YouTube account canceled

[daddyo]

RE:  Partial quotes.   My perrogative.  It also saves space.

RE:  To push against (...notice another partial quote...)

  His perrogative. While im on the subject; the "equal rights" thing is is a red herring.  Everybody has "equal rights".  It's called "equal protection under the law".  Its against the law to beat up on gays (...and everybody else, except in florida, maybe....).  Poor argument.  I say its the pop culture "tolerance" thing.  See my distain for it in my post above.

 

RE: this

"..He has clearly stated..."  Did he?  He may have simply vented his disgust for Youtube's actions in pandering to a specific class of viewer (...my guess...).  If he's not in support; that's his perrogative (...it happens to be mine too... I say its pandering pure and simple...).  Who elected you the sheriff of seeing that he's beaten until he does like it? 

 

RE: "...possibly harboring hatred..." .  Another opinion and another "so what" if he does.  There is more than one side to every issue.  Again, who elected you the "tolerance sheriff"?  (...notice the "name callin"; it could be a literary device too...).

 

 

RE:  "...i have every right to call him on them....  OK. Why do you have this right??? Who gave it to you, and not to him if he disagrees?  How about me?... Do i have this right too; or is it just for a select and enlightened few who see things the way you happen to see 'em?  Wuz there an election and did you get to be the "tolerance sheriff" or the "grand isquisitor"?  I wanted to be him.  How come they elected you and not me??  But that's ok with me; we'll do it your way.  Quit callin him names and hinting at possible character defects and stick to the arguement and ill "leave you alone"... .   How's that workin out for ya?

 

RE:  ...he doesn't seem to be able to answer... .  Maybe he is too nice to answer (...since you seem to like the speculative....).  That's my guess.  There's another possibility; he may not want to dignify some of the comments with a response.  I, on the other hand, love to wrestle with the pigs and get a little bit of mud on me.  How about you??

 

wrestlin leroy the pig man

 

Leroy, for some reason unbeknownst to me, it seems to drive the left crazy when they can't make us like their behavior. That's when things start getting ugly.

Edited July 6, 2013 by daddyo

[leroy]

Leroy, for some reason unbeknownst to me, it seems to drive the left crazy when they can't make us like their behavior. That's when things start getting ugly.

Very true.  Very true.  Let's keep 'em stirred up...

 

Keep up the good work.

leroy

[daddyo]

Very true.  Very true.  Let's keep 'em stirred up...

 

Keep up the good work.

leroy

 

Oh, and you've hit every single proverbial nail squarely on the head.

[SlapChopDonkey]

Guess its time to stop drinking Budweiser, Miller, and Coors then. No driving a Ford. Time to get off that gay loving windows based computer.

Oh yeah, if there's a disaster, I'm sure you'll refuse assistance from the national guard. Since the military has gay pride month and all.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Military-holds-1st-event-marking-gay-pride-month-3665411.php

http://workthatmatters.blogspot.com/2011/11/gay-lifestyle-beer-ads-are-just-as-lame.html

http://www.webpronews.com/microsoft-like-amazon-embraces-gay-marriage-in-a-product-ad-2013-03

[daddyo]

Guess its time to stop drinking Budweiser, Miller, and Coors then. No driving a Ford. Time to get off that gay loving windows based computer.

Oh yeah, if there's a disaster, I'm sure you'll refuse assistance from the national guard. Since the military has gay pride month and all.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Military-holds-1st-event-marking-gay-pride-month-3665411.php

http://workthatmatters.blogspot.com/2011/11/gay-lifestyle-beer-ads-are-just-as-lame.html

http://www.webpronews.com/microsoft-like-amazon-embraces-gay-marriage-in-a-product-ad-2013-03

 

Don't drink any of those. But at the risk of repeating myself, I haven't seen any of those companies wave the gay pride flag and publicly announce their support for it.

 

That was my point from the beginning.

 

It's interesting that some say that they're all in favor of freedom to live the way you want to and to be left alone (I'm for that too), but when someone takes issue with something like gay pride, or just voices a disagreement about it, then all of a sudden we're intruding, even infringing, on their freedom.

 

I don't know of any American citizen, regardless of his/her sexual preference, who doesn't have the same constitutional rights that I do. None.

[SlapChopDonkey]

Just pointing out that refusing to do business with companies that support gay pride will leave you with very few choices.  All of those companies have publicly announced their support for it.

[RichardR]

All of those companies havebeen forced to publicly announced their support for it.

Fify.

Social engineering is just repackaged intolerance in favor of a new flavor.

[daddyo]

Just pointing out that refusing to do business with companies that support gay pride will leave you with very few choices.  All of those companies have publicly announced their support for it.

 

There's a distinct difference between making a political statement and being non-discriminatory towards your workforce.

[Guest Keal G Seo]

RE:  Partial quotes.   My perrogative.  It also saves space.

RE:  To push against (...notice another partial quote...)

  His perrogative. While im on the subject; the "equal rights" thing is is a red herring.  Everybody has "equal rights".  It's called "equal protection under the law".  Its against the law to beat up on gays (...and everybody else, except in florida, maybe....).  Poor argument.  I say its the pop culture "tolerance" thing.  See my distain for it in my post above.

 

RE: this

"..He has clearly stated..."  Did he?  He may have simply vented his disgust for Youtube's actions in pandering to a specific class of viewer (...my guess...).  If he's not in support; that's his perrogative (...it happens to be mine too... I say its pandering pure and simple...).  Who elected you the sheriff of seeing that he's beaten until he does like it? 

 

RE: "...possibly harboring hatred..." .  Another opinion and another "so what" if he does.  There is more than one side to every issue.  Again, who elected you the "tolerance sheriff"?  (...notice the "name callin"; it could be a literary device too...).

 

 

RE:  "...i have every right to call him on them....  OK. Why do you have this right??? Who gave it to you, and not to him if he disagrees?  How about me?... Do i have this right too; or is it just for a select and enlightened few who see things the way you happen to see 'em?  Wuz there an election and did you get to be the "tolerance sheriff" or the "grand isquisitor"?  I wanted to be him.  How come they elected you and not me??  But that's ok with me; we'll do it your way.  Quit callin him names and hinting at possible character defects and stick to the arguement and ill "leave you alone"... .   How's that workin out for ya?

 

RE:  ...he doesn't seem to be able to answer... .  Maybe he is too nice to answer (...since you seem to like the speculative....).  That's my guess.  There's another possibility; he may not want to dignify some of the comments with a response.  I, on the other hand, love to wrestle with the pigs and get a little bit of mud on me.  How about you??

 

wrestlin leroy the pig man

And my prerogative to voice my opinion about how ignorant I find his opinions, and apparently yours.  When I think equal rights I think "given the same freedoms as everyone else"...including marriage. 
Clearly stated, yes, in his actions (actions speak louder than words) he is opposing the LGBT movement. But as for me being the tolerance sheriff, no. Just pointing out his flawed logic and opinion for everyone to see.
As for who gave me the right to call him on it, God and the 1st Amendment. I also said that he had the right to make those statements. But him making those opens him up to criticisms from anyone willing to give them.
As for quoting "leave you alone"...show me where I asked you to "leave me alone". I couldn't give one less f*** if you call me on it just as I am sure he doesn't give one less for me calling him on anything. Again, not calling him names, simply stating my opinion on what I believe his state of mind to be..."possibly" is pretty much saying that is opinion. I don't deny that it is opinion.
Finally, him not answering questions posed on the topic of the thread he started is plain and simple. He doesn't have answers. You on the other hand like taking partial quotes out of context and twisting them in an attempt to incite a reaction. (ie trolling) Pssst, not going to work, I am smiling with every reply you guys post.  :wave:

 

I don't know about anyone else, but when someone starts demanding that I do something (especially something I don't have to do), and especially when they have no authority to do so, I have this tendency to dig my heels in and be 100% uncooperative.

 

It then becomes not a matter of "can't", but "won't".

 

So the more someone "demands" that I answer questions or do anything else, they'll get diddly squat.

It wasn't an actual demand...it was sarcasm and bringing to light the fact that you were purposefully not answering. Playing on the note I have made about you not having the answer.

 

Very true.  Very true.  Let's keep 'em stirred up...

 

Keep up the good work.

leroy

Again, you aren't stirring anyone up. I think it is you that is getting stirred up since you want to go off topic with all the posts directed at how I am making my argument rather than making your own on topic argument.  :tough:

 

Don't drink any of those. But at the risk of repeating myself, I haven't seen any of those companies wave the gay pride flag and publicly announce their support for it.

 

That was my point from the beginning.

 

It's interesting that some say that they're all in favor of freedom to live the way you want to and to be left alone (I'm for that too), but when someone takes issue with something like gay pride, or just voices a disagreement about it, then all of a sudden we're intruding, even infringing, on their freedom.

 

I don't know of any American citizen, regardless of his/her sexual preference, who doesn't have the same constitutional rights that I do. None.

Oh we didn't realize that you personally had to see it for it to be true. Maybe do a bit research and you will see the donations your operating system has made to LGBT organizations and how MS sent their Warthog (Halo is a game produced by MS) through the streets of Seattle with rainbow banner on the side during Seattle's Gay Pride Parade. Tell me some of the companies that you do do business with and I would be happy to a little of your research for you. LMAO

 

There's a distinct difference between making a political statement and being non-discriminatory towards your workforce.

Yes there is, but most don't stop at being non-discriminatory.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Keal G Seo

[Mike.357]

bunch of homo haters.

 

If Obama had a gay son he might look like some members here.

[G27]

I wonder if all the folks who are against homosexuality based on it being a sin also extend the same consideration / action towards all biblically defined sin. 

[TripleDigitRide]

I wonder if all the folks who are against homosexuality based on it being a sin also extend the same consideration / action towards all biblically defined sin. 

Stop being silly.

 

Edited July 7, 2013 by TripleDigitRide

[daddyo]

You guys please do let us know when you've gotten all the little personal insults and childishness out of your systems.

Meanwhile, the adults will continue the discussion.

[mikegideon]

I wonder if all the folks who are against homosexuality based on it being a sin also extend the same consideration / action towards all biblically defined sin. 

 

That came up awhile back in the thread. Not sure if anybody answered

Edited July 7, 2013 by mikegideon

[leroy]

And my prerogative to voice my opinion about how ignorant I find his opinions, and apparently yours.  When I think equal rights I think "given the same freedoms as everyone else"...including marriage. 
Clearly stated, yes, in his actions (actions speak louder than words) he is opposing the LGBT movement. But as for me being the tolerance sheriff, no. Just pointing out his flawed logic and opinion for everyone to see.
As for who gave me the right to call him on it, God and the 1st Amendment. I also said that he had the right to make those statements. But him making those opens him up to criticisms from anyone willing to give them.
As for quoting "leave you alone"...show me where I asked you to "leave me alone". I couldn't give one less f*** if you call me on it just as I am sure he doesn't give one less for me calling him on anything. Again, not calling him names, simply stating my opinion on what I believe his state of mind to be..."possibly" is pretty much saying that is opinion. I don't deny that it is opinion.
Finally, him not answering questions posed on the topic of the thread he started is plain and simple. He doesn't have answers. You on the other hand like taking partial quotes out of context and twisting them in an attempt to incite a reaction. (ie trolling) Pssst, not going to work, I am smiling with every reply you guys post.  :wave:

 

It wasn't an actual demand...it was sarcasm and bringing to light the fact that you were purposefully not answering. Playing on the note I have made about you not having the answer.

 

Again, you aren't stirring anyone up. I think it is you that is getting stirred up since you want to go off topic with all the posts directed at how I am making my argument rather than making your own on topic argument.  :tough:

 

Oh we didn't realize that you personally had to see it for it to be true. Maybe do a bit research and you will see the donations your operating system has made to LGBT organizations and how MS sent their Warthog (Halo is a game produced by MS) through the streets of Seattle with rainbow banner on the side during Seattle's Gay Pride Parade. Tell me some of the companies that you do do business with and I would be happy to a little of your research for you. LMAO

 

Yes there is, but most don't stop at being non-discriminatory.

 

I guess you really told us and devistated us with your brilliance, powerful logic, and powers of debate.  You keep sayin the same things over and over.  I got news for ya; that aint debate; its repetition. 

 

I figured id give you a little dose of what you were passin out so you could see that most everything is a two way street.  You aint got the inside track on richeousness or the last word in debate; nor has anyone else here.  Like your fond of sayin; "...ive got the right to call him on it (...whatever "it" is at the moment...)....".  So do others (...in this case, that's me...). You aint the only person on this forum with permission to opine.  I (...and others too...) have that right too; as long as we are polite about it. 

 

Now, if you want to have a dialogue or a forum discussion, i would recommend that you back it up with opinions based on facts and citations rather than  relying on school yard name callin, mischaracterizations, and repetition; but that's just me.  If i wuz your debate teacher i would give ya an "F" on your performance up to now; but i realize that in some places ya would get an "A" for preachin the party line.  Too much speculation and name callin and not enough facts is the reason for my failing grade.   By the way, that's my opinion, you have the right to protest it. 

 

I'll leave you with this little quip: "...you always know your winnin the debate when the debate goes from the discussion of facts to name callin...".  

 

By the way, i kinda like the "troll" thing; but i really prefer "billygoat gruff".  Would you mind using that instead of "troll"?.  I see this as more of a clash of ideas.  "...Troll..." doesnt give the right ambiance to this little discussion. I think "billygoat" (...or maybe person goat; gender neutral, ya know...) may give just the right ambiance to this little debate ALA the "clash of ideas" thing.  Whaddy ya think?

 

leroy the "troll", and maybe

with mr keal's permission "billygoat (...or even "person goat"...) gruff" leroy... heres hopin.

Edited July 7, 2013 by leroy

[Guest Keal G Seo]

I guess you really told us and devistated us with your brilliance, powerful logic, and powers of debate.  You keep sayin the same things over and over.  I got news for ya; that aint debate; its repetition. 

 

I figured id give you a little dose of what you were passin out so you could see that most everything is a two way street.  You aint got the inside track on richeousness or the last word in debate; nor has anyone else here.  Like your fond of sayin; "...ive got the right to call him on it (...whatever "it" is at the moment...)....".  So do others (...in this case, that's me...). You aint the only person on this forum with permission to opine.  I (...and others too...) have that right too; as long as we are polite about it. 

 

Now, if you want to have a dialogue or a forum discussion, i would recommend that you back it up with opinions based on facts and citations rather than  relying on school yard name callin, mischaracterizations, and repetition; but that's just me.  If i wuz you debate teacher i would give ya an "F" on your performance up to now; but i realize that in some places ya would get an "A" for preachin the party line.  Too much speculation and name callin and not enough facts is the reason for my failing grade.   By the way, that's my opinion, you have the right to protest it. 

 

I'll leave you with this little quip: "...you always know your winnin the debate when the debate goes from the discussion of facts to name callin...".  

 

By the way, i kinda like the "troll" thing; but i really prefer "billygoat gruff".  Would you mind using that instead of "troll".  I see this as more of a clash of ideas'  "Troll' doesnt give the right ambiance to this little discussion. I think "billygoat" (...or maybe person goat; gender neutral, ya know...) may give just the right ambiance to this little debate ALA the "clash of ideas" thing.  Whaddy ya think?

 

leroy the "troll", and maybe

with mr keal's permission "billygoat (...or even "person goat"...) gruff" leroy... heres hopin.

I wasn't attempting to devastate anyone, just making up for taking some time off. I am not debating anymore, just replying. My debate is pages back and was never addressed. I asked for the reason anyone doesn't support the movement beyond religion or that if it was religion why they couldn't separate their religious beliefs from politics since they would not want another religion pushed on them by rule of law.

A dose of what I am passing out, you mean the part before you showed up where I was asking questions about his logic? Seems quite different than taking quotes out of context to attempt to incite a reaction. I am going to repeat myself again here, I am not saying anyone doesn't have the right to say whatever they want or call me on my opinions.

My dialog is was posted pages ago. If you want to have a dialog then go back, read it and respond. Once again, placing my opinion on a state of mind is not name calling. Name calling is calling someone a name...like homophobic, which I might mention again I don't use. (Unless someone really is I guess, but I have never met anyone that really was)

As for "billygoat gruff", if/when you get a personal member status it might fit. Maybe a signature?

[leroy]

Looks to me like ya are learning a bit:  RE: This:

 

I asked for the reason anyone doesn't support the movement beyond religion  (1) ..... or that if it was religion why they couldn't separate their religious beliefs from politics  (2) ......since they would not want another religion pushed on them by rule of law.

(1)....Why ya dont support the movement?  "...We..." dont have to; there is already governmental support for "the movement".   Its called "equal protection under law".... Regarding the "support of the movement".  Some of us believe that support of the movement by many, especially in the political class and in the business class is nothin more than pandering for dollars.  As you have graciously granted, "we" are free to debate its merits and need; even if those debates and reasioning seem unkind to some hearers.  In my view; the whole thing was masterfully answered by Good Steward" in post #247.  That's pretty much my view on a personal basis.

 

(2)....The religion thing....  Deeply held religious beliefs will automatically translate into actions in word and deed if the person holding them actually believes those "deeply held religious beliefs".  That's the way the "deeply held religious beliefs" thing (...or lack thereof...) works. William Wilberforce had a "deeply held religious belief" (...and a freedom belief...) that slavery wuz wrong. He and others like him translated those beliefs into action freeing the slaves in the British Empire in 1833 without firing a shot.   "Deeply held religious beliefs" can be a powerful force for good.   By contrast; when these "deeply held religious beliefs" translate theselves into lawless acts ALA muslum honor killings and the like; the government restrains them via law.   In summary, there is no prohabition in having "deeply held religious beliefs" as the motive for acceptance or rejection on any ideal or movement.  That's one of the reasons why we have debate and different political parties.

 

RE;  the "...religion pushed on ya...." thing.  It (...religion, or the lack thereof...) is already protected by the First Amendment.  Laws passed by legislatures cant override the Constitution (...yet...).  Do legislatures pass laws that they full well know wont pass Constitutional muster? "....Yes..." they do it all the time, hopin no one is watching.  It's called pandering and influence peddling; and in some cases governmentally sanctioned stealing...  But that aint workin out too well lately.  The internet has seen to that, thankfully.

 

As for the 'billygoat gruff" thing; thanks for the kind permission and acceptance.  Iv'e thought it over and i think ill stay "leroy" since the tenor of the discussion has changed a bit.  However i do believe the "out of context" thing is a bit snippy; but ill forgive that.

 

leroy..

Edited July 7, 2013 by leroy

[TMF]

"Tolerance" means to them that you must embrace, accept, and celebrate whatever the "flavor of the moment" happens to be. If you dont do that; you are Satan. That gives these "tolerant types" the license to berate, make fun of, name call, excoriate, ostracize, ect. ect .ect whomever happens not to share their current view with the whip of the old "you aint tolerant" excoriation; and gives them license to call you names like a bunch of school yard children. This action supposidly causes the offending party to cower in the corner and beg for forgiveness for not being tolerant enough. When the poor offending party does his pentinence, he is finally restored into the fold of "inclusiveness" and readmitted into the pop culture tribe... This is not only ignorant and laughable; it's the ultimate intolerance, i say. If we are so damned tolerant of other views; why aint we tolerant about opposing views and why dont we have an adult discussion about them?


leroy

I could not agree with this statement more, however, I'm not convinced that this should have any bearing on our current marriage license issuance. I get that venomous liberals will do this in order to further their agenda, but reasonably I have no argument for why I or anyone else should care if the government suddenly recognizes marriages between gays as legitimate.

Every argument against it has referenced "sanctity of marriage", but how can one use that argument with our divorce rate and other societal marriage issues occurring in traditional marriage? There is the nature argument, and while I'd agree that nature does not intend for same sex individuals to procreate, who cares? How does that translate into law? And the theme I often see relates to homo activity as a sin according to God, but religion shouldn't dictate our laws, especially when there are folks from other faiths who says their God doesn't care.

I am of the opinion that the gov should not be involved in marriage at all, and I also am of the opinion that will never happen. So logically we are left with two options: continue not to recognize gay marriage as legitimate in the eyes of the government based on a combination of religious beliefs and emotional pleas "for the children/sanctity of marriage", or allow gay marriage to be recognized. I'm leaning towards the latter because there are more logical reasons to allow it than to not allow it. I've asked before and I'll ask again, I would really like an argument against gay marriage that is not based on religion or emotion.

[Mike.357]

I would really like an argument against gay marriage that is not based on religion or emotion.

 

 

seconded

[leroy]

TMF.  I think the recent supreme court thing on DOMA was exactly what you say.  What the state regulates, the state has to even-handly enforce.  It's the old "equal protection under law" thing.  Like you, im ok with that.   Ray Charles could see that DOMA would be struck down if the court wuz fair as soon as there wuz more than one kind of marriage recognized by the state.

 

As to the "pop culture" tolerance thing; i think lots of folks are intimidated into backing certain things because of peer pressure. It's "tolerance jhad" at work.  It's a tool used to further the "movement" based on wanting to be "part of the crowd" by those who dont take the time to think things thru.  It's fodder for the "children" and 'beings of lower estate".. 

 

Im like you and some others, i dont believe that you can say you are for personal liberty, then limit the liberties of a certain class of citizens with discriminatory law passed to salve some political constituency.

 

I think you are exactly right  RE: the "....state meddling in marriage..." thing.  They need to get out of that business.  As you have also opined, sadly, i dont think for a minute that they will.  I say, get married in church if ya like that (...i happen to, that's what we did years ago...).  If ya dont like that one, get married where ever else ya want to.

 

leroy

[RichardR]

seconded

Well since you seconded ...

Marriage benefits were originaly a way to help ease the tremendous burden of procreating & raising progeny.

Now I guess granting/bestowing marriage benefits are nothing more than just another way for the government to toss our tax dollars at whomever or whatever screams loudly enough in demand of them.

How's that for a non-religous answer?

[TMF]

Marriage benefits were originaly a way to help ease the tremendous burden of procreating & raising progeny.


Now I guess granting/bestowing marriage benefits are nothing more than just another way for the government to toss our tax dollars at whomever or whatever screams loudly enough in demand of them.

Well in that case why worry about the gays? They aren't the ones looking to soak the government for "entitlements". There is a HUUUUUUGE, mostly hetero, portion of America that is sinking this ship. The option of queers filing joint tax returns isn't going to be what sinks this boat. Hell, they might even redecorate it for free so at least we can all sink in style. Edited July 7, 2013 by TMF

[Mike.357]

when I got married it was a fact that there would be no making babies.  Should I have not been allowed to marry?

 

Can people marry for reasons other than to have kids?

[daddyo]

when I got married it was a fact that there would be no making babies.  Should I have not been allowed to marry?

 

Can people marry for reasons other than to have kids?

 

Where did that come from? Did someone say that you shouldn't have married because you didn't plan to have children, or are you just trying to put words in someone's mouth?

[Mike.357]

Where did that come from? Did someone say that you shouldn't have married because you didn't plan to have children, or are you just trying to put words in someone's mouth?

 

 

post 271 from RichardR

 

 

 

Marriage benefits were originaly a way to help ease the tremendous burden of procreating & raising progeny.