kallend 2,027 #1 February 21, 2014 Unbelievable! www.courthousenews.com/2014/02/21/65519.htm And Kansas Republicans are trying to do the same.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #2 February 21, 2014 No, no; it's called "religious freedom". Hey, remember when the MX missile was called the "Peacekeeper"? Boy, those were the days, weren't they? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 284 #3 February 21, 2014 kallend And Kansas Republicans are trying to do the same. And you're surprised? Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #4 February 21, 2014 Stumpy *** And Kansas Republicans are trying to do the same. And you're surprised? No. I would have used the icon to indicate that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #5 February 21, 2014 kallendUnbelievable! www.courthousenews.com/2014/02/21/65519.htm And Kansas Republicans are trying to do the same. Arizona is not doing this, nor are the Republicans. 3 wackjob state senators. Zero chance of going anywhere. Way to sensationalize though.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #6 February 21, 2014 kallendUnbelievable! www.courthousenews.com/2014/02/21/65519.htm And Kansas Republicans are trying to do the same. Be advised that stupidity has no political persuasion. If everyone on each side of the aisle was to point at the other, screaming "Idiots! Morons!," I could not agree more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #7 February 21, 2014 airdvr***Unbelievable! www.courthousenews.com/2014/02/21/65519.htm And Kansas Republicans are trying to do the same. Arizona is not doing this, nor are the Republicans. 3 wackjob state senators. Zero chance of going anywhere. Way to sensationalize though. Yes. The republicans are doing this. It passed the State Legislature 33 to 27. along party lines, except for 2 Republicans who voted no with all the Democrats. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=280279222&ft=1&f=Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #8 February 21, 2014 airdvr***Unbelievable! www.courthousenews.com/2014/02/21/65519.htm And Kansas Republicans are trying to do the same. Arizona is not doing this, nor are the Republicans. 3 wackjob state senators. Zero chance of going anywhere. Way to sensationalize though. Wait, what? From the article linked above: "The Arizona Senate approved the bill 17-13 on a party line vote." 17 <> 3. True, the "Arizona Senate" <> Arizona, however, the Senate does pass bills that have the potential to become law in Arizona. Also from the same article: "The bill was expected to be passed by the state House, which also is controlled by Republicans, and is expected to be signed by Gov. Jan Brewer." Another source says that it's been passed in the AZ House, by a vote of 33-27 and is on its way to the Governor. http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/246401031.html That doesn't sound like "zero chance." It sounds like a high chance of going somewhere, if somewhere = signed into law."There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #9 February 21, 2014 airdvr***Unbelievable! www.courthousenews.com/2014/02/21/65519.htm And Kansas Republicans are trying to do the same. Arizona is not doing this, nor are the Republicans. 3 wackjob state senators. Incorrect. The bill passed both houses with only GOP support and is now on the governor's desk. Most of the Arizona GOP are whackjobs by your logic. Quote Zero chance of going anywhere. Way to sensationalize though. THAT appears to be in the hands of Gov. Brewer now.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #10 February 21, 2014 Quote THAT appears to be in the hands of Gov. Brewer now. Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #11 February 21, 2014 kallend******Unbelievable! www.courthousenews.com/2014/02/21/65519.htm And Kansas Republicans are trying to do the same. Arizona is not doing this, nor are the Republicans. 3 wackjob state senators. Incorrect. The bill passed both houses with only GOP support and is now on the governor's desk. Most of the Arizona GOP are whackjobs by your logic. Quote Zero chance of going anywhere. Way to sensationalize though. THAT appears to be in the hands of Gov. Brewer now. As far as the race to see who is more blindingly stupid, the Republicans do seem to have pulled ahead on this point. However, I have full faith in the Democrats not to be outdone. Both groups are a complete embarrassment, which, I think, says a lot about us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rifleman 70 #12 February 21, 2014 Well done to Rocco's Little Chicago Pizzeria in Tucson for being a voice of reason.Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #13 February 21, 2014 riflemanWell done to Rocco's Little Chicago Pizzeria in Tucson for being a voice of reason. Great response. Whenever someone gets all in a lather about gay rights, I am instantly suspicious regarding their motives. My take is that someone who is hard wired as a breeder is, if anything, indifferent to the whole issue. Someone who cares THAT much appears to me to have tipped their hand. "I'm NOT gay! Why, I am completely opposed to all things gay! I do NOT get excited by the thought of sex with some fantastically attractive person of my own sex, and I can prove it by voting to make gay sex illegal! " Calm down there, big boy. I have spent time in rather a few heavily gay venues (when you grow up among artists, it's been known to happen) and can not recall a single instance where anyone took offense at my being on a different wavelength. What ever happened to 'live and let live?' BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #14 February 21, 2014 On a side note, I really don't understand who votes these people in.... http://azstarnet.com/news/state-and-regional/article_f2652e82-9a81-11e3-98e7-0019bb2963f4.html "Pressed by Bradley for specifics, Melvin said he understands that "some of the reading material is borderline pornographic.'' And he said the program uses "fuzzy math,'' substituting letters for numbers in some examples."Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
catfishhunter 2 #15 February 21, 2014 Why is that unbelievable? What are your thoughts of other sexual preferences? Goat fuckers ok with you? After all they are born that way. What about multiple wives or child brides? You cannot be for one and against the other since they are all born that way. The minute any of you try to argue its different your only showing your hypocrisy. Sexual perversion is sexual perversion and forcing people to accept it and you yourself are against perversions you deem illegal and immoral shows how ridicules the liberal mind is. Everyone should have the right and freedom not to be subjected to what is considered a vile sin to them. But liberals only care about their rights and not the rights of those that believe differently than them. MAKE EVERY DAY COUNT Life is Short and we never know how long we are going to have. We must live life to the fullest EVERY DAY. Everything we do should have a greater purpose. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rifleman 70 #16 February 21, 2014 I'm a heterosexual male and while I'm not overly religious I try to do the right thing by my fellow human beings for the right reasons. I don't have any problem with any form of sexual behaviour that takes place between CONSENTING adults - if someone wants to be married to more than one woman (or man) and everybody concerned is fine with it then the best of luck to all involved. If what happens, happens between consenting adults then it doesn't matter how perverted you or I think that behaviour is, it's nobody else's business but theirs. No, I'm not fine with bestiality or paedophilia because it's not happening between consenting adults. I've gone drinking with gay friends (at gay venues) and on the odd occasion where I've been approached, I've pointed out that I'm straight and that's been the end of the matter, no hard feelings and no prejudice. TBH, I'm comfortable enough in my own sexuality to go drinking in a gay bar without thinking that every man in the place is going to anally rape me just because that's their sexual orientation.Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DiverMike 5 #17 February 21, 2014 So you are ok with killing and eating a cow, but not having sex with it? In the grand karma scheme of things, the pervert who has sex with a cow is causing less harm to the animal than the person who slaughters it to make a hamburger. You are advocating that the animal has rights to prevent unwanted sexual advances, but no rights to life? (By the way, bestiality is pretty perverted - not my cup of tea, but do I have the right to dictate what someone can do with a farm animal behind closed doors?) We don't insist on the cow's consent to be slaughtered. Brother marrying sister or mom? Grandpa and granddaughter? For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #18 February 21, 2014 I love it when the bigots out themselves.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,500 #19 February 21, 2014 QuoteWhenever someone gets all in a lather about gay rights, I am instantly suspicious regarding their motives. My take is that someone who is hard wired as a breeder is, if anything, indifferent to the whole issue. Someone who cares THAT much appears to me to have tipped their hand. So I guess there were no white people interested in black civil rights, and no men who gave a damn about women's suffrage either. If you genuinely don't understand how a person can think issues that don't directly affect them are important then I think you've just tipped your hand as a narcissist of breathtaking levels.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #20 February 21, 2014 Bottom line is that homosexuality isn't considered a federally protected minority class (maybe it should be, that's a different discussion... though it would shut up a lot of stupid people if it were) so these laws really just reiterate that.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #21 February 21, 2014 catfishhunterSexual perversion is sexual perversion... ...everyone should have the right and freedom not to be subjected to what is considered a vile sin to them. You're going to need to define "subjected to". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #22 February 21, 2014 jakeeQuoteWhenever someone gets all in a lather about gay rights, I am instantly suspicious regarding their motives. My take is that someone who is hard wired as a breeder is, if anything, indifferent to the whole issue. Someone who cares THAT much appears to me to have tipped their hand. So I guess there were no white people interested in black civil rights, and no men who gave a damn about women's suffrage either. If you genuinely don't understand how a person can think issues that don't directly affect them are important then I think you've just tipped your hand as a narcissist of breathtaking levels. Clues: $0.05 For the comprehension impaired, we were discussing people who get worked up into a lather regarding the activities of other people to the extent that they seek to control said activities. There exist people who are singularly uninterested in the gory details of what happens behind closed doors between other consenting adults, regardless of their persuasion (generally too much information). This is not to imply that indifference regarding the particulars of said activities means being okay with bugwits who seek to make sure nobody is having more fun than they are. Big difference. One need not be immediately impacted by another gender or racial group to be strongly in favor of strict equality under the law. This is to say rights AND responsibilities. Of course, it may simply be your purpose to appear obtuse in order to further discussion. If that is the case, carry on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #23 February 21, 2014 champu***Sexual perversion is sexual perversion... ...everyone should have the right and freedom not to be subjected to what is considered a vile sin to them. You're going to need to define "subjected to". I about time we denounce the militant goat-fucking agenda of the goat-fuckers, trying to shove their goat-fucking down our throat.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,500 #24 February 21, 2014 winsor *** Quote Whenever someone gets all in a lather about gay rights, I am instantly suspicious regarding their motives. My take is that someone who is hard wired as a breeder is, if anything, indifferent to the whole issue. Someone who cares THAT much appears to me to have tipped their hand. So I guess there were no white people interested in black civil rights, and no men who gave a damn about women's suffrage either. If you genuinely don't understand how a person can think issues that don't directly affect them are important then I think you've just tipped your hand as a narcissist of breathtaking levels. Clues: $0.05 For the comprehension impaired, we were discussing people who get worked up into a lather regarding the activities of other people to the extent that they seek to control said activities. There exist people who are singularly uninterested in the gory details of what happens behind closed doors between other consenting adults, regardless of their persuasion (generally too much information). This is not to imply that indifference regarding the particulars of said activities means being okay with bugwits who seek to make sure nobody is having more fun than they are. Big difference. One need not be immediately impacted by another gender or racial group to be strongly in favor of strict equality under the law. This is to say rights AND responsibilities. Of course, it may simply be your purpose to appear obtuse in order to further discussion. If that is the case, carry on. Ah, yeah I see what I did there. You wrote "illegal" and I read "legal". You have my profuse and grovelling apologies!Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #25 February 21, 2014 Remster******Sexual perversion is sexual perversion... ...everyone should have the right and freedom not to be subjected to what is considered a vile sin to them. You're going to need to define "subjected to". I about time we denounce the militant goat-fucking agenda of the goat-fuckers, trying to shove their goat-fucking down our throat. Sex with ruminants is wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
