| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fredric L. Rice" |
| Date: |
30 Jun 2004 12:59:31 AM |
| Object: |
Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected
by JENNIFER PETER
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4258800,00.html
BOSTON (AP) - A federal appeals court Tuesday rejected an attempt by
conservative groups and state lawmakers to stop gay marriage in
Massachusetts.
The Florida-based Liberty Counsel, which launched the lawsuit, said it
would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs had argued that Massachusetts' high court usurped the
power of the Legislature - and thereby violated the U.S. Constitution
- when it ruled last year that gay couples are entitled to wed.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed Tuesday, and said the
appropriate way to contest the state court ruling is by amending the
Massachusetts Constitution - a long process already under way.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Largess, the vice president
of the Catholic Action League, and 11 state lawmakers.
The federal appeals court had rejected an earlier request by the
groups to stop the first marriage licenses from being issued to gay
couples in May.
Tuesday's ruling was the latest in a series of defeats for
conservative groups in both state and federal courts.
The appeals court said the November 2003 gay-marriage ruling by
Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court did not violate a clause in the
U.S. Constitution that calls for a republican form of government in
each state.
The only way a state could run afoul of the clause would be to
establish a monarchy or take other action that clearly deviated from
the republican form of government, the appeals court said.
---
Where to find Fahrenheit 9/11: http://www.f911tix.com/
For activists: Not Ordered Text Server at http://www.notserver.com/
Baby Killer Bush: most unwelcome American ever to set foot on Irish soil:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0624/primetime/primetime56_1c.smil
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
30 Jun 2004 01:17:32 AM |
|
|
"Fredric L. Rice" <REMOVEFRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote
Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected
No biggy.
There entire argument amounted to claiming that the Supreme
Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had
no right to determine constitutional matters.
I'm not kidding.
It was as if a couple of grade schoolers came up with the law
suit. It was that ignorant.
The federal court DID NOT uphold gay marriage. They tossed
out a specious suit based on a fantasy claim.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
30 Jun 2004 09:23:24 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:17:32 -0400 in episode
<HvidnV55kI9fxH_dRVn-gw@comcast.com> we saw our hero "JTEM"
<gymraven@hotmail.com>:
"Fredric L. Rice" <REMOVEFRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote
Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected
No biggy.
There entire argument amounted to claiming that the Supreme Judicial Court
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had no right to determine
constitutional matters.
I'm not kidding.
It was as if a couple of grade schoolers came up with the law suit. It was
that ignorant.
The federal court DID NOT uphold gay marriage. They tossed out a specious
suit based on a fantasy claim.
But I do like the part where the god squad seems to think the
constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government means a
Republican form of government...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington.
That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington
has known and fully knows what [the neo-conservative]
agenda was and what they were trying to do."
[Retired General Anthony Zinni]
.
|
|
|
| User: "jojo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
30 Jun 2004 06:11:02 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:17:32 -0400 in episode
<HvidnV55kI9fxH_dRVn-gw@comcast.com> we saw our hero "JTEM"
<gymraven@hotmail.com>:
The federal court DID NOT uphold gay marriage. They tossed out a specious
suit based on a fantasy claim.
But I do like the part where the god squad seems to think the
constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government means a
Republican form of government...
Well, let's not be too partisan about it. The last poll I saw shows
well over half the US population opposes gay marriage, so all cannot
be big-R Republicans. Hell, *Kerry* opposes gay marriage. He weasels
around the issue, but he opposes it. He's a "civil union" guy, which
is better, granted, but hardly what I want. Unfortunately, he's going
to get my vote. Seeing how he voted for the Iraq war and the patriot
act, it's very unfortunate.
--
Jojo
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
30 Jun 2004 08:41:34 PM |
|
|
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
Hell, *Kerry* opposes gay marriage. He weasels around
the issue, but he opposes it. He's a "civil union" guy,
which is better, granted, but hardly what I want.
Unfortunately, he's going to get my vote.
Kerry could call me up, tell me I'm a "Fag" and all I'd do is
ask him if there's any way I could help his campaign.
I'm sick of waiting for that "Perfect" candidate to come around,
almost as sick as I am of people who keep insisting that I should
wait for that "Perfect" candidate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
01 Jul 2004 02:11:43 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
Hell, *Kerry* opposes gay marriage. He weasels around
the issue, but he opposes it. He's a "civil union" guy,
which is better, granted, but hardly what I want.
Unfortunately, he's going to get my vote.
Kerry could call me up, tell me I'm a "Fag" and all I'd do is
ask him if there's any way I could help his campaign.
I'm sick of waiting for that "Perfect" candidate to come around,
almost as sick as I am of people who keep insisting that I should
wait for that "Perfect" candidate.
}:-} What, you mean you don't labor under the mistaken, utopian notion
that there's one political party that's elite and actually works for the
good of the people? <laugh> That makes you unamerican. }:-} Part of
the American Dream is the notion that one's political party of choice is
nothing short of godlike.
---
Where to find Fahrenheit 9/11: http://www.f911tix.com/
For activists: Not Ordered Text Server at http://www.notserver.com/
Baby Killer Bush: most unwelcome American ever to set foot on Irish soil:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0624/primetime/primetime56_1c.smil
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
01 Jul 2004 10:57:42 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
Hell, *Kerry* opposes gay marriage. He weasels around
the issue, but he opposes it. He's a "civil union" guy,
which is better, granted, but hardly what I want.
Unfortunately, he's going to get my vote.
Kerry could call me up, tell me I'm a "Fag" and all I'd do is
ask him if there's any way I could help his campaign.
I'm sick of waiting for that "Perfect" candidate to come around,
almost as sick as I am of people who keep insisting that I should
wait for that "Perfect" candidate.
I'd be happy with a candidate that was at least willing to extend equal
rights to me and mine. Kerry is not such a candidate.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is
tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists
for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering, http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
01 Jul 2004 12:33:26 PM |
|
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote
I'd be happy with a candidate that was at least willing to
extend equal rights to me and mine. Kerry is not such a
candidate.
I'm talking about being happy with change, being happy about
moving in the right direction, not "satisfaction" with having
achieved Utopia.
Clinton was the ultimate high-water-mark when it came to
Presidents & gay rights, yet I watched as a little more than 30%
of gay voters voted against them.
He just wasn't GAY ENOUGH.
The "don't vote for the Democrat if they're not perfect" strategy
succeeded. We got that giant leap backwards that 30% of gay
voters strove for.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
01 Jul 2004 12:34:40 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote
I'd be happy with a candidate that was at least willing to
extend equal rights to me and mine. Kerry is not such a
candidate.
I'm talking about being happy with change, being happy about
moving in the right direction, not "satisfaction" with having
achieved Utopia.
Clinton was the ultimate high-water-mark when it came to
Presidents & gay rights, yet I watched as a little more than 30%
of gay voters voted against them.
He just wasn't GAY ENOUGH.
You don't suppose that his secretive signing of the "Defense" of
Marriage Act (late on a Friday night with no press and no witnesses is
about as secretive as a bill can be signed in to law) and his creation
of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (which led to more expultions during his
eight years than in the previous 12 years of Republican administrations)
had anything to do with that, did it?
The "don't vote for the Democrat if they're not perfect" strategy
succeeded. We got that giant leap backwards that 30% of gay
voters strove for.
I don't give a rat's ***** about perfect. I refuse to support any
candidate that refuses to accept my worth as a human being and my rights
before the law. Therefore, I refuse to support Kerry.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is
tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists
for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering, http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
01 Jul 2004 12:53:06 PM |
|
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote
You don't suppose that his secretive signing of the "Defense" of
Marriage Act (late on a Friday night with no press and no witnesses is
about as secretive as a bill can be signed in to law)
Clinton made his opposition to gay marriage known, back in 1992, even
when he was the first major candidate in American history to openly
court the gay vote.
and his creation of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
...which the Republicans said "went too far," was the best Clinton
was ever going to manage in a constitutional democracy. Funny that
more than 30% of gay voters would get so angry with Clinton that they
would agree with the Republicans...
He was President, not king.
What gets me is that in soc.motss, a gay newsgroup, some jackass was
just suggesting that Kerry pick Sam Nunn as his running mate. Sam Nunn
was the Democratic Senator who openly battled Clinton over "gays in
the military."
Ralph Nader has seen every issue he cares about -- everything from
healthcare and the environment to corporate influence -- take a giant
leap backwards. that's what "Holding on to his principles" cost him;
everything he values. That was the price.
If you want to be like him then, well, fine. But have more courage than
him. Admit it. Admit it's all or nothing. Admit it's your way or the
highway.
And, yeah, take responsibility when you succeed. Don't pull a frigging
Nader and blame everyone else.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
01 Jul 2004 01:06:16 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote
You don't suppose that his secretive signing of the "Defense" of
Marriage Act (late on a Friday night with no press and no witnesses is
about as secretive as a bill can be signed in to law)
Clinton made his opposition to gay marriage known, back in 1992, even
when he was the first major candidate in American history to openly
court the gay vote.
"Courting" a constituency is a very far cry from actually supporting their
issues, as Bill Clinton clearly showed, and as Kerry is showing now. I'm
tired of being "courted", damn it! Either make good on the promises or find
someone else to screw; this cow is no longer giving away the milk for free.
and his creation of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
...which the Republicans said "went too far," was the best Clinton
was ever going to manage in a constitutional democracy. Funny that
more than 30% of gay voters would get so angry with Clinton that they
would agree with the Republicans...
He was President, not king.
You conveniently omitted the fact that Clinton's policy led to more
expulsions during his 8 years in office than occured in the previous 12
years of Republican administrations. As both Commander in Chief and Chief
Executive, Clinton could have taken steps to clarify the policy and reduce
the number of people thrown out of honorable service because of it. He never
did.
What gets me is that in soc.motss, a gay newsgroup, some jackass was
just suggesting that Kerry pick Sam Nunn as his running mate. Sam Nunn
was the Democratic Senator who openly battled Clinton over "gays in
the military."
You make the mistaken assumption that all gay people are liberals. The
existence of groups like the Log Cabin should tell you that :-/ Ah, well,
some gay people really are in to being tortured.
Ralph Nader has seen every issue he cares about -- everything from
healthcare and the environment to corporate influence -- take a giant
leap backwards. that's what "Holding on to his principles" cost him;
everything he values. That was the price.
If you want to be like him then, well, fine. But have more courage than
him. Admit it. Admit it's all or nothing. Admit it's your way or the
highway.
You presume that, because I very much dislike Kerry that I therefore endorse
Nader. You are quite wrong in that presumption.
Kerry will most likely get my vote, but only because he is not Bush. Don't
expect me to support Kerry in any way, however. The thought of four more
years of a Bush administration is the one and ONLY reason I will vote for
president.
And, yeah, take responsibility when you succeed. Don't pull a frigging
Nader and blame everyone else.
It is the Democrats who blame everyone else. They are the ones who scream
and rant and weep over the 2% of Democrats who voted for Nader and remain
silent over the 11% of Democrats who voted FOR BUSH.
But don't worry. I have no intention of pulling a frigging Democrat and
blame everyone else.
And for the record, I am a gay man. It is physically impossible for me to
frig, as that's a girl-on-girl kind of thing :-D
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is
tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists
for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering, http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
04 Jul 2004 03:50:43 PM |
|
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote
"Courting" a constituency is a very far cry from actually supporting
their issues,
No, and a tiny step in the right direction (the first step ever, I might
add), is a lot better than no advanement, or even a step backwards.
I'm tired of being "courted", damn it!
I'm tired of people waiting for straight, white heterosexual males to
"Lead them to the promised land."
Politcal change is slow. Our founding fathers DESIGNED things that
way. We're both cheering this fact in the case of the anti-gay
amendment, so we'd have to be freaking hypocrites to not only
complain in the case of the military, but place the blame on the only
candidates who can see that there's something wrong with the
situation.
Seriously. I'm not going to argue DADT outside the political context.
I've wasted far too much time, over the years, doing that with every
moron who thinks he's got something insightful to share.
My impression is that you're not a moron. So, please, don't even lean
in the direction of the "...in a more perfect world.." argument.
Clinton wasn't king. What's more, Democrats were never afraid of
running up against him. Sam Nunn certainly didn't, and it just so
happens that Sam Nunn could (and did) make things very difficult
for Clinton on the DADT issue.
Either make good on the promises
"Abolish democracy!"
You conveniently omitted the fact that Clinton's policy led
to more expulsions during his 8 years in office than occured
in the previous 12 years of Republican administrations.
You conveniently ignored the fact that Clinton's policy enraged
the opposition, who, in order to get even, enforced it to the letter.
Well don't worry about it. Clinton is gone. I guess you can
celebrate.
What gets me is that in soc.motss, a gay newsgroup, some jackass
was just suggesting that Kerry pick Sam Nunn as his running mate.
Sam Nunn was the Democratic Senator who openly battled
Clinton over "gays in the military."
You make the mistaken assumption that all gay people are liberals.
I made no such mistake. Heck, you're not even addressing me.
You can be a conservative black man and not support racists. You
can be a conservative gay man and not support homophobes.
But, then again, part of the "blame Clinton" fantasy is that the people
who were behind the scenes, like Sam Nunn, are not responsible for
their actions. Clinton, yes, but the people battling against him are
never responsible.
You presume that, because I very much dislike Kerry that I therefore
endorse Nader. You are quite wrong in that presumption.
I make no presumptions.
I am merely responding to what I see before me.
And, yeah, take responsibility when you succeed. Don't pull a
frigging Nader and blame everyone else.
It is the Democrats who blame everyone else.
Really?
They are the ones who scream and rant and weep over the 2% of
Democrats who voted for Nader and remain silent over the 11%
of Democrats who voted FOR BUSH.
I spoke of controlling ones self (Nader) and you speak of controlling
others (voters).
Nader can not be blamed for his own actions, but the Democratic
party must -- in your opinion -- take responsibility for the actions
of individual voters.
You're proving my point.
You're pulling a Nader.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jojo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
01 Jul 2004 03:52:43 PM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow wrote:
JTEM wrote:
What gets me is that in soc.motss, a gay newsgroup, some jackass was
just suggesting that Kerry pick Sam Nunn as his running mate. Sam Nunn
was the Democratic Senator who openly battled Clinton over "gays in
the military."
You make the mistaken assumption that all gay people are liberals.
You mean there are gay people who aren't single-issue voters! Gasp!
--
Jojo
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
04 Jul 2004 04:18:52 PM |
|
|
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
You mean there are gay people who aren't single-issue voters!
No. There are gay people who don't know when they're not wanted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jojo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
05 Jul 2004 12:46:13 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
You mean there are gay people who aren't single-issue voters!
No. There are gay people who don't know when they're not wanted.
LOL. Pretend I'm a gay man who "despises the welfare state" (or
some such). Who do I vote for? I make a bad compromise by
deciding which "side" I hate less. That decision is made easier
if the "liberals", for whatever reason, also have *****-poor
policies on "gay issues". It all comes down to what is more
important to *them*. (And I won't pretend the Democrats don't have
a better track record on gay issues than the Republicans, but I
also won't pretend it is worthy of any praise.)
--
Jojo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jojo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
01 Jul 2004 12:05:12 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
Hell, *Kerry* opposes gay marriage. He weasels around
the issue, but he opposes it. He's a "civil union" guy,
which is better, granted, but hardly what I want.
Unfortunately, he's going to get my vote.
Kerry could call me up, tell me I'm a "Fag" and all I'd do is
ask him if there's any way I could help his campaign.
The previous poster implied that the "gay marriage" opposition
was strictly Republican in nature. It is not.
I'm sick of waiting for that "Perfect" candidate to come around,
almost as sick as I am of people who keep insisting that I should
wait for that "Perfect" candidate.
I'm not looking for "Perfect", and I'm not "insisting" you should
either. But it would be nice if Kerry would have actually *opposed*
some of the more heinous things Bush has done (ie. Iraq war, patriot
act...).
And you say "waiting" like nothing can happen in the present. Yes,
I am "waiting" for the "Perfect" candidate. But in the meantime, I
am voting for Kerry simply because he's not Bush (not a new idea,
I know). I am not going to pretend Kerry is something he is not: a
good candidate.
--
Jojo
.
|
|
|
| User: "jojo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
01 Jul 2004 04:20:25 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
I'm not looking for "Perfect", and I'm not "insisting" you should
either. But it would be nice if Kerry would have actually *opposed*
some of the more heinous things Bush has done (ie. Iraq war, patriot
act...).
I feel no need to buy into the Republican
Don't know if you intended me here, but: I'm not a Republican in any way,
shape, or form. I opposed the war, and I am voting for Kerry.
fantasy that Kerry -- or any
other Senator -- voted for "the war."
They authorized the use of military force.
Oh, I understand the distinction. He voted for authorizing the use of
military force, but then Bush twisted that into some sort of
"authorization" for the use of military force.
Clinton asked for that very same authorization, and I do believe that
Kerry voted the exact same way. The results were quite different.
I fail to see how this helps.
It's pretty clear that it wasn't Kerry's vote that was critical here, but
the "President" who was asking for authorization.
So it doesn't matter that he voted for the war, er, I mean authorized
the use of military force. The best possible spin is that Kerry
voted on something he really didn't mean, thinking it he was voting on
some meaningless statement which might play well somewhere. Is it
possible he "didn't read it"?
The "Patriot Act" was supposed to be a re-introduction of legislation
that Clinton had introduced, and the Republicans defeated.
It is my understanding that it was re-written, virtually over night, and
NO member of congress had an opportunity to see it (never mind read
such a large & complicated piece of legislation) before voting.
So then he's an idiot for voting for a bill which he never read. I'd
prefer it if he was just a little naive about abuses of power rather
than so stupid as to vote for a bill he never even read.
Not that it matters. Even what seems like perfect & long overdue
legislation is likely to show flaws in application.
Oh boy. I'm sorry, but you just can spin this pig into silk, no
matter how hard you try and which rationalization you use.
--
Jojo
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
04 Jul 2004 10:12:12 PM |
|
|
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
Clinton asked for that very same authorization, and I do believe
that Kerry voted the exact same way. The results were quite
different.
I fail to see how this helps.
Did you complain about Kerry's vote back then, back when Clinton
was asking for the authorization to use military force?
If not, the critical piece here is Bush, not Kerry's vote.
If you weren't on usenet complaining about Kerry's vote back then,
back when he was voting to give Clinton the exact same
authorization, you've already proven to yourself that the problem
isn't Kerry or the vote, it's the idiot sitting in the Whitehouse.
So it doesn't matter that he voted for the war, er, I mean authorized
the use of military force.
You know & understand that authorizing military force does not
automatically mean war. After all, Clinton asked for that exact
same authorization. Clinton did not invade Iraq.
Please end the strawman.
So then he's an idiot for voting for a bill which he never read.
One one Senator voted against it.
I'd prefer it if he was just a little naive about abuses of
power rather than so stupid as to vote for a bill he never even
read.
Gosh, what a compelling argument!
Now that you put it that way, I think I'll be like you and construct
all sort of strawmen, all in an attempt to smear our best chance
at getting rid of Bush DUBYA Bush!
.
|
|
|
| User: "jojo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
05 Jul 2004 12:26:58 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
Clinton asked for that very same authorization, and I do believe
that Kerry voted the exact same way. The results were quite
different.
I fail to see how this helps.
Did you complain about Kerry's vote back then, back when Clinton
was asking for the authorization to use military force?
No, I did not "follow" politics very closely back then. What was
the name/number of the bill?
If not, the critical piece here is Bush, not Kerry's vote.
Wow, cool dichotomy.
If you weren't on usenet complaining about Kerry's vote back then,
back when he was voting to give Clinton the exact same
authorization, you've already proven to yourself that the problem
isn't Kerry or the vote, it's the idiot sitting in the Whitehouse.
Yes, that is the binary decision. Either I complained about it
then, or Kerry bears no fault for his vote authorizing the use of
military force. Yes, how could I have ever thought there were
other options? Crazy me.
So it doesn't matter that he voted for the war, er, I mean authorized
the use of military force.
You know & understand that authorizing military force does not
automatically mean war.
No. If I "authorize the use of military force" that means "Hey,
I think you could have a war if you wanted to". That does not mean
the use of military force is guaranteed or even desired, no, but
it does mean the "authorizer" is OK with the use of military
force. If words have meaning it must mean this. (If you want to
quibble about on the difference between a "war" and "military
force", enjoy yourself.)
After all, Clinton asked for that exact
same authorization.
Again, I fail to see how having a history of "authorizing the use
of military force" makes it any better. What was the name/number?
Clinton did not invade Iraq.
Very good: No invasion occurred. However, Clinton did have
"operation desert fox", which was a 600+ sortie bombing run
on targets in Iraq. So there *was* "the use of military force".
Please end the strawman.
Chortle. I started no strawman. Kerry voted to authorize the
use of military force. If you want that to mean something besides
what the words seem to mean, I have no response.
So then he's an idiot for voting for a bill which he never read.
One one Senator voted against it.
What does that prove? If it is your job to make laws and you
sign a bill which you have never read, you are incompetent, period.
I'd prefer it if he was just a little naive about abuses of
power rather than so stupid as to vote for a bill he never even
read.
Gosh, what a compelling argument!
It wasn't an argument. It was a statement of my opinion on which
form of incompetency I would prefer. I can see no way to spin
Kerry voting for a bill he never read into something other than
a massive negative. If you have a way, please let me know. I
do not see that it matters if he had company in his incompetence.
Now that you put it that way, I think I'll be like you and construct
all sort of strawmen,
I have created no strawmen. You merely created a few false
dichotomies and claimed it added up to a strawman on my part.
all in an attempt to smear our best chance
at getting rid of Bush DUBYA Bush!
I am not attempting to "smear" anything. Kerry opposes gay
marriage, period. Kerry voted for "authorizing the use of military
force" (twice?), period. Is Kerry better than Bush? Yes, by
several miles. Is Kerry a good candidate? No, not by several
miles. I will vote for Kerry, but I will not pretend he is
something he is not, or spin his positions or past votes into
something they are not.
--
Jojo
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
05 Jul 2004 12:47:56 AM |
|
|
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
Did you complain about Kerry's vote back then, back when
Clinton was asking for the authorization to use military force?
No, I did not "follow" politics very closely back then.
Oh, how... how... "convenient."
Hypocrite.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jojo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
05 Jul 2004 01:35:43 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
Did you complain about Kerry's vote back then, back when
Clinton was asking for the authorization to use military force?
No, I did not "follow" politics very closely back then.
Oh, how... how... "convenient."
Oh, so now I am lying. That is quite a "convenient" assumption.
Hypocrite.
This is rich. You snip more than the theists. Why am I a hypocrite?
What was the bill name or number? What was my strawman? What does
authorizing the use of military force mean? By what reasoning is
Kerry not incompetent for voting for a bill he never read?
JTEM wrote:
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
Clinton asked for that very same authorization, and I do believe
that Kerry voted the exact same way. The results were quite
different.
I fail to see how this helps.
Did you complain about Kerry's vote back then, back when Clinton
was asking for the authorization to use military force?
No, I did not "follow" politics very closely back then. What was
the name/number of the bill?
If not, the critical piece here is Bush, not Kerry's vote.
Wow, cool dichotomy.
If you weren't on usenet complaining about Kerry's vote back then,
back when he was voting to give Clinton the exact same
authorization, you've already proven to yourself that the problem
isn't Kerry or the vote, it's the idiot sitting in the Whitehouse.
Yes, that is the binary decision. Either I complained about it
then, or Kerry bears no fault for his vote authorizing the use of
military force. Yes, how could I have ever thought there were
other options? Crazy me.
So it doesn't matter that he voted for the war, er, I mean authorized
the use of military force.
You know & understand that authorizing military force does not
automatically mean war.
No. If I "authorize the use of military force" that means "Hey,
I think you could have a war if you wanted to". That does not mean
the use of military force is guaranteed or even desired, no, but
it does mean the "authorizer" is OK with the use of military
force. If words have meaning it must mean this. (If you want to
quibble about on the difference between a "war" and "military
force", enjoy yourself.)
After all, Clinton asked for that exact
same authorization.
Again, I fail to see how having a history of "authorizing the use
of military force" makes it any better. What was the name/number?
Clinton did not invade Iraq.
Very good: No invasion occurred. However, Clinton did have
"operation desert fox", which was a 600+ sortie bombing run
on targets in Iraq. So there was "the use of military force".
Please end the strawman.
Chortle. I started no strawman. Kerry voted to authorize the
use of military force. If you want that to mean something besides
what the words seem to mean, I have no response.
So then he's an idiot for voting for a bill which he never read.
One one Senator voted against it.
What does that prove? If it is your job to make laws and you
sign a bill which you have never read, you are incompetent, period.
I'd prefer it if he was just a little naive about abuses of
power rather than so stupid as to vote for a bill he never even
read.
Gosh, what a compelling argument!
It wasn't an argument. It was a statement of my opinion on which
form of incompetency I would prefer. I can see no way to spin
Kerry voting for a bill he never read into something other than
a massive negative. If you have a way, please let me know. I
do not see that it matters if he had company in his incompetence.
Now that you put it that way, I think I'll be like you and construct
all sort of strawmen,
I have created no strawmen. You merely created a few false
dichotomies and claimed it added up to a strawman on my part.
all in an attempt to smear our best chance
at getting rid of Bush DUBYA Bush!
I am not attempting to "smear" anything. Kerry opposes gay
marriage, period. Kerry voted for "authorizing the use of military
force" (twice?), period. Is Kerry better than Bush? Yes, by
several miles. Is Kerry a good candidate? No, not by several
miles. I will vote for Kerry, but I will not pretend he is
something he is not, or spin his positions or past votes into
something they are not.
--
Jojo
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
05 Jul 2004 02:28:24 AM |
|
|
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
Oh, so now I am lying.
I called you a hypocrite, but apparently even that was too
subtle for you.
Strange, as you somehow managed to quote it. I mean,
strange that you would actually quote me stating one thing
(in a sense "proving" what I said) then immediately turn
around and misrepresent what I said...
Hypocrite.
This is rich.
And ironic!
You snip more than the theists.
I snipped out the irrelevant *****. By your own admition,
you didn't give a rat's ***** when Clinton was asking for
the authorization to use military force, and Kerry was
supporting him. No political interest. Not in you. Nope.
Deal with the reality. Deal with the facts.
Voting for the authorization of military force is not a vote
for war. Clinton demonstrates this fact. He asked for that
authorization, and Kerry supported him. The critical piece
here, what makes this situation so bad is not Kerry or even
the authorization to use force. It's Bush. The only difference
between now & then is that Bush is in office. Exact same
request. Exact same vote. Different "President."
No other difference.
Now, construct a position that takes this reality into account.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jojo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
05 Jul 2004 08:55:21 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
Oh, so now I am lying.
I called you a hypocrite, but apparently even that was too
subtle for you.
The part I was responding to (which you snipped) was where
you said my lack of interest and knowledge from years ago
was "convenient". Were you not saying I was lying? Were
you not saying that I did pay attention but did not have a
problem with the previous vote? If you did not mean those
things, you need to re-evaluate how you write. What *did*
did you mean by the quoted "convenient"?
Strange, as you somehow managed to quote it. I mean,
strange that you would actually quote me stating one thing
(in a sense "proving" what I said) then immediately turn
around and misrepresent what I said...
What did I misrepresent? Where?
} >> > Did you complain about Kerry's vote back then, back when
} >> > Clinton was asking for the authorization to use military force?
} >
} >> No, I did not "follow" politics very closely back then.
} >
} > Oh, how... how... "convenient."
}
} Oh, so now I am lying. That is quite a "convenient" assumption.
Hypocrite.
This is rich.
And ironic!
You snip more than the theists.
I snipped out the irrelevant *****.
Ah, by "irrelevant" you mean the parts where I ask you questions:
Why am I a hypocrite? What was the bill name or number?
What was my strawman? What does authorizing the use of military
force mean? By what reasoning is Kerry not incompetent for
voting for a bill he never read?
By your own admition,
you didn't give a rat's ***** when Clinton was asking for
the authorization to use military force, and Kerry was
supporting him. No political interest. Not in you. Nope.
I was not aware of any such vote, as I already said. You are
continuing on this false dichotomy of yours. For a variety
of reasons, I did not pay attention to politics (at all) or
world news for a long time. I fail to see how this makes me
a hypocrite now.
Deal with the reality. Deal with the facts.
What was the bloody bill number or name? I am unable to
find the bill, so how can I deal with it?
Voting for the authorization of military force is not a vote
for war. Clinton demonstrates this fact. He asked for that
authorization, and Kerry supported him.
I have asked you several times for the bill name or number which
Kerry voted for, and you haven't done so. Since the existence
of this bill is the sum total of your argument at this point, I
would think you'd want to provide it. I'd actually like to read
it so I can see what it says.
The critical piece
here, what makes this situation so bad is not Kerry or even
the authorization to use force. It's Bush. The only difference
between now & then is that Bush is in office. Exact same
request.
I'll have to take your word on that.
Exact same vote. Different "President."
No other difference.
Now, construct a position that takes this reality into account.
My current position can already accept this: Kerry apparently
voted twice for authorizing the use of military force in Iraq.
That Clinton did not launch full scale invasion is irrelevant to
what Kerry did.
Again, if words have meaning, "authorizing the use of military
force" must mean that the authorizer is OK with the use of
military force.
--
Jojo
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
05 Jul 2004 03:16:20 PM |
|
|
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
The part I was responding to (which you snipped) was where
you said my lack of interest and knowledge from years ago
was "convenient".
I didn't snip it. Here it is, my entire response with nothing left
out:
| Oh, how... how... "convenient."
|
| Hypocrite.
My entire response consisted of five words, counting my double
use of the word "how."
There was nothing else.
You're a dishonest troll.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jojo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
05 Jul 2004 04:09:49 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
The part I was responding to (which you snipped) was where
you said my lack of interest and knowledge from years ago
was "convenient".
Why did you not answer the rest of my paragraph? You know, the
part where I was asking you why you were calling me a liar.
I didn't snip it.
Boggle. Then why did you have to *add it back in* below? Who or
what snipped for you? Is your computer not under your complete
control? Is a USENET virus randomly snipping lines from posts?
Here it is, my entire response with nothing left
out:
| Oh, how... how... "convenient."
|
| Hypocrite.
My entire response consisted of five words, counting my double
use of the word "how."
There was nothing else.
Yes. That was what my "Oh, so now I am lying" was in response
to. You removed the context, and then tried to intimate that
I misunderstood your comment, or was incapable of understanding.
You're a dishonest troll.
You must have a strange definition of "troll" and "dishonest". Of
course, you do not tell me how or where I was dishonest I could point
out many places where you removed the context to make an "easier" argument.
I could point out several false dichotomies. I could point out several
places where you tried to do some revisionist history on your previous
statements/accusations. I hear those are very honest actions.
I asked a lot of questions, all of which you chose not to answer. All
the questions were attempts to get you to back up your accusations
and assertions. Instead, you call me a dishonest troll and skip out.
That is, as you might say, "convenient" (while winking and making
quotemarks with your fingers no doubt).
If you answer nothing else: What was the bill number or name? This
requires no subjectivity, and I could not possibly hurt you with
my dishonest trollitude if you just post this simple fact. Just a
simple response which says "Joint Res 123" or similar. I can take
it from there.
--
Jojo
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
05 Jul 2004 10:24:18 PM |
|
|
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
I didn't snip it.
Boggle. Then why did you have to *add it back in* below?
I didn't.
There was no requirement. The reason why I quoted it when I
did was to demonstrate the context, that there were all of five
words that I typed -- and only a single blank line separating my
observations (your "convenient" previous disinterests in politics)
from my conclusion (that you're a stinking "hypocrite").
I didn't have to do anything. I am not required to even respond
to trolls & morons, never mind re-introduce quotes from unexpired
usenet articles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jojo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
06 Jul 2004 06:30:10 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
I didn't snip it.
Really.
Boggle. Then why did you have to *add it back in* below?
I didn't.
There was no requirement. The reason why I quoted it when I
did was to demonstrate the context, that there were all of five
words that I typed -- and only a single blank line separating my
observations (your "convenient" previous disinterests in politics)
from my conclusion (that you're a stinking "hypocrite").
You haven't backed up any of your claims, period.
I didn't have to do anything. I am not required to even respond
to trolls & morons, never mind re-introduce quotes from unexpired
usenet articles.
But yet you responded. And without the bill name or number.
Does it exist? Are you unwilling or incapable of providing it?
What?
We're obviously done, since you've gone down skipping down
the lying and ad hominem trail. Just post the damn bill name, if
it exists. OK?
--
Jojo
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
06 Jul 2004 10:10:25 PM |
|
|
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
I didn't have to do anything. I am not required to even respond
to trolls & morons, never mind re-introduce quotes from unexpired
usenet articles.
But yet you responded. And without the bill name or number.
Does it exist?
Senate Concurrent Resolution 21, voted 3/23/1999.
Are you unwilling or incapable of providing it?
What?
This is the second time you demanded a citation from me, and I
gave it. I think I'll have to make a few demands of my own before
I allow you the honor a third time.
We're obviously done, since you've gone down skipping down
the lying and ad hominem trail.
This, after you quoted my calling you a "hypocrite" and claimed
that I called you a "liar"?
Please. You have no right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "FatherFAK" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
06 Jul 2004 10:15:57 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GN-dnaGtl5f89XbdRVn_iw@comcast.com...
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
<snip>
Senate Concurrent Resolution 21, voted 3/23/1999.
Sorry to butt in, but is this discussion about the air war over Kosovo (as
referred to by the citation of SCR 21, 23 MAR 99) or the Gay Marriage Flap?
--
A.A.#2096, Member MAAF
Active Duty Soldier (Combat Veteran) for Kerry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
07 Jul 2004 12:16:22 AM |
|
|
"FatherFAK" <kins6524@bellsouth.net> wrote
Sorry to butt in, but is this discussion about the air war
over Kosovo (as referred to by the citation of SCR 21,
23 MAR 99) or the Gay Marriage Flap?
This is usenet. You are free to talk about anything that
strikes your fancy.
And, oh, it's called "Thread Drift." That's when an exchange
"Drifts" away from the original subject.
Some newsgroups are notorious for their "Thread Drift."
And I don't mean they get side tracked by some little point.
More like this....
"I hate Bush! I once saw him give a speech in Houston. Man,
what a moron!"
"Houston, huh? I visited there a few years ago and ate at a great
Italian restaurant. I forget its name."
"I hate Italian food. My favorite is Tai."
"Really? Know any good Tai restaurants in the Baltimore
area?"
....on & on... endless drift...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jojo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
07 Jul 2004 08:30:44 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
I didn't have to do anything. I am not required to even respond
to trolls & morons, never mind re-introduce quotes from unexpired
usenet articles.
But yet you responded. And without the bill name or number.
Does it exist?
Senate Concurrent Resolution 21, voted 3/23/1999.
Oh my, I see you were lying about this to. Until you posted this,
I thought you actually had a bill number which said what you said it
did.
The resolution does not state what you claimed it did. It authorized
the use of air operations and missile strikes only, and so could not
have authorized an invasion of Yugoslavia (your "premise", as it
were). The Iraq resolution authorized the president "to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate..." (*1).
So your claims that it was the "same request" and "the only difference
is Bush" are lies.
Additionally, the Yugoslavia resolution was defeated in the House,
whereas the Iraq resolution was passed by both houses and was signed
by the president: it became a law. So, your claim that Clinton could
have acted but didn't, whereas Bush did act under the exact same
authorization is a lie.
Hell, the Iraq resolution gave War Powers Resolution authorization
specifically. The Yugoslavia resolution did not. Minor differences,
these.
On top of these lies, you "overlooked" (wink wink) one additional minor
detail: Clinton *did* use exactly the means Kerry voted to authorize,
namely air operations and missile strikes in Yugoslavia. So even in
the limited scope of what the resolution *did* authorize, you lied.
So, even though the Yugoslavian "authorization" was defeated in the
House, was never made into public law, and did not give War Powers
authorization, Clinton did exactly what the resolution was meant
to authorize him to do. You lied when you said he didn't.
And, just so we don't forget, here are some samples of these lies:
--Begin quote---------------
Clinton asked for that very same authorization, and I do believe that
Kerry voted the exact same way. The results were quite different.
--End quote---------------
Lies and a false dichotomy:
--Begin quote---------------
If you weren't on usenet complaining about Kerry's vote back then,
back when he was voting to give Clinton the exact same
authorization, you've already proven to yourself that the problem
isn't Kerry or the vote, it's the idiot sitting in the Whitehouse.
--End quote---------------
--Begin quote---------------
Voting for the authorization of military force is not a vote
for war. Clinton demonstrates this fact. He asked for that
authorization, and Kerry supported him. The critical piece
here, what makes this situation so bad is not Kerry or even
the authorization to use force. It's Bush. The only difference
between now & then is that Bush is in office. Exact same
request. Exact same vote. Different "President."
No other difference.
--End quote---------------
Whoops. You lied, multiple times. You won't ever admit that of
course, but you did, and you know it.
Are you unwilling or incapable of providing it?
What?
This is the second time you demanded a citation from me, and I
gave it.
After what, 4 or 5 requests? I lost count. Besides, it was a
request for evidence to back up *your* claims, so don't act like
you were under no obligation to provide the information.
I think I'll have to make a few demands of my own before
I allow you the honor a third time.
We're obviously done, since you've gone down skipping down
the lying and ad hominem trail.
This, after you quoted my calling you a "hypocrite" and claimed
that I called you a "liar"?
Another lie. I quoted your saying my non-awareness of politics
back then was "convenient" (quotes and all), and claimed you were
calling me a liar.
Here I am responding to you:
--Begin quote---------------
Oh, how... how... "convenient."
Oh, so now I am lying. That is quite a "convenient" assumption.
Hypocrite.
--End quote---------------
So, to claim I was quoting the "hypocrite" part is a lie. You know
quite well to what I was responding, and what you meant by it. You
lied.
Please. You have no right.
I am done. I have more than adequately demonstrated that you have
made use of several logical fallacies (red herring and false dichotomy
to name two), based your arguments on a false premise, snipped context
in a very "convenient" manner, misrepresented my claims, lied multiple
times, used insults in place of evidence, and failed to back up any of
your assertions, all while calling *me* "dishonest" and a "troll".
No doubt you'll now find some marvelous way "show" you never lied and
then declare victory (possibly by ignoring everything but a single
sentence). I don't care. You have demonstrated yourself to be a liar.
There is no way around it. I am done with you.
With the likes of you supporting Kerry, I'll feel even *worse* about
voting for him this fall.
Goodbye. Run along.
- - - -
*1) http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm
--
Jojo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
