• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

Random stupid things on your mind. Post them.

Started by timpate, September 20, 2010, 07:56:24 PM

BobGrau

a lot of hostility and short-tempers on coastgab lately. I was worried till I realised it's around Full Moon. Somethin's goin on.

Quote from: BobGrau on August 14, 2011, 05:38:17 AM
a lot of hostility and short-tempers on coastgab lately. I was worried till I realised it's around Full Moon. Somethin's goin on.

Oh, what a relief!  For a minute I thought "they" really were spraying us with something.       ::)   

BobGrau

Quote from: Treading Water on August 14, 2011, 08:09:32 AM
Oh, what a relief!  For a minute I thought "they" really were spraying us with something.       ::)

GM moonlight spliced with the bitterness of fallen angels. as endorsed by evil doctors!

DanDan

WOO I GOT THE MONEY.

The 100 dollars are all mine. bwhahahahAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA.

The General

Quote from: Michael Vandeven on August 13, 2011, 08:27:14 PM
I do not mean to suggest that I personally should be the one to summarily exact punishment upon these creatures. Nor do I mean to suggest they should be denied due process. What I DO mean to suggest is that I think certain sex crimes should be capital offenses. I totally support the execution of child molestors. I see no value in feeding, housing, registering, or monitoring these people.

Sent from my Droid X.
Couldn't agree more. 
Isn't this the second time James G has 'quit' this forum over something?

MV/Liberace!

Quote from: The General on August 14, 2011, 10:09:26 AM
Couldn't agree more. 
Isn't this the second time James G has 'quit' this forum over something?
Not only does he quit regularly, but he then spends several hours sending private messages to tell me how morally and intellectually superior he is. Any other forum admin would have permanently banned him after the first round. He is a socially awkward narcissist. I would never endure that from a real human being in my day to day life... so imagine where some anonymous creep on a message board stands.

Also, I always hated it when people felt the need to make a big public declaration of their departure from the forum. Just leave, already. We get it. You're not pleased.

I'll bet James spends his day using about ten different forums. Maybe more. I would kill myself if that were my life.

Sent from my Droid X.

Harmness

Hyperbole on teh internetz?  I am shocked, I tell you, shocked!

Art

I don't know about you guys, but I'm invincible.

onan

Quote from: Art Crow on August 15, 2011, 03:50:01 AM
I don't know about you guys, but I'm invincible.

I think you mean invisible. And no you are not. Put some clothes on.

MV/Liberace!

Here is a quote from newly announced presidential candidate Rick Perry:

Quote
"If you don't have the resources coming in where the private-sector job creators are creating wealth, then your economy is going to go in the toilet, which is exactly what has happened in America over the last three years with this monstrous debt."

This i find annoying.  It's as if government debt didn't exist prior to the Obama administration's existence, and if it DID exist, nobody saw where it was headed.  WTF.  I understand that we're on the cusp of a political season, and I understand that people say what they say to get elected, and I too would like to see this president voted away, but let's at least not be silly about the whole thing.  You're either for or against government debt, and your willingness to complain about it shouldn't vary depending on what glorified hack does or doesn't occupy the white house this week.

Onward.  As a conservative and someone who's happy to see the ongoing tea party disruption, here's another quote i find annoying from this year's crop of "conservative" hopefuls:

Quote
States do not have the right to destroy the American family. It is our business.  It is not fine with me that New York has destroyed marriage. It is not fine with me that New York is setting a template that will cause great division in this country.

This scoop of bilge is from Rick Santorum.  Anyone who holds his childlike view of states' rights is as much a threat to our republic as any foreign enemy could ever be.  His position in this matter is totally contrary to the principles and beliefs conservatives often purport themselves to uphold.  It is not constitutionally forbidden for states to decide this issue.  Nor is the power specifically assigned to the federal government.  The tenth amendment clearly states that those powers not specifically granted to the federal government are assumed to be granted to the states.  Most decent elementary schools will teach you this.  Unless someone can find something in the constitution to demonstrate the regulation of gay marriage to be a federal right and/or responsibility, then it is constitutionally criminal for the federal government to deny states the freedom to decide this matter themselves.  I can think of no issue better suited for states to decide.  Don't like the way your state is managing gay marriage?  Then move.  You have options.  That's the beauty of living in a republic comprised of 50 sovereign states.  There's no way I could ever support a "conservative" who doesn't believe in states' rights.  I would hope most purported conservatives out there would agree with me on this. 

Furthermore, this hyperbole of gay marriage supposedly "destroying the American family" is just not rooted in any facts that I can see.  With a divorce rate at over 60% in this country, 100% of that being heterosexual divorce, it's clear to me that straight couples are already doing a rather efficient job themselves of perpetrating the very type of destruction to which Santorum refers.  My marriage isn't cheapened or endangered by the marriage decisions of others, even if it's between two people who happen to have penises, believe it or not.  My business also won't be wounded.  Shocking, isn't it?  My dog will remain fed. 

I don't respond well at all to this type of panic speak.


EDIT:  Oh, and Perry did come crashing down on Santorum for his states' rights comments, so at least there's that.  So, I guess if you are to support either of these guys, you'd need to be ok either with a dummy who doesn't understand states rights, or a dummy who is seemingly unaware of the multi-decade nature of our debt problem.

Frys Girl

Rick Santorum. I can't believe he is still in politics AT ALL. He hired hookers and did coke with them. Maybe that's why the DC Madam "killed herself."

Tara

Quote from: Michael Vandeven on August 15, 2011, 12:51:21 PM

This scoop of bilge is from Rick Santorum.  Anyone who holds his childlike view of states' rights is as much a threat to our republic as any foreign enemy could ever be.  His position in this matter is totally contrary to the principles and beliefs conservatives often purport themselves to uphold.  It is not constitutionally forbidden for states to decide this issue.  Nor is the power specifically assigned to the federal government.  The tenth amendment clearly states that those powers not specifically granted to the federal government are assumed to be granted to the states.  Most decent elementary schools will teach you this.  Unless someone can find something in the constitution to demonstrate the regulation of gay marriage to be a federal right and/or responsibility, then it is constitutionally criminal for the federal government to deny states the freedom to decide this matter themselves.  I can think of no issue better suited for states to decide.  Don't like the way your state is managing gay marriage?  Then move.  You have options.  That's the beauty of living in a republic comprised of 50 sovereign states.  There's no way I could ever support a "conservative" who doesn't believe in states' rights.  I would hope most purported conservatives out there would agree with me on this. 

Furthermore, this hyperbole of gay marriage supposedly "destroying the American family" is just not rooted in any facts that I can see.  With a divorce rate at over 60% in this country, 100% of that being heterosexual divorce, it's clear to me that straight couples are already doing a rather efficient job themselves of perpetrating the very type of destruction to which Santorum refers.  My marriage isn't cheapened or endangered by the marriage decisions of others, even if it's between two people who happen to have penises, believe it or not.  My business also won't be wounded.  Shocking, isn't it?  My dog will remain fed. 

I don't respond well at all to this type of panic speak.


EDIT:  Oh, and Perry did come crashing down on Santorum for his states' rights comments, so at least there's that.  So, I guess if you are to support either of these guys, you'd need to be ok either with a dummy who doesn't understand states rights, or a dummy who is seemingly unaware of the multi-decade nature of our debt problem.

There are other conservatives on Coastgab?  There aren't many of us.

I feel that if this country will ever survive and prosper in the future it will be because it actually adheres to the 10th amendment.  I agree that every state has a right under the U.S. constitution to legalize gay marriage in their respective state.  It would take a U.S. constitutional amendment to mandate the legalization of gay marriage in every state, whether they like it or not. 

Though gays like to state they're 10% of the population; it's actually about 3-4%, depending upon the study.  I don't think the country will go to hell if 3 or 4% of the marriages are between same sex couples.  That's only about 1 out of 30.  However, and this is a big issue for me, and that is plural marriage.  Don't think that a push for that is far off.  Everywhere I'm aware of plural marriage, it ends up in the subjugation of women, i.e., the FLDS, radical Islam.  I worked for the government as an Investigator and was involved on a daily basis with Civil Rights attorneys.  Their unstated goal was always to push the limits of the law, to increase government jurisdiction and alleged rights.  Don't think these attorneys won't attempt to do this with plural marriage.  They'll do this on the basis of religious discrimination, Mormons and Muslims  should be able to practice their faith. A Libertarian would state "who cares," but I'm dead set against the legalization of plural marriage.  If a guy can get a half dozen women to shack up with him and join his harem, I don't mind, it's the state sanction of this that I mind. 

My solution, which will never happen, is a U.S. constitutional amendment legalizing marriage only between two human individuals at a time. 

onan

The sad fact that almost brings tears to my eyes is Perry and Santorum and the rest of them are not speaking to us. Almost everyone that posts on this forum is (imo) more intelligent and reasoned than the target of their political speech. It is a dismal commentary but there is not an even distribution of intelligence in this country. And again my opinion people posting here are well above the norm.

From what I see from the members posting here are much more aware than what these hacks are comfortable with. And we are much more likely to ask the tough questions, and I do not mean cheap shots.

 

Frys Girl

Quote from: onan on August 15, 2011, 01:42:48 PM
The sad fact that almost brings tears to my eyes is Perry and Santorum and the rest of them are not speaking to us. Almost everyone that posts on this forum is (imo) more intelligent and reasoned than the target of their political speech. It is a dismal commentary but there is not an even distribution of intelligence in this country. And again my opinion people posting here are well above the norm.

From what I see from the members posting here are much more aware than what these hacks are comfortable with. And we are much more likely to ask the tough questions, and I do not mean cheap shots.


I'm not 100% sure, but we're also not employed by them and the machine that depends on their madness. In the '08 election, I'll never forget the fanfare with the CNN July Election Rodeo Showdown. We are doomed! No wonder Alex Jones is succeeding.

M Knight

Quote from: onan on August 15, 2011, 01:42:48 PM
The sad fact that almost brings tears to my eyes is Perry and Santorum and the rest of them are not speaking to us. Almost everyone that posts on this forum is (imo) more intelligent and reasoned than the target of their political speech. It is a dismal commentary but there is not an even distribution of intelligence in this country. And again my opinion people posting here are well above the norm.

From what I see from the members posting here are much more aware than what these hacks are comfortable with. And we are much more likely to ask the tough questions, and I do not mean cheap shots.

Our democracy, and process of election has become something like this:

A drunken waiter with a cigarette hanging from his mouth drops down two plates of greasy slop on your table and, with a hint of annoyance, says:  "Which one do you want?" 

onan

Quote from: Tara on August 15, 2011, 01:30:42 PM
There are other conservatives on Coastgab?  There aren't many of us.

I feel that if this country will ever survive and prosper in the future it will be because it actually adheres to the 10th amendment.  I agree that every state has a right under the U.S. constitution to legalize gay marriage in their respective state.  It would take a U.S. constitutional amendment to mandate the legalization of gay marriage in every state, whether they like it or not. 

Though gays like to state they're 10% of the population; it's actually about 3-4%, depending upon the study.  I don't think the country will go to hell if 3 or 4% of the marriages are between same sex couples.  That's only about 1 out of 30.  However, and this is a big issue for me, and that is plural marriage.  Don't think that a push for that is far off.  Everywhere I'm aware of plural marriage, it ends up in the subjugation of women, i.e., the FLDS, radical Islam.  I worked for the government as an Investigator and was involved on a daily basis with Civil Rights attorneys.  Their unstated goal was always to push the limits of the law, to increase government jurisdiction and alleged rights.  Don't think these attorneys won't attempt to do this with plural marriage.  They'll do this on the basis of religious discrimination, Mormons and Muslims  should be able to practice their faith. A Libertarian would state "who cares," but I'm dead set against the legalization of plural marriage.  If a guy can get a half dozen women to shack up with him and join his harem, I don't mind, it's the state sanction of this that I mind. 

My solution, which will never happen, is a U.S. constitutional amendment legalizing marriage only between two human individuals at a time.

Interesting post.

I think you may be merging two different issues: 1. plural marriage and 2. subjugation, most likely of women, probably children as well. Either way I have little to no clue. I haven't heard much... scratch that, I haven't heard a thing about the new push. I am old however.

To the percentage of gay to non gay... bogus argument.  Sexuality is not an either or proposition. Tendencies toward attractions are from 0% to 100%. the measuring stick you are using is a very simple questionnaire asking are you or aren't you. And it isn't anywhere near that simple... no matter what you learned in Sunday school. But I am not really addressing your major point, however you did kind of state that the country wont go to hell at 3 to 4 percent. Am I to conclude it would at 7%? It is a silly pandering irrational argument.

To plural marriage and subjugation of women I certainly agree it would be a horrible addition to the already large number of abused women. But goddamn, women are 51% of the population get your asses organized and vote the bastards out.

My solution make religion illegal.

MV/Liberace!

ron paul is the only truly conservative candidate running as a republican, and i'm willing to wager he'd be enthusiastically supported by a sweeping variety of people on this forum who call themselves both conservatives and liberals.  i think most people really are conservatives in their day to day lives and observations.  they just don't know it until they encounter someone like ron paul, a true conservative who supports personal freedom and independence for all, so long as said freedom and/or independence doesn't harm others.  he is the only candidate who forges his opinions based on what is written in the constitution... and, both sadly and ironically, he's the only republican candidate viewed as a kook by "conservative" observers like limbaugh.  it infuriates me every time i hear limbaugh refer to ron paul in a condescending fashion.

The General

Quote from: Michael Vandeven on August 15, 2011, 03:45:27 PM
ron paul is the only truly conservative candidate running as a republican, and i'm willing to wager he'd be enthusiastically supported by a sweeping variety of people on this forum who call themselves both conservatives and liberals.  i think most people really are conservatives in their day to day lives and observations.  they just don't know it until they encounter someone like ron paul, a true conservative who supports personal freedom and independence for all, so long as said freedom and/or independence doesn't harm others.  he is the only candidate who forges his opinions based on what is written in the constitution... and, both sadly and ironically, he's the only republican candidate viewed as a kook by "conservative" observers like limbaugh.  it infuriates me every time i hear limbaugh refer to ron paul in a condescending fashion.
Absolutely.  Ron Paul is the only one that I support. 

And you're right about states' rights, but I disagree with you on gay marriage.  Gays already have every right to marry, the same as straight people do, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.  Which is and has always been the undeniable definition of marriage, from the beginning of time.  What proponents of 'marraige equality' (a clever use of language) really want to do is to re-define the very word and concept of marriage.  The problem I see is that it can't be done.  You can't marry a man to a man. 

Frys Girl

Quote from: The General on August 15, 2011, 05:19:48 PM
You can't marry a man to a man.
This is true. I think it's interesting that gay relationships are being re-designed as heterosexual relationships.

MV/Liberace!

I used to consciously oppose gay marriage... then one day, much like Elaine Benes and her fur opposition, I decided, "Who has time for this?" I don't consciously/actively support it, either. I'm in the "who cares" camp, to be honest. What I DO care about, however, is the states' rights aspect of the discussion.

Sent from my Droid X.

onan

There are some things I like about Ron Paul. There are things I do not. What I will tell you is he is in many regards an iconoclast. They never get elected to high office.

The General

Quote from: Michael Vandeven on August 15, 2011, 05:55:07 PM
I used to consciously oppose gay marriage... then one day, much like Elaine Benes and her fur opposition, I decided, "Who has time for this?" I don't consciously/actively support it, either. I'm in the "who cares" camp, to be honest. What I DO care about, however, is the states' rights aspect of the discussion.

Sent from my Droid X.

I don't ever want our little girls to ask each other, "When you grow up, will you marry a man or a woman?"  That, in a nutshell is why I will always oppose the radical notion of redefining marriage.  It is, in my opinion, a move that has been put forward by nefarious forces that are only using gay groups as pawns in their larger scheme of further eroding the family and replacing it with the government.

Frys Girl

Quote from: Michael Vandeven on August 15, 2011, 05:55:07 PM
I used to consciously oppose gay marriage... then one day, much like Elaine Benes and her fur opposition, I decided, "Who has time for this?" I don't consciously/actively support it, either. I'm in the "who cares" camp, to be honest. What I DO care about, however, is the states' rights aspect of the discussion.

Sent from my Droid X.
It's easy not to care, considering the fact that the nation is crumbling with debt. I understand that. It's also a debate that isn't being correctly articulated, IMO. Marriage is important, but so is making sure kids aren't in homeless shelters. The nation's status with respect to education, military, economics, and morality is pretty low right now. Priorities are important. Then again, as it is said in philosophy, trying to change the end of something will cause its destruction.

onan

You guys must get sick of my references to my work... sorry about that.

I see lots of families, from every social strata. I see straight families and I see some same sex parents with children. Granted when I see a family they are in crisis. But I can tell you that the sex of the parent has so little to do with how well a child is coping in the world. I can also tell you that by and large same sex relationships are much more open and healthy about their respective emotions and their understanding of their families emotions.

To suggest that our country will fail due to same sex marriage is as irrational as one can get. There is not one study to indicate any link between the two.

And before anyone gets on a high horse... do a quick search of the number of orphans in the USA alone. When there are no children without parents you can preach to me about how a same sex couple shouldn't raise children, until then shut the fuck up.

Frys Girl

Quote from: onan on August 15, 2011, 06:54:37 PM


To suggest that our country will fail due to same sex marriage is as irrational as one can get.
The destruction to which I was referring wasn't America's; it was marriage itself. I never said anything about adoption. Children who are homeless or orphaned are innocent and are sometimes in that situation due to their parents' failures or circumstances out of their control. Regardless, I didn't mention adoption. Ideally, all kids can be in a two parent home. It's my opinion, and I think it is what is best. Obviously, a child who is in foster care without proper care and love is better off with a person who is willing to take care of that child, even if that person is homosexual. It's something I care about, but I understand people don't agree. I won't call them irrational or stupid because they disagree or to shut the fack up.

onan

Quote from: Frys Girl on August 15, 2011, 06:56:31 PM
The destruction to which I was referring wasn't America's; it was marriage itself.

My marriage is doing great.

Frys Girl

The destruction to which I was referring wasn't America's; it was marriage itself. I never said anything about adoption. Children who are homeless or orphaned are innocent and are sometimes in that situation due to their parents' failures or circumstances out of their control. Regardless, I didn't mention adoption. Ideally, all kids can be in a two parent home. It's my opinion, and I think it is what is best. Obviously, a child who is in foster care without proper care and love is better off with a person who is willing to take care of that child, even if that person is homosexual. It's something I care about, but I understand people don't agree. I won't call them irrational or stupid because they disagree or to shut the fack up. You're the one who seems to be on a high horse to me.

onan

Quote from: Frys Girl on August 15, 2011, 07:04:57 PM
The destruction to which I was referring wasn't America's; it was marriage itself. I never said anything about adoption. Children who are homeless or orphaned are innocent and are sometimes in that situation due to their parents' failures or circumstances out of their control. Regardless, I didn't mention adoption. Ideally, all kids can be in a two parent home. It's my opinion, and I think it is what is best. Obviously, a child who is in foster care without proper care and love is better off with a person who is willing to take care of that child, even if that person is homosexual. It's something I care about, but I understand people don't agree. I won't call them irrational or stupid because they disagree or to shut the fack up. You're the one who seems to be on a high horse to me.

I don't mean to be rude here, but you do not know what you are talking about. All behavioral science is saying living in two homes is a bad idea.But that isn't the same issue as orphans. Better than seeing a fistfight every night but a bad idea. Foster care is so broken. It is a band aid on a leaking damn. Yeah it is better than no home but they do not provide a safe stable environment.

I know you didn't write about children but are you suggesting that is not one of the desired outcomes of a same sex marriage?

I am not the one who is castigating a group of people because of some superstition, you are. So if I seem huffy it is because I started from a better argument.

And I didn't use the term fack, I used fuck. To mistype a word to not "actually" use the term but still convey the meaning is silly.

There are many reasons why marriages are not working in this country and none of them have a thing to do with homosexuality.

M Knight

Quote from: onan on August 15, 2011, 07:16:58 PM
And I didn't use the term fack, I used fuck. To mistype a word to not "actually" use the term but still convey the meaning is silly.


... or the display of a sensitive mind.

Scully

Marc, I LOVE your new avatar!!!!! ;D 

Scully

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod