THE NEW BLACKLIST

[Honey]

If you believe marriage is some ancient traditional deal between a man and a woman of opposite sexes then, IMO, you're perfectly entitled to think gay marriage is out of line without, necessarily, being against gay people.

If someone doesn't approve of Gay marriage, then they shouldn't enter into one.  They have no business stomping on the rights of others.  I have exactly as little patience for them as I have for the screwheads who decided listening to our phone calls was a good idea, or that ignoring habeas corpus was the fucking cat's ass.  There is no difference at all, in principle, between Alberto Gonzales and someone who supports odious shit like prop 8.  They are both opposed to individual liberty.

TGRR,
Making Thomas Paine look reasonable since the Johnson Administration.

Knowing this just might be a tad off-topic    but Alberto Gonzales?    

COMMENTARY:
Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus

by ROBERT PARRY
In one of the most chilling public statements ever made by a U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales questioned whether the U.S. Constitution grants habeas corpus rights of a fair trial to every American.  ...

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/011907Parry.shtml

& then:

SATIRE:
How to Interpret the Ten Commandments
An attempt at legal analysis of Biblical law following Gonzalesian logic.
by DEBORAH KORY

Thankfully, Gonzales finally straightened out two centuries of muddle-headed lawmaking the other day when he testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding government surveillance.  ...

Okay--here goes. My attempt at the Ten Commandments following Gonzalesian logic:

1.  I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me.

Since it does not explicitly state that God exists outside the borders of the United States, God must not exist outside of the United States. In fact, God IS the United States and the President is our Pope—except the Pope is Catholic and German and the Germans are godless Communists and we failed to extinguish Communism in Vietnam and therefore must extinguish Islamism in the Middle East.

2.  You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.

There is no explicit mention here of oil. It is totally fine to make an idol out of oil and to watch "American Idol." Guantanamo is surrounded by water, out of which the Leftist Jew-dominated media has created a Golden Calf in its own terrorist-sympathizer image.

3.  You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.

Notice there's no mention here of "Allah." Catch my drift?
...
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/012207KORY2.shtml

I love this Decade! 

[Golden Applesauce]

If it's unrelated, have you considered starting a new thread?

Skillfull dodge.  It's messed up that a false sense of privacy had been violated, but if you ain't ready to defend your vote by whatever means necessary DON'T vote.  Go be the frightened citizen of some other nation where the winner has been decided in advance.  Those people have courage and give meaning to the vote. 

But you see, voting here IS private and confidential. Do you not live in the United States? Are you suggesting that because it's worse in other countries, it's not wrong to erode people's rights here?

Would you still vote even if that put you in danger?  That is the most important thing you can really extract from this.  How important is voting to you? Would you... etc etc

If you have to defend your vote with violence, then it's not really a vote, it's a method of keeping score during an armed conflict.  Because, see, immediately after the election all the people who voted against the interest of the most armed and vicious group will find themselves mysteriously unable to cast a ballot next election.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

If it's unrelated, have you considered starting a new thread?

Skillfull dodge.  It's messed up that a false sense of privacy had been violated, but if you ain't ready to defend your vote by whatever means necessary DON'T vote.  Go be the frightened citizen of some other nation where the winner has been decided in advance.  Those people have courage and give meaning to the vote. 

But you see, voting here IS private and confidential. Do you not live in the United States? Are you suggesting that because it's worse in other countries, it's not wrong to erode people's rights here?

Would you still vote even if that put you in danger?  That is the most important thing you can really extract from this.  How important is voting to you? Would you... etc etc

If you have to defend your vote with violence, then it's not really a vote, it's a method of keeping score during an armed conflict.  Because, see, immediately after the election all the people who voted against the interest of the most armed and vicious group will find themselves mysteriously unable to cast a ballot next election.

Lech isn't a big fan of self-determination, I think.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

To those of you who think this harassment is acceptable because you find the woman's views reprehensible... what the fuck is wrong with you? You're as disgusting as the people who think it's OK to send hate mail to queers who try to adopt. I'm sorry, condoning harassment because you don't agree with the political views of the person being harassed is fucking sick.

Let's look at this another way:  This woman is out to ruin the private lives of about 10% of the population, based on hate and/or fear alone.

While I don't condone anything further, this woman's hurt feelings don't stack up to the rights of one person, let alone 30 million or so.

So you think it would be OK for a militant right-wing newspaper in a largely right-wing community to publish a link to the addresses of gay-rights supporters?

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

To those of you who think this harassment is acceptable because you find the woman's views reprehensible... what the fuck is wrong with you? You're as disgusting as the people who think it's OK to send hate mail to queers who try to adopt. I'm sorry, condoning harassment because you don't agree with the political views of the person being harassed is fucking sick.

Let's look at this another way:  This woman is out to ruin the private lives of about 10% of the population, based on hate and/or fear alone.

While I don't condone anything further, this woman's hurt feelings don't stack up to the rights of one person, let alone 30 million or so.

So you think it would be OK for a militant right-wing newspaper in a largely right-wing community to publish a link to the addresses of gay-rights supporters?

It's a bunk comparison. You're assuming the Chronicle is comparable to right wing militant groups.


The difference is that the "militant" gay-rights supporters don't have a history of oppression, violence, and murder against the opposition.

The militant anti-gay crowd does.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

To those of you who think this harassment is acceptable because you find the woman's views reprehensible... what the fuck is wrong with you? You're as disgusting as the people who think it's OK to send hate mail to queers who try to adopt. I'm sorry, condoning harassment because you don't agree with the political views of the person being harassed is fucking sick.

Let's look at this another way:  This woman is out to ruin the private lives of about 10% of the population, based on hate and/or fear alone.

While I don't condone anything further, this woman's hurt feelings don't stack up to the rights of one person, let alone 30 million or so.

So you think it would be OK for a militant right-wing newspaper in a largely right-wing community to publish a link to the addresses of gay-rights supporters?

It's a bunk comparison. You're assuming the Chronicle is comparable to right wing militant groups.


The difference is that the "militant" gay-rights supporters don't have a history of oppression, violence, and murder against the opposition.

The militant anti-gay crowd does.

You're still making the distinction that a certain political tactic is OK from one side but not from the other. I'm saying that it's not. What is it, EXACTLY, that YOU think makes it OK from one faction but not from the other?

Do you think anything exists to prevent a right-wing publication with largely right-wing militant readership from publishing a link to a map with the addresses of donors to a gay-rights campaign? Do you think there should be?

[Pope Lecherous]

The threat of violence against the "homophobes" in support of prop 8.

Why the quotes?  If you support proposition 8, you're a homophobe.  Dress it up with things like "definitions of marriage", etc, all you like.  You aren't fooling anyone.

It should be legal for straights and gays to marry people of the same sex.  However, no reprisals should be taken against a church that doesnt want to have anything to do with it. 

[Pope Lecherous]

If you have to defend your vote with violence, then it's not really a vote, it's a method of keeping score during an armed conflict.  Because, see, immediately after the election all the people who voted against the interest of the most armed and vicious group will find themselves mysteriously unable to cast a ballot next election.

If you are willing to stand up and vote knowing that the most armed and vicious group disagrees with you, that's balls.  If the issue being voted over isn't worth that risk to you or you aren't ready to take that risk (priorities) reassess your need to vote, your views on voting, and/or the topic at hand...

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

If you have to defend your vote with violence, then it's not really a vote, it's a method of keeping score during an armed conflict.  Because, see, immediately after the election all the people who voted against the interest of the most armed and vicious group will find themselves mysteriously unable to cast a ballot next election.

If you are willing to stand up and vote knowing that the most armed and vicious group disagrees with you, that's balls.  If the issue being voted over isn't worth that risk to you or you aren't ready to take that risk (priorities) reassess your need to vote, your views on voting, and/or the topic at hand...

I'm sorry, that is completely fucking retarded.

[Pope Lecherous]

I'm sorry, that is completely fucking retarded.

Everyone should be heard.  (!?)

[Pope Lecherous]

Lech isn't a big fan of self-determination, I think.

Sometimes i think we should let it just let it turn into a free-for-all and see the "strong" starve after there are no weak left for them to feed off.  Some people don't need governance, can't be governed, don't want to be governed but need to be governed. and some governments need to make it so that they have people to govern despite them not needing to be governed.  The term Social Contract comes to mind, but it may not be relevant

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

You seem to be saying that if the threat to life and safety keeps you at home, then your political convictions weren't strong enough to be worth voting on.

You seem to be saying that in a political system where bullying and threats of physical harm are allowed, only the most determined will vote in opposition of the powerful, and that's A-OK with you.

In reality, a political system where bullying and threats of physical harm are allowed is a fundamentally broken one, because the vote is controlled by the powerful. That's the reason our votes are PRIVATE in this country... so people can vote without fear of being bullied or harmed based on their political convictions, to allow at least some semblance of free democracy.

It's like freedom of speech - if we want it for ourselves, we must also protect it for those we find abhorrent.

[Pope Lecherous]

You seem to be saying that if the threat to life and safety keeps you at home, then your political convictions weren't strong enough to be worth voting on.

Maybe in comparison to someone who is willing to (personally) kill for their convictions.  But yes, if your political convictions are not strong enough to spur action that may involve a risk then go ahead and have all the convictions you want, even post about them in online forums.

You seem to be saying that in a political system where bullying and threats of physical harm are allowed, only the most determined will vote in opposition of the powerful, and that's A-OK with you.

I was saying that i admire the determination of people who will vote in such circumstances, not that it is okay.

In reality, a political system where bullying and threats of physical harm are allowed is a fundamentally broken one, because the vote is controlled by the powerful. That's the reason our votes are PRIVATE in this country... so people can vote without fear of being bullied or harmed based on their political convictions, to allow at least some semblance of free democracy.

When it reaches your level it becomes a problem?  The system is already broken because our delegates, congressmen, senators etc. face threats like that all the time from every direction... from above, peers, and their constituency.  How can we protect them from violence, blackmail, extortion, and/or their own greed and corruption?  impossible.  One of the cons of voting.  "Not voting" is definitely not preferable to voting, but don't act as if an either-or is God's Amurrica's gift to man.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Are you even actually replying to what I wrote?

[Pope Lecherous]

Are you even actually replying to what I wrote?

The "51% of voters can't be wrong" meme is getting pretty old