I'm done talking about this, its a wase of my time, im going to bed i have to up in 4 hours for college anyway. frolicking imp fucked around with this message on 10-18-2004 at 03:26 AM.
quote:
frolicking imp had this to say about Captain Planet:
Did I say I was an avid kerry fan? Nooo I dont think so. I said I hated Bush.
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about Pirotess:
Mindless mud slinging and Bush jabbing is juvenile and irritating and not justified by the mere fact that you disagree with Bush on ONE issue.
Hating everyone who disagrees with you on an issue is not rational. Taeldian fucked around with this message on 10-18-2004 at 03:25 AM.
quote:
frolicking imp got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
Did I say I was an avid kerry fan? Nooo I dont think so. I said I hated Bush.
So if you hate Bush because he opposes gay marriage, why don't you hate Kerry for the same reason? You clearly don't mind Kerry since you don't go around posting anti-kerry vitriol.
DOUBLE STANDARD AHOY CAP'N!
quote:
frolicking imp stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
I'm done talking about this, its a wase of my time, im going to bed i have to up in 4 hours for college anyway.
And this is what we say when we know we can't back up our claims but don't want to admit defeat anyway. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 10-18-2004 at 03:28 AM.
Good night.
frolicking imp fucked around with this message on 10-18-2004 at 03:32 AM.
(and I don't hate kerry becuase I agree with kerry's veiws on things more often then I do bush. I'd be crazy if gay marriage we're the ONLY thing I disagreed with bush on. I dont agree with kerry on everything, just on more things than bush, therefore i tolerate kerry and hate bush, the end)
quote:
Maradon! enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
So if you hate Bush because he opposes gay marriage, why don't you hate Kerry for the same reason? You clearly don't mind Kerry since you don't go around posting anti-kerry vitriol.
Bush is the President and is thus subject to more criticism. Just because she blindly hates Bush doesn't change the fact that she may blindly hate Kerry as well. As she said, Bush is just the most outspoken about gay marriage. Taeldian fucked around with this message on 10-18-2004 at 03:31 AM.
quote:
frolicking imp had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
I'm sorry I guess I wasn't clear enough, let me re-state this. I HAVE A RIGHT TO HATE WHOMEVER I SO CHOOSE.Good night.
That's true, and I have a right to point out the fact that you're hatred is totally irrational, as you've proven.
quote:
frolicking imp thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
I'm sorry I guess I wasn't clear enough, let me re-state this. I HAVE A RIGHT TO HATE WHOMEVER I SO CHOOSE.Good night.
The fact that you have the right to hate doesn't make your hate rational. It also doesn't make blind mindless mudslinging of anyone less annoying.
quote:
Taeldian had this to say about Pirotess:
Bush is the President and is thus subject to more criticism. Just because she blindly hates Bush doesn't change the fact that she may blindly hate Kerry as well. As she said, Bush is just the most outspoken about gay marriage.
But her bashing never has anything to do with gay marriage at all, she bashes Bush and only Bush and her bashes never encompass his stance on gay marriage.
quote:
So quoth Maradon!:
But her bashing never has anything to do with gay marriage at all, she bashes Bush and only Bush and her bashes never encompass his stance on gay marriage.
Good point.
But she hates Bush more because he's more outspoken.
quote:
frolicking imp wrote this stupid crap:
OK i know I said i was going to bed but I'm stubborn so let me just say this. why do we keep saying that i was mudslinging??? I never was mudslinging, i dont see how an article on woman rights was mudlsinging?!!? all i did was copy and paste the email I received and found interesting and I got attacked..
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent frolicking imp said:
This is bushes administation at work. What a good leader we have.
Don't lie.
quote:
frolicking imp said this about your mom:
all i did was copy and paste the email I received and found interesting and I got attacked.
quote:
Verily, frolicking imp doth proclaim:
all i did was copy and paste the email I received and found interesting and I got attacked.
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent frolicking imp said:
This is bushes administation at work. What a good leader we have.
Taeldian fucked around with this message on 10-18-2004 at 03:45 AM.
quote:
frolicking imp stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
this proves... what? so im lazy and copy and pasted. so sue me. what did you want a proper introduction to it instead?.
"This is bushes administation at work. What a good leader we have."
The introduction shows that you obviously believe and support what's being said in the link. You're accusing Bush of being an anti-feminist woman-hater and then making a sarcastic remark about his leadership abilities based on a link someone sent you in an email.
You're saying that's not mudslinging?
quote:
frolicking imp probably says this to all the girls:
this proves... what? so im lazy and copy and pasted. so sue me. what did you want a proper introduction to it instead? I didnt have the time, hence the rest of the message where i make a quick "hey" to everyone i havent spoken to in a while. Even that doesnt validate my "constant mudslinging" He made it seem like evey post ive ever had was anti bush and thats all I ever have on my mind. I'd like to think i contribute a little more than just my political opinion, which god forbid I'd be entitled to do so if I chose to. I'm not one of those morons that doesn't want Bush in office beucase "uhh duh im a democrat?" or because "uhh duhh I dunno I dont like him." I have plenty of reason I just dont feel the need to discuss them all becuase theyve been discussed to death before hand by people other than me and i'd be attacked for re-hashing things. If you really NEED to know my reasons to sooth your poor vicous minds then by all means message me at your leasuire and we'll discuss it. Until then calm down killers, no need to get all worked up over this stuff. makes my little sicilan spirit go all over drive frustrated.
A) Paragraphs.
B) You really don't contribute much else.
C) The accusation was based off of your political posts thus to date, which have been nothing but ignorant, irrational hatred towards Bush. So constant mudslinging might be a little less accurate than to say "All of your political opinions revolve around ignorant, irrational hatred towards Bush."
quote:
Check out the big brain on Taeldian!
"This is bushes administation at work. What a good leader we have."The introduction shows that you obviously believe and support what's being said in the link. You're accusing Bush of being an anti-feminist woman-hater and then making a sarcastic remark about his leadership abilities based on a link someone sent you in an email.
You're saying that's not mudslinging?
GAHHHHH *tears hair out*
WHAT PART OF I COPIED AND PASTED DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND????
I typed nothing but what followed. Damn it ignorance pisses me off.
quote:
Check out the big brain on frolicking imp!
GAHHHHH *tears hair out*
WHAT PART OF I COPIED AND PASTED DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND????
I typed nothing but what followed. Damn it ignorance pisses me off.
Reading is fundamental. YOU typed what he quoted.
quote:
frolicking imp had this to say about (_|_):
GAHHHHH *tears hair out*
WHAT PART OF I COPIED AND PASTED DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND????
I typed nothing but what followed. Damn it ignorance pisses me off.
So you copy/pasted the intro as well as the link? Try being more clear next time. It sounded like you copy/pasted the link only (As that's what most people do).
In any case, why leave that part in when it's pretty clear that it's going to be seen as you yourself saying it and not someone else (Unless, of course, you support the copy/pasted statement)? Taeldian fucked around with this message on 10-18-2004 at 04:19 AM.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
A) Paragraphs.B) You really don't contribute much else.
C) The accusation was based off of your political posts thus to date, which have been nothing but ignorant, irrational hatred towards Bush. So constant mudslinging might be a little less accurate than to say "All of your political opinions revolve around ignorant, irrational hatred towards Bush."
A) If you don't like the way I typed it, don't read it
B) That's a matter of opinion. Granted I have a tendancy to use this site to come ask questions I know smarter people will know the answer too, so i suppose it could be argued that I take more than I give. But what can I say, I'm not witty enough to do much else but laugh at others posts.
C) I'm not ignorant. I've done my fair share of reading on both side of the story. I'm not some schmuck who saw a Micheal Moore movie an was all like " ono I hatez bush!!" And irrational is a relative term. I find it irrational that I would ever like anyone who is against gay marriages since that is such a big issue with me it would cause too much conflict.
What you find irrational is irrelevant to my opinion.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan wrote this stupid crap:
Reading is fundamental. YOU typed what he quoted.
Are you trying to tell me I dont know what i typed?
quote:
frolicking imp got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
so im lazy and copy and pasted. so sue me.
the key word there being lazy. I though this explained why the introduction remained. Sorri if I wasnt clear enough. I have that problem sometimes. frolicking imp fucked around with this message on 10-18-2004 at 04:27 AM.
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when frolicking imp wrote:
find it irrational that I would ever like anyone who is against gay marriages since that is such a big issue with me it would cause too much conflict..
The rest the world has a certain standard of rationality that you aren't living up to right now. Whether or not you care whether you live up to that standard changes nothing.
quote:
frolicking imp got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
the key word there being lazy. I though this explained why the introduction remained. Sorri if I wasnt clear enough. I have that problem sometimes.
If you're too lazy to communicate properly then expect people to misinterpret you.
In any case, we've completely derailed the thread so if you want we can take it to PMs or something. But no more arguing in this thread.
So uh, how about that Bush election, eh? Taeldian fucked around with this message on 10-18-2004 at 04:37 AM.
quote:
Taeldian enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
The rest the world has a certain standard of rationality that you aren't living up to right now. Whether or not you care whether you live up to that standard changes nothing.
There are alot of standards this world holds that i dont live up to, i think wether or not I care does hold great value in that. I think if I cared I'd have a much lower self esteem. but seing as how I actually feel pretty good about the way i veiw the world, who I am, and what I value; I'd say such is not the case.
quote:
If you're too lazy to communicate properly then expect people to misinterpret you
yes this is why I said this happens often, becuase i often type on little amounts of sleep (as I do just about every other activity) and therefore exert as little enregy as possible. I know I should be less lazy but I pefer to save my energy soley on things I either pay for (school) or get paid for (work). The evercrest forums fall into neither of these categories.
G'night, folks!
quote:
Maradon! thought about the meaning of life:
So if you hate Bush because he opposes gay marriage, why don't you hate Kerry for the same reason? You clearly don't mind Kerry since you don't go around posting anti-kerry vitriol.DOUBLE STANDARD AHOY CAP'N!
You act as if they both have the same stance.
Bush wants to pass a CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT banning gay marriage. Kerry wants to give them all the same rights as straight married couples without the Marriage title.
That is a very very different approach. One is blatently against it, the other one just doesn't want to give them the Marriage title because it would offend the religious amoung us, but thinks they should have equal rights. There is no double standard here. Blindy. fucked around with this message on 10-18-2004 at 07:56 AM.
quote:
Maradon! probably says this to all the girls:
Do you realize Kerry vocally opposes gay marriage as well?
Though he does support Civil-Unions for homosexuals. Of course the bigger issue is that Kerry doesn't support an amendment to the constitiution at the federal level banning homosexual marriage, while bush openly supports it.
(The term marriage in my opinion shouldn't even be used in government, call it all civil unions and let the religions dress it up how they want to.)
Bloodrose fucked around with this message on 10-18-2004 at 09:00 AM.
Urlage:
Scottsman.com
Cincinnati.com
SFGate.com
CincyPost.com
Is there a difference?
Or am I out of the loop?
quote:
Azakias got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
Wasnt it said that Kerry opposed gay marriage, but not civil unions?Is there a difference?
Or am I out of the loop?
In my opinion there isn't much of a difference, Civil Union is just a big blanket term as I understand it and marriage is just a specific form of civil union. Of course I may be wrong.
quote:
Bloodrose put down Tada! magazine long enough to type:
In my opinion there isn't much of a difference, Civil Union is just a big blanket term as I understand it and marriage is just a specific form of civil union. Of course I may be wrong.
Civil Unions, as they are defined today, are kind of like a marriage lite. You get about a fourth of the rights of a married couple; they are by no stretch equal to a marriage.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Karnaj obviously shouldn't have said:
Civil Unions, as they are defined today, are kind of like a marriage lite. You get about a fourth of the rights of a married couple; they are by no stretch equal to a marriage.
Do you have a link to a breakdown of the rights and such for Civil Unions versus marriage?
quote:
And now, we sprinkle Bloodrose liberally with Old Spice!
Do you have a link to a breakdown of the rights and such for Civil Unions versus marriage?
Here is a simplified chart. I've not yet found a listing of them all.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Bloodrose obviously shouldn't have said:
In my opinion there isn't much of a difference, Civil Union is just a big blanket term as I understand it and marriage is just a specific form of civil union. Of course I may be wrong.
Ideally, there wouldn't be. That's what Kerry's shooting for. Right now, there is.
quote:
Karnaj's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
Here is a simplified chart. I've not yet found a listing of them all.
Thank you muchly. 
quote:
Karnaj painfully thought these words up:
Here is a simplified chart. I've not yet found a listing of them all.
They aren't necessarily recognized nationwide...because they only exist in Vermont. If they happen to become something talked about at the federal level, things will definitely have to change recognition-wise. That list only talks about Civil unions in a single state, not a potential nation-wide implementation.
Simple solution: Make a Marriage and a Civil Union identical. It is a Marriage if performed in a church. Otherwise, call it a civil union.
Boom. Falaanla Marr fucked around with this message on 10-18-2004 at 03:57 PM.
quote:
A sleep deprived Falaanla Marr stammered:
They aren't necessarily recognized nationwide...because they only exist in Vermont. If they happen to become something talked about at the federal level, things will definitely have to change recognition-wise. That list only talks about Civil unions in a single state, not a potential nation-wide implementation.Simple solution: Make a Marriage and a Civil Union identical. It is a Marriage if performed in a church. Otherwise, call it a civil union.
Boom.
I prefer it if they just changed all references to "Marriage" in the law books to "Civil Union". Let the Churches call it by it's Religious term, there is no need to call it by anything other than a legal definition in the laws.
quote:
Blindy. got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
I prefer it if they just changed all references to "Marriage" in the law books to "Civil Union". Let the Churches call it by it's Religious term, there is no need to call it by anything other than a legal definition in the laws.
I agree, however the crux of the matter is not symantics, it's the preferential tax treatment alotted to married couples.
A friend of mine pointed out that the whole reason married couples recieved a tax break in the first place was to make it easier to support children and that homosexual couples did not have this need. Yes, some homosexual couples adopt, some straight couples cannot concieve, but by and large not enough homosexual couples support children to warrant their recieving a tax break.
Explained like that, I can almost agree with it. I still favor erasing all mention of marriage from government, and allowing homosexual couples to visit one another in the hospital and such, however.
