| Author | Post |
|---|
CrimeFighter
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1204 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 5th, 2008 05:29 am |
|
| I'm pretty much looking like a genius right now. The results aren't final, and the health care prop could go either way, but all of the other propositions I endorsed are winning. Just goes to show that an endorsement from Crimefighter can propel your campaign to victory. Notice I never officially endorsed McCain; I never liked him anyway. Especially now that he lost.
|
morgan
Member
| Joined: | Fri Mar 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 471 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 04:26 am |
|
| Many CCR's and/or Board resolutions already approve a transfer fee being passed on to all new buyers in the community. (this is not something new either) The transfer fee is a way to collect extra income to assist in running the association. Transfer fees are not in every communities governing documents. Something each board of directors/homeowners should be aware of if this bill should pass The HOA may need to consult an attorney for assistance with their governing documents if this kind of language is used. For now hang tight until if/when Prop 100 passes.
|
clu
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | TOQC |
| Posts: | 515 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 04:04 pm |
|
CrimeFighter wrote: Prop 300: No opinion. I'm voting to give our officials a bump in pay, but I don't really care either way on this one.
I am voting YES on the pay raise. In fact, it doesn't go far enough. The pay raise should be by a factor of 10.
It is my opinion that the higher the pay for officials, the more skilled, smarter folk will pursue these jobs, squeezing out the dull-minded, riff-raff. (clearly Jeff is the expection.)
Last edited on Fri Oct 17th, 2008 04:05 pm by clu
|
nic444
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 28th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 25 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 12:34 am |
|
nilbog wrote: Having said that, I'm shocked that I plan the vote the same as Crimefighter for 6 of the 8 propositions that he listed. I'm going to go home and have a long sob in the shower now.
Best. line. ever. 
Don't forget to scrub till it burns.
|
CrimeFighter
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1204 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 15th, 2008 03:42 am |
|
jrenae wrote: nilbog and morgan: it's okay that you remember. I remember Muppet Babies quite well, but am a Muppet purist (LOVE that series. Have it on DVD since it was canceled when I was still quite young). Never got into Scooby Doo that much and thought it was dumb that the split up the same and all the bad guys had a mask on. ANYWAY.... But my big thing was coming home so I could watch DuckTales (Disney cartoon) and Garfield and Friends. Now we have 2 seasons of Garfield and Friends on DVD and both my husband and I and the kids love them. There's a lot of adult humor and sarcasm on there and goes above the kids' heads. 
DuckTales was my favorite cartoon of all time. Scrooge McDuck was a great inspiration: "work smarter, not harder". Words to live by.
|
jrenae
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 11:29 pm |
|
| nilbog and morgan: it's okay that you remember. I remember Muppet Babies quite well, but am a Muppet purist (LOVE that series. Have it on DVD since it was canceled when I was still quite young). Never got into Scooby Doo that much and thought it was dumb that the split up the same and all the bad guys had a mask on. ANYWAY.... But my big thing was coming home so I could watch DuckTales (Disney cartoon) and Garfield and Friends. Now we have 2 seasons of Garfield and Friends on DVD and both my husband and I and the kids love them. There's a lot of adult humor and sarcasm on there and goes above the kids' heads.
|
nilbog
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jan 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 293 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 08:20 pm |
|
Technically Morgan, there was a series in the late 80s called "A pup named Scooby Doo" during that period of time when they were making baby versions of all the old cartoons. Remember the Muppet Babies and the Baby Looney Tunes? It's sad that I remember all this.
I think the comparison is an insult to Archie Bunker...he was a bigot but he was America's lovable bigot, who occasionally, quite rarely, was willing to see things from the other perspective. Even Meathead. That doesn't seem like Crimefigher at all.
Having said that, I'm shocked that I plan the vote the same as Crimefighter for 6 of the 8 propositions that he listed. I'm going to go home and have a long sob in the shower now.
|
morgan
Member
| Joined: | Fri Mar 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 471 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 01:03 pm |
|
| Just to clarify - Scooby Doo is not the pup - its Scrappy Doo. (can't even believe I am commenting on this ...) What happened to the election discussion?
|
jrenae
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 11:25 am |
|
Exactly. Just like Scooby Doo used to be old when I was a kid, but now he's a pup. Think about that for a while why don't you.
is that the best you can come up with? lol
|
CrimeFighter
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1204 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 06:25 am |
|
jrenae wrote: I know the difference between fictional and non-fictional, but in pop-culture, fictional characters can have just as much merit.
Simply comparing the humor that was "okay" in the 1970s to the humor that is taboo now, says a lot about the course of history. Think of the SNL skit between Richard Pryor and Chevy Chase that used racial slurs and the N-word. While that exchange was dicey (even for the mid-1970s) it would be scandalous today and more controversial than Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" a few years ago (something that was blown way out of proportion, IMHO. No pun intended).
Such changes of acceptability in entertainment, fictional entertainment and pop cutlure and attitude says a lot about history and non-fictional parallels of mankind. Some of these changes are good, and others unfortunately set us (mankind, culture, what-have-you) back.
Exactly. Just like Scooby Doo used to be old when I was a kid, but now he's a pup. Think about that for a while why don't you.
|
jrenae
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 06:10 am |
|
no comparison jrenae. Archie Bunker was a fictional TV character... and likely wasn't a topic of study at any point in most people's lives. all of the others are... Actual people who impacted the course of history. Archie may have impacted the collective senses of those of us who watched the show, but could hardly be credited with altering the course of history as those you mention.
I know the difference between fictional and non-fictional, but in pop-culture, fictional characters can have just as much merit.
Simply comparing the humor that was "okay" in the 1970s to the humor that is taboo now, says a lot about the course of history. Think of the SNL skit between Richard Pryor and Chevy Chase that used racial slurs and the N-word. While that exchange was dicey (even for the mid-1970s) it would be scandalous today and more controversial than Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" a few years ago (something that was blown way out of proportion, IMHO. No pun intended).
Such changes of acceptability in entertainment, fictional entertainment and pop cutlure and attitude says a lot about history and non-fictional parallels of mankind. Some of these changes are good, and others unfortunately set us (mankind, culture, what-have-you) back.
Last edited on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 06:14 am by jrenae
|
CrimeFighter
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1204 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 05:50 am |
|
| I don't even care about the current shows on TV enough to know the names of the characters, much less TV shows from the black and white, rabbit-ear TV days.
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 04:59 am |
|
jrenae wrote: Archie Bunker was before my time, so I can't comment on him.
Oh please. So your knowledge started from when you were "aware" and only what occurred after your birth or "your time" is what matters? No wonder you're so rude, hateful and intolerant. I finally figured it out: CF is the way he (she or IT) is so rude and close-minded because he/she/it is not learning from history and lessons from history because most of history was "before his time".
JFK and MLK was before our time and we comment on him. Since they were before your time, you may want to "google them" since internet terms are clearly during "your time".
Hitler was before our time and we comment on him. You might find you relate a lot to his intolerances. Sad. Very sad.
Ghandi was before our time and we comment on him. He has a lot to teach as far making progress without violence.
Abe Lincoln was before our time. Look him up. He was a great man.
JESUS was before our time (his earthly ministry) and gee, we comment on Him.
There's a lot more, but like the above, they may not interest you because they were "before your time".
:eyeroll:
(BTW, All in the Family was pretty much before my time too, but I don't believe the world started in 1975)
no comparison jrenae. Archie Bunker was a fictional TV character... and likely wasn't a topic of study at any point in most people's lives.
all of the others are...
Actual people who impacted the course of history. Archie may have impacted the collective senses of those of us who watched the show, but could hardly be credited with altering the course of history as those you mention.
|
jrenae
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 04:51 am |
|
Archie Bunker was before my time, so I can't comment on him.
Oh please. So your knowledge started from when you were "aware" and only what occurred after your birth or "your time" is what matters? No wonder you're so rude, hateful and intolerant. I finally figured it out: CF is the way he (she or IT) is so rude and close-minded because he/she/it is not learning from history and lessons from history because most of history was "before his time".
JFK and MLK was before our time and we comment on him. Since they were before your time, you may want to "google them" since internet terms are clearly during "your time".
Hitler was before our time and we comment on him. You might find you relate a lot to his intolerances. Sad. Very sad.
Ghandi was before our time and we comment on him. He has a lot to teach as far making progress without violence.
Abe Lincoln was before our time. Look him up. He was a great man.
JESUS was before our time (his earthly ministry) and gee, we comment on Him.
There's a lot more, but like the above, they may not interest you because they were "before your time".
:eyeroll:
(BTW, All in the Family was pretty much before my time too, but I don't believe the world started in 1975)
Last edited on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 04:52 am by jrenae
|
CrimeFighter
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1204 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 04:17 am |
|
bigwavedave wrote: A perfect response there CF. I read this as saying you would advocate my wife having a abortion if she were to become pregnant? Another hypocritical statement on your part. Let me ease your mind though, since I was responsible enough to "fix" your concern way back in 83. Hope that makes you feel better. Still makes you a hypocrite though. Using the term "reproduce" for what you want for your children, is really quite......well...quaint and loving. Very Warren Jeffs like...hey wait a minute are you related to him? Sounds awfully suspicious. Have kids, let them "reproduce" like human Xerox machines, start my own cult. Brilliant.....I didn't think you had it in you however I was obviously wrong. No really, all kidding aside, what the hell is wrong with you? I thought you were a God fearin' kind of guy, but you speak of evolution with such authority and admiration. Sounds like you believe we all came about because of evolution. I guess sooner or later, everyone's true feelings really do "come out of the closet". So keep on trying to fool everyone and remember, if it aint good enough for CF, it aint good enough for nobody.
Let's see...where to start on this tangled stream-of-consciousness post?
Vasectomy would be the ethical yet effective method of birth control that I would recommend for you; thank you for taking care of that for us all. Please understand, it's nothing personal, it's simply for the good of the gene pool that I make this recommendation. That and my deep desire not to saddle future generations with your genetically transmitted inability to get it when people are joking.
As for evolution, who says you can't be God-fearing and scientific? Evolution happens, probably not to the level that some believe it does, but minor evolutionary changes have been documented. For example, the dominant color of a moth population in the NE united states morphed from white to gray when pollution changed the color of the habitat they hide in, thus making the white moths easier for predators to see.
Last edited on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 04:27 am by CrimeFighter
|
bigwavedave
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 621 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 13th, 2008 04:09 pm |
|
CrimeFighter wrote: Lisa.Coletto.Cohen wrote: Wow, I don't even know how to respond. You have taken anti choice to a whole new frontier here. Now I don't even get to choose whether or not I want to have children before even the debate over a fetus being a life or not.
Perhaps it isn't as cut and dry as you make it sound, maybe a spoiled and selfish Mother shouldn't have kids. Maybe some people are not cut out to be good parents. Maybe some people have given the time that they would have spent going to soccer games with the kids to serving the community. Maybe reproduction isn't the be all end all.
Lisa, I couldn't care less if you chose to have children or not; your question was whether or not I want my kids to reproduce. I am not advocating massive population growth as a policy or even a suggestion to those who are not my own biological children. In fact, in BWD's case the gene pool is likely much better off enforcing strict anti-reproductive measures.
A perfect response there CF. I read this as saying you would advocate my wife having a abortion if she were to become pregnant? Another hypocritical statement on your part. Let me ease your mind though, since I was responsible enough to "fix" your concern way back in 83. Hope that makes you feel better. Still makes you a hypocrite though. Using the term "reproduce" for what you want for your children, is really quite......well...quaint and loving. Very Warren Jeffs like...hey wait a minute are you related to him? Sounds awfully suspicious. Have kids, let them "reproduce" like human Xerox machines, start my own cult. Brilliant.....I didn't think you had it in you however I was obviously wrong. No really, all kidding aside, what the hell is wrong with you? I thought you were a God fearin' kind of guy, but you speak of evolution with such authority and admiration. Sounds like you believe we all came about because of evolution. I guess sooner or later, everyone's true feelings really do "come out of the closet". So keep on trying to fool everyone and remember, if it aint good enough for CF, it aint good enough for nobody.
|
TheBigShow
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1133 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 13th, 2008 07:05 am |
|
| plus the guy brought up orange crush, now that's just funny stuff.
|
Lisa.Coletto.Cohen
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 21st, 2008 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 266 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 13th, 2008 05:36 am |
|
CF,
My bad, I thought you were advocating for this as an across the board policy, which quite frankly I find just a teeny bit FRIGHTENING! By all means happy reproduction to you and yours. As for BWD, anyone who likes "Spaceballs" (which BTW was an awesome movie) has to have some redeeming characteristics, cut the guy a little slack.
|
CrimeFighter
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1204 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 13th, 2008 05:26 am |
|
Lisa.Coletto.Cohen wrote: Wow, I don't even know how to respond. You have taken anti choice to a whole new frontier here. Now I don't even get to choose whether or not I want to have children before even the debate over a fetus being a life or not.
Perhaps it isn't as cut and dry as you make it sound, maybe a spoiled and selfish Mother shouldn't have kids. Maybe some people are not cut out to be good parents. Maybe some people have given the time that they would have spent going to soccer games with the kids to serving the community. Maybe reproduction isn't the be all end all.
Lisa, I couldn't care less if you chose to have children or not; your question was whether or not I want my kids to reproduce. I am not advocating massive population growth as a policy or even a suggestion to those who are not my own biological children. In fact, in BWD's case the gene pool is likely much better off enforcing strict anti-reproductive measures.
|
Lisa.Coletto.Cohen
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 21st, 2008 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 266 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 13th, 2008 05:13 am |
|
CrimeFighter wrote: If they simply didn't want to deal with the hassle, or they wanted to spend the money on a new car instead, then absolutely I would be disappointed.
Wow, I don't even know how to respond. You have taken anti choice to a whole new frontier here. Now I don't even get to choose whether or not I want to have children before even the debate over a fetus being a life or not.
Perhaps it isn't as cut and dry as you make it sound, maybe a spoiled and selfish Mother shouldn't have kids. Maybe some people are not cut out to be good parents. Maybe some people have given the time that they would have spent going to soccer games with the kids to serving the community. Maybe reproduction isn't the be all end all.
CrimeFighter wrote:
Fundamentally, the purpose of every living organism is to reproduce. Evolution doesn't care about any success other than reproductive success. This doesn't mean that individuals don't contribute to society in enormous ways without reproducing; evolution just doesn't care. All that it cares about are the genes that continue living when we are all dead and gone.
I am happy to see you believe in evolution, I did have some questions there for a little while but alas, you have set me back on the straight and narrow.
Lisa
Probably going to need to seek out a doghouse in another County after this post!
|
CrimeFighter
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1204 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 13th, 2008 05:11 am |
|
| Jiggles: Thanks for the attempt at an original post. After so many failed tries, we've learned not to expect humor from you, but we have become fondly accustomed to your clunky, fragmented attempts at humor.
|
bigwavedave
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 621 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 13th, 2008 04:42 am |
|
CrimeFighter wrote: Archie Bunker was before my time, so I can't comment on him. As for whether I would be disappointed if one of my children didn't have children, the answer is that it would depend on the circumstance. If they were simply unable to physically or financially support a child then I would fully understand. If they simply didn't want to deal with the hassle, or they wanted to spend the money on a new car instead, then absolutely I would be disappointed. I'm not sinking all of my blood, sweat and tears into raising children without the hope and expectation that there will eventually be grandchildren to play with.
Fundamentally, the purpose of every living organism is to reproduce. Evolution doesn't care about any success other than reproductive success. This doesn't mean that individuals don't contribute to society in enormous ways without reproducing; evolution just doesn't care. All that it cares about are the genes that continue living when we are all dead and gone.
Don't worry CF, Archie Bunker was much smarter than you so comparing the two of you is really not fair. You are a closet bigot, he at least had the guts to do it openly. If I read your post correctly, you think women are nothing more than human Xerox machines? You and your type of attitude are truly sad. Please feel free to use whatever term for me you wish, I just laugh out loud. I'd love to see you at a backyard BBQ, running around in your wife beater t-shirt and bermuda shorts with the black socks and loafers, commanding your lovely wife to bring you another Orange Crush (because we know Coors is the devil) and her scurrying off to get it for you. Then you yell at here because she did not open it for you! What a sight. But then again, if it aint good enough for CF, it aint good for nobody.
|
CrimeFighter
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1204 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 13th, 2008 02:03 am |
|
Archie Bunker was before my time, so I can't comment on him. As for whether I would be disappointed if one of my children didn't have children, the answer is that it would depend on the circumstance. If they were simply unable to physically or financially support a child then I would fully understand. If they simply didn't want to deal with the hassle, or they wanted to spend the money on a new car instead, then absolutely I would be disappointed. I'm not sinking all of my blood, sweat and tears into raising children without the hope and expectation that there will eventually be grandchildren to play with.
Fundamentally, the purpose of every living organism is to reproduce. Evolution doesn't care about any success other than reproductive success. This doesn't mean that individuals don't contribute to society in enormous ways without reproducing; evolution just doesn't care. All that it cares about are the genes that continue living when we are all dead and gone.
|
Lisa.Coletto.Cohen
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 21st, 2008 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 266 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 13th, 2008 12:59 am |
|
CF,
I read your post and all I could think about was Archie Bunker. I am sure you don't want to be tied to a label of being an anachronistic bigot. You are clearly smarter than that! Remember, you catch more flies kinda thing.
Anyway, regarding the "reproductive suicide". I have chosen not to have children. My reasons are my own. Does that mean if I was your daughter, you would look down on me too? Is it my sacred duty to procreate?
BTW, I admire your work philosophy, I wish more parents would work to instill that in their children today. Too many people want to get paid too much for sitting around and looking busy.
|
CrimeFighter
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1204 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 13th, 2008 12:04 am |
|
TheBigShow wrote: How about not being a jerk? Bet that didn't dawn on you. Based on your earlier comment about having to be pc at work and how much that bugs you, I can only imagine the kind of things you say around your kids. My dad was similar to a guy like yourself. Hated anyone that wasn't just like him. It took me a long time to realize that this world is filled with people who aren't just like me, and that's what makes life great. But you go ahead and just mumble to yourself all the little derogatory terms you have. Cowards like you enjoy hiding behind their little walls and talking behind people's backs. You'd never dream of walking up to someone to say some of the things you think, ever wonder why?
Uh, I'm not your dad and I teach my kids to love everyone they meet regardless of whether or not they agree with their viewpoints or lifestyle. I also teach them that it's wrong and pointless for people of the same sex to marry, because I'm not interested in them buying into a philosophy and lifestyle that will result in reproductive suicide for my future family.
You're telling me that you express every political or religious view with coworkers? That will result in a short career. Politics aren't the reason we go to work, production is. No I don't talk about people behind their backs, I work while I'm at work.
|
TheBigShow
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1133 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 12th, 2008 11:01 pm |
|
How about not being a jerk? Bet that didn't dawn on you. Based on your earlier comment about having to be pc at work and how much that bugs you, I can only imagine the kind of things you say around your kids. My dad was similar to a guy like yourself. Hated anyone that wasn't just like him. It took me a long time to realize that this world is filled with people who aren't just like me, and that's what makes life great. But you go ahead and just mumble to yourself all the little derogatory terms you have. Cowards like you enjoy hiding behind their little walls and talking behind people's backs. You'd never dream of walking up to someone to say some of the things you think, ever wonder why?
|
CrimeFighter
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1204 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 12th, 2008 07:43 pm |
|
Lisa.Coletto.Cohen wrote: Because just using a derogatory label, incites a visceral response. People then get caught up in the emotional side of the argument and can't see clear to be logical and well reasoned.
How about "sexual-orientation challenged" or "homosexual american" as a preferred euphemism for dudes who like other dudes? Or perhaps I could further soften the blow of calling a spade a spade by referring to gays as "likely genetically predisposed individuals with affinities for their same gender, not that there is anything wrong with that" guys.
BigShow, the only one supporting an orgainization founded by a racist which continues to carry out exterminationist activities is you with Planned Parenthood.
|
Lisa.Coletto.Cohen
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 21st, 2008 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 266 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 12th, 2008 06:02 pm |
|
CrimeFighter wrote: Lisa.Coletto.Cohen wrote: CF, I am with you on the definition of marriage but seriously, can you not refer these PEOPLE as "homo's"?
Why is that inflammatory? It's short for homosexual, which homo's don't find offensive at all. Besides, I spend way too much time being politically correct at work; what's the point of posting on a forum like this if we can't talk openly about the issues?
Because just using a derogatory label, incites a visceral response. People then get caught up in the emotional side of the argument and can't see clear to be logical and well reasoned. Even if you were right, you would loose the argument in their mind and probably all subsequent one's as well. Besides, I don't think any person who is gay will ever talk openly with you if you insist on calling them a "homo".
Lisa
"I think I may be shipped off to the pound soon as my owners can't afford to feed me due to the "economic downturn", they are even talking about selling my "house" at a yard sale to raise cash! What is the world coming to?"
|
TheBigShow
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1133 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 12th, 2008 05:02 pm |
|
| you still arguing the use of the terms "nigger" and "nigger lover"? Or have you finally evolved?
|
CrimeFighter
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1204 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 12th, 2008 04:46 pm |
|
| Continuing with my 2008 political endorsements, I have attached an informational guide to the propositions. Attachment: ElectionsBallotPropsSummary2008Final.pdf (Downloaded 5 times)
|
CrimeFighter
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1204 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 12th, 2008 03:31 pm |
|
| I've now decided that if it's not socially acceptable to say "homo", but it is acceptable to call someone "homophobic", then I will now refer to all pro-homo posters as "homophiles", literally meaning "homo-lovers" (i.e. BWD and BigShow). That should be much more politically correct, and provide an accurate description for both sides of the argument.
|
CrimeFighter
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1204 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 12th, 2008 03:22 pm |
|
Lisa.Coletto.Cohen wrote: CF, I am with you on the definition of marriage but seriously, can you not refer these PEOPLE as "homo's"?
Why is that inflammatory? It's short for homosexual, which homo's don't find offensive at all. Besides, I spend way too much time being politically correct at work; what's the point of posting on a forum like this if we can't talk openly about the issues?
|
Lisa.Coletto.Cohen
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 21st, 2008 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 266 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 12th, 2008 06:19 am |
|
CF, I am with you on the definition of marriage but seriously, can you not refer these PEOPLE as "homo's"? This is inflammatory and degrading and completely beyond necessary. I have had the privilege of knowing many gay and straight people in my short life and you know what, I have not found them very different. You would be shocked that they probably share 99% of your concerns, wishes, hopes and fears. Perhaps you should try getting to know the individuals behind the label.
As always, personal attacks are welcome!
Lisa
"Still in the dog house and probably will be for life or at least until the next administration"
|
CrimeFighter
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1204 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 12th, 2008 05:54 am |
|
| Jiggles, try coming up with something original, you've become a one line wonder for the last...actually you've always been a one line wonder.
|
bigwavedave
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 621 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 12th, 2008 05:27 am |
|
CrimeFighter wrote: TheBigShow wrote: pssst....Arizona law already says marriage is one man and one woman. We voted this same nonsense down two years ago. Why our legislature is so concerned about this issue is beyond any sort of logic. Last time I checked, there are other more pressing issues to deal with.
pssst...no it doesn't, it hasn't been challenged in court by homos who married in other states. The version that didn't pass two years ago only lost because it would have restricted benefits to heterosexual domestic partners. This iteration fixed that glitch. Vote yes on Prop 102 and we won't have to worry about judges hijacking the Arizona marriage laws like they have already done in California. Spoken like a true intolerant homophobe. After all, if it aint good enough for CF, it aint good enough for nobody!
|
TheBigShow
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1133 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 12th, 2008 12:52 am |
|
| You're so right, they don't even bother to look at the law. Judges in Arizona are voted in. And how does brown vs board of education have anything to do with slavery?
|
CrimeFighter
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1204 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 12th, 2008 12:31 am |
|
| Is anyone really still so naive as to believe that judges don't have political beliefs? The people who appoint them are idealogical politicians who give them a job based on their positions on a number of platform issues. Democrats want gays to marry, so they appoint judges who will interpret the law in accordance with that goal. The tired comparison between slavery and homosexuality has been so overused that it isn't worth refuting. Yes on Prop 102. Preserve marriage for a man and woman, not a couple of dudes.
|
TheBigShow
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1133 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 12th, 2008 12:07 am |
|
| you really don't understand how the legal system works do you? Judges don't hijack anything. The look at the legal arguenents and apply the basis of the state constitution to them. Some of those "hijacked" decisions made it possible for blacks and whites to be in the same school and ensure you are read your rights when you are arrested. What you want is to completely bypass one portion of our branches of government. Why have courts if the lynch mob should just be the final verdict?
|
CrimeFighter
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1204 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 11th, 2008 11:27 pm |
|
TheBigShow wrote: pssst....Arizona law already says marriage is one man and one woman. We voted this same nonsense down two years ago. Why our legislature is so concerned about this issue is beyond any sort of logic. Last time I checked, there are other more pressing issues to deal with.
pssst...no it doesn't, it hasn't been challenged in court by homos who married in other states. The version that didn't pass two years ago only lost because it would have restricted benefits to heterosexual domestic partners. This iteration fixed that glitch. Vote yes on Prop 102 and we won't have to worry about judges hijacking the Arizona marriage laws like they have already done in California.
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 11th, 2008 06:36 pm |
|
also of interest to TOQC residents... County Supervisor, County Sheriff and QCSD School Board
i voted the same way as you did on the initiatives.
Last edited on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 11:12 pm by QCVillager
|
QC Boiler
Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 11th, 2008 06:31 pm |
|
We are actually voting similarly. The difference being Prop 102. It's already illegal, and I don't think an amendment to the state constitution is necessary.
For me, Prop 105 is crazy. They want to count the votes of people that don't vote?! It's fortunate those who don't vote cannot vote for this one...Last edited on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 06:43 pm by QC Boiler
|
TheBigShow
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1133 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 11th, 2008 06:16 pm |
|
| pssst....Arizona law already says marriage is one man and one woman. We voted this same nonsense down two years ago. Why our legislature is so concerned about this issue is beyond any sort of logic. Last time I checked, there are other more pressing issues to deal with.
|
CrimeFighter
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1204 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 11th, 2008 05:51 pm |
|
The long awaited Crimefighter endorsements are now in. I'll start with the 2008 Arizona Propositions:
Prop 100: Yes. The last thing we need in this economy is a real estate transfer tax
Prop 101: Yes. Stave off universal healthcare while we can.
Prop 102: Yes. Marriage is for one man and one woman. Amazing that we have to vote on something this basic, but the right answer is Yes.
Prop 105: No. This is an attempt to hamstring the proposition process, thus further hampering our say in how our country is run.
Prop 200: No. Funded by Payday Loan sharks. Enough said.
Prop 201: No. A litigation attorney's windfall if this passes.
Prop 202: No. We already have an employer sanctions law. This waters it down.
Prop 300: No opinion. I'm voting to give our officials a bump in pay, but I don't really care either way on this one.
|
Current time is 08:41 pm | |
|