Washington Post blows the lid off abuse scandal - Page 2

Warfish · 05-21-2004, 10:40 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by savage69+May 21 2004, 10:37 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (savage69 @ May 21 2004, 10:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--chiefst2000[/i]@May 21 2004, 10:29 AM
[b] Whoa Fish,

Your way off on this one.

[b]YOU have no right to tell me what is MORAL or how I should live my life, as long (and this is the important part) my actions do not infringe upon your life or your property.[/b]

So is it the ok for you to marry your sister? Incest is immoral yet it does not infringe apon anyone else. We live in a society based on morals. [/b][/quote]
Or how about when the Majority of the people are against
Gay marriage, but some Activist Liberal Judges decide to make
it a Law anyway?? You want Gay Marriage fine..But then lets
make it fair to EVERYONE!! Mormons can have more than 1 wife!
A Guy can marry his sister or his Dog or Horse as well!! Who are
you to say Love can only exist between 1 species!! ;) [/b][/quote]
Lets be clear here: Marriage in the USA, for all it's religious history, is nothing more than a personal Legal Contract. If someone (or a group of someones) whants to enter into such a contract (called Marriage or by some other name), what difference does it make to you? They suffer all the same drawbacks if the contract is broken.

And no, the Horse and Dog argument is just stupid Sav. The Animal does not posess Human Intelligent and therefore cannot grant consent (Heck, even Humans under 18 cannot do that). So please, if we are to debate, try to keep it realistic, ok?

chiefst2000 · 05-21-2004, 10:47 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@May 21 2004, 10:38 AM
[b] [quote][b]So is it the ok for you to marry your sister? Incest is immoral yet it does not infringe apon anyone else. We live in a society based on morals.[/b][/quote]

If you can tell me why this hurts society, perhaps I will change my opinion. While I personally find it distatsteful and immoral, if an ADULT (important distiction) Child and Parent wish to marry, why should we disallow it? Because a 2000 year old book says so?

In fact, if we leaglize gay marriage (or unions), then there is abslutely NO legal argument to stop such a union, right or wrong. You cannot allow one without allowing the other (a crux of this issue).

Like I said, I don;y like it and I don't practice ro accept it (and Freedom means society does not have to liek or acdept such a person or Union, and Society has the freedom to shun them for it, if it chooses).

Frredom of Action does not mean we have to accept it.

Leftists say all forms and actions muct not only be tolerated, but openly accepted (Theyt are Wrong).

Rightists say many forms and actions must be stopped by law, even though they hurt no one else (and They are Wrong too).

Freedom is a concept I belive in. The nature of Freedom in my mind is that as long as it does not hurt someone else or their property (on infringe upon the rights of others) then it should not be legislated out.

Maybe I am wrong, but this is how I see it. I welcome debate. [/b][/quote]
[b]In fact, if we leaglize gay marriage (or unions), then there is abslutely NO legal argument to stop such a union, right or wrong. You cannot allow one without allowing the other (a crux of this issue).[/b]

You hit the nail on the head. Where does it end. Polygamy, Pedofilia, how about sex with animals.
We have not evolved to the poind where morality no longer has a place in a free society. No society is nor should be completely free. Why bother having any laws at all.

Boozer76 · 05-21-2004, 10:49 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@May 21 2004, 10:38 AM
[b] [quote][b]So is it the ok for you to marry your sister? Incest is immoral yet it does not infringe apon anyone else. We live in a society based on morals.[/b][/quote]

If you can tell me why this hurts society, perhaps I will change my opinion. While I personally find it distatsteful and immoral, if an ADULT (important distiction) Child and Parent wish to marry, why should we disallow it? Because a 2000 year old book says so?

In fact, if we leaglize gay marriage (or unions), then there is abslutely NO legal argument to stop such a union, right or wrong. You cannot allow one without allowing the other (a crux of this issue).

Like I said, I don;y like it and I don't practice ro accept it (and Freedom means society does not have to liek or acdept such a person or Union, and Society has the freedom to shun them for it, if it chooses).

Frredom of Action does not mean we have to accept it.

Leftists say all forms and actions muct not only be tolerated, but openly accepted (Theyt are Wrong).

Rightists say many forms and actions must be stopped by law, even though they hurt no one else (and They are Wrong too).

Freedom is a concept I belive in. The nature of Freedom in my mind is that as long as it does not hurt someone else or their property (on infringe upon the rights of others) then it should not be legislated out.

Maybe I am wrong, but this is how I see it. I welcome debate. [/b][/quote]
Man am I probably gonna get blasted for this one, but here goes. The reason incest of any kind should not be allowed by law is quite simple; Children of incest are highly susceptible to abnormalities and defects. Generally speaking, the only people who are even considering incest are dirt poor trailer trash or generally some f-ed up individuals. When these types of people start having special needs kids, who do you think will be p[icking up the tab? That's right, taxpayers. I'm very sorry, but I have no sympathy for people who bring things on themselves.

The dirt poor welfare people constantly continue to not practice safe sex and have child after child that they can't afford to support. And continuously, we the taxpayer end up footing that bill. It happens in everything. You have people who's houses are on wheels and can generally live wherever they can park, yet they willingly choose to live in an area known as "tornado alley". Then we see these people crying on TV because their insurance companies won't pay when a tornado comes and wipes out their homes. Then the red cross ends up footing the bill for cleanup, and these now homeless people end up on welfare so that yet again, we the taxpayers foot the bill.

I'm sorry, but when stupidity breeds itself, we the taxpayers should not be the ones that have to clean up the mess.

Savage69 · 05-21-2004, 10:51 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@May 21 2004, 10:40 AM
[b] And no, the Horse and Dog argument is just stupid Sav. The Animal does not posess Human Intelligent and therefore cannot grant consent (Heck, even Humans under 18 cannot do that). So please, if we are to debate, try to keep it realistic, ok? [/b][/quote]
A Horse and Dog is Stupid?? Some could say the same about
Fish!! :lol:

Warfish · 05-21-2004, 10:55 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by chiefst2000+May 21 2004, 10:47 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (chiefst2000 @ May 21 2004, 10:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Warfish[/i]@May 21 2004, 10:38 AM
[b] [quote][b]So is it the ok for you to marry your sister? Incest is immoral yet it does not infringe apon anyone else. We live in a society based on morals.[/b][/quote]

If you can tell me why this hurts society, perhaps I will change my opinion. While I personally find it distatsteful and immoral, if an ADULT (important distiction) Child and Parent wish to marry, why should we disallow it? Because a 2000 year old book says so?

In fact, if we leaglize gay marriage (or unions), then there is abslutely NO legal argument to stop such a union, right or wrong. You cannot allow one without allowing the other (a crux of this issue).

Like I said, I don;y like it and I don't practice ro accept it (and Freedom means society does not have to liek or acdept such a person or Union, and Society has the freedom to shun them for it, if it chooses).

Frredom of Action does not mean we have to accept it.

Leftists say all forms and actions muct not only be tolerated, but openly accepted (Theyt are Wrong).

Rightists say many forms and actions must be stopped by law, even though they hurt no one else (and They are Wrong too).

Freedom is a concept I belive in. The nature of Freedom in my mind is that as long as it does not hurt someone else or their property (on infringe upon the rights of others) then it should not be legislated out.

Maybe I am wrong, but this is how I see it. I welcome debate. [/b][/quote]
[b]In fact, if we leaglize gay marriage (or unions), then there is abslutely NO legal argument to stop such a union, right or wrong. You cannot allow one without allowing the other (a crux of this issue).[/b]

You hit the nail on the head. Where does it end. Polygamy, Pedofilia, how about sex with animals.
We have not evolved to the poind where morality no longer has a place in a free society. No society is nor should be completely free. Why bother having any laws at all. [/b][/quote]
[quote][b]And no, the Horse and Dog argument is just stupid Sav. The Animal does not posess Human Intelligent and therefore cannot grant consent (Heck, even Humans under 18 cannot do that). So please, if we are to debate, try to keep it realistic, ok? [/b][/quote]

As I said, if consent cannot be given (either through non-human status, or due to the current "legal Age" designation (a number which has fluxuated over human history, from as low as 12 to as high as 21), then a Union Cannot be legal.

Pedophilia is, by definition, illegal because the child in question cannot provide consent in the eyes of the law (although I knew I could consent at age 15 personally, and knew enough to know what I was doing).

Bringing Animals and Children into this issue is not intellectually honest, because you knew already the differences involved between two (or more Adults) and a Dog or a 5 year old.

jets5ever · 05-21-2004, 10:59 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@May 21 2004, 10:38 AM
[b] [quote][b]So is it the ok for you to marry your sister? Incest is immoral yet it does not infringe apon anyone else. We live in a society based on morals.[/b][/quote]

If you can tell me why this hurts society, perhaps I will change my opinion. While I personally find it distatsteful and immoral, if an ADULT (important distiction) Child and Parent wish to marry, why should we disallow it? Because a 2000 year old book says so?

[/b][/quote]
Incest carries with it a likelihood that offspring may be born with severe defects. Not only is that unfair to the potential child, it is likely that this child will become a financial burden on the state. That is one reason to ban it. It is also considered to be grossly obscene by about 99% of the population and societies will generally not tolerate a shock like that, even affluent liberal democracies. Gay marriage, which is nothing compared to incest, is causing a major stir now and is not even supported by half the population. What do you think would happen if some judge stated that sisters can marry their brothers or mothers their sons? There would be mass riots, etc.

Anything past first cousins is fine, and biologically, even first cousins are not that much more likely than non-relatives to produce severe birth defects. Second cousins can marry in the eyes of the Catholic Chruch. However, parents and siblings should be banned. It just makes sense from that perspective, in my opinion and I would argue that if an adult child wants to marry their parent, chances are that the child was abused as a minor and is not thinking rightly. But I'm really just pissing in the wind with that last one....

Warfish · 05-21-2004, 11:00 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by savage69+May 21 2004, 10:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (savage69 @ May 21 2004, 10:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Warfish[/i]@May 21 2004, 10:40 AM
[b] And no, the Horse and Dog argument is just stupid Sav. The Animal does not posess Human Intelligent and therefore cannot grant consent (Heck, even Humans under 18 cannot do that). So please, if we are to debate, try to keep it realistic, ok? [/b][/quote]
A Horse and Dog is Stupid?? Some could say the same about
Fish!! :lol: [/b][/quote]
LOL! Yes, us Fish do tend to dumb little cold blooded creatures sometimes......

You know, I don;t like defending things I personally don't find moral or acceptable (such as Incest or Polygamy) but the Conept of Freedom IMO trumps my OWN sense or right and wrong. There is a darn good reason why Freedom is promiced in teh Constirution and Bill of Rights, and that is to defend those who engage in unpopular activity, be it speech or action (as long as it does not infringe the rights of others).

*Sigh* Do I like Gay Marriage? Not really, but who am I to say they can't. Do I like Poligamy? Not really, but again, why should my personal views stop the freedom of action of others when I am not directly affected?

This is tiring, fighting for a cause greater than the issue involved itself.

You will either see my logic or you won't. I cannot explain it any better than I have tried so far.

"Freedom, above all, is paramount. The only limitation to Freedom and the Persuit of happiness should be the legal restriction from infringing upon the rights or freedoms of others." - Warfish

Savage69 · 05-21-2004, 11:02 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@May 21 2004, 11:00 AM
[b] "Freedom, above all, is paramount. The only limitation to Freedom and the Persuit of happiness should be the legal restriction from infringing upon the rights or freedoms of others." - Warfish [/b][/quote]
So your For the ACLU defending Nambla then?? <_< :rolleyes:

Warfish · 05-21-2004, 11:04 AM

Boozer and Jets5: You both raise the single most legitimate argument against Father/Adult Daughter or Mother/Adult Son marriage/union/whatever.

Warfish · 05-21-2004, 11:06 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by savage69+May 21 2004, 11:02 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (savage69 @ May 21 2004, 11:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Warfish[/i]@May 21 2004, 11:00 AM
[b] "Freedom, above all, is paramount. The only limitation to Freedom and the Persuit of happiness should be the legal restriction from infringing upon the rights or freedoms of others." - Warfish [/b][/quote]
So your For the ACLU defending Nambla then?? <_< :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]
*Sigh* NO, I am not. Consent, by our definition in the USA, cannot be given till the age of 18. Therefore Nambla (who wants little kids under 18) would NOT fall into my definition of freedom, because the Child in Question cannot give consent.

Like I said, the intellectual argument is one thing, the reality may be something else. I don't like many of the same things you all don't like. I don't defend them out of personal aggreement. I defend them based on my views of freedom, something that to me is the penultimate concept (with the limitations I have already stated).

Boozer76 · 05-21-2004, 11:07 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@May 21 2004, 11:04 AM
[b] Boozer and Jets5: You both raise the single most legitimate argument against Father/Adult Daughter or Mother/Adult Son marriage/union/whatever. [/b][/quote]
Why thank you. I figured my post may rub some people the wrong way, but I just can't feel sorrow or remorse for people who bring things upon themselves.

Savage69 · 05-21-2004, 11:20 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@May 21 2004, 11:06 AM
[b] *Sigh* NO, I am not. Consent, by our definition in the USA, cannot be given till the age of 18. Therefore Nambla (who wants little kids under 18) would NOT fall into my definition of freedom, because the Child in Question cannot give consent.

[/b][/quote]
You do realize Consent itself is a contorversial Topic on it's
own..Women in this Country were married as young as 12
during our ancestors's times..Hell a Girl at 18 was considered
a "Old Maid".. Even the Bible said that Mary was 13 when she
gave birth to Jesus..(Right Bit?) So If a Kid of 14 wants to make
it with a old man how does that affect you in any way,shape or
Form?? Only doing a Warfish here... :P Playing Devils or Warfishes
Advocate. :lol:

Warfish · 05-21-2004, 11:29 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by savage69+May 21 2004, 11:20 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (savage69 @ May 21 2004, 11:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Warfish[/i]@May 21 2004, 11:06 AM
[b] *Sigh* NO, I am not. Consent, by our definition in the USA, cannot be given till the age of 18. Therefore Nambla (who wants little kids under 18) would NOT fall into my definition of freedom, because the Child in Question cannot give consent.

[/b][/quote]
You do realize Consent itself is a contorversial Topic on it's
own..Women in this Country were married as young as 12
during our ancestors's times..Hell a Girl at 18 was considered
a "Old Maid".. Even the Bible said that Mary was 13 when she
gave birth to Jesus..(Right Bit?) So If a Kid of 14 wants to make
it with a old man how does that affect you in any way,shape or
Form?? Only doing a Warfish here... :P Playing Devils or Warfishes
Advocate. :lol: [/b][/quote]
Yep, That's the issue with my position honestly. What age is old enought for consent? I think 18 is too high (as I've said, I was "well aware" by age 15, and knew what I was doing and what was right and wrong), but 12 (as in Right Wing Biblical times (just kidding)) is too young IMO. HArd to say.

Yes, not easy (nothing is, eh?) Great Devil's Advocate position Sav, and i don't really have an adequate answer.

I suppose Society has to determine at what age (at that time) it feels Human beings become able to determine right/wrong, and have the intellectual and emotional facillities to adequately make such decisions on their own.

chiefst2000 · 05-21-2004, 11:44 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish+May 21 2004, 11:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Warfish @ May 21 2004, 11:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by -savage69@May 21 2004, 11:02 AM
[b] <!--QuoteBegin--Warfish[/i]@May 21 2004, 11:00 AM
[b] "Freedom, above all, is paramount. The only limitation to Freedom and the Persuit of happiness should be the legal restriction from infringing upon the rights or freedoms of others." - Warfish [/b][/quote]
So your For the ACLU defending Nambla then?? <_< :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]
*Sigh* NO, I am not. Consent, by our definition in the USA, cannot be given till the age of 18. Therefore Nambla (who wants little kids under 18) would NOT fall into my definition of freedom, because the Child in Question cannot give consent.

Like I said, the intellectual argument is one thing, the reality may be something else. I don't like many of the same things you all don't like. I don't defend them out of personal aggreement. I defend them based on my views of freedom, something that to me is the penultimate concept (with the limitations I have already stated). [/b][/quote]
Whoose to say that the legal consent age should be 18. Isn't that infringing on a childs freedom. Maybe legal consent age should be dropped to 12. Where did that arbitrary number come from? Point is when you open the door to immorality theres no telling where it will end. Thats why communitys and societys set moral standards based on many factors including background and religion. Its what distinguishes us from the animals.

Boozer76 · 05-21-2004, 11:45 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish+May 21 2004, 11:29 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Warfish @ May 21 2004, 11:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by -savage69@May 21 2004, 11:20 AM
[b] <!--QuoteBegin--Warfish[/i]@May 21 2004, 11:06 AM
[b] *Sigh* NO, I am not. Consent, by our definition in the USA, cannot be given till the age of 18. Therefore Nambla (who wants little kids under 18) would NOT fall into my definition of freedom, because the Child in Question cannot give consent.

[/b][/quote]
You do realize Consent itself is a contorversial Topic on it's
own..Women in this Country were married as young as 12
during our ancestors's times..Hell a Girl at 18 was considered
a "Old Maid".. Even the Bible said that Mary was 13 when she
gave birth to Jesus..(Right Bit?) So If a Kid of 14 wants to make
it with a old man how does that affect you in any way,shape or
Form?? Only doing a Warfish here... :P Playing Devils or Warfishes
Advocate. :lol: [/b][/quote]
Yep, That's the issue with my position honestly. What age is old enought for consent? I think 18 is too high (as I've said, I was "well aware" by age 15, and knew what I was doing and what was right and wrong), but 12 (as in Right Wing Biblical times (just kidding)) is too young IMO. HArd to say.

Yes, not easy (nothing is, eh?) Great Devil's Advocate position Sav, and i don't really have an adequate answer.

I suppose Society has to determine at what age (at that time) it feels Human beings become able to determine right/wrong, and have the intellectual and emotional facillities to adequately make such decisions on their own. [/b][/quote]
I disagree a bit with your age of consent theory. I too felt I was smart enough at 15, but looking back (I'm 27 now), I realize I didn't know half of what I thought I did. And I'm certainly glad I wasn't able to make adult decisions at that age. Hell, even at age 18/19 I still didbn't really have a clue, though again I thought I knew everything. But there is an age where society has to say you are an adult, whether you are ready to act like one or not. 18 is a pretty damn good age for that IMO.

Savage69 · 05-21-2004, 12:08 PM

[quote][i]Originally posted by Boozer76[/i]@May 21 2004, 11:45 AM
[b]I disagree a bit with your age of consent theory. I too felt I was smart enough at 15, but looking back (I'm 27 now), I realize I didn't know half of what I thought I did. And I'm certainly glad I wasn't able to make adult decisions at that age. Hell, even at age 18/19 I still didbn't really have a clue, though again I thought I knew everything. But there is an age where society has to say you are an adult, whether you are ready to act like one or not. 18 is a pretty damn good age for that IMO.[/b][/quote]
Kids today know so much more at a younger age then even when
I was a Kid! BTW the age of Consent differ's from state to state!
For example States like Iowa and Missouri it's 14..Some Countries
have their age for females at 12 or unless their married! Funnier
still is almost ALL Countries have the Males age higher!! :lol: See link

[url=http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm]http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm[/url]

Boozer76 · 05-21-2004, 12:21 PM

[quote][i]Originally posted by savage69+May 21 2004, 12:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (savage69 @ May 21 2004, 12:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Boozer76[/i]@May 21 2004, 11:45 AM
[b]I disagree a bit with your age of consent theory. I too felt I was smart enough at 15, but looking back (I'm 27 now), I realize I didn't know half of what I thought I did. And I'm certainly glad I wasn't able to make adult decisions at that age. Hell, even at age 18/19 I still didbn't really have a clue, though again I thought I knew everything. But there is an age where society has to say you are an adult, whether you are ready to act like one or not. 18 is a pretty damn good age for that IMO.[/b][/quote]
Kids today know so much more at a younger age then even when
I was a Kid! BTW the age of Consent differ's from state to state!
For example States like Iowa and Missouri it's 14..Some Countries
have their age for females at 12 or unless their married! Funnier
still is almost ALL Countries have the Males age higher!! :lol: See link

[url=http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm]http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm[/url] [/b][/quote]
Svage, weren't they still riding horse and buggy when you were a kid :lol: :P . I was only a kid 10 years ago, and I admit alot has changed even since then. But that doesn't mean these kids should be forced into adulthood at an early age. I still think it is a problem that kids are being forced to choose a college and major at around age 15. They are basically being told thy should know what they want to do for the rest of their life at 15 years old. I don't know about any of you, but at 15 I was only really concerned about playing baseball and football and beginning to realize the bountiful beauty of girls and what you can do with them lol B)

Bob the Jets Fan™ · 05-21-2004, 12:24 PM

[quote][i]Originally posted by savage69[/i]@May 21 2004, 10:37 AM
[b] the Majority of the people are against Gay marriage, but some Activist Liberal Judges decide to make it a Law anyway?? [/b][/quote]
We have laws in some cases just to protect people from an unjust majority.

The majority of southerners weren't in favor of freeing slaves 140 years ago. Doesn't make them right.

BTW - I love how cons cry about activist judges when they do something you don't like, but you're fine when they do things like give the presidency to Gee Dubya.

jets5ever · 05-21-2004, 12:28 PM

[quote][i]Originally posted by Bob the Jets Fan™+May 21 2004, 12:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Bob the Jets Fan™ @ May 21 2004, 12:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--savage69[/i]@May 21 2004, 10:37 AM
[b] the Majority of the people are against Gay marriage, but some Activist Liberal Judges decide to make it a Law anyway?? [/b][/quote]
We have laws in some cases just to protect people from an unjust majority.

The majority of southerners weren't in favor of freeing slaves 140 years ago. Doesn't make them right.

BTW - I love how cons cry about activist judges when they do something you don't like, but you're fine when they do things like give the presidency to Gee Dubya. [/b][/quote]
Bob - The pro-slavery party back then was the Democrats!

I suppose when the Supreme Court struck down the illegal ruling (Gore's cherry-picked re-count) of the Florida Supreme Court and reverted the election results back to (gasp!) the legal method that was used for ALL Florida elections can be summed up as "giving" the Presidency to Dubya, huh? Fancy that. Why didn't Gore just ask for a state-wide manual re-count? Why did he cherry-pick the counties?

Every recount done since 2000 has shown that Bush won Florida, BTW. No minorities were prevented from voting, no people were kept off some list. Diebold isn't trying to take people's rights away. It was a close, bitter election and Gore lost. What can you do?

Bush may very well lose 2004 and it will likely be a close, bitter election. If he loses, I'll just have to suck it up and deal....

I know you like to post for fun, but do you honestly believe the liberal myth about Bush "stealing" the 2000 election? I mean, c'mon....

Piper · 05-21-2004, 12:29 PM

[quote][i]Originally posted by Bob the Jets Fan™[/i]@May 21 2004, 12:24 PM
[b]
BTW - I love how cons cry about activist judges when they do something you don't like, but you're fine when they do things like give the presidency to Gee Dubya. [/b][/quote]
Still crying about a narrow loss and blaming it on the refs?

05-21-2004, 10:40 AM	#21
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[quote][i]Originally posted by savage69+May 21 2004, 10:37 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (savage69 @ May 21 2004, 10:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--chiefst2000[/i]@May 21 2004, 10:29 AM [b] Whoa Fish, Your way off on this one. [b]YOU have no right to tell me what is MORAL or how I should live my life, as long (and this is the important part) my actions do not infringe upon your life or your property.[/b] So is it the ok for you to marry your sister? Incest is immoral yet it does not infringe apon anyone else. We live in a society based on morals. [/b][/quote] Or how about when the Majority of the people are against Gay marriage, but some Activist Liberal Judges decide to make it a Law anyway?? You want Gay Marriage fine..But then lets make it fair to EVERYONE!! Mormons can have more than 1 wife! A Guy can marry his sister or his Dog or Horse as well!! Who are you to say Love can only exist between 1 species!! ;) [/b][/quote] Lets be clear here: Marriage in the USA, for all it's religious history, is nothing more than a personal Legal Contract. If someone (or a group of someones) whants to enter into such a contract (called Marriage or by some other name), what difference does it make to you? They suffer all the same drawbacks if the contract is broken. And no, the Horse and Dog argument is just stupid Sav. The Animal does not posess Human Intelligent and therefore cannot grant consent (Heck, even Humans under 18 cannot do that). So please, if we are to debate, try to keep it realistic, ok?

05-21-2004, 10:47 AM	#22
chiefst2000 Champion of Common Sense All Pro Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 5,834	[quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@May 21 2004, 10:38 AM [b] [quote][b]So is it the ok for you to marry your sister? Incest is immoral yet it does not infringe apon anyone else. We live in a society based on morals.[/b][/quote] If you can tell me why this hurts society, perhaps I will change my opinion. While I personally find it distatsteful and immoral, if an ADULT (important distiction) Child and Parent wish to marry, why should we disallow it? Because a 2000 year old book says so? In fact, if we leaglize gay marriage (or unions), then there is abslutely NO legal argument to stop such a union, right or wrong. You cannot allow one without allowing the other (a crux of this issue). Like I said, I don;y like it and I don't practice ro accept it (and Freedom means society does not have to liek or acdept such a person or Union, and Society has the freedom to shun them for it, if it chooses). Frredom of Action does not mean we have to accept it. Leftists say all forms and actions muct not only be tolerated, but openly accepted (Theyt are Wrong). Rightists say many forms and actions must be stopped by law, even though they hurt no one else (and They are Wrong too). Freedom is a concept I belive in. The nature of Freedom in my mind is that as long as it does not hurt someone else or their property (on infringe upon the rights of others) then it should not be legislated out. Maybe I am wrong, but this is how I see it. I welcome debate. [/b][/quote] [b]In fact, if we leaglize gay marriage (or unions), then there is abslutely NO legal argument to stop such a union, right or wrong. You cannot allow one without allowing the other (a crux of this issue).[/b] You hit the nail on the head. Where does it end. Polygamy, Pedofilia, how about sex with animals. We have not evolved to the poind where morality no longer has a place in a free society. No society is nor should be completely free. Why bother having any laws at all.

05-21-2004, 10:49 AM	#23
Boozer76 Waterboy Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 5,713	[quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@May 21 2004, 10:38 AM [b] [quote][b]So is it the ok for you to marry your sister? Incest is immoral yet it does not infringe apon anyone else. We live in a society based on morals.[/b][/quote] If you can tell me why this hurts society, perhaps I will change my opinion. While I personally find it distatsteful and immoral, if an ADULT (important distiction) Child and Parent wish to marry, why should we disallow it? Because a 2000 year old book says so? In fact, if we leaglize gay marriage (or unions), then there is abslutely NO legal argument to stop such a union, right or wrong. You cannot allow one without allowing the other (a crux of this issue). Like I said, I don;y like it and I don't practice ro accept it (and Freedom means society does not have to liek or acdept such a person or Union, and Society has the freedom to shun them for it, if it chooses). Frredom of Action does not mean we have to accept it. Leftists say all forms and actions muct not only be tolerated, but openly accepted (Theyt are Wrong). Rightists say many forms and actions must be stopped by law, even though they hurt no one else (and They are Wrong too). Freedom is a concept I belive in. The nature of Freedom in my mind is that as long as it does not hurt someone else or their property (on infringe upon the rights of others) then it should not be legislated out. Maybe I am wrong, but this is how I see it. I welcome debate. [/b][/quote] Man am I probably gonna get blasted for this one, but here goes. The reason incest of any kind should not be allowed by law is quite simple; Children of incest are highly susceptible to abnormalities and defects. Generally speaking, the only people who are even considering incest are dirt poor trailer trash or generally some f-ed up individuals. When these types of people start having special needs kids, who do you think will be p[icking up the tab? That's right, taxpayers. I'm very sorry, but I have no sympathy for people who bring things on themselves. The dirt poor welfare people constantly continue to not practice safe sex and have child after child that they can't afford to support. And continuously, we the taxpayer end up footing that bill. It happens in everything. You have people who's houses are on wheels and can generally live wherever they can park, yet they willingly choose to live in an area known as "tornado alley". Then we see these people crying on TV because their insurance companies won't pay when a tornado comes and wipes out their homes. Then the red cross ends up footing the bill for cleanup, and these now homeless people end up on welfare so that yet again, we the taxpayers foot the bill. I'm sorry, but when stupidity breeds itself, we the taxpayers should not be the ones that have to clean up the mess.

05-21-2004, 10:51 AM	#24
Savage69 Jets Insider VIP Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 39,280	[quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@May 21 2004, 10:40 AM [b] And no, the Horse and Dog argument is just stupid Sav. The Animal does not posess Human Intelligent and therefore cannot grant consent (Heck, even Humans under 18 cannot do that). So please, if we are to debate, try to keep it realistic, ok? [/b][/quote] A Horse and Dog is Stupid?? Some could say the same about Fish!! :lol:

05-21-2004, 10:55 AM	#25
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[quote][i]Originally posted by chiefst2000+May 21 2004, 10:47 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (chiefst2000 @ May 21 2004, 10:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Warfish[/i]@May 21 2004, 10:38 AM [b] [quote][b]So is it the ok for you to marry your sister? Incest is immoral yet it does not infringe apon anyone else. We live in a society based on morals.[/b][/quote] If you can tell me why this hurts society, perhaps I will change my opinion. While I personally find it distatsteful and immoral, if an ADULT (important distiction) Child and Parent wish to marry, why should we disallow it? Because a 2000 year old book says so? In fact, if we leaglize gay marriage (or unions), then there is abslutely NO legal argument to stop such a union, right or wrong. You cannot allow one without allowing the other (a crux of this issue). Like I said, I don;y like it and I don't practice ro accept it (and Freedom means society does not have to liek or acdept such a person or Union, and Society has the freedom to shun them for it, if it chooses). Frredom of Action does not mean we have to accept it. Leftists say all forms and actions muct not only be tolerated, but openly accepted (Theyt are Wrong). Rightists say many forms and actions must be stopped by law, even though they hurt no one else (and They are Wrong too). Freedom is a concept I belive in. The nature of Freedom in my mind is that as long as it does not hurt someone else or their property (on infringe upon the rights of others) then it should not be legislated out. Maybe I am wrong, but this is how I see it. I welcome debate. [/b][/quote] [b]In fact, if we leaglize gay marriage (or unions), then there is abslutely NO legal argument to stop such a union, right or wrong. You cannot allow one without allowing the other (a crux of this issue).[/b] You hit the nail on the head. Where does it end. Polygamy, Pedofilia, how about sex with animals. We have not evolved to the poind where morality no longer has a place in a free society. No society is nor should be completely free. Why bother having any laws at all. [/b][/quote] [quote][b]And no, the Horse and Dog argument is just stupid Sav. The Animal does not posess Human Intelligent and therefore cannot grant consent (Heck, even Humans under 18 cannot do that). So please, if we are to debate, try to keep it realistic, ok? [/b][/quote] As I said, if consent cannot be given (either through non-human status, or due to the current "legal Age" designation (a number which has fluxuated over human history, from as low as 12 to as high as 21), then a Union Cannot be legal. Pedophilia is, by definition, illegal because the child in question cannot provide consent in the eyes of the law (although I knew I could consent at age 15 personally, and knew enough to know what I was doing). Bringing Animals and Children into this issue is not intellectually honest, because you knew already the differences involved between two (or more Adults) and a Dog or a 5 year old.

05-21-2004, 10:59 AM	#26
jets5ever Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Boston Posts: 11,692	[quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@May 21 2004, 10:38 AM [b] [quote][b]So is it the ok for you to marry your sister? Incest is immoral yet it does not infringe apon anyone else. We live in a society based on morals.[/b][/quote] If you can tell me why this hurts society, perhaps I will change my opinion. While I personally find it distatsteful and immoral, if an ADULT (important distiction) Child and Parent wish to marry, why should we disallow it? Because a 2000 year old book says so? [/b][/quote] Incest carries with it a likelihood that offspring may be born with severe defects. Not only is that unfair to the potential child, it is likely that this child will become a financial burden on the state. That is one reason to ban it. It is also considered to be grossly obscene by about 99% of the population and societies will generally not tolerate a shock like that, even affluent liberal democracies. Gay marriage, which is nothing compared to incest, is causing a major stir now and is not even supported by half the population. What do you think would happen if some judge stated that sisters can marry their brothers or mothers their sons? There would be mass riots, etc. Anything past first cousins is fine, and biologically, even first cousins are not that much more likely than non-relatives to produce severe birth defects. Second cousins can marry in the eyes of the Catholic Chruch. However, parents and siblings should be banned. It just makes sense from that perspective, in my opinion and I would argue that if an adult child wants to marry their parent, chances are that the child was abused as a minor and is not thinking rightly. But I'm really just pissing in the wind with that last one....

05-21-2004, 11:00 AM	#27
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[quote][i]Originally posted by savage69+May 21 2004, 10:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (savage69 @ May 21 2004, 10:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Warfish[/i]@May 21 2004, 10:40 AM [b] And no, the Horse and Dog argument is just stupid Sav. The Animal does not posess Human Intelligent and therefore cannot grant consent (Heck, even Humans under 18 cannot do that). So please, if we are to debate, try to keep it realistic, ok? [/b][/quote] A Horse and Dog is Stupid?? Some could say the same about Fish!! :lol: [/b][/quote] LOL! Yes, us Fish do tend to dumb little cold blooded creatures sometimes...... You know, I don;t like defending things I personally don't find moral or acceptable (such as Incest or Polygamy) but the Conept of Freedom IMO trumps my OWN sense or right and wrong. There is a darn good reason why Freedom is promiced in teh Constirution and Bill of Rights, and that is to defend those who engage in unpopular activity, be it speech or action (as long as it does not infringe the rights of others). Sigh Do I like Gay Marriage? Not really, but who am I to say they can't. Do I like Poligamy? Not really, but again, why should my personal views stop the freedom of action of others when I am not directly affected? This is tiring, fighting for a cause greater than the issue involved itself. You will either see my logic or you won't. I cannot explain it any better than I have tried so far. "Freedom, above all, is paramount. The only limitation to Freedom and the Persuit of happiness should be the legal restriction from infringing upon the rights or freedoms of others." - Warfish

05-21-2004, 11:02 AM	#28
Savage69 Jets Insider VIP Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 39,280	[quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@May 21 2004, 11:00 AM [b] "Freedom, above all, is paramount. The only limitation to Freedom and the Persuit of happiness should be the legal restriction from infringing upon the rights or freedoms of others." - Warfish [/b][/quote] So your For the ACLU defending Nambla then?? <_< :rolleyes:

05-21-2004, 11:04 AM	#29
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	Boozer and Jets5: You both raise the single most legitimate argument against Father/Adult Daughter or Mother/Adult Son marriage/union/whatever.

05-21-2004, 11:06 AM	#30
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[quote][i]Originally posted by savage69+May 21 2004, 11:02 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (savage69 @ May 21 2004, 11:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Warfish[/i]@May 21 2004, 11:00 AM [b] "Freedom, above all, is paramount. The only limitation to Freedom and the Persuit of happiness should be the legal restriction from infringing upon the rights or freedoms of others." - Warfish [/b][/quote] So your For the ACLU defending Nambla then?? <_< :rolleyes: [/b][/quote] Sigh NO, I am not. Consent, by our definition in the USA, cannot be given till the age of 18. Therefore Nambla (who wants little kids under 18) would NOT fall into my definition of freedom, because the Child in Question cannot give consent. Like I said, the intellectual argument is one thing, the reality may be something else. I don't like many of the same things you all don't like. I don't defend them out of personal aggreement. I defend them based on my views of freedom, something that to me is the penultimate concept (with the limitations I have already stated).

05-21-2004, 11:07 AM	#31
Boozer76 Waterboy Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 5,713	[quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@May 21 2004, 11:04 AM [b] Boozer and Jets5: You both raise the single most legitimate argument against Father/Adult Daughter or Mother/Adult Son marriage/union/whatever. [/b][/quote] Why thank you. I figured my post may rub some people the wrong way, but I just can't feel sorrow or remorse for people who bring things upon themselves.

05-21-2004, 11:20 AM	#32
Savage69 Jets Insider VIP Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 39,280	[quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@May 21 2004, 11:06 AM [b] Sigh NO, I am not. Consent, by our definition in the USA, cannot be given till the age of 18. Therefore Nambla (who wants little kids under 18) would NOT fall into my definition of freedom, because the Child in Question cannot give consent. [/b][/quote] You do realize Consent itself is a contorversial Topic on it's own..Women in this Country were married as young as 12 during our ancestors's times..Hell a Girl at 18 was considered a "Old Maid".. Even the Bible said that Mary was 13 when she gave birth to Jesus..(Right Bit?) So If a Kid of 14 wants to make it with a old man how does that affect you in any way,shape or Form?? Only doing a Warfish here... :P Playing Devils or Warfishes Advocate. :lol:

05-21-2004, 11:29 AM	#33
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[quote][i]Originally posted by savage69+May 21 2004, 11:20 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (savage69 @ May 21 2004, 11:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Warfish[/i]@May 21 2004, 11:06 AM [b] Sigh NO, I am not. Consent, by our definition in the USA, cannot be given till the age of 18. Therefore Nambla (who wants little kids under 18) would NOT fall into my definition of freedom, because the Child in Question cannot give consent. [/b][/quote] You do realize Consent itself is a contorversial Topic on it's own..Women in this Country were married as young as 12 during our ancestors's times..Hell a Girl at 18 was considered a "Old Maid".. Even the Bible said that Mary was 13 when she gave birth to Jesus..(Right Bit?) So If a Kid of 14 wants to make it with a old man how does that affect you in any way,shape or Form?? Only doing a Warfish here... :P Playing Devils or Warfishes Advocate. :lol: [/b][/quote] Yep, That's the issue with my position honestly. What age is old enought for consent? I think 18 is too high (as I've said, I was "well aware" by age 15, and knew what I was doing and what was right and wrong), but 12 (as in Right Wing Biblical times (just kidding)) is too young IMO. HArd to say. Yes, not easy (nothing is, eh?) Great Devil's Advocate position Sav, and i don't really have an adequate answer. I suppose Society has to determine at what age (at that time) it feels Human beings become able to determine right/wrong, and have the intellectual and emotional facillities to adequately make such decisions on their own.

05-21-2004, 11:44 AM	#34
chiefst2000 Champion of Common Sense All Pro Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 5,834	[quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish+May 21 2004, 11:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Warfish @ May 21 2004, 11:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by -savage69@May 21 2004, 11:02 AM [b] <!--QuoteBegin--Warfish[/i]@May 21 2004, 11:00 AM [b] "Freedom, above all, is paramount. The only limitation to Freedom and the Persuit of happiness should be the legal restriction from infringing upon the rights or freedoms of others." - Warfish [/b][/quote] So your For the ACLU defending Nambla then?? <_< :rolleyes: [/b][/quote] Sigh NO, I am not. Consent, by our definition in the USA, cannot be given till the age of 18. Therefore Nambla (who wants little kids under 18) would NOT fall into my definition of freedom, because the Child in Question cannot give consent. Like I said, the intellectual argument is one thing, the reality may be something else. I don't like many of the same things you all don't like. I don't defend them out of personal aggreement. I defend them based on my views of freedom, something that to me is the penultimate concept (with the limitations I have already stated). [/b][/quote] Whoose to say that the legal consent age should be 18. Isn't that infringing on a childs freedom. Maybe legal consent age should be dropped to 12. Where did that arbitrary number come from? Point is when you open the door to immorality theres no telling where it will end. Thats why communitys and societys set moral standards based on many factors including background and religion. Its what distinguishes us from the animals.

05-21-2004, 11:45 AM	#35
Boozer76 Waterboy Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 5,713	[quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish+May 21 2004, 11:29 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Warfish @ May 21 2004, 11:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by -savage69@May 21 2004, 11:20 AM [b] <!--QuoteBegin--Warfish[/i]@May 21 2004, 11:06 AM [b] Sigh NO, I am not. Consent, by our definition in the USA, cannot be given till the age of 18. Therefore Nambla (who wants little kids under 18) would NOT fall into my definition of freedom, because the Child in Question cannot give consent. [/b][/quote] You do realize Consent itself is a contorversial Topic on it's own..Women in this Country were married as young as 12 during our ancestors's times..Hell a Girl at 18 was considered a "Old Maid".. Even the Bible said that Mary was 13 when she gave birth to Jesus..(Right Bit?) So If a Kid of 14 wants to make it with a old man how does that affect you in any way,shape or Form?? Only doing a Warfish here... :P Playing Devils or Warfishes Advocate. :lol: [/b][/quote] Yep, That's the issue with my position honestly. What age is old enought for consent? I think 18 is too high (as I've said, I was "well aware" by age 15, and knew what I was doing and what was right and wrong), but 12 (as in Right Wing Biblical times (just kidding)) is too young IMO. HArd to say. Yes, not easy (nothing is, eh?) Great Devil's Advocate position Sav, and i don't really have an adequate answer. I suppose Society has to determine at what age (at that time) it feels Human beings become able to determine right/wrong, and have the intellectual and emotional facillities to adequately make such decisions on their own. [/b][/quote] I disagree a bit with your age of consent theory. I too felt I was smart enough at 15, but looking back (I'm 27 now), I realize I didn't know half of what I thought I did. And I'm certainly glad I wasn't able to make adult decisions at that age. Hell, even at age 18/19 I still didbn't really have a clue, though again I thought I knew everything. But there is an age where society has to say you are an adult, whether you are ready to act like one or not. 18 is a pretty damn good age for that IMO.

05-21-2004, 12:08 PM	#36
Savage69 Jets Insider VIP Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 39,280	[quote][i]Originally posted by Boozer76[/i]@May 21 2004, 11:45 AM [b]I disagree a bit with your age of consent theory. I too felt I was smart enough at 15, but looking back (I'm 27 now), I realize I didn't know half of what I thought I did. And I'm certainly glad I wasn't able to make adult decisions at that age. Hell, even at age 18/19 I still didbn't really have a clue, though again I thought I knew everything. But there is an age where society has to say you are an adult, whether you are ready to act like one or not. 18 is a pretty damn good age for that IMO.[/b][/quote] Kids today know so much more at a younger age then even when I was a Kid! BTW the age of Consent differ's from state to state! For example States like Iowa and Missouri it's 14..Some Countries have their age for females at 12 or unless their married! Funnier still is almost ALL Countries have the Males age higher!! :lol: See link [url=http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm]http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm[/url]

05-21-2004, 12:21 PM	#37
Boozer76 Waterboy Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 5,713	[quote][i]Originally posted by savage69+May 21 2004, 12:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (savage69 @ May 21 2004, 12:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Boozer76[/i]@May 21 2004, 11:45 AM [b]I disagree a bit with your age of consent theory. I too felt I was smart enough at 15, but looking back (I'm 27 now), I realize I didn't know half of what I thought I did. And I'm certainly glad I wasn't able to make adult decisions at that age. Hell, even at age 18/19 I still didbn't really have a clue, though again I thought I knew everything. But there is an age where society has to say you are an adult, whether you are ready to act like one or not. 18 is a pretty damn good age for that IMO.[/b][/quote] Kids today know so much more at a younger age then even when I was a Kid! BTW the age of Consent differ's from state to state! For example States like Iowa and Missouri it's 14..Some Countries have their age for females at 12 or unless their married! Funnier still is almost ALL Countries have the Males age higher!! :lol: See link [url=http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm]http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm[/url] [/b][/quote] Svage, weren't they still riding horse and buggy when you were a kid :lol: :P . I was only a kid 10 years ago, and I admit alot has changed even since then. But that doesn't mean these kids should be forced into adulthood at an early age. I still think it is a problem that kids are being forced to choose a college and major at around age 15. They are basically being told thy should know what they want to do for the rest of their life at 15 years old. I don't know about any of you, but at 15 I was only really concerned about playing baseball and football and beginning to realize the bountiful beauty of girls and what you can do with them lol B)

05-21-2004, 12:24 PM	#38
Bob the Jets Fan™ Editor of the Internet All League Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Upstate New York Posts: 4,255	[quote][i]Originally posted by savage69[/i]@May 21 2004, 10:37 AM [b] the Majority of the people are against Gay marriage, but some Activist Liberal Judges decide to make it a Law anyway?? [/b][/quote] We have laws in some cases just to protect people from an unjust majority. The majority of southerners weren't in favor of freeing slaves 140 years ago. Doesn't make them right. BTW - I love how cons cry about activist judges when they do something you don't like, but you're fine when they do things like give the presidency to Gee Dubya.

05-21-2004, 12:28 PM	#39
jets5ever Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Boston Posts: 11,692	[quote][i]Originally posted by Bob the Jets Fan™+May 21 2004, 12:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Bob the Jets Fan™ @ May 21 2004, 12:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--savage69[/i]@May 21 2004, 10:37 AM [b] the Majority of the people are against Gay marriage, but some Activist Liberal Judges decide to make it a Law anyway?? [/b][/quote] We have laws in some cases just to protect people from an unjust majority. The majority of southerners weren't in favor of freeing slaves 140 years ago. Doesn't make them right. BTW - I love how cons cry about activist judges when they do something you don't like, but you're fine when they do things like give the presidency to Gee Dubya. [/b][/quote] Bob - The pro-slavery party back then was the Democrats! I suppose when the Supreme Court struck down the illegal ruling (Gore's cherry-picked re-count) of the Florida Supreme Court and reverted the election results back to (gasp!) the legal method that was used for ALL Florida elections can be summed up as "giving" the Presidency to Dubya, huh? Fancy that. Why didn't Gore just ask for a state-wide manual re-count? Why did he cherry-pick the counties? Every recount done since 2000 has shown that Bush won Florida, BTW. No minorities were prevented from voting, no people were kept off some list. Diebold isn't trying to take people's rights away. It was a close, bitter election and Gore lost. What can you do? Bush may very well lose 2004 and it will likely be a close, bitter election. If he loses, I'll just have to suck it up and deal.... I know you like to post for fun, but do you honestly believe the liberal myth about Bush "stealing" the 2000 election? I mean, c'mon....

05-21-2004, 12:29 PM	#40
Piper Hall Of Fame Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from) Posts: 13,197	[quote][i]Originally posted by Bob the Jets Fan™[/i]@May 21 2004, 12:24 PM [b] BTW - I love how cons cry about activist judges when they do something you don't like, but you're fine when they do things like give the presidency to Gee Dubya. [/b][/quote] Still crying about a narrow loss and blaming it on the refs?