Court Upholds Gay Judge's Ruling on Prop 8

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2011 8:32 PM GMT
    OldGeezer is probably rolling over in his RJ cyber grave! icon_lol.gif

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/14/court-uphold-gay-judges-ruling-on-proposition-8/
  • Bigolbear

    Posts: 528

    Jun 14, 2011 9:43 PM GMT
    catfish5 saidOldGeezer is probably rolling over in his RJ cyber grave! icon_lol.gif

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/14/court-uphold-gay-judges-ruling-on-proposition-8/


    My favorite quote:

    Judge Ware wrote that the presumption that "all people in same-sex relationships think alike" is an unreasonable presumption, and one that has no place in legal reasoning.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2011 9:49 PM GMT
    Bigolbear said
    catfish5 saidOldGeezer is probably rolling over in his RJ cyber grave! icon_lol.gif

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/14/court-uphold-gay-judges-ruling-on-proposition-8/

    My favorite quote:

    Judge Ware wrote that the presumption that "all people in same-sex relationships think alike" is an unreasonable presumption, and one that has no place in legal reasoning.

    I am naturally pleased by this. But also expect the inevitable appeals by Republicans. We just have to keep fighting these guys, and their agents that they send to sites like this one. icon_sad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2011 1:21 AM GMT
    catfish5 saidOldGeezer is probably rolling over in his RJ cyber grave! icon_lol.gif

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/14/court-uphold-gay-judges-ruling-on-proposition-8/

    Thanks for posting this. It is good news. Also shows that most of the gay issues will be decided at the state level and in the courts. Those of us who support fiscal conservatism at the national level can do that knowing we are not for the most part compromising gay issues. The opinions of some that fiscal conservatives are anti-gay and agents infecting RJ are increasingly seen as ridiculous and delusional.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2011 1:22 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    catfish5 saidOldGeezer is probably rolling over in his RJ cyber grave! icon_lol.gif

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/14/court-uphold-gay-judges-ruling-on-proposition-8/

    Thanks for posting this. It is good news. Also shows that most of the gay issues will be decided at the state level and in the courts. Those of us who support fiscal conservatism at the national level can do that knowing we are not for the most part compromising gay issues. The opinions of some that fiscal conservatives are anti-gay and agents infecting RJ are increasingly seen as ridiculous and delusional.
    icon_razz.gif
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jun 15, 2011 1:58 AM GMT
    The assertion that gay judges should recuse themselves from cases involving gay people makes as much sense as claiming that Antonin Scalia should recuse himself from all cases that involve Italians or Catholics or Republicans or bigots or gun nuts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2011 2:20 AM GMT
    awesome news! Much respect to Republican Ted Olson, who led this fight in California. I will still be voting against the Dems again next year. icon_smile.gif
  • mke_bt

    Posts: 707

    Jun 15, 2011 2:36 AM GMT
    field123 saidawesome news! Much respect to Republican Ted Olson, who led this fight in California. I will still be voting against the Dems again next year. icon_smile.gif


    As opposed to voting FOR the Republicans?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2011 3:00 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Art_Deco said
    I am naturally pleased by this. But also expect the inevitable appeals by Republicans. We just have to keep fighting these guys, and their agents that they send to sites like this one. icon_sad.gif

    "Agents" that are sent to the RJ website?

    You are completely, 100%, certified looney. And that is NOT a personal attack, it's just FACT.

    I suspected I could draw you out on this! Thanks for taking the bait. Must really get your goat, huh, to see so many of us happy here about this.

    I note how you aren't saying anything in favor of this ruling. Just posting a personal attack on me, calling me looney. Perhaps a way of expressing your anger & frustration. I named nobody here and certainly not you. Yet you made a personal attack on me. How curious.

    Now you stated above that it is 100% FACT that I am certified as looney. Unless you can produce the evidence for that assertion of certification in a big hurry, you just committed a major TOS/TOU violation.

    And I'm just growing tired of letting these violations against me and other members by you go unaddressed. I haven't reported you before, but I think the time for leniency is past.

    Now I'll ask you politely, do you have evidence that I am "certified" as looney or as having any other kind of mental disorder? Either you retract that, or produce the certificate, or else I'm taking you to the wall with this.

    I know in the past you've claimed that you're "too important" to this site to be reprimanded or removed for anything you do, but I wonder if that's ever really been tested? Don't push me or others on this.

    After the recent show-down with OldGeezer (in which I did not participate, BTW), I think a lot of guys here have really had it up to *here* with the likes of you. I wouldn't push your luck too far.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2011 3:05 AM GMT
    This is awesome news. However, like many have mentioned, the Republicans will try and fight it. We have to make sure to shut them down.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Jun 15, 2011 3:13 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    southbeach1500 said

    ...........................................

    OK, now lets calm down here, no need to get into a big battle. Bob, of course your not looney and you had some cause to say what you did. Geezer talked about "sending conservatives to sites like this one", so you certainly have reason in saying it. SB isn't one of them, however.. LOL

    Let's just move forward .. nobody is looney here...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2011 3:16 AM GMT
    Ace123 saidThis is awesome news. However, like many have mentioned, the Republicans will try and fight it. We have to make sure to shut them down.





    Yes it is awesome !! and what isn't awesome is that some of the RJ members above will be voting for for these same republicans who will be pushing for this case to be appealed, but I understand also from above that voting republican in spite of their consistently voting against our rights as gays is ok, because after all the courts will give us our rights against the wishes of the republicans they voted for. KINDA TWISTED THINKING METHINKS !!! but then I'm just a liberal, so what would I know about reasonable thinking. LOL
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2011 3:40 AM GMT
    HndsmKansan said
    Art_Deco said
    southbeach1500 said

    ...........................................

    OK, now lets calm down here, no need to get into a big battle. Bob, of course your not looney and you had some cause to say what you did. Geezer talked about "sending conservatives to sites like this one", so you certainly have reason in saying it. SB isn't one of them, however.. LOL

    Let's just move forward .. nobody is looney here...

    Nor did I say southbeach was a plant. But after Geezer's own words, and other reports from gay social sites, there is some evidence that this sort of thing is happening.

    Still, curious that southbeach felt compelled to be the one to respond, when I hadn't named him as a suspect.

    In any case, I'm still drawing the line on this kind of personal attack, that I've ignored in the past. Nor should any of us allow this sort of thing to go unchallenged, against ourselves or any other member. Questioning political affiliations is one thing, but claiming one is "certified" as mentality unbalanced is quite another.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2011 3:53 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said...Questioning political affiliations is one thing, but claiming one is "certified" as mentality unbalanced is quite another.

    He did not say "mentally unbalanced", he said "looney". Neither term though is a clinical term. Recall another member said you demonstrated paranoia. You reacted the same way specifically because that term had a clinical meaning. You might recall, I pointed out several dictionaries which provided a non-clinical meaning to the term paranoia, rendering your TOS claims as far-fetched. You responded that it was not clear whether the clinical or non-clinical term was intended. I responded that common sense would dictate the non-clinical term was the intent given is was used by a non-medical person in a non-clinical environment.

    Now, you might claim that "certifiable" implies a clinical connotation, but as an adjective to a term that is clearly non-clinical term, it is also most reasonably considered non-clinical as well.

    There, aren't you glad I clarified?
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Jun 15, 2011 3:58 AM GMT
    socalfitness said


    There, aren't you glad I clarified?


    Socal, don't you need to get ready for bed? LOL

    icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2011 4:02 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Art_Deco said...Questioning political affiliations is one thing, but claiming one is "certified" as mentality unbalanced is quite another.

    He did not say "mentally unbalanced", he said "looney". Neither term though is a clinical term. Recall another member said you demonstrated paranoia. You reacted the same way specifically because that term had a clinical meaning. You might recall, I pointed out several dictionaries which provided a non-clinical meaning to the term paranoia, rendering your TOS claims as far-fetched. You responded that it was not clear whether the clinical or non-clinical term was intended. I responded that common sense would dictate the non-clinical term was the intent given is was used by a non-medical person in a non-clinical environment.

    Now, you might claim that "certifiable" implies a clinical connotation, but as an adjective to a term that is clearly non-clinical term, it is also most reasonably considered non-clinical as well.

    There, aren't you glad I clarified?

    Did you actually? Now I hope you are so generous (dare I say "liberal") in your interpretation, should such terms ever be used against southbeach or yourself?

    Somehow I doubt you'll be so accommodating, and spend so much time with a similar exposition & rationalization, should identical words be used against you. But it was entertaining in its own right. As a former soldier I do admire your attempt to save your fellow troops.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2011 4:04 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    catfish5 saidOldGeezer is probably rolling over in his RJ cyber grave! icon_lol.gif

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/14/court-uphold-gay-judges-ruling-on-proposition-8/

    Thanks for posting this. It is good news. Also shows that most of the gay issues will be decided at the state level and in the courts. Those of us who support fiscal conservatism at the national level can do that knowing we are not for the most part compromising gay issues. The opinions of some that fiscal conservatives are anti-gay and agents infecting RJ are increasingly seen as ridiculous and delusional.




    Anyone who supports "fiscal conservatism at the national level" should certainly not vote Repub at the national level.
    Reagan more than tripled the National Debt.
    Dubya doubled the National Debt.

    The Repubs motto was "deficits don't matter" for most of the last 30 years.
    They've only flip-flopped on that in the last couple of years and now they admit that deficits do matter.
    If only they'd recognized that back when Reagan and Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. were exploding the National Debt!
    All that debt Reagan and Bush piled up never got paid off.
    It's still on the books, waiting to get paid off.

    Reagan and Bush just passed their debt on for some future generation to deal with.
    And we are that unlucky future generation.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19136

    Jun 15, 2011 6:37 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    southbeach1500 said
    Art_Deco said
    I think a lot of guys here have really had it up to *here* with the likes of you. I wouldn't push your luck too far.


    That would go the same for you, Art. Consider yourself warned icon_rolleyes.gif
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19136

    Jun 15, 2011 6:45 AM GMT
    Art_Deco saidQuestioning political affiliations is one thing, but claiming one is "certified" as mentality unbalanced is quite another.



    You are a knucklehead...Okay, I said it. So sue me icon_lol.gif

    No seriously, guys, some of you are really taking this internet stuff WAY too seriously. If you don't like what someone says...IGNORE IT. It's really that simple. And, Art, please stop with this holier than thou B.S. as if you're above calling someone names or insults. You've been guilty of it yourself plenty. How ridiculous would it be if every time you drubbed up one of your conspiracy theories or accused someone of being an anti-gay plant here at a gay health & fitness site that we ran to management. I mean, really, lighten the hell up.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19136

    Jun 15, 2011 6:47 AM GMT
    field123 saidMuch respect to Republican Ted Olson, who led this fight in California.



    +1
  • Menergy_1

    Posts: 737

    Jun 15, 2011 12:43 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Art_Deco said...Questioning political affiliations is one thing, but claiming one is "certified" as mentality unbalanced is quite another.

    He did not say "mentally unbalanced", he said "looney". Neither term though is a clinical term. Recall another member said you demonstrated paranoia. You reacted the same way specifically because that term had a clinical meaning. You might recall, I pointed out several dictionaries which provided a non-clinical meaning to the term paranoia, rendering your TOS claims as far-fetched. You responded that it was not clear whether the clinical or non-clinical term was intended. I responded that common sense would dictate the non-clinical term was the intent given is was used by a non-medical person in a non-clinical environment.

    Now, you might claim that "certifiable" implies a clinical connotation, but as an adjective to a term that is clearly non-clinical term, it is also most reasonably considered non-clinical as well.

    There, aren't you glad I clarified?



    I have heard that just because someone is paranoid doesn't mean the bastards aren't out to get ya......icon_wink.gif
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Jun 15, 2011 12:49 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    field123 saidMuch respect to Republican Ted Olson, who led this fight in California.



    +1


    Glad you can have some positive addition there Todd, generally its subtraction....LOL

    icon_mad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2011 12:54 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    socalfitness said
    Art_Deco said...Questioning political affiliations is one thing, but claiming one is "certified" as mentality unbalanced is quite another.

    He did not say "mentally unbalanced", he said "looney". Neither term though is a clinical term. Recall another member said you demonstrated paranoia. You reacted the same way specifically because that term had a clinical meaning. You might recall, I pointed out several dictionaries which provided a non-clinical meaning to the term paranoia, rendering your TOS claims as far-fetched. You responded that it was not clear whether the clinical or non-clinical term was intended. I responded that common sense would dictate the non-clinical term was the intent given is was used by a non-medical person in a non-clinical environment.

    Now, you might claim that "certifiable" implies a clinical connotation, but as an adjective to a term that is clearly non-clinical term, it is also most reasonably considered non-clinical as well.

    There, aren't you glad I clarified?

    Did you actually? Now I hope you are so generous (dare I say "liberal") in your interpretation, should such terms ever be used against southbeach or yourself?

    Somehow I doubt you'll be so accommodating, and spend so much time with a similar exposition & rationalization, should identical words be used against you. But it was entertaining in its own right. As a former soldier I do admire your attempt to save your fellow troops.

    I wouldn't be concerned if such words were used against me, but then again, I am not defensive about it.

    Don't know about fellow troops of mine, but I did read an article and believe your concerns have some basis. Seems there is an organization that calls itself "Media Doesn't Matter" that has a program to infiltrate online sites. One group of agents comprise "Team Obvious", who openly promote a fiscal conservative position. But you really need to be concerned about the other group of agents called "Sleepers". Their mission is to purport to be liberals, sometimes rabid liberals, when they are, in fact, conservatives. Upon direction from the Media Doesn't Matter Directorate, on an individual basis, the Sleepers are to have an epiphany, suddenly seeing the light and proclaiming their new conservative position and explain all the reasons for their conversions. These reasons have been carefully crafted. Art_Deco, you'll like this - Media Doesn't Matter spokesman said these campaigns are planned with military precision, and they look at the Sleepers, supported by Team Obvious, as drawing an enemy into a vulnerable position, while extending and weakening their supply lines, then cutting the liberals off at the knees.

    They were able to interview a Sleeper agent who would only identify himself as SteveSteve46 (SS46). SS46 said:
    "It's a riot, but sometimes hard to keep the online version of a straight face. I often type BS at another site member, sometimes even at a Team Obvious Comrade. Funny thing is I know the BS is what I'm typing. Can't believe anyone with an IQ over 50 would even believe the shit I write, but the liberals buy it hook, line, and sinker. While it's discouraged, sometimes after I type a particularly rabid response against a Comrade, one of us will call the other and we'll laugh our heads off. One time a fellow Comrade and I were at a bar, both logged on, sitting together over a few beers and having a very nasty online fight. It was hilarious how we got the liberals worked up into a frenzy. They were foaming at the mouth. Can't wait until my conversion is ordered. That will really be funny."

    That was the gist of the article. Oops gotta run; I'm hearing footsteps and they're getting louder.....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2011 2:16 PM GMT
    SB, did you read Socal's post just above yours? If not, then do so.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19136

    Jun 15, 2011 3:03 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    That was the gist of the article. Oops gotta run; I'm hearing footsteps and they're getting louder.....



    Hurry...Quick...Hide the Men's Fitness magazine. They might think you're gay and lock you up!!! icon_lol.gif