I love how fags, er homosexuals always try and call you a bigot when you don't believe 100% in what they do. Not matter what the topic they will always resort to calling you close minded if you don't agree with them.
And to tell you the truth I really don't have a problem with homosexuals either, as long as they don't talk to me.
Just because I don't agree with the lifestyle doesn't mean I feel the need to denigrate them. I don't care for the lifestyle, I don't care for the attitude, and I don't agree that they deserve or require special considerations. I'll still prefer to call the people that choose that lifestyle homosexuals instead of some of the more colorful metaphores. In the end, whether we like them or not, we need to live among them and I would rather have casual indifference much the same as I would to a wife beater. It's possible to have a friendly demeanor towards anyone as long as everyone keeps their freaking mouth shut to crap labels like faggot, dyke, kike, spic and nigger. That accomplishes nothing more than fomenting an already uncomfortable situation.
I don't feel that arguing the point/counter-point of "gay (special) rights" is a bad thing. It's needed, IMHO, as a social check and balance to what is becoming a more vocal problem. As I see it, the special interest groups are taking the lion's share of attention and budget away from what is truly important: education, care for the elderly, national defense and domestic/economic growth. I find the campaigns of the special interests about as abhorrent as the perversion of Roosevelt's "welfare" system. What started out as a good thing for all has become the haven of the lazy and the self-entitled. The demand of "gimme, gimme, gimme" has overthrown the initial need.
It's ok for you to not like homosexuals much as they don't like you - but keep the derogatory out of it. If you want to call jeeves a "fucking idiot," do so based not upon his race/religion/age/gender/sexual orientation, do it because he's simply a "fucking idiot."
Well, actually, you are the one that keeps bringing up the homosexuality issue.... All of my posts have been in response to yours.Your statements on homosexuality (and I find it amazing you keep harping on this subject in a thread about the war in Iraq issue) smack of what the homosexuals themselves state. Look, I could care less that you're gay - that's your business. But you really need to quit with the tired rhetoric. Homosexuals do not have the same rights as heterosexuals - they have more. Examples:
- Name the law that protects the heterosexual from being denied employment based upon sexual preference?
- Name the law that guarantees the heterosexual medical benefits regardless of ability to pay/employment.
- Name the law that protects the heterosexual from being denied housing based upon sexual preference?
You can't name those laws - they don't exists. So what is to stop a homosexual business owner from not hiring the heterosexual based upon sexual preference? The same goes for the homosexual property owner. Nothing? Bingo!
All of those laws protect bias BASED ON SEXUAL PREFERENCE.. that goes both ways... If somebody is not hired because they are straight, they have the right to sue, under the exact same laws... Its just like laws that protect based on sex, and color... there are suits that have been won based on these laws by men, and whites.. the laws protect from all directions.
Some things that homosexuals cannot do in our "free" country:
1) Openly serve in the military (admitting to being gay will get you dismissed).
2) Have any legal relationship status... I'm not talking religious status, I'm talking about spousal priveleges, whether they be related to taxes, healthcare, privacy, property rights..
3) In many states, sodomy is illegal... that kinda puts a damper on the gay sex life..
As for the article.. it is an interesting article about an interview with Colon Powell, and a bit about Chirac... it doesnt have any fact in it at all, just the opinion of these two peopole..
I'm still waiting for you to post some of those facts...How can you take anything I say seriously? It's obvious you can't take anything based upon fact - even facts supplied to you daily by even the most liberal of media organizations, the AP.
As for me brining up sexuality, I havnt started a conversation on it once... if you dont want to talk about it, then dont post about it and complain when I respond..
--Jeeves
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein
Wow, I almost thought you were going to get through a whole post without personally insulting somebody for the sole reason that they dont agree with you... Unless I woke up this morning in the happy WALRUS_LAND I have been reading so much about in this thread, I have every right to have my own opinion, and not be derided for it...It's ok for you to not like homosexuals much as they don't like you - but keep the derogatory out of it. If you want to call jeeves a "fucking idiot," do so based not upon his race/religion/age/gender/sexual orientation, do it because he's simply a "fucking idiot."
I'm done with this thread, there is obvisouly no point in continuing, since the only two choices are, agree with Iam_Walrus, or get made fun of for not agreeing with him.. I would hate to see the circle of people you hang out with in real life.. they must all be EXACTLY like you, since you clearly cant handle any difference of opinion without falling to the level of calling people names...
--Jeeves
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein
I fail to see how your idiocy has anything to do with whether you agree with me or not?Wow, I almost thought you were going to get through a whole post without personally insulting somebody for the sole reason that they dont agree with you...
You claim you've not started a conversation on it once, but what's the above? You slandered me (sic. "bigot") because I don't agree with your views, yet I am the one bringing personal attacks into each post? In a wholely logical perspective, you're quite the hypocrite. In the vernacular, that translates for many to "fucking idiot." Hence, my opinion of you comes wholely from what I have viewed of your circular arguments, not from whether you agree with me or not.quote:
I am whole-heartedly against "gay rights"
So, you are a bigot, too? People are people.. as long as they arent hurting anyone else, or breaking any laws, what right do YOU have to judge them?
You do make a good argument to the laws concerning sexual orientation. For a thorough argument, I would have to index federal statutes versus state's implementations. The laws in the State of California specifically state preference to homosexuals, but lacking the desire to go through the state's Code, I can't provide concrete examples.
Funny you brought up sodomy laws, almost every state outlaws oral sex, for example, under the same statute. Puts a damper on anyone's fun. Personally, I don't feel bad for male homosexuals in that instance. Honestly, the laws are in their benefit. The risk of infection that anal sex provides is hampered by the illegality of the act (like it's really enforced). Guess that's the price of running the gauntlet of going in through the out door.
It's nice to hear you claim you'll stop responding, but considering that you've already interjected time and again after making that statement, I don't have any real hope that you'll shut your piehole.
Coming back to the initial point, Hussein is still a megalomaniac that has proven time and again he will not use his military might appropriately, he will not be honest, he will not abide by the edicts of the United Nations, and he will kill Americans and Jews at first opportunity. He needs to be removed (I prefer decisively) and Iraq needs to be disarmed. They've admitted they have been in violation, they have obfuscated the "inspection" process when they didn't downright refuse to allow it, and the world needs to come together to stop this real danger before it becomes a reactionary issue.
Fine, you want to be allowed in the military? Go over to Iraq with your queer pink scarves and hair bonnets and fight this war for us. Prove to us that homosexuals have some use to counteract their perversion and maybe the majority of people in this country will take you seriously.1) Openly serve in the military (admitting to being gay will get you dismissed).
Why board lizard did not in world trade Center @ 911 ?
To board Lizard:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd beat it back to being straight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man, it's people like you who make me feel more scared about the future than any dictator in any country.
You proved your lack in intelligence and beating the human rights more than one time.
And i personally think, you are sitting in your room the whole day and night, thinking about your life and be more than unsatisfied with your situation. Maybe you got beaten back to straight more than everyone else here? Maybe you have the drunken father comming home late at night and get you? Maybe you did not get the warm and comfort nest an intact family has? Maybe you are unemployed ? And maybe your jealousy will eat the little rest of you brain?
If you want to tell me you would beat your own flesh and blood, your child, man, i hope you are impotent and you will never be able to have children. /Shiver. I have a child, an 8 year old daughter, and you make me so angry with your stupid art of provocation, i really can't tell you.
But i think i should take this useless answers from you as jeeves does, as a special form of entertainment. You sir are not worth the time i waste on getting angry about you, me thinks.
Do yourself a favour. Accept that you have 2 problems.
First, you live.
Second, you do nothing against it.
Would be a good idea you take your pumpgun (i am sure you have one) and take a trip to iraq, than you can do all of us and your country a big favour and die in the war you are so greedy to have.
It's people like you who ruined your own future. You will not ruin mine.
To the moderator of this board: maybe some things here will get handled in other ways than in germany, but in the boards i normally be and take part in discussions, such posts would be deleted and the user get banned. Tell me if i am taking this to seriously, so i can really understand whats going on here....
And once again, sorry for grammar and spelling errors, english isn 't my native language.
History book already hints what will be the outcome .
Everytime US government go to war , did not bring the world better , didn't end the conflict between race , country , or anything . All the war bring to those country is poor , death , chaos.
Also , if US not that dicator why 911 only happen in US ? Why so many people around the world don't like US ? " if you are not with us ,you are against us " <- what do u think ? the words come from dicator ?
Excellent reply to my post. I have to say you did a fine job of source examples. I have a few comments in reply quickly.
The CNN Polls you quote I checked.. and those are their numbers. The polls I checked were FOX. And they showed a different result. Not surprising.. probably different demographics targeted. By and large.. I tend to think there are more who do not want war.. who also have no stake other then making a stand. There are more who want war.. who DO have a vested interest (IE.. Turkey, US, Britain.. etc.),
I find it interesting one of your polls calls the US the worlds leader in threats to the world. Of course.. Britain has called the US nothing but barbarians ever since we revolted against their "rule". Ayep.. I suppose we are. We keep attacking cruel, abusive dictators and regimes that threaten democratic countries. Iraq's and N. Korea's targets are slightly different. But.. might as well clump us all together. :P
Stop doing what? Why.. trying to.. or making.. WMD. There is proof he is doing this. All based on testimony of defectors.. or spies. The inspectors haven't found anything of substance. They HAVE found hard proof Iraq is not cooperating and basically doing the same thing they did for a decade before. And you must admit that is not surprising. The inspectors not finding anything was predicted. BY THE INSPECTORS. They said Iraq cooperation was required. There is proof Iraq is not cooperating fully and unconditionally. There is proof Iraq is actively hiding 'somethings'. But No .. we don't have stockpiles of something to show to you, other then the handful of items that HAVE been found. So it must not exist then... right?? I'm not sure how much more 'proof' you need. I guess you are waiting for one of two;
1) A WMD device to be used by Saddam (AGAIN.. I might add)
2) Someone to manage to catch a large cache of WMD devices being hidden red handed (hard thing to do since they had months of advance warning to get them well and permanently hidden).
Let's me ask you this Jeeves.. if Saddam uses a WMD on US troops or citizens is it OK to go in then? How about a terrorist organization using a WMD on US soil.. that has evidence traces pointing back to Iraq. Is it OK to go in then? Is it OK with you to go in at ANY point in time before those two? If so.. would you please define when. I am a bit confused as to your requirements to authorize force.
You said 50+ years ago to the French and German governments. I think that fact reinforces my case. That's within ONE GENERATION. Proof we do not stick around waiting for re-education to occur, or time itself to eliminate all those who remember. We rely on memories. Nor do we participate in genocide to eliminate our 'opponents'. A tactic employed by several of our dictator/communist regimes we called enemies in the last 50 years. Those doing the complaining are generally of an age that they do NOT remember those events. They have been born since.. and educated under the freedoms we provided. A freedom the country did not posess, IE. complaining against their OWN government(or against ours, which was allowed back then), when we marched in. They are protesting us providing the same freedoms to another country. And they are using those freedoms, we provided, to complain about it. THAT is the irony. You gotta admit.. it's pretty ironic.
You say I need to provide information that everyone (liberal's in particular) were crying No Stop Don't. Amazing.I guess you weren't around back then. (J/K.. I know you were but for some reason.. you won't recall history. ) Ok.. tell ya what.. here's some BOOK titles you can go check out of the library. Tell me what the 'general' feeling is they imply to you.
1) Barnes, Jack. Opening Guns of World War III: Washington's Assault on Iraq. New York, New International, 1991. 333 p. Book call no.: 956.70442 B261o
2) Graubard, Stephen R. Mr. Bush's War: Adventures in the Politics of Illusion. New York, Hill and Wang, 1992. 208 p. Book call no.: 973.928 G774m
3) The Gulf War and the New World Order: International Relations of the Middle East, edited by Tareq Y. Ismael and Jacqueline S. Ismael. Gainesville, University Press of Florida, 1994. 569 p. Book call no.: 327.56 G971
4) Hilsman, Roger. George Bush vs. Saddam Hussein: Military Success! Political Failure?. Novato, CA, Presidio, 1992. 273 p.
Ch.16 The Political Consequences of the Gulf War, pp 205-218. Book call no.: 956.7043 H655g
5) Hybel, Alex Roberto. Power over Rationality: The Bush Administration and the Gulf Crisis. Albany, State University of New York Press, 1993. 143 p. Book call no.: 973.928 H992p
6) Menos, Dennis. Arms over Diplomacy: Reflections on the Persian Gulf War. Westport, CT, Praeger, 1992. 174 p. Book call no.: 956.70442 M547a
Let us NOT forget.. the Gulf war started on January 15th 1991. Clinton was elected in 1992. If Bush had been re-elected (Thank Ross Perot for Bush's defeat) then the situation we face today would NEVER have come to pass. I know that for certain. Bush would NEVER have given N. Korea some reactors to build more nukes with. And Iraq would have been forced to comply with the UN resolutions on disarming. We wouldn't have had to wait for 8 years of a poor Democratic president to get to this point when time has been nothing but on THEIR (Iraq and N. Korea) side... making this a much more dangerous situation. Sorry.. I don't think Clinton did very much for us positively, and he did many things that have been bad. Some of them.. may yet.. result in being terrible and our worst historical nightmares. Just my two cents.
Last edited by cryptorad; 02-20-2003 at 10:49 AM.
Is she hot?I have a child, an 8 year old daughter
Man, there's a difference between flaming someone and just being a troll. You are one sick piece of shit. That's not even funny, you sick fuck.
It's a bummer this thread degenerated as it did. Was interesting reading for a while. I've decided to rename board Lizard to "butt Lizard". The irony of it with his anti-gay comments and name calling tactics begged for it.
Regarding the gay rights discussion... I'm not a big fan of "Affirmative Action" largely because I fall in the white mail 18-45 category. The idea behind it was to correct a severe social issue where minorities didn't have the opportunity to succeed. I don't know if it's still applicable, however I do know that it's not always fairly implemented. We're human. It's not possible it be 100% fair in all circumstances. Even if it were, we wouldn't be. Benevolence seems to defy human nature. Plus, laws and such have only a little to do with what is absolutely right. Most often, laws are placed in reaction to a situation. Courts, and in particular judges, are expected to discern from precidence and circumstance if an issue validly fails the intent of the law. They're human too, and as such subject to emotional irresponsibility and mistakes. Many lawyers have made an artform out of twisting the intent of the law... but I digress.
As for the war with Iraq... I can't say our motives are 100% honorable. I can understand why the world (especially our enemies) would be intimidated by the 'big kid on the block'. I don't care much for yellow journalism, and have not found a single reporting agency that doesn't slant a story and misrepresent 'facts'. This includes opinion polls and surveys. They actually teach ways to slant surveys in political science courses. Mostly, the folks who care what the survey says are the folks who agree with it. Those who disagree disregard it as slanted, anyway.
I can say that there are more factors in this war than whether or not Sadaam is a bad guy. But, to compare the 2 predominant sides to the men vs women stereotype...
The men are pro-war. Men see a threat and want to eliminate that threat. The rest of the ramifications don't deter the belief that a threat exists. Men know Sadaam to be a bad guy, and feel direct action fixes it. No other solution gets rid of the bad guy or eliminates him as a threat.
The women see war as a threat, too. For the US to take military action would generate a precidence that would then be used in the future for detering other "threats" which may end up with the US actually becoming the world police (or thug enforcers in some's eyes). The problem is, we won't all agree on what a threat is.
Considering everything that's going on and many of the views posted here it's evident there are folks that would prefer the US representatives in the UN were wrong. That Sadaam has no WMD and wouldn't use them, anyway, except in self-defense. In such a world, war might not be needed in Iraq, and any financial ties to Iraq can be maintained, not to mention there being no loss of life. These folks want to be convinced with proof, before taking action. Much like we have to prove a murder before we can electricute the murderer. This is the arena of a lawyer, and probably the reason so many politicians are/were lawyers. From what I can see, neither side is truley beetle-headed (means shortsighted for those not familiar with the slang). The sides just seem to stem from different sets of priorities. In general, if Sadaam did ever try to "take on the world" it would likely be his last act of defiance. So, folks without the military means to challenge Iraq would prefer that the US only retaliate after a direct attack, believing that such a threat is enough of a deterant and forceable disarmament is unnecessary. Only problem with this scenario is that if he does use his weapons, someone will get hurt. The likely first-strike targets seem to be the ones that are pushing for proactive action, and the non-likely targets seem to be pushing for reactive action (or no immediate action).
In case I hadn't made it clear, I'm of the mind that Sadaam is a bad guy, and we should take him out. I also believe that unifying the world would be a good thing, and a pre-requisit to world peace. Unfortunately, unifying the world is tricky in the political arena. The only ideas I can pull from history in this regard have all been domination by force; not a popular idea with the "good guys". So, until there's a better solution, world peace remains as a unicorn.
just some things to think about:
why is the US trying to bomb iraq? he has massdestruction weapons? he invaded kuwait 10 years ago?
US is the country with the most massdestruction weapons in world!
US is the country who invaded most other contries in the last 50 years!
if the US invading iraq without a prove they have massdestruction weapons, is like killing someone you dont like cause you think that he can possible have a weapon...
I'll not rip on your grammar and spelling because you're obviously from a country that doesn't speak English as it's primary language, or you're from Arkansas...
The US is not trying to bomb Iraq. If we wanted to bomb Iraq, we'd have done so already, and quite effectively. To further that thought, it is the desire of the majority of the United Nations to force Iraq into compliance since the Iraqi leaders obviously do not wish to obey the edicts given to then twelve years ago. Why does the UN demand that Iraq "disarm?" Because Iraq has had the privilege of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction (WMD) taken from them because they invaded Kuwait, violated Geneva Convention sanctions and caused world-wide distress by firing oil producing machinery twelve years ago. They have yet to abide by the rules set for them, so now we find ourselves here.why is the US trying to bomb iraq? he has massdestruction weapons? he invaded kuwait 10 years ago?
To use the almighty jeeves' favorite line, can you prove that? If you could provide accurate numbers detailing what has yet to be sold from the mammoth soviet supply, I might be willing to agree. Otherwise, this is merely a tired line of bullshit.US is the country with the most massdestruction weapons in world!
Oh really? Which countries have we invaded? I don't recall adding any new states, provinces or principalities? Which countries have we invaded?US is the country who invaded most other contries in the last 50 years!
Oh, you mean which countries have we responded to international threats? You might detail those, but since we aren't generating any new tax income or waving our flag above their capitals, I don't think you're going to be able to make any convincing arguments.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for invading Iraq. I'd like to see the entire Iraqi "government" executed. I'd like to see a democratic system of government installed. I'd like to see a realistic education system put into place. I'd love to see an affirmative action plan put into place for the liberation of their women from millenia of caste-like oppression.if the US invading iraq without a prove they have massdestruction weapons, is like killing someone you dont like cause you think that he can possible have a weapon...
Unfortunately, America doesn't want to operate on the level of reform that I'd like to see. We seem to have some complex about "stooping to their level." Personally, I feel "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." Why is it OK for some asshole dictator like Hussein to commit international crimes and not pay for them? He's not only used outlawed bio-chemical weaponry during times of war, but he's also used them on his own people. You feel that's just fine, do you? Poor Hussein! Poor Iraq! There go the brutal, evil Americans again, picking on the completely innocent!
Yeah, we just suck like that, dude...
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote