Unfortunately for you this is a democracy and the majority of the country doesn't want to give you that word!
Like I said, I'm willing to give you the benefits of a civil union, but I'll never vote for gay marriage. Call it bigoted, narrow-minded, call it what ever you want, but like I said earlier, just because the backwards ass state of MA and the incredibly crazy city of SF say it's so, doesn't make it that way.
So, what single line from this statement will you pick apart?
Most likely, he'll just continue to pose as the victim of mean, narrow-minded Right-Wing Christian Republicans, in an attempt to garner sympathy while demonizing those who disagree with him (i.e. about 2/3rds of the country)...
28 -
boomcrashbaby
Oct 14, 2004 at 8:50 pm
Like I said, I'm willing to give you the benefits of a civil union
Thank you for your gracious generousity, I'm honored for you to 'give' me something, but I actually have that.
So, what single line from this statement will you pick apart?
I alluded to other parts of your statement and skipped over the reminiscing about why America isn't like it was for your grandfather, back before women had a voice, back before gay people quit cowering in the shadows, back before people had to share drinking fountains...reminiscing for a time when you didn't even exist.
I disagree that the governmental recognition of people and families should be left to popular vote, but it does seem to work that way. Personally, I've come to believe that there should be no governmental recognition of relationships at all, but I don't think that will ever happen.
29 -
boomcrashbaby
Oct 14, 2004 at 8:57 pm
If the "M" word is so unimportant, BCB, why compare yourself to a black person in Alabama in 1930 because you aren't allowed to manipulate that word the way you'd like to?
I wasn't the one to bring up the separate but equal ideology.
Andy, you seem to be under the impression that if gays are allowed to marry, you will have to surrender your wife to a woman and marry a man. I'm saying this because that is just about the only way gay marriage could be the threat you perceive it as. Tain't so. Anymore so than the threats about what would happen if non-whites were allowed to use buses and water fountains white used were so. Think, if you can.
I am not going to bother with much more of RJ's 'put me on the leader board' vacuity. Suffice it to say that someone who doesn't realize that population figures change over time is too dim-witted to have proper toilet etiquette, too. Thank God we can't smell the people we interact with on the 'Net.
Are you NOW suggesting that there were only 12 million black Americans in 1988, when the "infamous" ad you brought up (apropos of nothing, I might add) ran?
Let's see...there were 36 million black Americans in 2002. So, in your world, the black population TRIPLED in the US in just the last 16 years.
RJ, I wondered at first if you were trying to write foolish things, but then I realized that I couldn't write anything that foolish even if I tried my hardest, so I've decided that you might not actually recognize the sheer idiocy of the things you type.
That would scare me, if I actually cared.
That is all.
33 -
andy marsh
Oct 14, 2004 at 10:00 pm
I'm done...you change positions more than your fearless leader..one minute you want the govt to recognize you the next you say you wish they recognized nothing.
You probably change arguments more often than you change your drawers..
Well, it is not unexpected of him, Phil. Nor is his effort to expand a slur directed at black adults by the GOP to include black children. Though it is possible that RJ is actually dim enough to believe black toddlers and elementary schools children can be dangerous to white folks, too. That is the kind of thing said at Gene Expression, where RJ has been spending time lately. He was on another thread spouting their line about black men having big penises and being sexually ravenous. Let's just say, 'I told you so.'
"Nor is his effort to expand a slur directed at black adults by the GOP to include black children."
Ah, so THAT'S your spin! There were only 12 million black adults in 1988?
Well, the percentage of blacks who are under the age of 18 is between 1/3rd and 2/5ths. So, let's be kind and pretend it was 40% in 1988.
If there were 12 million black adults in 1988, there were no more than 8 million black children. So, a total of 20 million black Americans, using your "stats."
Yet there were REALLY about 29 million black Americans in 1988. In order to find only 20 million black Americans, one must go all the way back to about 1965.
So, you're wrong. AGAIN.
What's your spin gonna be this time? You were only including black American adults with last names starting with a letter from A-S?
Why don't you just admit you made a rather obvious mistake in your own little area of "expertise" and move on from there? Or aren't you capable of admitting error?
"That is the kind of thing said at Gene Expression, where RJ has been spending time lately."
That's a lie. I haven't visited that site in well over a year.
And when have I ever called black men "sexually ravenous"? Cite? Or are you just lying again?
37 -
boomcrashbaby
Oct 14, 2004 at 10:55 pm
one minute you want the govt to recognize you the next you say you wish they recognized nothing.
It's as plain as day. I believe the government should not recognize relationships. SINCE that isn't going to happen, then I believe they cannot discriminate between them. Plain as day.
So, now, black grandpas and black grandmas and handicapped black folks are to be herded into being Willie Horton threats, too? For all Lee Atwater's failings, he wasn't that mean-spirited. I suspect he intended white America to think of relatively young, black adults, as a threat, not babies, older people or cripples. He may have had males in mind, which means he might have meant fewer than 12 million. Analytical thinking isn't RJ's forte, obviously. But, then, nothing is. Since I did not say what the black population of the U.S. was in 1988, he is swinging away at an illusion, anyway. Let's sit back, watch him swing, and laugh.
MD, I offered you an out. You could just admit you were wrong the first time, the second time, and the third time, and live with it. We all make mistakes. We are all fallible, as mere mortals.
Instead, in now your FOURTH "interpretation" of the facts, you are suddenly claiming to have not counted old people, "cripples," and (maybe) women.
Face it, you pulled your "statistic" out of your ass, and it was way off base. And instead of admitting a mistake and moving on, you are continually "amending" your previous comments to fit new data.
Article comments
26 - andy marsh
Unfortunately for you this is a democracy and the majority of the country doesn't want to give you that word!
Like I said, I'm willing to give you the benefits of a civil union, but I'll never vote for gay marriage. Call it bigoted, narrow-minded, call it what ever you want, but like I said earlier, just because the backwards ass state of MA and the incredibly crazy city of SF say it's so, doesn't make it that way.
So, what single line from this statement will you pick apart?
27 - RJ
Most likely, he'll just continue to pose as the victim of mean, narrow-minded Right-Wing Christian Republicans, in an attempt to garner sympathy while demonizing those who disagree with him (i.e. about 2/3rds of the country)...
28 - boomcrashbaby
Like I said, I'm willing to give you the benefits of a civil union
Thank you for your gracious generousity, I'm honored for you to 'give' me something, but I actually have that.
So, what single line from this statement will you pick apart?
I alluded to other parts of your statement and skipped over the reminiscing about why America isn't like it was for your grandfather, back before women had a voice, back before gay people quit cowering in the shadows, back before people had to share drinking fountains...reminiscing for a time when you didn't even exist.
I disagree that the governmental recognition of people and families should be left to popular vote, but it does seem to work that way. Personally, I've come to believe that there should be no governmental recognition of relationships at all, but I don't think that will ever happen.
29 - boomcrashbaby
If the "M" word is so unimportant, BCB, why compare yourself to a black person in Alabama in 1930 because you aren't allowed to manipulate that word the way you'd like to?
I wasn't the one to bring up the separate but equal ideology.
30 - Mac Diva
Andy, you seem to be under the impression that if gays are allowed to marry, you will have to surrender your wife to a woman and marry a man. I'm saying this because that is just about the only way gay marriage could be the threat you perceive it as. Tain't so. Anymore so than the threats about what would happen if non-whites were allowed to use buses and water fountains white used were so. Think, if you can.
I am not going to bother with much more of RJ's 'put me on the leader board' vacuity. Suffice it to say that someone who doesn't realize that population figures change over time is too dim-witted to have proper toilet etiquette, too. Thank God we can't smell the people we interact with on the 'Net.
31 - RJ
MD:
Are you NOW suggesting that there were only 12 million black Americans in 1988, when the "infamous" ad you brought up (apropos of nothing, I might add) ran?
Let's see...there were 36 million black Americans in 2002. So, in your world, the black population TRIPLED in the US in just the last 16 years.
Damn, you people breed like fuckin' rabitts! ;-)
32 - Phillip Winn
RJ, I wondered at first if you were trying to write foolish things, but then I realized that I couldn't write anything that foolish even if I tried my hardest, so I've decided that you might not actually recognize the sheer idiocy of the things you type.
That would scare me, if I actually cared.
That is all.
33 - andy marsh
I'm done...you change positions more than your fearless leader..one minute you want the govt to recognize you the next you say you wish they recognized nothing.
You probably change arguments more often than you change your drawers..
I quit...you win!
Have a nice unmarried life.
34 - RJ
Thank you for your constructive and highly-specific analysis, Phillip. Much appreciated.
Andy: Don't let the bastards get ya down. You didn't really expect to change a gay man's mind about gay marriage, did you?
35 - Mac Diva
Well, it is not unexpected of him, Phil. Nor is his effort to expand a slur directed at black adults by the GOP to include black children. Though it is possible that RJ is actually dim enough to believe black toddlers and elementary schools children can be dangerous to white folks, too. That is the kind of thing said at Gene Expression, where RJ has been spending time lately. He was on another thread spouting their line about black men having big penises and being sexually ravenous. Let's just say, 'I told you so.'
36 - RJ
"Nor is his effort to expand a slur directed at black adults by the GOP to include black children."
Ah, so THAT'S your spin! There were only 12 million black adults in 1988?
Well, the percentage of blacks who are under the age of 18 is between 1/3rd and 2/5ths. So, let's be kind and pretend it was 40% in 1988.
If there were 12 million black adults in 1988, there were no more than 8 million black children. So, a total of 20 million black Americans, using your "stats."
Yet there were REALLY about 29 million black Americans in 1988. In order to find only 20 million black Americans, one must go all the way back to about 1965.
So, you're wrong. AGAIN.
What's your spin gonna be this time? You were only including black American adults with last names starting with a letter from A-S?
Why don't you just admit you made a rather obvious mistake in your own little area of "expertise" and move on from there? Or aren't you capable of admitting error?
"That is the kind of thing said at Gene Expression, where RJ has been spending time lately."
That's a lie. I haven't visited that site in well over a year.
And when have I ever called black men "sexually ravenous"? Cite? Or are you just lying again?
37 - boomcrashbaby
one minute you want the govt to recognize you the next you say you wish they recognized nothing.
It's as plain as day. I believe the government should not recognize relationships. SINCE that isn't going to happen, then I believe they cannot discriminate between them. Plain as day.
38 - Mac Diva
So, now, black grandpas and black grandmas and handicapped black folks are to be herded into being Willie Horton threats, too? For all Lee Atwater's failings, he wasn't that mean-spirited. I suspect he intended white America to think of relatively young, black adults, as a threat, not babies, older people or cripples. He may have had males in mind, which means he might have meant fewer than 12 million. Analytical thinking isn't RJ's forte, obviously. But, then, nothing is. Since I did not say what the black population of the U.S. was in 1988, he is swinging away at an illusion, anyway. Let's sit back, watch him swing, and laugh.
39 - RJ
ROTFLMAO!
MD, I offered you an out. You could just admit you were wrong the first time, the second time, and the third time, and live with it. We all make mistakes. We are all fallible, as mere mortals.
Instead, in now your FOURTH "interpretation" of the facts, you are suddenly claiming to have not counted old people, "cripples," and (maybe) women.
Face it, you pulled your "statistic" out of your ass, and it was way off base. And instead of admitting a mistake and moving on, you are continually "amending" your previous comments to fit new data.
It would be sad, if it weren't so funny...
40 - Mac Diva
Keep digging, RJ. You've almost reached virtual China. The rest of us will just keep laughing.