Well It's Democracy

[j2k4]

Originally posted by hobbes+7 August 2004 - 09:22--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 7 August 2004 - 09:22)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@7 August 2004 - 06:26
I look forward to your cunning stunts.

Jpol,

Isn&#39;t this a bit over the top&#33; Get a grip man&#33;

Whoop, actually I mis-read those last 2 words. A bit of a transposition error on my part. Secretly though, I was kinda looking forward to seeing those as well. [/b][/quote]
J&#39;Pol is obviously a big fan of Leslie Neilson.

Although it is a groaner, it is also exemplary.

Hats off.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by hobbes+7 August 2004 - 15:22--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes &#064; 7 August 2004 - 15:22)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@7 August 2004 - 06:26
I look forward to your cunning stunts.

A bit of a transposition error on my part. [/b][/quote]
More of a Spoonerism, however the point is well made as is your comment that both the actual words or the perceived would be gratefully received.

I agree the important thing is that everyone should have the same rights, provided that in order to receive them others rights are not erroded. Or if they are that a fair and equitable balance be struck.

The words are not important, the rights are.

As ever you bring soap to my hole.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@7 August 2004 - 12:32
As ever you bring soap to my hole.

Wow, all my wonderful prison memories came flooding back, after reading that.

I&#39;m definitely going to have to slide this one into casual conversation at work.

Well done.

It is quite the rare occassion that I actually get startled by a response. My initial reaction was "what the feck did he just say, has he gone daft". Then I processed it. Guess I&#39;m still a little green when it comes to clever Spoonerisms.

Spoonerism: a transposition of usually initial sounds of two or more words (as in tons of soil for sons of toil)

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4+7 August 2004 - 07:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 7 August 2004 - 07:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@6 August 2004 - 23:01
Perhaps we need to remove the "united" part from the USA

No.

It should suffice to note the word which follows.

That word is STATES, not PEOPLE, a concession made necessary by the fact that while people are mobile, borders are not. [/b][/quote]
Here we have a debate on human rights. This should not be state level, it should be federal.
But what do we have? A president that wants to change our constitution to deny the human rights of a minority across all the USA and a pretender to the throne that wants the individual states to decide for themselves.
Either way it makes for a sad day for human rights in a country that touts it&#39;s freedoms to the world and says "look at how much better we are than you".

Make it a civil union, but make the rights that go with it identical to a "marriage" WHATEVER STATE ONE MOVES TO.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by hobbes@7 August 2004 - 15:47
Spoonerism: a transposition of usually initial sounds of two or more words (as in tons of soil for sons of toil)

I know, I was just being more specific, sorry for any offence my pit nicking may have caused

I am sure you will get to grips with the Spoonerism thing quickly enough. You are as mean as custard when it comes to learning new things.

I&#39;m glad it tickled your bunny phone btw.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc+7 August 2004 - 10:04--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 7 August 2004 - 10:04)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by j2k4@7 August 2004 - 07:30
<!--QuoteBegin-vidcc

@6 August 2004 - 23:01
Perhaps we need to remove the "united" part from the USA

No.

It should suffice to note the word which follows.

That word is STATES, not PEOPLE, a concession made necessary by the fact that while people are mobile, borders are not.

Here we have a debate on human rights. This should not be state level, it should be federal.
But what do we have? A president that wants to change our constitution to deny the human rights of a minority across all the USA and a pretender to the throne that wants the individual states to decide for themselves.
[/b][/quote]
Not quite right, vid-

Here we have not a debate, but a clusterfuck:

A President who has a felt need to put boots to the issue for once and all by Constitutuional fiat, not because of his challenger (who, in order to absent himself from the actual debate, insincerely espouses the proper idea), but because the judiciary has interjected itself into a debate in which it has no constitutional entree.

This should be decided by the states if the gay lobbies could find the right venue, but their maps have been stolen by those who favor the judicial shortcut, which leads to societal strife.

Period.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by j2k4+7 August 2004 - 19:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 7 August 2004 - 19:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by vidcc@7 August 2004 - 10:04

Originally posted by j2k4@7 August 2004 - 07:30
<!--QuoteBegin-vidcc

@6 August 2004 - 23:01
Perhaps we need to remove the "united" part from the USA

No.

It should suffice to note the word which follows.

That word is STATES, not PEOPLE, a concession made necessary by the fact that while people are mobile, borders are not.

Here we have a debate on human rights. This should not be state level, it should be federal.
But what do we have? A president that wants to change our constitution to deny the human rights of a minority across all the USA and a pretender to the throne that wants the individual states to decide for themselves.

Not quite right, vid-

Here we have not a debate, but a clusterfuck:

A President who has a felt need to put boots to the issue for once and all by Constitutuional fiat, not because of his challenger (who, in order to absent himself from the actual debate, insincerely espouses the proper idea), but because the judiciary has interjected itself into a debate in which it has no constitutional entree.

This should be decided by the states if the gay lobbies could find the right venue, but their maps have been stolen by those who favor the judicial shortcut, which leads to societal strife.

Period. [/b][/quote]
That&#39;s what I was going to say

Leave that feckin pig alone, too much lipstick mate. Way too much lipstick.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@7 August 2004 - 12:30
Not quite right, vid-

Here we have not a debate, but a clusterfuck:

A President who has a felt need to put boots to the issue for once and all by Constitutuional fiat, not because of his challenger (who, in order to absent himself from the actual debate, insincerely espouses the proper idea), but because the judiciary has interjected itself into a debate in which it has no constitutional entree.

This should be decided by the states if the gay lobbies could find the right venue, but their maps have been stolen by those who favor the judicial shortcut, which leads to societal strife.

Period.

How is it a "clusterfuck"?

Who says Kerry is forcing bush to do anything.
The fact is bush wishes to change the constitution to deny equal human rights. period. And i care not if you have a distaste for the minority that he wishes to deny the rights of, it is still unjust. The constitution is there to protect rights not take them away. I wonder if you would support Bush&#39;s actions if he wanted to make the change that gay "civil unions/marriage" be regognised.
You are not being forced to marry another man and giving gay unions full equal rights recognised IN ALL STATES will not diminish your rights one bit.
Kerry knows what a political hotbed this is and chooses to cower away from the issue and take the easy road by just saying let each state decide.
You don&#39;t like the idea of a judge making a ruling in favor of a group that you dissaprove of...so what...human rights are supposed to be just, not popular. That said why should it be the case that in the land of the free a judge had to make this ruling in the first place? doesn&#39;t that worry you?

I stand for freedom .... human rights and equality for all.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc+7 August 2004 - 15:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 7 August 2004 - 15:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@7 August 2004 - 12:30
Not quite right, vid-

Here we have not a debate, but a clusterfuck:

A President who has a felt need to put boots to the issue for once and all by Constitutuional fiat, not because of his challenger (who, in order to absent himself from the actual debate, insincerely espouses the proper idea), but because the judiciary has interjected itself into a debate in which it has no constitutional entree.

This should be decided by the states if the gay lobbies could find the right venue, but their maps have been stolen by those who favor the judicial shortcut, which leads to societal strife.

Period.

How is it a "clusterfuck"?

[/b][/quote]
Did you read my post?

I did NOT say Bush was brandishing an amendment because of Kerry (who wants no part of the debate, believe me), but because he wants the legislature to get it&#39;s head out of it&#39;s ass long enough to re-read the Constitution and act appropriately on the question-the legislature has pussed out on the issue so far, and doesn&#39;t even have the nerve to challenge the court&#39;s intrusion into Congressional purview.

Bush is merely trying to urge the legislature to step up to the plate and do it&#39;s duty.

I don&#39;t know how much clearer I can make this.

Why are you trying so hard to paint me as the bad guy here?

I&#39;m not even expressing an opinion, I&#39;m just saying the Constitution ought to be observed.

You have a problem with the Constitution?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@7 August 2004 - 20:37
I&#39;m not even expressing an opinion, I&#39;m just saying the Constitution ought to be observed.

You have a problem with the Constitution?

i agree. the constitution should be observed and this unjust action be righted...grant equal rights... not change it to deny them and states should observe the USA constitution above their own local constitutions