RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB...

RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Lordandmaster -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/5/2006 9:44:40 PM)
It's pointless--and self-defeating for gay-rights activists--to harp on the question of whether Bush hates gays. There's no way to know, and it doesn't matter. What matters is what he does and what he supports. That's not to say that there aren't people who hate gays; it's not even saying that Bush DOESN'T hate gays. It's about not losing focus. As long as you prosecute a bootless point, you're just detracting attention from the things that matter. You allow people to respond with "Oh, of course he doesn't hate gays; stop bashing people you don't know" instead of "These are the reasons why I support the amendment banning gay marriage"... Because I, for one, would love to hear the reasons. So far we've heard that God determined marriage is for one man and one woman, and, more recently, that one-man-one-woman marriage is best for children. OK, that's two crappy reasons, and I'd like to hear whether anyone has better ones.

Chaingang -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/5/2006 10:20:35 PM)
It doesn't matter if there are better reasons. It doesn't matter if gay marriages is the crappiest idea ever devised upon our sad little planet. Gay people have the right to make the same kinds of associations anyone else has the right to make. Period. That's why Bush's position is so offensive. Other Presidents have sent in the national guard to defend the rights of certain minorities. When will this POS Prez we've been saddled with stand up for what is right and be a fucking human being about it? This guy has the blood of thousands on his hands. He's a greedy corporate cock-sucking SOB. And now this - a sleazy attempt to enshrine discrimination back into the Constitution. I spit upon this administration. Truly.

Alumbrado -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/5/2006 10:28:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DelightMachine ....I get the impression you're a supporter of Chaingang Rule #2 ("everyone's entitled to insult politicians who disagree with that point of view.") because, at least with Bush and Cheney, you don't seem to have any problem in ascribing bad motives to them. Or do you suppose it's possible Bush is acting out of his actual beliefs? Or is it just Bush and Cheney you think are despicable for disagreeing with you and no one else? Some people suck at reading minds...some people suck at reading, period...you seem to fall into both categories. Either that, or you are just trolling for the sake of argument. In any case.....buh-bye

caitlyn -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/6/2006 6:49:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom Mind you, I generally support feminism. However, some forms of feminism (oddly enough using "traditional" language and ideas) has severely damaged the parental rights of men. Courts will favor the mother heavily over the father in custody battles, even if the father is considerably more fit to raise the children. Actually, we discussed this in a class I took (primarily because I brought the question up [;)]), and although divorce rates were very low in the early 20th Century, the percentage of mothers gaining custody in these cased was actually considerably higher then it is today ... almost a given in fact. The question still remains for anyone on this board. If gay married people were given similar rights to straight married people ... what right would straight married people be denied, that they have today under the current system? To me, if people can't honestly and effectively answer that question, they are simply taking a side bas a matter of taste, and not really not trying to ameliorate anything real.

Tamerofwild1s -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/6/2006 12:17:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang I just can't stand watching you be a Bush apologist of any kind. Why can't people take his actions at face value? If Bush opposes basic civil rights for gay people - then he's a bigot and acting upon hatred. Do you likewise apologize for people who lynch African-Americans because they're not really engaging in an act of hatred - it's just politics! Or whatever... Chaingang, rather than see myself as an "apologist" for anyone, I do my best to find as much truth as I can in the world. "Face value" can sometimes mean only seeing the surface, and not with depth. I've watched George Bush for years, first as our governor, then as president, and it is my honest opinion that he is not a hateful person, much less "evil" as some have said. I respect his wife, and have a difficult time picturing her staying with a hate-monger, and more specifically, Vice-President Cheney has an openly gay daughter, and I have a hard time seeing him be supportive of Bush if he were a hate-monger. So, why would Bush take such a stand against gay marriage? I suspect it's because of his fundamental religious beliefs telling him that homosexuality is a wrong activity. Therefore, for him to support gay marriage, he would have to turn his back on what is arguably the most important thing in his life. Again, as I've emphatically stated before, I do not agree with him about this. At all. As for me "apologizing for people who lynch African-Americans"......I'll let that pass, because you don't know me. I hope anyone with a mind unclouded by hate of Bush, or anyone else, can see that banning gay marriage does not equal hanging a human being by their neck until it snaps. An apologist.....no. A man with little love for venomous mudslinging....yes. George W. Bush is not the anti-christ, and the left does neither themselves nor anyone else any good by saying so, just as the rabid right did no good by claiming Bill Clinton was the harbinger of doom for America. Precious little in life is so black and white. Level I just thought I would add my 2 cents in here .. not that my 2 cents is worth more then it's face value but hell here goes ... as much as I have never been a Bush fan there are something he has done that I must applaud .. he has stuck to his religious beliefs ... he has stuck to his guns to try and eliminate terrorism. I am sure he holds no sincere hatred of homosexuals or foriegners . he has a job to do as leader of the country and not for nothing he has this HUGE staff that tells him exactly what he should do and not do ... and then we get into the lobbyist who if he doesn't play ball a certain way that they want the white house loses millions of dollars or support from large groups .. politics is one of those complexitites we as citizens very rarely get to understand . we just stand there as outsiders looking on passing judegements like kidney stones. next time you run a huge corporate company .. see if you actually make all the decisions or could it be that some huge board of directors actually makes the decisions and you sign it or get ousted asowner of your own company. we as Americans have become lax in how we see things instead of looking deep . I am NOT a Bush fan but I wouldn't want his job either. There are ways of getting your points across better . openly set up a lobby for the benefit of homosexuality work it like a frenzy for 25 years pushing hard for your wants .. dedicate countless hours each day to this cause and millions of dollars to another cause . then approach Washington and say . hey we want to be heard ... bet you'll see a differentoutlook in the white house for Gay rights .... I personally don't find anything wrongwith same sex marriages . hey each to thier own.I have many friends who are openly gay and I applaud them for thier values and sticking to them. I think as Americans we need to really look closer at the big picture in washington before we make plans to hang ONE man because he is at the top Remember the CEO really doesn't run the company . the board does

OedipusRexIt -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/6/2006 12:44:36 PM)
Whatever they can do to scare their base, they're trying to do. Homophobes are everywhere. Won't work. Will it?

Tamerofwild1s -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/6/2006 2:35:18 PM)
I personally don't think it has to deal with homophobia .. I think right now alot are lookingto thier political backers. the people who keep thier wallets fat. the majority right now for them who contribute to the cause are straight laced conservative religious backed people or organizations. As I said in my original post ifthe gay community wants to make changes they need deeper involvement, get the backing of others who are big backers in Washington . most of those straight laced fools see BDSM in general as an abhoration<sp> not just gays .. so it will take a large effort on all parts to really get the respect the community at large deserves. Gays TVs Sadists Slaves .... everyone needs to combine efforts and then an only then will any kinda movement be sucessful ... if everyone on collarme donated 1 dollar to making gay rights more noticed and favored gays could make a huge movement in getting their freedom to marry whomever they wanted. BUT its just my humble opinion

ArtCatDom -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/6/2006 2:56:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn quote: ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom Mind you, I generally support feminism. However, some forms of feminism (oddly enough using "traditional" language and ideas) has severely damaged the parental rights of men. Courts will favor the mother heavily over the father in custody battles, even if the father is considerably more fit to raise the children. Actually, we discussed this in a class I took (primarily because I brought the question up [;)]), and although divorce rates were very low in the early 20th Century, the percentage of mothers gaining custody in these cased was actually considerably higher then it is today ... almost a given in fact. The question still remains for anyone on this board. If gay married people were given similar rights to straight married people ... what right would straight married people be denied, that they have today under the current system? To me, if people can't honestly and effectively answer that question, they are simply taking a side bas a matter of taste, and not really not trying to ameliorate anything real. What an excellant point to bring up! In reply, I would point out the very small sample size and the fact that it was viewed as a burden on the man to "saddle" him with children. (Being honest, it was quite the chauvinist system.) I also admit there was a "traditionalist" view that women were by far more suited to raise children than men. I still feel the current system has a heavy bias against men trying to assert their parental rights (while at the same time placing a heavier financial responsibility for children on them) and that this derives from feminist influences (though not solely). That is just my opinion however. And I one hundred percent agree with your (rhetorical?) question about what rights heterosexual couples would lose. (Or at least the POV it's presented from.) meow

Tamerofwild1s -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/6/2006 3:15:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn quote: ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom Mind you, I generally support feminism. However, some forms of feminism (oddly enough using "traditional" language and ideas) has severely damaged the parental rights of men. Courts will favor the mother heavily over the father in custody battles, even if the father is considerably more fit to raise the children. Actually, we discussed this in a class I took (primarily because I brought the question up [;)]), and although divorce rates were very low in the early 20th Century, the percentage of mothers gaining custody in these cased was actually considerably higher then it is today ... almost a given in fact. The question still remains for anyone on this board. If gay married people were given similar rights to straight married people ... what right would straight married people be denied, that they have today under the current system? To me, if people can't honestly and effectively answer that question, they are simply taking a side bas a matter of taste, and not really not trying to ameliorate anything real. What an excellant point to bring up! In reply, I would point out the very small sample size and the fact that it was viewed as a burden on the man to "saddle" him with children. (Being honest, it was quite the chauvinist system.) I also admit there was a "traditionalist" view that women were by far more suited to raise children than men. I still feel the current system has a heavy bias against men trying to assert their parental rights (while at the same time placing a heavier financial responsibility for children on them) and that this derives from feminist influences (though not solely). That is just my opinion however. And I one hundred percent agree with your (rhetorical?) question about what rights heterosexual couples would lose. (Or at least the POV it's presented from.) meow ok I know this is actually off the topic here butI have to fully agree with ArtCatDom here Being a single parent and having gone thru the family court systems in NY several times . family courts are very sexually biased against men . we are not fit to carry on child rearing but we are more then fit to be taken to the cleaners to support said child. let me give you a perfect example ... 13 years agoI fought for custody of my oldest child . I won because his mother gave upthe fight. I don'tplay fair to say the least. any ways ... 3 years ago she takes me back into court because I want to give my son medication for ADHD. she wanted to give him a pet . when she figured the judge would laugh her out of court she switched and went after custody of the boy .. now a few facts . the judge in the current was the judge who prior had given me custody .. the law gaurdian was the same too a lil ol jewish bag of shit. <can you tell I still have disdain over the situation> anyways long story short .. my oldest son whom I had raised went back to live with his mother and I got raped on child support. raped how you say ?? ... for 11 years I got 50 dollars a month because shewanted to be a stay at home mom ... I got 250 a month because I have ful ability to work and support my son. tell me whats fair in family courts these days please. so I have to agree . the biased nature of family courts has not changed in the least ... part isdue in fact to religious beliefs too . it has ,long been a fact religious believes the women raises the child andthe man pays for it . well it spilled it out "fair" court systems too

LordAyash -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/6/2006 5:28:25 PM)
I think we all need to take a step back and examine not only the roots of the argument, but the holes large enough to drive a Mack Truck through. Bush clearly defined that a "Traditional" marriage strenghtens our society and is the ONLY soultion. Now, I do not know where our fine president has been for the last 20 or so years, but there is NO such thing as a traditional family any more. With 50% of the marriages ending in divorce, another large percentage of interacial marriages, and a large number of children being raised by extended families and non-custodial parents; the term Traditional is subjective. Then you can not even disrgard the legal aspect of this argument. Thedecleration of Independance clearly defines that as humans we have the right to Life, Liberty,and the Pursuit of Happiness. The Constitution backs that up by spelling out those rights as laws. Now, we are going to ask productive members of society to pay their taxes, but not enjoy the benefits of paying those taxes?? How American is that? President Bush clearly has a hot button issues he is using to manipulate the masses of sheep that clearly follow is hate mongering agenda. And if you believe he doesnt hate people, just look to his followers who say that AIDS, Hurricane Katrina, and the war are all punishment for homosexuality. These may be the extremists, but when did you hear Bush come out against these people? You have to ask yourself where does he fit in with those extremeists? And what makes these extremists any different from bin Laden and the taliban? This is and should be a non-issue. Any one not seeing the holes in the gay marriage ban really need to examine their own motivations.

Lordandmaster -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/6/2006 7:20:51 PM)
You're not the same person as Termyn8or, are you? He was another one who spouted anti-Semitic crap. Maybe the judge ruled against you because he doesn't want your son to be brought up as a bigot? quote: ORIGINAL: Tamerofwild1s the law gaurdian was the same too a lil ol jewish bag of shit.

Tamerofwild1s -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/6/2006 9:12:25 PM)
theres absolutely nothing anti semetic in my post as all . the woman could have been an religion and still been a bag of shit. the religion was there to point out the religious beliefs that lead people in certain ways such as the jewish faith leading to thier followers that the women was there to raise the children .. till you get a full understanding of what my posts are about you really shouldn't make accusations . they tend to make you look foolish ... I am far from a bigot. but those that accuse often do so because they are themselves the judges decsion was actually based on the law guardians recomendation that the child should live with his mother .. so now that you've been informed you can take you half baked ideas and leave me be. thank you ... have a nice day

MistressLorelei -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/6/2006 9:47:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tamerofwild1s ok I know this is actually off the topic here butI have to fully agree with ArtCatDom here Being a single parent and having gone thru the family court systems in NY several times . family courts are very sexually biased against men . we are not fit to carry on child rearing but we are more then fit to be taken to the cleaners to support said child. let me give you a perfect example ... 13 years agoI fought for custody of my oldest child . I won because his mother gave upthe fight. I don'tplay fair to say the least. any ways ... 3 years ago she takes me back into court because I want to give my son medication for ADHD. she wanted to give him a pet . when she figured the judge would laugh her out of court she switched and went after custody of the boy .. now a few facts . the judge in the current was the judge who prior had given me custody .. the law gaurdian was the same too a lil ol jewish bag of shit. <can you tell I still have disdain over the situation> anyways long story short .. my oldest son whom I had raised went back to live with his mother and I got raped on child support. raped how you say ?? ... for 11 years I got 50 dollars a month because shewanted to be a stay at home mom ... I got 250 a month because I have ful ability to work and support my son. tell me whats fair in family courts these days please. so I have to agree . the biased nature of family courts has not changed in the least ... part isdue in fact to religious beliefs too . it has ,long been a fact religious believes the women raises the child andthe man pays for it . well it spilled it out "fair" court systems too The woman raises the child and the man pays for it? First of all, regarding the religion comment... in many religions, the woman is an unpaid 24/7 babysitter/teacher, not allowed to handle the familial money. In the case of present day divorce... know that in most every case... aside from a small percentage of the very wealthy, child support money is not the source of income which pays for all, or even most of the child's needs. The child needs a place to live, utilities, transportation, food, clothing, medicine, co-payments for each dr visit, toys, books, ballet lessons, baseball uniforms, shoes every 2 months, possible future college tuition, the list really goes on and on. In most cases. courts don't consider ballet lessons, toys for the holidays, a trip to an amusement park, or any 'luxuries' most children will benefit from, when they calculate child support figures. Most mothers' want to give their kids more than food in their bellies and a roof over their heads, and often it's at their expense over their portion of child support (even when split evenly). Most single mothers I know of (I am presently involved in the family law field, and have been for many years) , including myself spend far more of their income on needs for their children than the court mandated child support which comes from the fathers. I am not bashing the dads...there are diligent fathers, though there are far more dads who pay nothing, pay sporadically, or are regularly late in paying, than there are mothers who are guilty of such... lots of mother's have no choice, the father doesn't pay, she gets a second job to compensate, or the family doesn't eat or have electricity. Divorce is as expected to happen as it is to not happen... Protecting the institution of marriage for the children's sake? Our government cares about our children only when it is convenient for them. They have no problem in cutting the funding for education, parks, assistance for disabled children, the Head Start program, Medicaid and welfare (which children are a huge part of), etc. Now they are using 'protecting children' as an excuse to be bigots. It's not only hypocritical, it's sad,

Lordandmaster -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/6/2006 11:16:28 PM)
What are you talking about? You lost custody of your child because the legal guardian was Jewish and the Jewish faith teaches that women should take care of children? How exactly does that make any sense? People don't lose custody of their children in this country because Jews are out to take them away from their parents. When you use ignorant, demeaning stereotypes of other races and ethnic groups, it's called bigotry. And I enjoy exposing bigots. I love to watch'em squirm when someone calls them on their bullshit. quote: ORIGINAL: Tamerofwild1s theres absolutely nothing anti semetic in my post as all . the woman could have been an religion and still been a bag of shit. the religion was there to point out the religious beliefs that lead people in certain ways such as the jewish faith leading to thier followers that the women was there to raise the children .. till you get a full understanding of what my posts are about you really shouldn't make accusations . they tend to make you look foolish ... I am far from a bigot.

feastie -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/7/2006 3:54:54 AM)
quote: ok I know this is actually off the topic here butI have to fully agree with ArtCatDom here Being a single parent and having gone thru the family court systems in NY several times . family courts are very sexually biased against men . we are not fit to carry on child rearing but we are more then fit to be taken to the cleaners to support said child. let me give you a perfect example ... 13 years agoI fought for custody of my oldest child . I won because his mother gave upthe fight. I don'tplay fair to say the least. any ways ... 3 years ago she takes me back into court because I want to give my son medication for ADHD. she wanted to give him a pet . when she figured the judge would laugh her out of court she switched and went after custody of the boy .. now a few facts . the judge in the current was the judge who prior had given me custody .. the law gaurdian was the same too a lil ol jewish bag of shit. <can you tell I still have disdain over the situation> anyways long story short .. my oldest son whom I had raised went back to live with his mother and I got raped on child support. raped how you say ?? ... for 11 years I got 50 dollars a month because shewanted to be a stay at home mom ... I got 250 a month because I have ful ability to work and support my son. tell me whats fair in family courts these days please. so I have to agree . the biased nature of family courts has not changed in the least ... part isdue in fact to religious beliefs too . it has ,long been a fact religious believes the women raises the child andthe man pays for it . well it spilled it out "fair" court systems too Actually, judges more often consider which parent has been the main caregiver during the marriage for the children. Main caregiver is the person that spends the most time with the child, taking care of the child's needs. A stay-at-home Mom would definitely be the main caregiver. One must prove her unfit to usually for her not to be given custody. Child support in Texas is limited to a certain percentage of income (I believe it's 25%, but I'm not going to take the time to check on that at the moment), but that is not per child. There is also a limit specified that the amount of support taken from the parent's wages does not exceed more than half his or her paycheck. (This is usually applied in the cases of multiple children or a parent in "arrears". These regulations are simply what the law will allow. There isn't any way one parent can take the other to the cleaners. While I don't know the child support regulations in all states, I am sure that many incorporate limits such as these. The laws, I'm sure, are very different in your state and I naturally do not know all of the details surrounding your case, but I do feel that the judge's religion played very little part in her decisions.

jazzbound318 -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/7/2006 3:53:03 PM)
(i think this says it all) Gay marriage amendment fails in Senate Wed Jun 7, 2006 10:42am ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A constitutional ban on same-sex marriage failed to pass the Senate on Wednesday but Republican leaders planned to take it up in the House, keeping a national spotlight on the divisive issue. The 49 to 48 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to end debate, thwarting President George W. Bush and the mostly Republican senators who argued that the Constitution must be amended to prevent judges from striking down existing state-level bans on gay marriage. Democrats said the vote was an attempt to muster conservative support ahead of the November congressional elections and divert public attention from more pressing issues like the war in Iraq that reflect poorly on Republicans. taken from: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-06-07T144236Z_01_N07187386_RTRUKOC_0_US-RIGHTS-GAYS-CONGRESS.xml $0.02

Lordandmaster -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/7/2006 4:01:24 PM)
I keep wondering why the Republicans keep pressing losing issues. And then they win every November.

Tamerofwild1s -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/7/2006 4:03:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster What are you talking about? You lost custody of your child because the legal guardian was Jewish and the Jewish faith teaches that women should take care of children? How exactly does that make any sense? People don't lose custody of their children in this country because Jews are out to take them away from their parents. When you use ignorant, demeaning stereotypes of other races and ethnic groups, it's called bigotry. And I enjoy exposing bigots. I love to watch'em squirm when someone calls them on their bullshit. quote: ORIGINAL: Tamerofwild1s theres absolutely nothing anti semetic in my post as all . the woman could have been an religion and still been a bag of shit. the religion was there to point out the religious beliefs that lead people in certain ways such as the jewish faith leading to thier followers that the women was there to raise the children .. till you get a full understanding of what my posts are about you really shouldn't make accusations . they tend to make you look foolish ... I am far from a bigot. No if you would open your eyes you would see what Isaid was the judge in the matter changed the custodial parent to the childs mother based on the suggestions of the Law guardian and her thinkings. her thinkings and beliefs are comprised of her upbringing .. which in part according to judeaism teaches that the mother shall be the one to raise the child .. that is what I said if you would open up your ignorant eyes and really read instead of being one who is looking for nothing more then to incite chaos. I am far from a bigot or racial in anyway. you think you have me squirming . I sit here and shake my head at how pathetic you are at harping on this instead of simply using the block feature if you don't like my opinions. Have a nice day

Lordandmaster -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/7/2006 4:13:10 PM)
I thought you already said what was supposed to be your last word on the subject: http://www.collarchat.com/m_254361/mpage_20/tm.htm#414762 But since you insist on bringing it up again ... You're saying that the judge took custody away from you because he was persuaded by someone who is Jewish and the Jewish faith teaches that women are better at raising children. (You still haven't explained, in this harebrained story, exactly who this Jewish someone was, but that's beside the point. How could she be the legal guardian if YOU supposedly had custody?) Anyway, did I get you wrong? Because if I didn't, that's the biggest load of horseshit I've heard in years. Judges make their own decisions, and if you've convinced yourself that it had anything to do with the fact that someone involved in the case was Jewish, you're never going to understand what really happened. Your ignorant ideas about Judaism are blinding you to reality.

Mercnbeth -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/7/2006 4:19:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster I keep wondering why the Republicans keep pressing losing issues. And then they win every November. Reason: The alternatives the other side provides. The democrats just re-elected Arnold last night in California. Also a Republican won the Congressional seat vacated by a republican man sent to prison for corruption. Political correctness, unions, soliciting illegal immigrants to vote and work for you; does not resonate with the voting population. Gore - Hillary - Kerry - (Whoever Republican) in 2008? Whoever wins every pole of the voting population. NOT the whining, complaining, must vote PC or on one issue or stay home public; but the voting public. Often they hold their nose, but the alternative always scares them worse. Campaigning on more taxes, more government programs, more restrictions of oil exploration, may get cheers on TV coverage, but the majority of the people who vote are watching on TV, not in the public display. They just shake their heads and vote the other way.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875