PDA

View Full Version : For all you gays out there-HR 1592 Passed



omi one
04-26-2007, 12:11 PM
Another step towards total thought control. The vote was along party lines all democrats in committe for ... all republicans against. It is now a hate crime to disparage a persons sexual orientation or their PERCEIVED sexual orientation! You can be jailed for protesting a gay pride parade!

Atrus
04-26-2007, 12:17 PM
how gay is that.

ZapBulletRider
04-26-2007, 12:17 PM
on a related note, you're still allowed to protest a dick in your ass.

volcom of doom
04-26-2007, 12:19 PM
thank god

MDskimmerMAtt
04-26-2007, 12:21 PM
so if i told a gay guy he was a fag i could be put in Jail?
also the protesting thing, doesnt that violate the first amendment of freedom of speech and freedom of press?

skimminOB
04-26-2007, 12:23 PM
on a related note, you're still allowed to protest a dick in your ass.
may it always be this way

omi one
04-26-2007, 12:48 PM
so if i told a gay guy he was a fag i could be put in Jail?
also the protesting thing, doesnt that violate the first amendment of freedom of speech and freedom of press?
Not anymore.

Mapdash
04-26-2007, 12:51 PM
this thread makes gay workout video banners appear.

omi one
04-26-2007, 12:54 PM
this thread makes gay workout video banners appear.
Your wildest dreams have come true. Did you vote for Pedro?

Max Shapiro
04-26-2007, 12:58 PM
its not a crime, notice hr, house resolution, it still has to pass the senate and get signed by the president before its a law. High school government class anyone?

MDskimmerMAtt
04-26-2007, 01:03 PM
right here. Im in government now but we stopped talking about current issues right now to start preparing for the HSA.

Max Shapiro
04-26-2007, 01:05 PM
whats hsa?

DT
04-26-2007, 01:06 PM
this thread makes gay workout video banners appear.

Hahaha, I saw that, good old gay Google ad parsing.

You used to be able to put "hidden" text in a page (like white on white) and the ad engine would pick it up and adapt accordingly - funny shit, I'd post on some forums and put in white "gay homosexual singles" (etc) and the banner ads in topics like "Check out my new car" would be for Beefcake hahahaha!

del-a-where?
04-26-2007, 01:09 PM
soccer practice anyone?

MDskimmerMAtt
04-26-2007, 01:10 PM
whats hsa?
Highschool state assesment. We have to get a 60 or better to pass the class and you have to take it ti graduate.

MDskimmerMAtt
04-26-2007, 01:11 PM
soccer practice anyone?
haha i remember that video.

Rob G
04-26-2007, 01:21 PM
Not anymore.


yes it does...so if someone was jailed for it, they would go to the supreme court and would win. That law will be found unconstitutional. The constitution is the highest law of the land...always

sealice aka lone ranger
04-26-2007, 01:24 PM
another reason to hate gays. they are taking away our constitutional rights.

undertheradar
04-26-2007, 01:35 PM
Are you guys really arguing that bigotry should be allowed? I guess we never should have abolished slavery or allowed women to vote either!

sealice aka lone ranger
04-26-2007, 01:36 PM
Are you guys really arguing that bigotry should be allowed? I guess we never should have abolished slavery or allowed women to vote either!

i love when people make these kinds of arguments.

MDskimmerMAtt
04-26-2007, 01:37 PM
Are you guys really arguing that bigotry should be allowed? I guess we never should have abolished slavery or allowed women to vote either!
we not arguing at all. there is no tension what so ever. We are debating in a calm way. your trying to bring the argument.

undertheradar
04-26-2007, 01:40 PM
i love when people make these kinds of arguments.

You mean the type that encourage tolerance equal rights for everybody?

undertheradar
04-26-2007, 01:40 PM
we not arguing at all. there is no tension what so ever. We are debating in a calm way. your trying to bring the argument.


ar·gue (ärgy)
v. ar·gued, ar·gu·ing, ar·gues
v.tr.
1. To put forth reasons for or against; debate:

MDskimmerMAtt
04-26-2007, 01:42 PM
undertheradar you pwned me. What if i said discussing in a calm way.

sealice aka lone ranger
04-26-2007, 01:43 PM
You mean the type that encourage tolerance equal rights for everybody?


i belive homosexuals deserve no special rights, just because they choose to be gay. no marrige, nothing. now they want to pass a law that keeps me from protesting gay rights? wrong. wont happen.

didj prophet
04-26-2007, 01:48 PM
You mean the type that encourage tolerance equal rights for everybody?

i believe "everybody" includes bigots, regardless of whatever evil despicable things they might say, people have a right to peacefully protest a gay pride parade if they want, i think it's fucked up, but freedom of speech is a double-edged sword, there's no gray area with this, either you're free to speak what you want or you aren't

undertheradar
04-26-2007, 01:51 PM
i belive homosexuals deserve no special rights, just because they choose to be gay. no marrige, nothing. now they want to pass a law that keeps me from protesting gay rights? wrong. wont happen.

I've never heard of a homosexual person asking for a "special" right...all they want is the same rights afforded everyone else.

undertheradar
04-26-2007, 01:52 PM
i believe "everybody" includes bigots, regardless of whatever evil despicable things they might say, people have a right to peacefully protest a gay pride parade if they want, i think it's fucked up, but freedom of speech is a double-edged sword, there's no gray area with this, either you're free to speak what you want or you aren't


IMO, there is nothing peaceful about a protest based on hate.

Semantics I know.

sealice aka lone ranger
04-26-2007, 01:53 PM
I've never heard of a homosexual person asking for a "special" right...all they want is the same rights afforded everyone else.

you mean the rights that a man and women have?

MDskimmerMAtt
04-26-2007, 01:54 PM
IMO, there is nothing peaceful about a protest based on hate.

Semantics I know.
how is holding a protest aginst gay people hate. A lot of people are morally aginst it so i dont think that is really hate. But i will agree with you for most it is about hate.

Max Shapiro
04-26-2007, 01:54 PM
marriage is between a man and a women, period, give them a civil union with identical legal status and thats fine.

Pretty hypocritical i think, there is no law against the kkk having parades and that is based on hate.

undertheradar
04-26-2007, 01:55 PM
you mean the rights that a man and women have?


More like HUMAN rights.

sealice aka lone ranger
04-26-2007, 01:55 PM
how is holding a protest aginst gay people hate. A lot of people are morally aginst it so i dont think that is really hate. But i will agree with you for most it is about hate.

exactly, i was being sarcastic with my first post. i dont hate them, i just dont belive they deserve the same rights as a man and woman. and its my right to protest that.

sealice aka lone ranger
04-26-2007, 01:57 PM
More like HUMAN rights.

according to my belifes, and that of the united states of america homosexuals do not deserve the same rights as a man and woman in love.

undertheradar
04-26-2007, 01:58 PM
marriage is between a man and a women,

Says who? God? :rolleyes:



Pretty hypocritical i think, there is no law against the kkk having parades and that is based on hate.


There should be...and this is a great place to start.. :)

sealice aka lone ranger
04-26-2007, 01:58 PM
yes

undertheradar
04-26-2007, 01:59 PM
according to my belifes, and that of the united states of america homosexuals do not deserve the same rights as a man and woman in love.

In case you haven't noticed, a large portion of this country feels they do.


I'm curious, what exactly are you afraid of? How would a gay couple getting married have any affect on your life whatesoever?

sealice aka lone ranger
04-26-2007, 01:59 PM
if the governemnt finds it exceptable to provide gay couples with tax breaks that is perfectly fine. but according to american law which was founded under judeo christian belifes the holy act of marrige is between man and woman.

sealice aka lone ranger
04-26-2007, 02:01 PM
In case you haven't noticed, a large portion of this country feels they do.


I'm curious, what exactly are you afraid of? How would a gay couple getting married have any affect on your life whatesoever?

im affraid of nothing. i just said if the governemnt wishes to give them tax breaks thats fine. but our governemnt will not let them have the title of marrige.

undertheradar
04-26-2007, 02:02 PM
if the governemnt finds it exceptable to provide gay couples with tax breaks that is perfectly fine. but according to american law which was founded under judeo christian belifes the holy act of marrige is between man and woman.


Do you honestly think the gay community and it's supporters are in it for the tax breaks?

undertheradar
04-26-2007, 02:03 PM
im affraid of nothing. i just said if the governemnt wishes to give them tax breaks thats fine. but our governemnt will not let them have the title of marrige.


Why?




BTW: Keep in mind that it was our "judeo christian beliefs" that were the reasoning behind slavery and genocide too.

sealice aka lone ranger
04-26-2007, 02:04 PM
you can keep saying my motives are driven by hate, fear or whatever. then attack my religion and say it was the reasoning behind slavery. it doesnt matter, keep making the argument personal.

Max Shapiro
04-26-2007, 02:07 PM
Do you honestly think the gay community and it's supporters are in it for the tax breaks?

yes and what comes with it, IE all the other legal rights married couples have in regards to each other. Think about, whats the difference between being married and just being in love and living with each other; nothing besides the legal benefits.

sealice aka lone ranger
04-26-2007, 02:07 PM
newsflash, its always about the money.

undertheradar
04-26-2007, 02:09 PM
you can keep saying my motives are driven by hate, fear or whatever. then attack my religion and say it was the reasoning behind slavery. it doesnt matter, keep making the argument personal.

How is it ever not personal? It's based on personal opinions.

My point is that just because something is set a certain way doesn't mean it can't and won't change.

sealice aka lone ranger
04-26-2007, 02:10 PM
How is it ever not personal? It's based on personal opinions.

My point is that just because something is set a certain way doesn't mean it can't and won't change.


some things are meant to be, others not.

undertheradar
04-26-2007, 02:11 PM
yes and what comes with it, IE all the other legal rights married couples have in regards to each other. Think about, whats the difference between being married and just being in love and living with each other; nothing besides the legal benefits.

I'm married, and it had/has nothing to do with the legal rights involved. It has to do with being an expression of commitment and love, while being legally recognized.

I don't see why a gay couple shouldn't be allowed the same rights.

undertheradar
04-26-2007, 02:12 PM
newsflash, its always about the money.

Wrong.

sealice aka lone ranger
04-26-2007, 02:12 PM
I'm married, and it had/has nothing to do with the legal rights involved. It has to do with being an expression of commitment and love, while being legally recognized.

I don't see why a gay couple shouldn't be allowed the same rights.

civil union.

undertheradar
04-26-2007, 02:13 PM
some things are meant to be, others not.

lol, and who gets to decide?

sealice aka lone ranger
04-26-2007, 02:13 PM
marriage is between a man and a women, period, give them a civil union with identical legal status and thats fine.

Pretty hypocritical i think, there is no law against the kkk having parades and that is based on hate.

hate to be a jackass, but this is one of the few intelligent things you've ever said, and that i agree with.

Max Shapiro
04-26-2007, 02:14 PM
exactly, if your really in love you shouldnt care what the legal name is, your gonna feel the same regardless. Gay people should just be happy with a civil union that has the same legal status as marriage. Just accept that people would go crazy if they called it marriage and get on with it, its a simple and easy compromise where gay people lose nothing other than a title.

(S3)
04-26-2007, 02:14 PM
I usually stay away from politics and religion and opinion based arguments, but in this case I have to chime in.

I think we should all use common sense and just revert back to what is natural. And I hope we all know what I mean by natural......

Max Shapiro
04-26-2007, 02:16 PM
not to be a jackass, but regardless of how intelligent the things i say are if people dont agree with them they are going to think they are stupid. Which is where i differ from most people on this board, i can disagree with people and still understand their point of view and realize that they came to that point of view through rational means, most people on this board assume that if they disagree with someone that persons opinion must have been arrived at through less than logical means.

sealice aka lone ranger
04-26-2007, 02:17 PM
no, i give you props for sticking out most arguments and putting in the effort you do.

Max Shapiro
04-26-2007, 02:19 PM
haha thank you. I actually think its kinda sad that i have that much free time on my hands.

undertheradar
04-26-2007, 02:19 PM
exactly, if your really in love you shouldnt care what the legal name is, your gonna feel the same regardless. Gay people should just be happy with a civil union that has the same legal status as marriage. Just accept that people would go crazy if they called it marriage and get on with it, its a simple and easy compromise where gay people lose nothing other than a title.

The point isn't whether they love each other enough or feel the need to be accepted, they are simply looking for the same protection and rights afforded to straight couples.


The fact that your are saying that they"should just be happy" with a civil union is condescending and insinuates that they are lesser humans.

sealice aka lone ranger
04-26-2007, 02:21 PM
funny thing about marrige, is its been around for thousands of years unchanged. if it could make it through the rennisance with all the gayness going on back then, im sure it can make it past a generation of wanna be hippies, trying to rebel against the establishment.

best run on sentence ever

undertheradar
04-26-2007, 02:23 PM
I usually stay away from politics and religion and opinion based arguments, but in this case I have to chime in.

I think we should all use common sense and just revert back to what is natural. And I hope we all know what I mean by natural......


You do know that homosexuality is as old as heterosexuality, right?


What it comes down to is the anti-gay marriage folks being squeemish and uneasy at the thought of two men having sex. But just like with straight marriages, what goes on in the bedroom is private and of no concern of anybody else.

undertheradar
04-26-2007, 02:24 PM
funny thing about marrige, is its been around for thousands of years unchanged. if it could make it through the rennisance with all the gayness going on back then, im sure it can make it past a generation of wanna be hippies, trying to rebel against the establishment.

best run on sentence ever
Yeah, but unlike now, if you were to come out as being gay throughout history, you probably would have been tortured and killed.

I guess we should be happy we've managed to evolve that much.

Utah
04-26-2007, 02:25 PM
Of the people that are arguing, pardon me, "discussing" this topic, how many of you would actually protest a gay demonstration? Personally I'm so impartial to the topic that I could care less where the protest was, yet alone show up for it. Each persons values are different than the next, but for me, this is a mute point...

sealice aka lone ranger
04-26-2007, 02:25 PM
The point isn't whether they love each other enough or feel the need to be accepted, they are simply looking for the same protection and rights afforded to straight couples.


The fact that your are saying that they"should just be happy" with a civil union is condescending and insinuates that they are lesser humans.


marrige is between man and woman. it has been for thousands of years. if someone wishes to seek love not defined by this, then they can be happy with civil union. in the eyes of law marrige and civil unions are equal.

im not sure whats unequal about that?

skimminOB
04-26-2007, 02:29 PM
Of the people that are arguing, pardon me, "discussing" this topic, how many of you would actually protest a gay demonstration? Personally I'm so impartial to the topic that I could care less where the protest was, yet alone show up for it. Each persons values are different than the next, but for me, this is a mute point...
i would not protest. i feel basically the same way as you, i would say that if i went to protest a gay demonstration it would just be a waste of my time

undertheradar
04-26-2007, 02:30 PM
marrige is between man and woman. it has been for thousands of years. if someone wishes to seek love not defined by this, then they can be happy with civil union. in the eyes of law marrige and civil unions are equal.

im not sure whats unequal about that?

Again I'll argue this: there are lots of things that were commonplace for thousands of years, and in more recent times were found to be unjust, unnecassary or outright wrong. Thankfully there have been those that have stood up and fought for their rights...and were steadfast hard and long enough to get things changed.

Nobody should have to just settle for something if they feel it's not right.

(S3)
04-26-2007, 02:31 PM
You do know that homosexuality is as old as heterosexuality, right?


What it comes down to is the anti-gay marriage folks being squeemish and uneasy at the thought of two men having sex. But just like with straight marriages, what goes on in the bedroom is private and of no concern of anybody else.

I don't care how long its been around. My opinion is that homosexualality is not normal and never has been. In my mind its a perversion. Doesn't mean I won't tolerate it.

I don't care about what people do behind closed doors. I just think that as a society we should use common sense and not promote same sex marriage. It was never intended that way........

Utah
04-26-2007, 02:31 PM
And that says a lot because you have all kinds of gays living around you in San Fran, haha...

undertheradar
04-26-2007, 02:32 PM
Of the people that are arguing, pardon me, "discussing" this topic, how many of you would actually protest a gay demonstration? Personally I'm so impartial to the topic that I could care less where the protest was, yet alone show up for it. Each persons values are different than the next, but for me, this is a mute point...

I'm straight, and I have no interest in being gay. I do however believe in raising my kids in a place where people are tolerant of other peoples lifestyles....especially when that lifestyle has no affect on their own.


I'm pretty confident that not a single person arguing against gay rights would ever say anything to a gay persons face.

skimminOB
04-26-2007, 02:33 PM
you mean than fran

undertheradar
04-26-2007, 02:34 PM
I don't care how long its been around. My opinion is that homosexualality is not normal and never has been. In my mind its a perversion. Doesn't mean I won't tolerate it.

I don't care about what people do behind closed doors. I just think that as a society we should use common sense and not promote same sex marriage. It was never intended that way........

But what does sex have to do with marriage?

Usually marriage means the end of sex. :D

skimminOB
04-26-2007, 02:36 PM
I'm straight, and I have no interest in being gay. I do however believe in raising my kids in a place where people are tolerant of other peoples lifestyles....especially when that lifestyle has no affect on their own.


I'm pretty confident that not a single person arguing against gay rights would ever say anything to a gay persons face.
i also have no interest in being gay and when i have kids i definitely want them to grow up in a place like you describe. +1

however i have some friends who are sometimes straight up anti-gay and sometimes not (they're christian). i'm pretty sure none of them would say anything to a gay mans face, as long as they were being left alone. im sure that if a gay guy were to come up to one of those friends and do something that rubbed them the wrong way words would be exchanged.

undertheradar
04-26-2007, 02:39 PM
i also have no interest in being gay and when i have kids i definitely want them to grow up in a place like you describe. +1

however i have some friends who are sometimes straight up anti-gay and sometimes not (they're christian). i'm pretty sure none of them would say anything to a gay mans face, as long as they were being left alone. im sure that if a gay guy were to come up to one of those friends and do something that rubbed them the wrong way words would be exchanged.

I've never met a gay person that forced their beliefs the way the average christian does.

(S3)
04-26-2007, 02:40 PM
But what does sex have to do with marriage?

Usually marriage means the end of sex. :D

This is true.....no argument there.....

sealice aka lone ranger
04-26-2007, 02:42 PM
I'm pretty confident that not a single person arguing against gay rights would ever say anything to a gay persons face.

you would be pretty wrong. i have made clear on more than one occasion the same arguments i have made on this board.

Dzan
04-26-2007, 02:42 PM
You can be jailed for protesting a gay pride parade!

No you can't. You are completely misrepresenting this bill. This bill makes it a WORSE crime to beat the shit out of someone due to their sexual orientation than it would be to beat the shit out of some one normally. This does not criminalize any previously legal act. Learn to read.

sealice aka lone ranger
04-26-2007, 02:43 PM
I don't care how long its been around. My opinion is that homosexualality is not normal and never has been. In my mind its a perversion. Doesn't mean I won't tolerate it.

I don't care about what people do behind closed doors. I just think that as a society we should use common sense and not promote same sex marriage. It was never intended that way........

agreed.

undertheradar
04-26-2007, 02:48 PM
No you can't. You are completely misrepresenting this bill. This bill makes it a WORSE crime to beat the shit out of someone due to their sexual orientation than it would be to beat the shit out of some one normally. This does not criminalize any previously legal act. Learn to read.

Finally!

samcollett
04-26-2007, 02:51 PM
Again I'll argue this: there are lots of things that were commonplace for thousands of years, and in more recent times were found to be unjust, unnecassary or outright wrong. Thankfully there have been those that have stood up and fought for their rights...and were steadfast hard and long enough to get things changed.

Nobody should have to just settle for something if they feel it's not right.

i don't think i've ever heard such a stereotypical liberal argument in my life.

undertheradar
04-26-2007, 02:56 PM
i don't think i've ever heard such a stereotypical liberal argument in my life.


lol, as if the anti-gay argument hasn't been beaten to death.

skimmer-x
04-26-2007, 03:06 PM
All right time for me to chime in. I am with S3on this. And i am going to add to this. So hold on. I don't care what they do. They have the same rights as we do minus fed law giving them civil union. And if they get it, fine. But don't get all bent when you find people are against it.

Underthe radar, maybe in california they are mostly for "gay rights" but not here in the ole' south. They just got used to black rights. And most of America to be frank.(haha)

My blanket statment will be this. I am sick and tired of here in the last couple of years that the minority has gotten to say what is and isn't. I don't mean fuck minorities civil rights. That is different. I mean seperation of church and state for example. The people who are against it have all wrong in the first place. Same with people and "gay rights". They have always had the same rights as everyone else. It was other people who violated there civil rights.

This country and it's freedoms, that all are entitled to, got to where it was by doing as the majority wants. That is what this country is founded on, hence the purpose of voting. So why the fuck all the sudden we have to coddle the minority and the weak? Yes help the weak and the minority. But you don't change the laws to work in thier favor. You change laws to make things equal, fine. But not to flip the majority to the minority.

undertheradar
04-26-2007, 03:09 PM
All right time for me to chime in. I am with S3on this. And i am going to add to this. So hold on. I don't care what they do. They have the same rights as we do minus fed law giving them civil union. And if they get it, fine. But don't get all bent when you find people are against it.

Underthe radar, maybe in california they are mostly for "gay rights" but not here in the ole' south. They just got used to black rights. And most of America to be frank.(haha)

My blanket statment will be this. I am sick and tired of here in the last couple of years that the minority has gotten to say what is and isn't. I don't mean fuck minorities civil rights. That is different. I mean seperation of church and state for example. The people who are against it have all wrong in the first place. Same with people and "gay rights". They have always had the same rights as everyone else. It was other people who violated there civil rights.

This country and it's freedoms, that all are entitled to, got to where it was by doing as the majority wants. That is what this country is founded on, hence the purpose of voting. So why the fuck all the sudden we have to coddle the minority and the weak? Yes help the weak and the minority. But you don't change the laws to work in thier favor. You change laws to make things equal, fine. But not to flip the majority to the minority.


The problem is that for the most part the "majority" can't tell their heads from their asses. George Bush getting elected once, and then again is a perfect example.

undertheradar
04-26-2007, 03:13 PM
C'mon guys...give me more. This is killing time like whoa!

ZapBulletRider
04-26-2007, 03:18 PM
marriage is between a man and a women

one day it's crack dealers, the next it's polygamists. Max is the voice of the minority.

volcom of doom
04-26-2007, 03:25 PM
one day it's crack dealers, the next it's polygamists. Max is the voice of the minority.
polygamy is when you have more than one spouse
not gay marriage

ZapBulletRider
04-26-2007, 03:26 PM
re read the quoted post, then apply foot to mouth.

undertheradar
04-26-2007, 03:30 PM
one day it's crack dealers, the next it's polygamists. Max is the voice of the minority.


lol, I got tired of everybody getting all pussy-hurt for commenting on bad spelling or grammar.

RexSkimmer
04-26-2007, 03:31 PM
i didnt realize max was a mormon

Max Shapiro
04-26-2007, 03:55 PM
haha, nice one zbr. I still dont get why gay people get all bent out of shape because they have to call it a civil union instead of a marriage. Its the same legally. They can even call it a marriage if they want, it would just be a civil union on all the paper work. Fighting for equal rights is one thing, fighting for equal labels is just retarded.

Dzan
04-26-2007, 04:01 PM
I still dont get why gay people get all bent out of shape because they have to call it a civil union instead of a marriage.

When did gays get to have nationally recognized civil unions?

Max Shapiro
04-26-2007, 04:06 PM
never, but i know they have it in some states. It would be nice to have it nationally, but I would assume that if there was then they would still bitch about it not being called a marriage.

ZapBulletRider
04-26-2007, 05:36 PM
meh, because I'm not gay, I really don't care about gay rights one way or another. It's whateva kid.

jake
04-26-2007, 05:39 PM
another reason to hate gays. they are taking away our constitutional rights.

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha holy shit

ZapBulletRider
04-26-2007, 05:44 PM
there's only one issue I have with gays, and I'm dead serious about this. And I've told this to the one gay friend I have, I really have an issue with this. I'm an artist, and I don't discriminate when it comes to color. I used to have T-shirts in every single color in the spectrum. I love the rainbow. Back in '86 I used to have a sick OP sweater w/ a thin horizontal rainbow going across the chest. It was sick. If I wore that shit today I'd be required to pack fudge. Fags stole the rainbow from us, and for that I will NEVER forgive them.

MDskimmerMAtt
04-26-2007, 06:10 PM
there's only one issue I have with gays, and I'm dead serious about this. And I've told this to the one gay friend I have, I really have an issue with this. I'm an artist, and I don't discriminate when it comes to color. I used to have T-shirts in every single color in the spectrum. I love the rainbow. Back in '86 I used to have a sick OP sweater w/ a thin horizontal rainbow going across the chest. It was sick. If I wore that shit today I'd be required to pack fudge. Fags stole the rainbow from us, and for that I will NEVER forgive them.
hahaha oh whit.

lovestoskim
04-26-2007, 06:43 PM
okay, civil unions and marriage are NOT the same. the label isnt the only thing that is different between the two. first, civil unions are ONLY recognized in VERMONT, NEW JERSEY and CONNECTICUT and are not recognized and sometimes disrespected in other states, marriages are recognized and respected by ALL STATES. terminating a civil union would mean that you would have to establish residency in vermont to terminate the legal commitment. marriages have 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities that do not come with civil unions. of course there is the taxation, pension and insurance differences. official federal forms as if you are either married or single, people with civil unions do not fit into a category, so they might misrepresent themselves, this is fraud and is punishable. lastly, why have a distinction for a certain community of the country we all share and are proud to be a part of? the gay community pays the same taxes as the straight people do and are offered a second class citizen "union" or status? so much for equality huh. there are tons of differences between a civil union and a marriage, these are only the significant differences.

and to the people that are anti-gay rights...

if you have or are planning to have kids and one is gay, what of them? are you going to discriminate against your own child conceived of your own body? i would expect that every parent wants the best for their child. so would you be okay with a second class citizen status applied to your own child? i want to know. it doesnt matter what political party i fall under or what faith i believe in or what political party you fall under or your faith, the fact of the matter is, yes, even you mr. anti gay, can have a gay son or daughter.

skimnczach
04-26-2007, 07:03 PM
whits last post is the best yet.

and i'm with whit, i don't care either way... just don't try to kiss me

Maddshot
04-27-2007, 04:52 AM
...

and to the people that are anti-gay rights...

if you have or are planning to have kids and one is gay, what of them? are you going to discriminate against your own child conceived of your own body? i would expect that every parent wants the best for their child. so would you be okay with a second class citizen status applied to your own child? i want to know. it doesnt matter what political party i fall under or what faith i believe in or what political party you fall under or your faith, the fact of the matter is, yes, even you mr. anti gay, can have a gay son or daughter.


I believe that a child is homosexual based on his upbringing. Yes there may be some genetics involved, but if you raise an emotionally sound and mentally stable child, and let them know that any type of behavior that isnt allowed will not be tolerated, they will turn out perfectly fine. If you raise your child like a hippie from the '60s all about do whatever you want, dont be surprised when they start working at the Hershey plant.

Max Shapiro
04-27-2007, 06:25 AM
okay, civil unions and marriage are NOT the same. the label isnt the only thing that is different between the two. first, civil unions are ONLY recognized in VERMONT, NEW JERSEY and CONNECTICUT and are not recognized and sometimes disrespected in other states, marriages are recognized and respected by ALL STATES. terminating a civil union would mean that you would have to establish residency in vermont to terminate the legal commitment. marriages have 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities that do not come with civil unions. of course there is the taxation, pension and insurance differences. official federal forms as if you are either married or single, people with civil unions do not fit into a category, so they might misrepresent themselves, this is fraud and is punishable. lastly, why have a distinction for a certain community of the country we all share and are proud to be a part of? the gay community pays the same taxes as the straight people do and are offered a second class citizen "union" or status? so much for equality huh. there are tons of differences between a civil union and a marriage, these are only the significant differences.

and to the people that are anti-gay rights...

if you have or are planning to have kids and one is gay, what of them? are you going to discriminate against your own child conceived of your own body? i would expect that every parent wants the best for their child. so would you be okay with a second class citizen status applied to your own child? i want to know. it doesnt matter what political party i fall under or what faith i believe in or what political party you fall under or your faith, the fact of the matter is, yes, even you mr. anti gay, can have a gay son or daughter.

I did not know some of that, but still, I think that if gays get civil unions in all state where the laws are identical to that of marriage except the word is civil union then they should be happy.

skimmer-x
04-27-2007, 07:37 AM
The problem is that for the most part the "majority" can't tell their heads from their asses. George Bush getting elected once, and then again is a perfect example.


That doesn't matter. The majority is the majority. Stupid or not.

ZapBulletRider
04-27-2007, 07:45 AM
agreed.

Max Shapiro
04-27-2007, 08:30 AM
fyi its not majority rule, its plurality, theres a big difference.

undertheradar
04-27-2007, 08:37 AM
I believe that a child is homosexual based on his upbringing. Yes there may be some genetics involved, but if you raise an emotionally sound and mentally stable child, and let them know that any type of behavior that isnt allowed will not be tolerated, they will turn out perfectly fine. If you raise your child like a hippie from the '60s all about do whatever you want, dont be surprised when they start working at the Hershey plant.

Oh dear lord....

sealice aka lone ranger
04-27-2007, 08:43 AM
heres what i dont understand

if someone wants to be with someone of the same sex, and they know full and well that is not the deffinition of marrige that has existed in every religion for thousands of years why cant they just except that civil unions will have to suffice?

sealice aka lone ranger
04-27-2007, 08:44 AM
marrige is a holy ritual, it does not need to be re written by some want to be hippies.

Max Shapiro
04-27-2007, 08:52 AM
I believe that a child is homosexual based on his upbringing. Yes there may be some genetics involved, but if you raise an emotionally sound and mentally stable child, and let them know that any type of behavior that isnt allowed will not be tolerated, they will turn out perfectly fine. If you raise your child like a hippie from the '60s all about do whatever you want, dont be surprised when they start working at the Hershey plant.

or they will get angry that it is not tolerated and do the exact opposite.

undertheradar
04-27-2007, 09:14 AM
heres what i dont understand

if someone wants to be with someone of the same sex, and they know full and well that is not the deffinition of marrige that has existed in every religion for thousands of years why cant they just except that civil unions will have to suffice?



There was this woman once, she had a desire to vote, but she new that based on tradition and law of the times, she wasn't allowed to voice her opinion. Man, could you imagine what would have happened if she's stood up and fought for what was right????

There were these old wig wearing white dudes that for some nagging reason just felt that the idea of owning another human being as a piece of property and treating them as they see fit was fundamentally wrong. Thank god they just kept their mouths shut and accepted it as the norm. Oh, and lets not forget those slaves themselves. I mean, they should have just been thankful that they were saved from their heathen ways back in Africa.




Wow, those religion based ideals have always been best for everyone involved!

undertheradar
04-27-2007, 09:15 AM
marrige is a holy ritual, it does not need to be re written by some want to be hippies.



Oh really? You mean the judge that married my wife and I was wrong when he said, "I now pronounce you man and wife." ????

skimmer-x
04-27-2007, 09:22 AM
fyi its not majority rule, its plurality, theres a big difference.

There you go again splitting hairs. It's the same fucking thing. If majority votes they win. Electoral college or not. Congress or not. House or not. Just some FYI for ya.:cool:

undertheradar
04-27-2007, 09:23 AM
I call it mass retardation. :)

skimmer-x
04-27-2007, 09:27 AM
I call it mass retardation. :)

That's fine by me. I agree with you on that aspect. The best you can hope to achieve is to start a movement, without violence and forcing your issue on someone, and come out with enough support. Plus you have to weed out and speak out against the minority in your group. Exapmle: If gays would say that most of us are not the flammers you see on tv shows and in comedy(which is true) then you would get more respect. Example 2: If muslims would speak out against the radicals alot more than they do, there wouldn't be as much ahtred toward them as there is. Am I making sense? I think I am.

narwhal
04-27-2007, 09:59 AM
hhahhahahaha I love when people claim this Frank.

Here are some stats from Voting records from the 04 election:

Voters with post-graduate education (16% of the Vote)
Voted Bush:44%
Voted Kerry:55%

Voters with College Education,(BA): 26% of Vote
BUSH 52%
Kerry: 46%

Voters with some college: (32 % of Vote)
Bush: 54%
Kerry: 46%

Voters with highschool (22% of Vote)
Bush 52%
Kerry: 47%

Now you can crawl in your hole.

undertheradar
04-27-2007, 10:02 AM
hhahhahahaha I love when people claim this Frank.

Here are some stats from Voting records from the 04 election:

Voters with post-graduate education (16% of the Vote)
Voted Bush:44%
Voted Kerry:55%

Voters with College Education,(BA): 26% of Vote
BUSH 52%
Kerry: 46%

Voters with some college: (32 % of Vote)
Bush: 54%
Kerry: 46%

Voters with highschool (22% of Vote)
Bush 52%
Kerry: 47%

Now you can crawl in your hole.


Who were you talking to?

That does make sense though. lol, although I often wonder exactly what "some college" means. :D

narwhal
04-27-2007, 10:13 AM
Someone who has some credits/people who got AA's.

sealice aka lone ranger
04-27-2007, 10:57 AM
There was this woman once, she had a desire to vote, but she new that based on tradition and law of the times, she wasn't allowed to voice her opinion. Man, could you imagine what would have happened if she's stood up and fought for what was right????

There were these old wig wearing white dudes that for some nagging reason just felt that the idea of owning another human being as a piece of property and treating them as they see fit was fundamentally wrong. Thank god they just kept their mouths shut and accepted it as the norm. Oh, and lets not forget those slaves themselves. I mean, they should have just been thankful that they were saved from their heathen ways back in Africa.




Wow, those religion based ideals have always been best for everyone involved!

these comparisons hold no merit.

undertheradar
04-27-2007, 11:01 AM
Someone who has some credits/people who got AA's.


I took one class at a community college, therefore I could answer that question as a yes. ;)

sealice aka lone ranger
04-27-2007, 11:03 AM
comparing the suffering of thousands of african americans, and homosexuals trying to diminish the holy act of marrige is weak.


women being opressed, not able to stand up for themselves, or vote had little to do with religion and more the fact that society has been male dominated for centuries.

once again im going to try to get this through to you. millions of people in the united states would consider allowing homosexuals the title of marrige to be an insult to their religious belifes. thats why it hasnt happend, and thats why it wont. civil unions will allow them the same tax benifits at married people.

undertheradar
04-27-2007, 11:03 AM
these comparisons hold no merit.

lol, care to expand on that brillinat observation?
There are thousands of people throughout history that would beg to differ as to the merit involved with their struggle.


So neither example I provided represents a certain group of people being controlled and restricted by the majority?

ZapBulletRider
04-27-2007, 11:04 AM
this thread is gay.

sealice aka lone ranger
04-27-2007, 11:04 AM
i dont belive in the discrimination of any people, i belive gays have the right to be reconized as a couple by the state and that they should recive the same tax breaks as married people. but the title of marrige is between man and woman. the majority of americans feel the same way.

Mapdash
04-27-2007, 11:07 AM
this thread is gay.

haha............awesome. and yes.

undertheradar
04-27-2007, 11:10 AM
comparing the suffering of thousands of african americans, and homosexuals trying to diminish the holy act of marrige is weak.

Thousands and thousands of homosexuals in the world would vehemently disagree.



women being opressed, not able to stand up for themselves, or vote had little to do with religion and more the fact that society has been male dominated for centuries.


Wrong:
"Religion and rights: Historically, much of the oppression women have faced came as a result of policies within churches and organized religion. Forced marriage, oppressive ideas about sexuality, quashing of rights to speak, and lack of stake in family leadership are all issues women have faced through the centuries. On the other hand, research in recent decades has shown that women who are involved in religion report higher levels of happiness. Researchers could examine this dichotomy to discover core values held by women who choose to affiliate with a religion and those who do not. Researches could look at what specifically and indirectly makes women happier when their lives are tied to religious beliefs and settings. They could also look at how much religious oppression colors women's views about religion in the present day and whether it affects their choice to be or not be religious."
http://rpp.missouri.edu/D39.shtml



once again im going to try to get this through to you. millions of people in the united states would consider allowing homosexuals the title of marrige to be an insult to their religious belifes. thats why it hasnt happend, and thats why it wont. civil unions will allow them the same tax benifits at married people.


You don't have to get anything through to me. I'm well aware that the attitude you and those millions of other americans have is based on fear and ignornace. You can use whatever religious argument you want, it just proves the point that christians pick and choose the beliefs that suit their own agendas, and throw the others by the wayside.

Oh, and FYI: I suggest you start getting used to the idea, because it is going to happen.

Mapdash
04-27-2007, 11:12 AM
Are the gays allowed to have sex without being married? Because isnt that a sin......according to the thumpers?

So they cant get married......and they cant have sex without being married.....does this mean that gays cant have sex?

Im shorting KY jelly and preparation H.

undertheradar
04-27-2007, 11:14 AM
i dont belive in the discrimination of any people, i belive gays have the right to be reconized as a couple by the state and that they should recive the same tax breaks as married people. but the title of marrige is between man and woman. the majority of americans feel the same way.

dis·crim·i·na·tion (d-skrm-nshn)
n.
1. The act of discriminating.
2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice

Max Shapiro
04-27-2007, 12:07 PM
There you go again splitting hairs. It's the same fucking thing. If majority votes they win. Electoral college or not. Congress or not. House or not. Just some FYI for ya.:cool:

no, its the person who gets the most votes who wins, not the majority. Majority is 51 percent, plurality is 1 more vote than the other guy. Lincoln won the plurality in the election of 1860 not the majority of the electoral college.

ZapBulletRider
04-27-2007, 12:25 PM
majority is 50+ %
therefore, 1 more vote than the other guy is 50+ %

it may be only 50.000000000000000000001%, but it's still over 50.

Max Shapiro
04-27-2007, 12:27 PM
no, if there are 3 people in a race, one getting 33, the other getting 30, and the other getting 37, then the person with 37 wins, thats called a plurality, if it was majority rule then none of them would win. Thats what happend in 1861 and among other things started the civil war.

ZapBulletRider
04-27-2007, 12:34 PM
well obviously if there are more than 2 people you can't go on 50%, you just always go with the highest percentage. It's basic math, I don't see the point in complicating it with political/legal jargon.

Max Shapiro
04-27-2007, 01:02 PM
because if the law was the person with the majority of the votes wins an election then elections would be limited to two people which would severely limit our democracy.

RexSkimmer
04-27-2007, 01:13 PM
there's only one issue I have with gays, and I'm dead serious about this. And I've told this to the one gay friend I have, I really have an issue with this. I'm an artist, and I don't discriminate when it comes to color. I used to have T-shirts in every single color in the spectrum. I love the rainbow. Back in '86 I used to have a sick OP sweater w/ a thin horizontal rainbow going across the chest. It was sick. If I wore that shit today I'd be required to pack fudge. Fags stole the rainbow from us, and for that I will NEVER forgive them.

curse them for stealing refracted light

lovestoskim
04-27-2007, 02:41 PM
ok ok, so then. since marriage is a religion and getting married is a religous act in itself, then why is divorce so acceptable. the united states has had a consistent 50% + divorce rate over the past decade. now if you are willing to fight to uphold your religious beliefs and claim that two people of the same sex tarnishes the sanctity of marriage then i expect that you would fight for the claim that divorce tarnishes marriage too as well. i can see some valid reasons for a divorce (ie. abusive relationships) but i do not see how "irreconcilable differences" excuse the married party from tarnishing their religious marriage.

undertheradar
04-27-2007, 02:53 PM
ok ok, so then. since marriage is a religion and getting married is a religous act in itself, then why is divorce so acceptable. the united states has had a consistent 50% + divorce rate over the past decade. now if you are willing to fight to uphold your religious beliefs and claim that two people of the same sex tarnishes the sanctity of marriage then i expect that you would fight for the claim that divorce tarnishes marriage too as well. i can see some valid reasons for a divorce (ie. abusive relationships) but i do not see how "irreconcilable differences" excuse the married party from tarnishing their religious marriage.

Fuckin A Bubba. Plus, when you have to fight as hard as they do to get their marriage recognized, I gurauntee the divorce rate will be WAYYY lower than that of straight folks.

ZapBulletRider
04-27-2007, 03:40 PM
personally I think divorce has already tarnished the image of marriage more than gays would anyway

Duffskim
04-27-2007, 03:54 PM
you mean the rights that a man and women have?
If you're not gay , why does it even make the slightest difference to you about whether gays marry. the law simply wouldnt apply to you, so why oppose it?

sealice aka lone ranger
04-27-2007, 04:37 PM
im not going to keep repeating myself ive made my point. go back and re read what i wrote.

skimmer-x
04-27-2007, 06:15 PM
Max, STFU. You are clearly splitting hairs and you know what i mean. i don't give a fuck about what the exact technical fucking term is. And the majority is the majority. I learned that in 2nd grade. 4 people is greater than 3 people. So that would be a more. You knew what the fuck I meant, and just to be a dick you gotta get all fuckin' perfectionist about it. You wonder why people get tired of your smart ass on here. You act like your are better than everyone else, smarter than everyone else, and probably a better skimmer than everyone else. Basicly get over yourself. i don't give a fuck if you do know everything, you can go fuck yourself. I have read all the posts you have made over the weeks and though i do agree with you on some things, you act like a pompass asshole and it makes me what to be against you. BTW, the contest thread you were way off. You know absolutly shit about what it takes to run a contest and you looked like a dumbass and I hope you realize you made an ass of yourself on that thread. so do us all a favor. Shut up for a while, just read and don't post. Now sit and spin.


And yes that is me leaving you neg rep. Love Frank Hastings

Walruz996
04-27-2007, 06:18 PM
personally I think divorce has already tarnished the image of marriage more than gays would anyway

That and vegas.

Dzan
04-27-2007, 07:04 PM
Exapmle: If gays would say that most of us are not the flammers you see on tv shows and in comedy(which is true) then you would get more respect. Example 2: If muslims would speak out against the radicals alot more than they do, there wouldn't be as much ahtred toward them as there is. Am I making sense? I think I am.

No. How many gay rights symposiums do you go to? None, so it only makes sense you dont see the moderate message. All you see is the flamers on TV making retards of themselves. Same for moderate muslims. You don't go to MSA meetings so you probably dont see too many educated, secular moderate muslims.

The problem isn't the lack of people trying to communicate the message, its you only seeing what you want to see.

edit: I didn't mean this as a personal attack against you Frank, just I hear this message alot and I wanted to address the general consensus of people who hold the same view.

BART
04-27-2007, 11:09 PM
How many gay rights symposiums do you go to? None, so it only makes sense you dont see the moderate message. All you see is the flamers on TV making retards of themselves. Same for moderate muslims. You don't go to MSA meetings so you probably dont see too many educated, secular moderate muslims.

The problem isn't the lack of people trying to communicate the message, its you only seeing what you want to see.

i think dzan makes a good point here.

narwhal
04-27-2007, 11:18 PM
It's safe to say this though:

Muslims ratio to radical to moderate is far higher than anyother popular religon. There are moderate muslims (alot of them) but they are in the back seat of the Muslim Relgion.

To overlook it is a crime, but the overall message in plain text is violence.

Bart before you restart your original argument, look at the preachings of Jesus they go against ALOT of the old testament, so be quiet.

BART
04-28-2007, 12:13 AM
Another step towards total thought control. The vote was along party lines all democrats in committe for ... all republicans against. It is now a hate crime to disparage a persons sexual orientation or their PERCEIVED sexual orientation! You can be jailed for protesting a gay pride parade!

here's the bill, it's a very short read. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.+1592:

please read it and then explain what specific language you find objectionable. that invite is open to anyone here too. i personally don't see what the problem is. it does nothing you claim, and isn't gay-centric at all.

BART
04-28-2007, 12:47 AM
It's safe to say this though:

Muslims ratio to radical to moderate is far higher than anyother popular religon. There are moderate muslims (alot of them) but they are in the back seat of the Muslim Relgion.

To overlook it is a crime, but the overall message in plain text is violence.

Bart before you restart your original argument, look at the preachings of Jesus they go against ALOT of the old testament, so be quiet.
it's not necessary to get into all that. read what post dzan was replying to. the point i was trying to highlight is that there's a personal responsibility to become conscious, and that's where the burden lies. our consciousness (i.e. awareness) shouldn't hinge on someone coming on tv and laying out our ignorances for us. and if they don't come on tv and lay it out for us, we certainly shouldn't blame them for our ignorances.

p.s. and i know the term 'ignorance' is a politically charged word, but i don't mean it that way. i use it for a lack of a better term. i simply mean ignorance as not fully conscious about something in some way, as in something we all deal with.

edit spelling

Dzan
04-28-2007, 06:58 AM
It's safe to say this though:

Muslims ratio to radical to moderate is far higher than anyother popular religon. There are moderate muslims (alot of them) but they are in the back seat of the Muslim Relgion.


Really depends how you define "radical." If your definition is "willing to strap a bomb to his chest and blow himself up" then sure. When I see a mega-church full of christians watching faith healings I see people who are pretty "radical."

narwhal
04-28-2007, 08:43 AM
Still Evangelicals as a whole are a much smaller ratio to the one mentioned above.

skimmer-x
04-28-2007, 09:18 AM
No. How many gay rights symposiums do you go to? None, so it only makes sense you dont see the moderate message. All you see is the flamers on TV making retards of themselves. Same for moderate muslims. You don't go to MSA meetings so you probably dont see too many educated, secular moderate muslims.

The problem isn't the lack of people trying to communicate the message, its you only seeing what you want to see.

edit: I didn't mean this as a personal attack against you Frank, just I hear this message alot and I wanted to address the general consensus of people who hold the same view.

Your all good Dan, we go way back. haha

Max Shapiro
04-28-2007, 01:47 PM
Max, STFU. You are clearly splitting hairs and you know what i mean. i don't give a fuck about what the exact technical fucking term is. And the majority is the majority. I learned that in 2nd grade. 4 people is greater than 3 people. So that would be a more. You knew what the fuck I meant, and just to be a dick you gotta get all fuckin' perfectionist about it. You wonder why people get tired of your smart ass on here. You act like your are better than everyone else, smarter than everyone else, and probably a better skimmer than everyone else. Basicly get over yourself. i don't give a fuck if you do know everything, you can go fuck yourself. I have read all the posts you have made over the weeks and though i do agree with you on some things, you act like a pompass asshole and it makes me what to be against you. BTW, the contest thread you were way off. You know absolutly shit about what it takes to run a contest and you looked like a dumbass and I hope you realize you made an ass of yourself on that thread. so do us all a favor. Shut up for a while, just read and don't post. Now sit and spin.


And yes that is me leaving you neg rep. Love Frank Hastings

go ask any poli sci professor and they will tell you there is a big difference between majority rule and plurality rule. I dont care about neg rep, its a message board, not real life. Its not my fault you dont care or know the difference. You also overlooked that if its majority rule then it would be illegal for more than 2 people to run in an election because 1 candidate out of three cant get a majority. Can you imagine how history would change if every election were limited to two people...? Btw, i know alot about running contests, like ive said ive helped to run the vb skim contests, ran my own skate contests, and helped my dad run and organize events 10 times bigger than a skimboard contest (The Polar Plunge, Oceana NAFB's air show, Langley AFB Air show, Red Cross Heroes Games, Virginia Flower and Garden show). You should at least try to show some respect, because as far as i can tell I have never disrespected anyone personally on this message board with the exception of when i did so sarcastically. I sadly cannot say the same about you.

Dzan
04-28-2007, 02:16 PM
Still Evangelicals as a whole are a much smaller ratio to the one mentioned above.

I totally disagree with that. I think there is a large % of muslims who sorta sympathize with the extremist views on certain issues, but that doesn't make them extremists themselves. I think the same is true of christians or any other religion. The problem is car bombs are more offensive than faith healings to most people.

RavesIsBack
04-28-2007, 03:03 PM
You also overlooked that if its majority rule then it would be illegal for more than 2 people to run in an election because 1 candidate out of three cant get a majority. Can you imagine how history would change if every election were limited to two people...?

ok I dont really give a fuck about this topic because its utter bullshit that clearly will fail when challenged under freedom of speech, but I do have a problem with this statement. In majority rule multiple people could still run, just only the person with 50% or more would be elected to office or a situation where there is a run off would still take advantage of majority rule. Not illegal just impractical. 1 out of 3 could get a majority if they received 51% and the other two split the 49%. And if every election were limited to two, then that wouldve affected maybe 3 elections in the history of the nation.

Max Shapiro
04-28-2007, 04:38 PM
15 times a president has been elected with less than 50% of the popular vote (http://www.usconstitution.net/elections.html). Not that it matters because its the electoral college that decides who wins the presidential election. Only twice has someone won less than 50 percent of the electoral college, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. When it comes to congressional election you can bet that there have been far more people who have won their seats with less then 50% of the popular vote. If every election were limited to two people it would have effected far more than two elections. Just look on that list the number of third and fourth party candidates that won large percentages of the popular vote, mostly in the early days of the republic. If those people were not allowed to run then those votes would have gone to a different candidate most likely the won who lost as many election were won and lost in those days because of a split in the parties.

skimmer-x
04-28-2007, 06:41 PM
Max, your problem is that you hide behind all this "I'm not being disrespectful" bullshot that you say. But you are being a jackass in reality. You do whatever you want to make yourself feel better. But we all know your a jackass pot-stiring idot. I don't care that you "helped" run stuff. I help run the Florida comp and have orginized on my own 4 contests and have been competeing 8 years.

And you can stick that I'm better than you attitude up your ass. You aren't that good a skimmer, sources say, and you didn't organize any of those things you mentioned. You helped. That means you just did what you were told.