Dissembling Goes Here

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » November 4, 2008, 11:53 am

Just thought I'd start a nice little concentrated post where you can come and complain about soandso candidate that you voted for not getting elected and why you think the rest of the country are morons for not agreeing with you. Notice I'm not making any assumptions here! Red, blue. Black, white, whatever! Doesn't even have to be only the presidential race!

Nick · Post by **Nick** » November 4, 2008, 12:13 pm

I hope the USA makes the better choice today.

(in true VV form, McCain = Hitler!)

There, I've invoked godwins. thread over.

Seriously though, I hope he doesn't win. Obama is the better man for the job.

Linked from BBC (must be biased!>?) - http://blogs.computerworld.com/e_voting_issues_in_texas

Post by **Sylvus** » November 4, 2008, 12:27 pm

I really hope that Proposal 1 (medical marihuana) and Proposal 2 (stem cell research) pass in Michigan. The stuff with proposal 2 has been driving me crazy, its opponents have been putting up all kinds of commercials that are filled with flat-out lies. For example, they'll show all these futuristic, fictional companies like "CloneTech" and then slap on their logo "2 Goes 2 Far", when the proposed amendment specifically states, at the very beginning, "Nothing in this section shall alter Michigan's current prohibition on human cloning".

The proposal does nothing except allow extra embryos that were created for the purposes of fertility treatment to be donated for research in the case that they would otherwise be discarded. That's the only thing it allows, and it specifically allows only that scenario. There are provisions against people being able to buy or sell them, they need to follow whatever standards for research are made at a federal level, etc. And this large group of mostly religious organizations are against the proposal, are well funded (much like prop 8 folks in California), and are allowed to flood the airwaves with straight up lies. I really think that should be illegal.

I'm going to vote at lunch, I really hope both proposals pass and I have scientists that are able to work on cures for things rather than having to rely on Jesus. Jesus has cured a lot of people and is a great guy, but I really think he's just got too much going on to have to worry about trying to find the cure for diabetes or spinal cord injuries.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » November 4, 2008, 3:24 pm

Amendment 3 here in Florida is our current fundylicious attempt to ban gay marriage via nullification of all civil unions. It would also have the unfortunate side affect of keeping old couples, who can't get formally married because they need to keep their deceased spouse's pension/benefits, from exercising common-law power of attorney, or even visiting each other in the hospital. Good jorb, fundies! I'm sure Jesus hates fags so much he doesn't care if old people are caught in the crossfire.

p.s. Yes, I voted for Obama. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upvZdVK913I

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » November 4, 2008, 3:29 pm

masteen wrote:Amendment 3 here in Florida is our current fundylicious attempt to ban gay marriage via nullification of all civil unions. It would also have the unfortunate side affect of keeping old couples, who can't get formally married because they need to keep their deceased spouse's pension/benefits, from exercising common-law power of attorney, or even visiting each other in the hospital. Good jorb, fundies! I'm sure Jesus hates fags so much he doesn't care if old people are caught in the crossfire.

Of course they could just fix the current laws so that it did not require marriage to gain or keep said benefits. I am still all about legal unions that are not classified as a marriage that gain some of the benefits that marriage gives.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » November 4, 2008, 3:31 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
masteen wrote:Amendment 3 here in Florida is our current fundylicious attempt to ban gay marriage via nullification of all civil unions. It would also have the unfortunate side affect of keeping old couples, who can't get formally married because they need to keep their deceased spouse's pension/benefits, from exercising common-law power of attorney, or even visiting each other in the hospital. Good jorb, fundies! I'm sure Jesus hates fags so much he doesn't care if old people are caught in the crossfire.

Of course they could just fix the current laws so that it did not require marriage to gain or keep said benefits. I am still all about legal unions that are not classified as a marriage that gain some of the benefits that marriage gives.

But that wouldn't stick it to them queers, which is the real intent.

Aardor · Post by **Aardor** » November 4, 2008, 3:32 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
masteen wrote:Amendment 3 here in Florida is our current fundylicious attempt to ban gay marriage via nullification of all civil unions. It would also have the unfortunate side affect of keeping old couples, who can't get formally married because they need to keep their deceased spouse's pension/benefits, from exercising common-law power of attorney, or even visiting each other in the hospital. Good jorb, fundies! I'm sure Jesus hates fags so much he doesn't care if old people are caught in the crossfire.

Of course they could just fix the current laws so that it did not require marriage to gain or keep said benefits. I am still all about legal unions that are not classified as a marriage that gain some of the benefits that marriage gives.

Why only some? what ones would you deny them?

Spang · Post by **Spang** » November 4, 2008, 3:37 pm

I think homosexual-Americans should have exactly the same rights as all the other hyphenated-Americans.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » November 4, 2008, 3:41 pm

Aardor wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
masteen wrote:Amendment 3 here in Florida is our current fundylicious attempt to ban gay marriage via nullification of all civil unions. It would also have the unfortunate side affect of keeping old couples, who can't get formally married because they need to keep their deceased spouse's pension/benefits, from exercising common-law power of attorney, or even visiting each other in the hospital. Good jorb, fundies! I'm sure Jesus hates fags so much he doesn't care if old people are caught in the crossfire.

Of course they could just fix the current laws so that it did not require marriage to gain or keep said benefits. I am still all about legal unions that are not classified as a marriage that gain some of the benefits that marriage gives.
Why only some? what ones would you deny them?

You are not really asking me to look up every law on the books for every city and state in the US are you?

Post by **Sylvus** » November 4, 2008, 3:43 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Aardor wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
masteen wrote:Amendment 3 here in Florida is our current fundylicious attempt to ban gay marriage via nullification of all civil unions. It would also have the unfortunate side affect of keeping old couples, who can't get formally married because they need to keep their deceased spouse's pension/benefits, from exercising common-law power of attorney, or even visiting each other in the hospital. Good jorb, fundies! I'm sure Jesus hates fags so much he doesn't care if old people are caught in the crossfire.

Of course they could just fix the current laws so that it did not require marriage to gain or keep said benefits. I am still all about legal unions that are not classified as a marriage that gain some of the benefits that marriage gives.
Why only some? what ones would you deny them?
You are not really asking me to look up every law on the books for every city and state in the US are you?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Just list a couple of benefits that marriage gives that you would not extend to a homosexual civil union.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » November 4, 2008, 4:27 pm

Nick wrote:Linked from BBC (must be biased!>?) - http://blogs.computerworld.com/e_voting_issues_in_texas

That's not the first time electronic ballots in Texas have been fucked up. And sadly, it won't be the last.

It's normally blamed on miscalibration, or malfunction...but it's always the same malfunction. Straight party democrat ticket somehow marks all republican votes, but not the other way around. There was enough of an outrage around here that they set up 1 early voting location with paper ballots 2 years ago. It was swamped with people. Fortunately I haven't seen the e-voting machines since then. Then again, I live in a mostly republican area.

Not to sound all tin foil or anything, but it's been frequent and blatant.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » November 4, 2008, 5:22 pm

Sylvus wrote:

I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Just list a couple of benefits that marriage gives that you would not extend to a homosexual civil union.

Well first, I don't think a company should be forced to recognize a spouse from a gay union for benefits. Key word there being "forced". If they choose to then all the power to them. Just looking at most benefits off the top of my head, there are really are not many I can say that if it were up to me personally that I would deny. I don't want to be putting an exclusive list here because it would just be impossible for me ot look up every law on the books regarding that subject.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » November 4, 2008, 5:37 pm

masteen wrote:Amendment 3 here in Florida is our current fundylicious attempt to ban gay marriage via nullification of all civil unions. It would also have the unfortunate side affect of keeping old couples, who can't get formally married because they need to keep their deceased spouse's pension/benefits, from exercising common-law power of attorney, or even visiting each other in the hospital. Good jorb, fundies! I'm sure Jesus hates fags so much he doesn't care if old people are caught in the crossfire.

p.s. Yes, I voted for Obama. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upvZdVK913I

Umm, that's amendment 2 not 3. Hope you voted NO on 2 and YES on 3.

Kilmoll, any answer to the question of how you would treat gays differently entails discrimination against them. As much as I dislike the act, there is not a single right or privilege a human should be denied because of their sexuality, or skin color, or gender. Apparently, you disagree. What does that make you?

Post by **pyrella** » November 4, 2008, 5:40 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Sylvus wrote:

I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Just list a couple of benefits that marriage gives that you would not extend to a homosexual civil union.
Well first, I don't think a company should be forced to recognize a spouse from a gay union for benefits. Key word there being "forced". If they choose to then all the power to them. Just looking at most benefits off the top of my head, there are really are not many I can say that if it were up to me personally that I would deny. I don't want to be putting an exclusive list here because it would just be impossible for me ot look up every law on the books regarding that subject.

Should they be forced to recognize a spouse from a hetero union for benefits? If so, why one over the other? Is it a fear of Chuck&Larry type fraud, or just only opposite sexes should be cared for a domestic partner? If the latter, do mixed pairs have a greater list of qualifications over same sex pairs?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » November 4, 2008, 5:56 pm

Xyun wrote:
masteen wrote:Amendment 3 here in Florida is our current fundylicious attempt to ban gay marriage via nullification of all civil unions. It would also have the unfortunate side affect of keeping old couples, who can't get formally married because they need to keep their deceased spouse's pension/benefits, from exercising common-law power of attorney, or even visiting each other in the hospital. Good jorb, fundies! I'm sure Jesus hates fags so much he doesn't care if old people are caught in the crossfire.

p.s. Yes, I voted for Obama. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upvZdVK913I
Umm, that's amendment 2 not 3. Hope you voted NO on 2 and YES on 3.

Kilmoll, any answer to the question of how you would treat gays differently entails discrimination against them. As much as I dislike the act, there is not a single right or privilege a human should be denied because of their sexuality, or skin color, or gender. Apparently, you disagree. What does that make you?

Why would this view only apply to those conditions? Why are there laws in place only to protect or give special considerations to those? What exactly would happen if there were straight pride parades or if whites marched in protest together? Why is it ok to publicly deride people for religious beliefs? If you owned a place of business that catered exclusively to a subset of people, like say Berean Books which is a Christian book store, would you be ok with being forced to extend benefits or be sued for not wanting to hire someone that would theoretically hurt your business?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » November 4, 2008, 5:58 pm

Xyun wrote:
masteen wrote:Amendment 3 here in Florida is our current fundylicious attempt to ban gay marriage via nullification of all civil unions. It would also have the unfortunate side affect of keeping old couples, who can't get formally married because they need to keep their deceased spouse's pension/benefits, from exercising common-law power of attorney, or even visiting each other in the hospital. Good jorb, fundies! I'm sure Jesus hates fags so much he doesn't care if old people are caught in the crossfire.

p.s. Yes, I voted for Obama. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upvZdVK913I
Umm, that's amendment 2 not 3. Hope you voted NO on 2 and YES on 3.

Kilmoll, any answer to the question of how you would treat gays differently entails discrimination against them. As much as I dislike the act, there is not a single right or privilege a human should be denied because of their sexuality, or skin color, or gender. Apparently, you disagree. What does that make you?

I voted absentee two weeks ago, but yeah, I voted against the fundy marriage thing and for... was 3 the tax exemption for conservation lands or the prohibition on reassessing houses when the owners add hurricane shutters or solar power? I voted for both of those.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » November 4, 2008, 6:34 pm

I voted for Obama and to increase some tax that went to better educate our kids or some such. I skipped voting for the other positions on account of not knowing shit. I didn't get to vote for gay marriage or medical weed - stupid rednecks!

cadalano · Post by **cadalano** » November 4, 2008, 6:43 pm

What exactly would happen if there were straight pride parades or if whites marched in protest together?

when is the next KKK rally anyway?

Why is it ok to publicly deride people for religious beliefs?

its okay to publicly deride people (for any reason) because it is a free country and we have a bill of rights. that situation is relevant only through false logic:

discrimination is not illegal in that case. therefore, discrimination anywhere, in any form, and with any consequence is always OK.

If you owned a place of business that catered exclusively to a subset of people, like say Berean Books which is a Christian book store, would you be ok with being forced to extend benefits or be sued for not wanting to hire someone that would theoretically hurt your business?

there are lots of situations like this with other minorities, and not even always regarding businesses which are discriminatory by nature. every day really. its not a problem.

miir · Post by **miir** » November 4, 2008, 6:54 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Why would this view only apply to those conditions? Why are there laws in place only to protect or give special considerations to those? What exactly would happen if there were straight pride parades or if whites marched in protest together?

There is no reason for white pride or straight pride/protest events.
Those groups have never been repressed in your country.
They have always had their constitutional rights.

Why is it ok to publicly deride people for religious beliefs?

Religion is a choice.
Just like it would be ok to deride people who choose to smear dog feces all over their face.

If you owned a place of business that catered exclusively to a subset of people, like say Berean Books which is a Christian book store, would you be ok with being forced to extend benefits or be sued for not wanting to hire someone that would theoretically hurt your business?

It's certainly their prerogative to not hire fags. (What self respecting fag would want to work in a christian bookstore anyway?), but it's illegal for them to have a hiring policy that discriminates based on race, gender or sexual orientation.
Just like it would be illegal for the owner of a gay bookstore to have a policy against hiring breeders... or a black bookstore hiring whites.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » November 4, 2008, 7:09 pm

Almost anyone is welcome in my chapter of the Black Panthers.

(even whitey)

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » November 4, 2008, 7:24 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Xyun wrote:
masteen wrote:Amendment 3 here in Florida is our current fundylicious attempt to ban gay marriage via nullification of all civil unions. It would also have the unfortunate side affect of keeping old couples, who can't get formally married because they need to keep their deceased spouse's pension/benefits, from exercising common-law power of attorney, or even visiting each other in the hospital. Good jorb, fundies! I'm sure Jesus hates fags so much he doesn't care if old people are caught in the crossfire.

p.s. Yes, I voted for Obama. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upvZdVK913I
Umm, that's amendment 2 not 3. Hope you voted NO on 2 and YES on 3.

Kilmoll, any answer to the question of how you would treat gays differently entails discrimination against them. As much as I dislike the act, there is not a single right or privilege a human should be denied because of their sexuality, or skin color, or gender. Apparently, you disagree. What does that make you?
Why would this view only apply to those conditions? Why are there laws in place only to protect or give special considerations to those? What exactly would happen if there were straight pride parades or if whites marched in protest together? Why is it ok to publicly deride people for religious beliefs? If you owned a place of business that catered exclusively to a subset of people, like say Berean Books which is a Christian book store, would you be ok with being forced to extend benefits or be sued for not wanting to hire someone that would theoretically hurt your business?

What you are talking about is tolerance of people who make certain choices. What I'm talking about is discrimination against people because of inherent characteristics. I'm sorry you cannot tell the difference.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » November 4, 2008, 8:32 pm

fox news is showing obama ahead in popular vote 13k to 10k roughly!

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » November 4, 2008, 8:34 pm

nevermind i just reloaded and it says 1212 for obama and 1800 for mccain

miir · Post by **miir** » November 4, 2008, 8:37 pm

Haha, I just brought up foxnews and it had Obama ahead like 52% to 46%... then I went back to the tab and it showed Mccain ahead 60% to 39%

I can't believe people some people really think foxnews is actually based in reality.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » November 4, 2008, 8:42 pm

i think it has more to do with more and more results coming in.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/spec ... MULTIMEDIA

fox was just the only one at the time of my post showing anything at all.

valryte · Post by **valryte** » November 4, 2008, 8:43 pm

Hey Kilmoll, you know for someone so hell bent about ANY law that even remotely encroaches on your right to bare arms, you certainly do not have any qualms about a law that clearly discriminates against a certain group of people based on their sexual orientation.

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » November 4, 2008, 8:52 pm

Guns and fags are not the same thing, faggot.

miir · Post by **miir** » November 4, 2008, 8:53 pm

valryte wrote:sexual preference.

Sexual orientation is a more accurate term.
People don't choose to be gay.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » November 4, 2008, 9:03 pm

Oh wait posted in wrong thread!

Drolgin Steingrinder · November 4, 2008, 10:03 pm

valryte wrote:Hey Kilmoll, you know for someone so hell bent about ANY law that even remotely encroaches on your right to bare arms, you certainly do not have any qualms about a law that clearly discriminates against a certain group of people based on their sexual orientation.

Are they outlawing t-shirts? And with that, I'm going to bed...had hoped I could stay up for the whole thing like I did in 2004, but I'm getting too old.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » November 4, 2008, 10:41 pm

Drolgin Steingrinder wrote:
valryte wrote:Hey Kilmoll, you know for someone so hell bent about ANY law that even remotely encroaches on your right to bare arms, you certainly do not have any qualms about a law that clearly discriminates against a certain group of people based on their sexual orientation.
Are they outlawing t-shirts? And with that, I'm going to bed...had hoped I could stay up for the whole thing like I did in 2004, but I'm getting too old.

First of all, I think the code here needs to change to eliminate embedded quotes from people you have on ignore.

Second, if you are going to question my IQ, you should at least be able to use the grammatically correct words in your sentences. It would be BEAR note bare. Although I am not certain that Obama will not require sleeves to eliminate bare arms at some point.

Third, there is no law that says people have to marry anyone. These are benefits given to people and are not requirements. I am more worried about my rights to protect myself and my family than I am about someone being able to buy 20 AR-15's with large magazines this month. Every single quote and vote by Obama and his running mate say EXACTLY that they want to do that. You show me ONE single fucking vote that Obama has been involved in where he did not vote against gun rights. Just fucking ONE.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » November 4, 2008, 10:47 pm

Guns are stupid.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » November 4, 2008, 10:52 pm

Siji · Post by **Siji** » November 4, 2008, 10:59 pm

Spang wrote:Guns are stupid.

But they're getting smarter.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » November 4, 2008, 11:06 pm

Did fox just call Ohio for Obama by accident or is that real?

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » November 4, 2008, 11:10 pm

CNN showing the same at the moment. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/

I don't pay attention to Fox...

(Oh that was PA. Nothing on Ohio yet)

Nick · Post by **Nick** » November 4, 2008, 11:14 pm

Yes Im watching BBC. I agree with BBC's claim just a minute or two again that "no, fox isnt good enough".

masteen · Post by **masteen** » November 5, 2008, 1:12 am

Siji wrote:
Spang wrote:Guns are stupid.
But they're getting smarter.

Guns are still stupid, it's the bullets that are getting smarter!

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » November 5, 2008, 12:38 pm

bbc's info was coming directly from abc

Post by **Sylvus** » November 5, 2008, 1:41 pm

Yay, both of our props passed!

It'll probably only be a few more years before someone in Michigan comes up with the cure for cancer. No need to thank me for my vote, it was my pleasure to help you guys out.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » November 5, 2008, 1:47 pm

See if they can find a cure for homosexuality while they're at it.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » November 5, 2008, 1:51 pm

You need your scientists to come up with a cure for Tressel.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » November 5, 2008, 2:20 pm

Siji · Post by **Siji** » November 5, 2008, 2:49 pm

Speaking of scientists, perhaps now we can move forward with stem cell research more so than before.