamorous open relationship, that's not your beeswax.

Yes, they should.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 64):

It's not the church or the state, but society, of which those two are a reflection. In our (western) society, marriage has been 1 man and 1 woman for millennia.

...And that has basically been based on prejudices of the time, I see no reason why the rules cannot be changed to represent the facts and current opinion (whichever side of the divide that opinion lies)

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 64):
They do have the same rights as I do. They have the right to marry. Just not someone of the same sex.

So in other words, they do not have the same rights you do, namely the right to marry the person they love.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 58):
But I will point out that religion is most certainly a choice.

I would argue on the contrary. I agree religion SHOULD be a choice, but the fact is the chances of you belonging to one religion or another or none is pretty much dependent on the society or even geographical location you grew up in.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 17):
Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
How the hell does that square? I'm against flag desecration as the next guy, but banning it? What is this? The USSR?

No far from it but you really should think about the doing anything negative to our symbol. Why do you sympathize with someone destroying our flag? If someone did something negative in my presence I tell you a law would be their least problem.
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 43):
How does the burning of the flag affect you? It's a right I have under the Constitution. Is it not patriotic? No it isn't. Is it a form of speech? The government recognizes it, so yes.

I was under the impression that flag burning was considered the most honourable method of "purifying" the flag after it has touched the ground or otherwise been sullied. Hence the boy scouts of America being the most prolific stars and striped burners in the world, as they tend to go camping with their flag, and accidents happen. How would you distinguish between desecration and purification in a legal sense? If the flag has touched the dirt is it okay to burn it, but otherwise not? Whats to stop the angry mob dragging the flag on the ground and stamping on it before burning it (as they often do)?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 47):

You forgot that we also like to beat our children with bats, rape nuns and dance naked around bonfires.

Funniest comeback I've seen in a long while, kudos!  
 
Ken777
Posts: 9961
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sat Jun 26, 2010 6:26 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 64):
They do have the same rights as I do. They have the right to marry. Just not someone of the same sex.

And that might be one of the reasons why we have such a high divorce rate.   

Maybe it would be best to make marriage illegal until the age of, say, 23. Might reduce some of the "lust matches". At that point the average level of maturity would (hopefully) be increased to the point where

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 64):
No-fault divorce was a terrible mistake.

Why? We've had no-fault marriages for centuries.
 
ATCtower
Posts: 492
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:46 am

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sat Jun 26, 2010 6:29 pm

Quoting Crosscheck007 (Reply 57):
Homosexual men can donate blood

Gays most certainly can NOT donate blood in 48 states. Lesbians can but gay men can not.

This is ONE instance where I could not agree more wholeheartedly with a right one has that another may not. As an avid blood doner, and litigator in cases involving the gay mans right to donate blood, this is very unlikely to ever be overturned.

Prohibiting gay men from donating blood is not a prejucicial decision, but one the blood centers have vigorously fought for and has its place.
By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Topic Author
Posts: 21603
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sat Jun 26, 2010 6:49 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 59):

I agree totally. And I won't bother you about it. Just don't go around asking me to approve of it by demanding the definition of marriage be changed accordingly, that adoption laws should be changed accordingly etc. There is a big difference between live-and-let-live and asking me to be an accomplice.

Once upon a time, your children would have been removed from your custody because you were in an interracial relationship. You would not be permitted to marry.

YOU don't have to change your definition of marriage. The government needs to recognize that either there needs to be a Constitutional amendment rescinding the pesky "Equal Protection" clause or that the schizophrenic rules need to stop.

Are you seriously OK with the idea that certain families could not freely travel to other states for fear of having their children removed upon arrival? Is that your view of the United States?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 21020
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:14 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 64):
They do have the same rights as I do. They have the right to marry. Just not someone of the same sex.

Right. You choose to marry a woman. Making the state give two consenting adults the ability to enter into a partnership would give people the choice whether they want to enter that partnership with a man or a woman. It is the church that says that partnership is called "marriage" and that can only exist between a man and a woman. It would be optional. Not manditory.

How about this, then: If the state can say who can join in a legally binding partnership, they can also say no one can exit said partnership except in death.

What I would find interesting about this whole TX GOP thing is: How many "straight" men (partnered with women and have children) actually go pick up other men. You know: The whole "adopt a wide stance and tap my feet" thing? I would bet a few of them who support this kind of talk do that. More than anyone knows probably!
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
N1120A
Posts: 26509
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:32 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 42):

Wait a while and the white red neck will be a thing of the past.

They have been saying that for years.

Quoting Crosscheck007 (Reply 41):

Arizona (I would not have been old enough to be having sex when these laws were in place) and Tennessee.

2001 and 1996 are still very recent.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 59):

Since I'm in one myself, I don't expect I'd have a problem with that.

So stop being a hypocrite.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 64):

We've greatly simplified divorce, and that is part of the reason of many of our problems. No-fault divorce was a terrible mistake.

No it wasn't. Before "no-fault" divorce, people would just go to court and make up "reasons" for their divorce. The divorce decree would still come down and it would be done. Why have a system that openly suborns perjury?
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15484
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:06 am

Basically what I'm hearing is, "I don't agree with what you believe in, so therefore you're a horrible person."

Problem is, it's coming from both the Texas GOP....AND from Doc Lightning.

Doc, if you practice what you preach, shouldn't you simply be saying you wholeheartedly disagree with the views espoused by the Texas GOP instead of resorting to name-calling? Otherwise aren't you sinking to their level?
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10202
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:08 am

Quoting seb146 (Reply 70):
How about this, then: If the state can say who can join in a legally binding partnership, they can also say no one can exit said partnership except in death.

Civil Unions or Partnerships, as you call them are something else. I have no problem with them at all. Just don't call it marriage.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 71):
So stop being a hypocrite.

I have not expressed any views against interracial marriage, which by the way has nothing to do with the subject at hand. I want a retraction on that.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 71):
No it wasn't. Before "no-fault" divorce, people would just go to court and make up "reasons" for their divorce. The divorce decree would still come down and it would be done. Why have a system that openly suborns perjury?

And perjury laws should be enforced to their fullest in such cases.

The issue is that people get divorced just because they get bored with each other. I say that if you've made the commitment, work at it. My marriage has not always been roses and sweets, and we've thought about divorce. But then we think about the promises we made and resolve to keep working on it - and we have. I have no doubts that we will indeed make it all the way. Society at large and especially the children will be better off if we take marriage as seriously as we used to 100 years ago.
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
Crosscheck007
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:25 pm

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:40 am

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 68):
Gays most certainly can NOT donate blood in 48 states. Lesbians can but gay men can not.

This is ONE instance where I could not agree more wholeheartedly with a right one has that another may not. As an avid blood doner, and litigator in cases involving the gay mans right to donate blood, this is very unlikely to ever be overturned.

Prohibiting gay men from donating blood is not a prejucicial decision, but one the blood centers have vigorously fought for and has its place.

LOL, did you even read my post? I was talking about POLAND...  
Quoting N1120A (Reply 71):
2001 and 1996 are still very recent.

I was 12 in 2001... sex at that time was not really relevant....

Cheers,

007
Je l'attends pas un homme. J'apporte le parti, j'apporte le feu d'artifice.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:29 pm

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 17):
Don't worry CA is going to legalize Marijuana and that will solve all it's problems with the increased tax revenue!

Look at it this way. It's stripping the government of it's right to incarcerate people for a plant the grows naturally.
No one is saying that legalizing marijuana will solve "all" of California's problems. It's simply an individual rights issue.
Also we wont have people going to jail with harden criminals simply because of possession or means to earn income.
The moral police in Texas should all go jump and take a swim in the BP oil spill.
Bring back the Concorde
 
Zentraedi
Posts: 617
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:30 pm

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:03 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 73):

Civil Unions or Partnerships, as you call them are something else. I have no problem with them at all. Just don't call it marriage.

Why not? Why should everyone else have to subscribe to your narrow definition of "marriage"?

For some, only ceremonies sanctioned by their specific church are "marriage"? What makes their definition any more valid than your own?
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 21020
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:40 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 73):
Civil Unions or Partnerships, as you call them are something else. I have no problem with them at all. Just don't call it marriage.

Exactly. Let churches have the word "marriage" and let the state and legal system stop going into everyone's bedrooms and allow two consenting adults enter into a legally binding partnership. Isn't that what marriage is from the view of the state? I am all for the states to stop calling it "marriage" because I believe that word is a religous term. If it is, and we have separation of church and state, we need to call it something else and let ALL consenting adults who choose to, enter into a legal union.

Either that or ban "marriage" altogether so heterosexuals have to see what we gays go through every day with state-sanctioned segrigation. I know that is a really harsh term, but there are plenty of examples of long-term partners that have zero rights as a partner because we work and can not afford lawyers or someone who does not know anything about either person can just step in and say "I'm taking over" and all that expensive law work goes out the window.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
Zentraedi
Posts: 617
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:30 pm

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:02 pm

Quoting seb146 (Reply 77):
I am all for the states to stop calling it "marriage" because I believe that word is a religous term.

So you don't believe 2 atheists can be "married"?  

Also, to which religion do you believe it "belongs"?
 
NIKV69
Posts: 12808
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:39 pm

Quoting Superfly (Reply 75):
Look at it this way. It's stripping the government of it's right to incarcerate people for a plant the grows naturally.
No one is saying that legalizing marijuana will solve "all" of California's problems. It's simply an individual rights issue.
Also we wont have people going to jail with harden criminals simply because of possession or means to earn income.
The moral police in Texas should all go jump and take a swim in the BP oil spill.

I hear you Larry I for one think all drugs should be legal and taxed, I mean we spend God knows how much money and never stop people from using it or importing it. I was just making a joke on how bad CA is governed.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 77):
Exactly. Let churches have the word "marriage" and let the state and legal system stop going into everyone's bedrooms and allow two consenting adults enter into a legally binding partnership. Isn't that what marriage is from the view of the state?

Never happen. Marriage is governed by state law and will remain as such.
Nikon from day one, Nikon till I die.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 21020
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:23 pm

Quoting Zentraedi (Reply 78):
So you don't believe 2 atheists can be "married"?

They can be partnered. Anyone can. Married, I believe (my opinion) is a religous word.

Quoting Zentraedi (Reply 78):
Also, to which religion do you believe it "belongs"?

No religion in particular, just that I am of the opinion "marriage" is a religious word.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 79):
Never happen. Marriage is governed by state law and will remain as such.

I know. I just think we need to separate the word "marriage" from the actual legal statute the state endorses. I believe Switzerland does this.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10202
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:39 pm

Quoting seb146 (Reply 77):
Exactly. Let churches have the word "marriage" and let the state and legal system stop going into everyone's bedrooms and allow two consenting adults enter into a legally binding partnership. Isn't that what marriage is from the view of the state? I am all for the states to stop calling it "marriage" because I believe that word is a religous term. If it is, and we have separation of church and state, we need to call it something else and let ALL consenting adults who choose to, enter into a legal union.

I've advocated that for years. I was married in Switzerland, and I had a civil ceremony at the town hall - the civil union if you will, and then 2 days later we had a church wedding. The two are not combined like they are in the US. The civil union is the important one in the eyes of the official system, taxes etc. The church wedding is your choice - you don't have to do it if you are atheist. I think that is a good system.
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:42 pm

Quoting Superfly (Reply 4):
Give Texas back to Mexico.

??? Texas won it's independence on its own from Mexico in 1836. If anything you would have to allow us to become a Republic again. There is a reason it's called the "lone star state".

Quoting mham001 (Reply 11):
In fact, some parts are thriving and growing, I've been looking that direction myself.

My wife and I have noticed a bunch of out of State plates, especially from up in Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania lately in the area. The house across the street was bought by some nice folks from norhern Ohio. Gotta go where the money is.

I suppose I could go through the California DNC platform and find some interesting tidbits but why waste the time on things that won't ever see the light of day much less a vote in a legislature? Besides, no need to go any farther than folks like the Speaker of the House and Rep. Maxine Waters. That's just the start.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
Zentraedi
Posts: 617
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:30 pm

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 pm

Quoting seb146 (Reply 80):
Married, I believe (my opinion) is a religous word.

Now what exactly is it that makes all marriages fall with in the domain of religion? What particular aspect of marriages requires religion??

If you have a nation of atheists, or people who have never known "religion", yet they have always had binding partnerships for the purpose of raising families, you still wouldn't call those marriages???
 
jpetekyxmd80
Posts: 4306
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:16 am

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sun Jun 27, 2010 11:10 pm

Quoting dxing (Reply 82):
I suppose I could go through the California DNC platform and find some interesting tidbits but why waste the time on things that won't ever see the light of day much less a vote in a legislature? Besides, no need to go any farther than folks like the Speaker of the House and Rep. Maxine Waters. That's just the start.

Deflection... seems like you don't have much of a problem with this platform..
The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sun Jun 27, 2010 11:44 pm

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 84):
Deflection... seems like you don't have much of a problem with this platform..

No one who is not a fundamentalist Christian would agree with agree with the second part. As to the first part, many people of all stripes believe the Flag stands for something and it is wrong to desecrate it in any form or fashion. Correspondingly I'm sure I could probably waste my time going through the California DNC platform and find something things that would be equally reprehensible. But since the Texas GOP platform is made up of much much more than these two tidbits that are just simple flamebait for Doc, who doesn't even live in the State, I won't bother. If you want to think of it as deflection by all means do so, it shows that you are only willing to look at one side of any issue.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Sun Jun 27, 2010 11:44 pm

Quoting seb146 (Reply 80):
They can be partnered. Anyone can. Married, I believe (my opinion) is a religous word.

I agree. Without the extra religious aspect of marriage, what would make it any different than two birds building a nest in a tree?
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
Zentraedi
Posts: 617
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:30 pm

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:18 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
Without the extra religious aspect of marriage, what would make it any different than two birds building a nest in a tree?

So what exactly is this religious aspect? People keep saying it's tied to religion, but what exactly is the role that religion plays in a marriage that separates it from "two birds building a nest in a tree"?

Also, do you oppose the term "civil marriage ceremony"? Do you personally not recognize the "marriages" of atheists or agnostics?
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 7683
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:43 am

I love how when I find my future wife I'll be civil-unionized with her...hm..now that doesn't sound right, does it? Let's try it again...I love how when I find my future wife I'll be partnered with her...close but not right. One last time: I love how when I find my future wife I'll be married to her...hey, it worked.

I'm agnostic and I approve this post.   
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13231
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Mon Jun 28, 2010 1:51 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 51):
I'm insulted! I'm a Longhorn, class of '86.

Hmm, your bio says age 76 plus. Now if you graduated from college in "86" which is 24 years ago, you graduated from college at the minimum age of 52. I am impressed.  
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
Zentraedi
Posts: 617
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:30 pm

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Mon Jun 28, 2010 3:04 am

I have a another question for those stating that "Marriage is a religious institution". Well, what prevents the existence of a religion that accepts gay marriage? Is that religion not a valid religion? By what standards could an objective 3rd party differentiate a valid religion from invalid?

For those stating something like this:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 59):
I agree totally. And I won't bother you about it. Just don't go around asking me to approve of it by demanding the definition of marriage be changed accordingly, that adoption laws should be changed accordingly etc. There is a big difference between live-and-let-live and asking me to be an accomplice.

OK, so that's your standard. But wait, why should someone who doesn't recognize inter-racial or inter-faith, etc type marriages to forced to approve of said marriages?

Also, let's be honest, " the definition of marriage" is actually your personal definition, just as "intra-faith only"/"intra-race only" might be for another person. If you are going to say "the definition" rather than "my definition", then you have to put for justification for why yours is the authoritative version.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:52 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 82):
Texas won it's independence on its own from Mexico in 1836. If anything you would have to allow us to become a Republic again. There is a reason it's called the "lone star state".

Mexico is getting Texas back slowly but surely.  
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 79):
I hear you Larry I for one think all drugs should be legal and taxed, I mean we spend God knows how much money and never stop people from using it or importing it. I was just making a joke on how bad CA is governed.

No argument from me.
California is ran by idiots. There is no common sense on either side of the aisle. However, many states are headed in the same direction as California.
Bring back the Concorde
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Topic Author
Posts: 21603
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Mon Jun 28, 2010 2:41 pm

Quoting dxing (Reply 85):
Correspondingly I'm sure I could probably waste my time going through the California DNC platform and find something things that would be equally reprehensible.

Not reprehensible, but contrary to the Bill of Rights.

The very point of the First Amendment is that my speech might offend you and strike you as deeply wrong but I have the right to say it.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
BAKJet
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:58 pm

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Mon Jun 28, 2010 4:26 pm

Quoting Zentraedi (Reply 90):
I have a another question for those stating that "Marriage is a religious institution". Well, what prevents the existence of a religion that accepts gay marriage? Is that religion not a valid religion? By what standards could an objective 3rd party differentiate a valid religion from invalid?

There actually is, Unitarian Universalism. It's definitely not your "typical" religion, but I'm a member of the UU church in my town and I can tell you that it definitely is a relgion nonetheless. You can find more more info at http://www.uua.org/ .
 
tbar220
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 12:08 pm

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Tue Jun 29, 2010 1:23 am

I'm a little late to this conversation, but there are two things that stick out to me.

(1) IF homosexuality were a choice, why is it a wrong choice? And even if you believe it is a wrong choice, does the government have any right to make it illegal? The reason I say that is because homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone, not even the individual. Gay and lesbian marriages don't hurt anyone, not even those getting married.

I look at it this way because people can make choices that I feel like the government can and should criminalize. Take theft and murder for example. These are choices that people make that do harm others and should absolutely be criminal. But under no circumstances should homosexuality or gay marriage be illegal. It goes against our very foundation as written in the Declaration of Independence for one, but also in the Constitution.

Which leads to my second point...

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 34):
Gay marriage is a touchy subject-let the states decide.

I would disagree with this because the states don't have the right to make gay marriage illegal or to criminalize homosexuality. The Federal Constitution states the following in the fourteenth amendment.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourtee..._to_the_United_States_Constitution

As I understand this (and I'm sure there's been countless rulings made on this, but I'm not a legal scholar), this says that states do not have the right to take away an individuals rights. So the equal protection of the laws apply to ALL citizens of this nation regardless of such things as race, religion, and sexuality.

Now if religion is a choice, and you do truly believe that sexuality is a choice, would you approve of specific limitations of the rights of the religious? Say I come from a belief that Judaism is wrong, and that it is a choice to be Jewish, can I go ahead and limit their rights like is being done with homosexuals?

Finally, the protections granted by the fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution are some of the most important in the land. It is something we fought a civil war over where thousands upon thousands died. After the war was over, the southern states tried to pass laws limiting the rights of blacks. Even before the Civil War, the supreme court ruled in the Dred Scott decision that slaves and descendants of slaves couldn't be protected by the constitution or ever be citizens. That is outrageous and shows how necessary the fourteenth amendment is.
NO URLS in signature
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Tue Jun 29, 2010 12:47 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 92):
Not reprehensible, but contrary to the Bill of Rights.

How is having that language in a State platform, in a State you don't even live in, a violation of the Bill of Rights?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 92):
The very point of the First Amendment is that my speech might offend you and strike you as deeply wrong but I have the right to say it.

And that works both ways. Obviously you are upset at the words in a small section of the platform. My point is that I'm sure I could go to the CA DNC platform and find language that I would find reprehensible and wrong. Just because it is there does not mean that it is going to receive any action same as I don't expect either of these issues to be high on the priority list of GOP things to do in Texas. You tossed them out either to gin up a flame fest, or because as you argue against, you think their first amendment rights should be muzzled. Which is it?

Quoting tbar220 (Reply 94):
So the equal protection of the laws apply to ALL citizens of this nation regardless of such things as race, religion, and sexuality.

Therin lies the rub for within that very Constitution is the tenth amendment that says:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

and in which the Constitution is silent on who can marry and who cannot. It is left then to the States to decide according to the Constitution.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
Ken777
Posts: 9961
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Tue Jun 29, 2010 2:19 pm

Quoting seb146 (Reply 77):
Exactly. Let churches have the word "marriage" and let the state and legal system stop going into everyone's bedrooms and allow two consenting adults enter into a legally binding partnership.

Let everyone have the same rights in this country when it comes to marriage. Rights and Responsibilities. If various religions want to take positions within their faith then that is why we separate church & state.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 89):
Hmm, your bio says age 76 plus. Now if you graduated from college in "86" which is 24 years ago, you graduated from college at the minimum age of 52. I am impressed.

It does sound like some College Station Confusion, doesn't it?   

By the way, I read that an abortion clinic has opened up at College Station. It's doing so well that there is already a 12 month waiting list.   

Quoting dxing (Reply 95):
How is having that language in a State platform, in a State you don't even live in, a violation of the Bill of Rights?

Freedom of Speech gives the Republicans the right to define and proclaim any platform they want. It is, however, a clear statement that gays are not desired in the party and the party will fight them when it comes to marrying someone they love.

I'd say that it very effectively addresses this "swing vote". Maybe their friends and family members also.

Quoting dxing (Reply 95):
and in which the Constitution is silent on who can marry and who cannot. It is left then to the States to decide according to the Constitution.

What about "equal protection under the law"? Why should two people be allowed to marry if they are of different genders and not be allowed to marry if they are the same gender? Let the various religions define how they will treat gay couples, but have the government give gays equal protections (and responsibilities) under the legal side of marriage.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Topic Author
Posts: 21603
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:53 pm

Quoting dxing (Reply 95):
Therin lies the rub for within that very Constitution is the tenth amendment that says:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

and in which the Constitution is silent on who can marry and who cannot. It is left then to the States to decide according to the Constitution.

Actually, that Equal protection clause applies to the states quite nicely. If a state is going to let two unrelated adults marry, then it's got to be ANY two unrelated adults.

But oddly, the Supreme Court the other day did some serious judicial activism by ruling the Chicago gun ban unconstitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the 2nd amendment applies to individual states.

You can't play the "states rights" argument both ways.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10202
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:05 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 97):
Actually, that Equal protection clause applies to the states quite nicely. If a state is going to let two unrelated adults marry, then it's got to be ANY two unrelated adults.

But that has never been a definition of marriage. Marriage is a socially sanctioned union that reproduces the family. Same-sex unions cannot do that.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 97):
But oddly, the Supreme Court the other day did some serious judicial activism by ruling the Chicago gun ban unconstitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the 2nd amendment applies to individual states.

The 2nd amendment reads, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It does not say "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed by the Federal Government."

Shall not be infringed, full stop, means that it will not be infringed - end of story.
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Topic Author
Posts: 21603
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: The Texas GOP: A Buncha Nuts

Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:07 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 98):

The 2nd amendment reads, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It does not say "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed by the Federal Government."

Shall not be infringed, full stop, means that it will not be infringed - end of story.

It also reads something about a "well-regulated militia..." The whole amendment makes no sense. We wish they'd done a better job of explaining themselves.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 98):

But that has never been a definition of marriage. Marriage is a socially sanctioned union that reproduces the family. Same-sex unions cannot do that.

Nor can marriages between people who are sterile. Or marriages between men with androgen insensitivity syndrome (i.e. Drew Barrymore) and men without it.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerlingus747, Aesma, akiss20, frmrCapCadet and 33 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos