eleanor

[font="trebuchet ms"] So, now that Thanksgiving (aka best holiday ever) is over, and because I'm a Christmas-whore, I decided that the wish list thread could be made. :) My wish list: [img]http://xs121.xs.to/xs121/07476/86178_WC9580.jpg[/img] [img]http://xs121.xs.to/xs121/07476/89712_WB3132_m_HOL07.jpg[/img] [img]http://xs221.xs.to/xs221/07476/0382_1222_008.jpg[/img] [img]http://xs121.xs.to/xs121/07476/230395667.jpg[/img] [img]http://xs121.xs.to/xs121/07476/86972_WB3139.jpg[/img] [img]http://xs121.xs.to/xs121/07476/88321_KV4814.jpg[/img] [img]http://xs121.xs.to/xs121/07476/13899919_01_b.jpg[/img] [img]http://xs321.xs.to/xs321/07476/iphone_touch_500.jpg[/img] [img]http://xs121.xs.to/xs121/07476/p_princess_edpns_50ml.jpg[/img] [img]http://xs321.xs.to/xs321/07476/0382_1204_086.jpg[/img] -And everything from [i]Ralph Lauren Rugby[/i]. Curse Atlanta for not being NYC! >_< Whew. :p Of course, this is in a dream world where I'm a millionaire. If I had to a few things from the list, it'd be the pea coats and the Ralph Lauren Romance.[/font]

[font="trebuchet ms"] I'll claim that. Edit: sorry, I ended up being pretty busy. :( [/font]

[quote name='Deus ex Machina'][COLOR="DarkOrange"]Anime chickzors are usually submissive, and like Lunox said, otherwise evil lol.[/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] It's like feminism never happened! :p[/font] [quote name='Hero of Zero'][COLOR="SlateGray"] Well, Lolita's a best seller... Ann Rice... There are actually a lot of people who've made careers just like that. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] :twitch: I hope to god you did not think [i]Lolita[/i] was a erotic book.[/font]

[font="trebuchet ms"] If you are short on money, I would suggest considering someplace other than NYC. Living there is expensive, even with financial aid. My sister attends NYU and gets an almost free ride, but there's a lot of money to just there. If you're just looking for a good school and want to work somewhere like Disney, somewhere like the California Institute of the Arts (if you're interested in animation, this is pretty much [i]the[/i] place to go) or Rhode Island School of Design are options.[/font]

[quote name='Dagger']I always found that amusing. I guess the problem is partly that most anime can't bear to include [i]un[/i]attractive characters of any kind to begin with, so even if a character is supposed to be really outstanding, s/he usually looks about the same as everyone else... ~Dagger~[/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] Yeah, I see your point, but faces can be drawn differently and still be attractive. I guess my main beef is the fact that they don't even try; everyone would be carbon-copies if you just took away the hair. I will say that I love the character designs of [i]Mononoke[/i]. I might be gushing because I'm also taking into consideration the overall style of the anime, but it was so refreshing to see unique character designs within every episode.[/font]

[font="trebuchet ms"] Whoever designed the Haruhi girls is awful. Not to point out that one person, but it's just an example of what I dislike about most anime styles. All their faces are the same. Their eyes are identitcal, and their face shapes, everything. The only think that's different is the hair style and the eye colors, which doesn't say much about talent. If there [i]are[/i] differences, they're not strong at all. The same can be said for 99% of all anime; Haruhi just came to mind first. Other anime with bland face designs can strengthen things with clothes and other stylistics designs, but Haruhi pretty much has same everything. Haruhi is supposed to be 'really pretty', but her face is the same as everyone else's. :|[/font]

[font="trebuchet ms"] *looks at clock* I just spend the past 6 hours researching and writing an outline for my paper on [i]Heart of Darkness[/i] and its archetypal symbols and journey. :)

[font="trebuchet ms"]From Merriam-Webster: [b]Main Entry:[/b] por·nog·ra·phy Listen to the pronunciation of pornography [b]1:[/b] the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement [b]2:[/b] material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement [b]3:[/b] the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction I think those are pretty good definitions. Sex can be the primary focus of a movie, but if it's not aimed at creating sexual excitement (even though viewers could still be, just because it's sex), it's not really pornography. I mean, sex scenes or sexual scenes in a medium can be arousing, but I don't think that's warrant enough to label the whole thing as pornography.[/font] [quote name='Dagger']That's misrepresenting it a little, I think. Sex & sexual innuendo come out in different ways in different cultures. Japan has way more ero-based games than western countries (plus stuff like Hard Gay, haha). At the same time, it seems that female pop stars (for instance) are expected to cultivate this absurd virginal image, which is almost the exact opposite of celebrity culture in the US. ~Dagger~[/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] At the same time, how many of the female characters in Japanese ero-games/hentai are virginal, innocent girls? Even if there are some females portrayed as dominant or something, they're usually evil. The amount of pornography in Japanese culture could just be repressed feelings. It's easy to pick up on the fact that a lot of sex scenes in Japanese pornography are sometimes borderline non-con. This is just my general understanding, though. I have no idea if what I'm saying is really that true. lol [/font]

[font="trebuchet ms"] Most of these cliques and groups and 'wars' will end in high school. (I mean, if you do continue them in high school, everyone will hate you, but that's beside the point.) I think middle school is rampant with cliques because it's just that time period in someone's life where belonging is important, and people take their "individuality" to an extreme. Not to mention the prevalent cliques in middle school are so washed out; it's funny to me that a lot of people think 'preps' are people who wear Abercrombie & Fitch or American Eagle and are the sluts or whatnot. I think it mellows out a lot in high school, or at least in mine. They aren't really 'cliques', but you end up hanging out with the people that are in your classes. So there are the orchestra/band kids, the theatre kids, the regular-classes kids, the AP-classes kids, etc. There's always in-betweens of course, and it's not exclusive at all. It's hilarious how inaccurately the media depicts high schools. [/font]

[quote name='taperson'][COLOR="DeepSkyBlue"][SIZE="1"]I second that. But I don't draw... does that make sense? Anyway, same basic concept. I love boys. So much. :)[/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] I guess anyone who appreciates physical beauty can be like that. :) [/font]

[quote name='Odin M Yggdrasi']The easiest method to restrain a violent woman is to glomp them, and not let go. Just mind the feet, and some will knee in the crotch. Use caution though, some girls can and do beat the crap out of guys very easily, I've had a few run-ins with those, and if I ever pissed off the girl I am dating now I'm sure she could too.[/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"]What? lol I think Boo meant lifting women up and putting them on a shoulder in a playful/flirting way, not a take-down method. [/font]

[quote name='Boo'][size=1] You may only lift women up and lift them over your shoulder or things like that. :)[/size][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] Seconded. :catgirl:[/font]

[font="trebuchet ms"] I'm straight, but I have lesbian moments. When I see a gorgeous model or actress, or person in general, and I can't help but admire. I'm inclined to think that I do this because I draw and therefore appreciate aesthetics more closely, which I think is a valid reason. The woman's body is just more interesting and dynamic and 'beautiful' than a guy's, so that could be another reason. Even when I draw I have more fun drawing women. :p But yeah, guys are definitely what really turns me on. [/font]

[font="trebuchet ms"] The thread idea popped into my head today, and it's basically what it says! The original titles was "things you sort of hate now but will look back on fondly", but I thought it'd be better if I cut it down. For me it'll be my newspaper's bed day or late debate meeting (just got back from one right now!). For newspaper bed day basically all the editors get together in the publications lab and finish 80% of our paper (as a member of newspaper, it's a rule at my school to procrastinate and dump all the work on your section editors ;)). Usually we stay from the end of school until 11:30-midnight, either working, cursing the slow computers*, joking around, making Chick-fil-A runs, trying to eat almost frozen chicken from Kroger, and editing the hell out of everything. Everyone 'dreads' bed day, but I know after I leave high school it'll be something I look back on fondly. For all the faux-complaining we do over bed day, it's always pretty entertaining... although sometimes it can just be stressful and irritating. *As in really, really slow. My other one is the debate meetings I have with Lincoln-Douglass debaters, which is basically just us starting out critiquing each others' debates and predicting arguments and somehow ends up with everyone clowning around or making food runs. [/font]

[font="trebuchet ms"] Halloween party! Have fun guessing which one I am. :p [img] http://xs121.xs.to/xs121/07461/jbpirateme1.png[/img] [img]http://xs121.xs.to/xs121/07461/jbpirateme2.png[/img][/font]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']At this point I think you are dragging this out more than is necessary, my point was that the implication that most people were lazy was inaccurate. You seem to want to focus only on the aspect of people who are not really interested and I was trying to point out that it was far more than that. At this point you seem to be missing that since you keep knee jerking back to it.[/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] You can't expect me to not reply when you argue against what I said in my post, and my 'lazy' part was one of the least important aspects of my original argument.[/font] [quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']And don’t start thinking that I’m saying you or any other teenager shouldn’t care. That’s not what I was getting at and I’m quite sure you know that. So honestly, try lightening up a little, instead of being so quick to take offense. [/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"]Things I take time to argue and write about on a forum are things I care about, so pulling the "lighten up" thing doesn't help. This will also be my last post on the matter, as it really has nothing to do with my original argument. [/font]

[font="trebuchet ms"] I would go through any 'gross' thing for a millions bucks. Drinking a cup of spit for a million dollars is just not a question for me, I'd do it in a heartbeat. At one point in my life I decided that getting in a tank with cockroaches would also be something I'd do for a million. Or even half a million. :) I would only sell my body if the person taking it was someone I approved, lol. Just kidding... [spoiler]sort of.[/spoiler] [/font]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']I asked you to stop making assumptions and I'll do it again. Do a little research please, you are again making baseless assumptions as to why people seem to not care or perhaps in the end don't vote. The information isn't that hard to find. This isn't the most current one but it is an example of valid reasons as to why people either don't keep up or in spite of knowing what's going on don't vote: [URL="http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/cenbr984.pdf"][U]Click[/U][/URL] To give you even more here's a clip from that article: [I]In 1996, for example, slightly more than 1 in 5 nonvoters (22 percent) reported they could not take time off from work or school or were too busy to vote. In 1980, only 8 percent gave this reason.[/I] [/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] I'm saying this after studying it in my class with a teacher and recent textbook, so no, I'm not pulling all of this out of the air. I'll ask you to stop making assumptions about me. For a 10-year-old census, I'd say the odds that 'Don't care' have jumped even higher; the 'No time off/busy' leads by 4% from ten years ago. Also directly from your source: “It appears a significant proportion of those who are registered are more apathetic about the political process these days,” Casper said."[/font] [quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']Don't think that teenagers who can't even vote are a true indication of whether or not people are lazy.[/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] You're right, I must not use the teenage population to conclude on the American public, but just because we can't vote doesn't mean we shouldn't care about politics. So what if I can't vote? I still think it's important that I know what's going on.[/font] [quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']I already provided the answer to that, the bill in it's current form has quite a few loop holes. I already linked to an article showing the potential legal issues with it. I already know that it's been around for a long time, I say it was shoved through because they changed it to make it more acceptable and baby steps, if taken in the wrong direction take you down instead of up.[/quote] [font="trebuchet ms"] I've now read the link I missed earlier, but I really don't think those reasons are enough to think this legislation is weak. It still has its core purposes and laws; the only reason from the link I think is really a problem is the last one about religious institutions and such. But realistically, I believe making these changes was what was needed. Like I said before, civil rights legislation comes in small steps. What's wrong with baby steps when they're still steps? Further legislation will be passed, just like in history.[/font] [quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']You're misquoting me here, I was simply agreeing with Neuvoxraiha that acceptance of change wasn't immediate I did not say it was a reason to not even try. Nor did I say we shouldn't pass it because of immediate effect or controversy, I said we shouldn't pass it because it has too many issues, something that I provided a link to showing the potential legal loopholes. It is a waste of time to put a bill through that would later require doing it again because the first one has enough loopholes to make enforcing it difficult. Or even worse, leaves those who would discriminate with valid reasons to get away with firing someone who is non-heterosexual.[/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] There is [i]one[/i] potential loophole in the link you provided me, and the other reasons were just criticisms about what was cut out. I don't think the one loophole that you've identified can be called "enough loopholes [that would] make enforcing [ENDA be] difficult". And I really don't think three problems is "too many issues", especially when most of it were changes made so that the bill would pass. And the one loophole the bill does bring up would be rather hard to prove in court, it's not like employers everywhere are going to go to the courts with that loophole. It's not a waste of time to put a bill through when amendments can be added later. When Congress made the amendment saying blacks could vote, white people imposed poll taxes. Congress amended that. White people found millions of ways to keep black people down, but does that make civil right legislation useless? Hardly. If it were ever a waste to pass any legislation that would be amended later, a lot of bills in Congress wouldn't be passed. If it's just a 'waste of time', why have amendments in the first place? [/font]

[quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]At the college I used to attend, I can name any number of occasions where a homosexual friend of a friend was in the same bathroom as me. An example is when I was showering and came out wrapped in a towel and there he was in the female bathroom, brushing his teeth. I'm comfortable enough in my sexuality to not freak out. But if it had been my uptight Christian room mate and not me? She would've completely lost it. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] Is this one person supposed to be the norm? [/font] [quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Barney Frank isn't exactly the most shining example of American democratic process. I don't like him because he's an incompetent jerk, not because he's homosexual. Remember that hissy fit he threw on the House Floor? The time he called Santorum a 'jerk'? I remember. And woah now. Not EVERYONE loves Clinton. I can think of the almost half of the general public that voted for the other guy. And you were what? Six? And not EVERYONE loves JFK. Mostly because of that Bay of Pigs, Marilyn Monroe... ...thing... Do I not count because I'm well informed AND a scholar?[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] No, you don't count. Didn't I make that clear in my post? You make up a minority in the US, and that's why I use the term 'general public'. Everyone was a loose term I used for most everyone, and it's generally true. Clinton is hugely popular (in a positive way), denying that would be ignorant.[/font] [quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Oh yeah, I also don't really happen to deeply passionately care what laws are passed, because I don't live or die with politics. But interesting note. Congress has a 18% approval rating. Even Bush beats them.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] I never said everyone had to be deeply passionate about politics, I said if you want to argue about them, you should at least be well-informed. It pisses me off when someone uses the defense of "interest groups have corrupted Congress" as to why they don't care about politics, when usually it's just because the person doesn't care about politics, or doesn't feel like keeping up with it. I'll note that the Congress approval rating is low because people are angry that they aren't doing more to stop Bush. The Dems have been rather weak in their party unison, but it's not like getting things done in Congress is a piece of cake when the President is vetoing everything to try and be fiscally responsible now that he knows the economy is in the drain. [/font] [quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]And your reference to Giuliani? He is NOT going to be the Republican nominee. He's an old fashioned Democrate, and a New Yorker, and he's lived his life like one. Most Americans don't live like New Yorkers. He's got so much baggage that it's amazing the media's held out this long on reporting it [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] Thanks for nitpicking on the least-important part of that argument. It doesn't matter WHO it is, it could be Giuliani or Huckabee or Romney or Paul, it's still the same principle. Big ****ing deal if Giuliani won't be the next candidate, did I say he was going to be? No, because I was just using him as an example. What is you claiming that Giuliani won't be the candidate doing for your argument? Nothing, because it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. [/font] [quote name='SunfallE'][COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]Actually, it's not that hard to do a little research to find that many members of congress have all sorts of issues. From spousal abuse, being arrested for fraud, writing bad checks, doing time for assault, bad credit, drug related charges, getting arrested for shoplifting and for drunk driving. Just do a search on google and you'll find all sorts of interesting things about those supposedly non-corrupt congress members. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] Ok, but is this supposed to represent all members in Congress? A lot of them are corrupt, but that doesn't mean all of them are. I'm not saying Congress is some sort of beacon of truth and light, because it isn't, but I really get tired of people claiming to not care about politics because Congress is corrupt (which was what I was trying to get at). A lot of this is angry talk, but that doesn't mean I don't believe what I'm saying at its core. [/font] [quote name='SunfallE'][COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]The law about wealth doesn't stop them from being wealthy to begin with, and to accuse people you don't even know of being lazy as a reason why campaigns need money? That's a bit of a stretch really. Quite a few people get informed without paying attention to the campaigns that are run. Because you know... they aren't lazy at all.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] No, I don't think it's that much of a stretch. The deciding factor that most people use to vote is what they see on tv, and they don't bother actually researching the candidates. Is this lazy? Yes. Has the advent of media forced campaigns to raise millions upon millions of dollars because people now rely mostly on the tv? Yes. Why is this a stretch? No, not everyone is lazy. But a lot of people are.[/font] [quote name='SunfallE'][COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]Anyway, in the end I am cautiously in favor of this bill, and the only reason I say cautiously is because I need to read up on it to fully understand just what it entails. I only know that like the article Rach linked to, job discrimination based on sexual preference is common in Utah. Especially in the education system. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] I'm being genuine here when I say I love that you're doing this. [/font] [quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']I'll thank you to not assume that most people are too lazy. Honestly, that's just rude. They may not be as vocal as the others, but to assume that people are lazy? Far from it, and for you to assume that, is in itself[I] lazy[/I]. Anyway, as much as I am in favor of doing away with this type of discrimination, I'm not sure if this bill is the means since everything I have read indicates that it's far to weak to really do any good. And I really dislike legislation that is shoved through for the sake of getting it there instead of trying to do it right the first time. Though seeing how this has been a long fight, I'm not sure when that will ever happen.[/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] If they're not lazy, they don't care. And I'm not willing to back down from that. The political involvement in the US is horrendously low, the lowest it's ever been. Why? Because people are either don't care or don't care to do anything about it. I'm probably biased because I'm a teenager, and I can tell you for sure that 95% of teenagers have no idea what the hell is going on in politics, which I find incredibly sad. Why is ENDA far too weak? The actual content of the legislation? It's pretty straight forward. Do you mean it's weak because so many Congress members aren't willing to vote yes for it, and Bush has already announced that he'll veto it? ENDA was not 'shoved through'. ENDA is thirty years in the making. Multiple delays were made on its latest voting so more debate could follow. I don't think ENDA was 'shoved through' because sponsors of the bill felt it important to get it to pass the House to say something, even if they knew it wouldn't pass the Senate or the president. All civil rights legislation has come in small steps, and I believe that even if this was a tiny step, it was still a step. [/font] [quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']Bill or not, people are not going to suddenly be more accepting of non heterosexuals. You can't take something like that and toss it out the window just because of legislation that prevents discrimination.[/quote] [font="trebuchet ms"] When did a civil rights bill ever have a sudden impact of acceptance? Never. That doesn't mean it's important to pursue those types of bills. It's gradual change we're aiming for here. Another pet peeve is people who say we shouldn't pass legislation because it won't have immediate impact or it'll cause too much controversy. Isn't that what progressive legislation and action is there to do? Where would we be now if Brown v. Education hadn't happened? I know court cases are different from legislation, but what I'm trying to say is activist decisions by our branches is what propels the nation forward sometimes. [/font]

[quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]I never said that a representative of any body of office had made that argument on record. This is something the grassroots American groups are angry about. And what they say can be found on any blog with a Republican slant. Furthermore, no bill should ever be slipped through any part of the government. Even if you are afraid. The American people, no matter what they believe, have a RIGHT to know what laws are being put through.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] Ok, exactly how many gay people do into the showering areas/restrooms/etc. of the opposite gender? Are there any statistics? This is what I think 'grasping for straws' is. It reminds me of people who argued that terrorists could sneak through the Mexican border and bomb the US, and then could ask someone: "Do YOU want to be bombed?" Clearly, no, but did you really just make that argument? In reality, most of the people arguing this are just people who don't like immigrants. Furthermore, just because a bill 'slips' through doesn't mean it's kept secret from the public; it means national media never paid attention to it because the representatives didn't alert media of it. If the American people want their right, they need to look it up themselves, not rely on the tv. The public always has access to Congressional bills through the Congress website or just a simple online search, it's just that most people are too lazy to do it. [/font] [quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Do you realize that Republican candidates distancing themselves from the President in office right now are doing exactly what they've done for years? If you want controversy, Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus. Vice President Aaron Burr shot someone to death in a duel. JFK was a philandering, if well meaning drug addict. Bill Clinton had hundreds of people connected to him die under mysterious circumstances during his 8 years in office. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"]You just argued that Bush is looking out for future Republican elected officials, but then said candidates are always distancing themselves from the incumbent, so your argument is invalid. I'm not saying Bush is the only president that has done wrong, I'm saying he'll probably be remembered a lot for doing wrong. Lincoln? Everyone loves him because of the Emancipation Proclamation. Clinton? Everyone loves him because of our economy. JFK? Everyone loves him because he was JFK. And just to stop any debate on semantics, but 'everyone' I mean the general public, not historical scholars or well-informed people. [/font] [quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Candidates want to come in on their own power, not riding his coattails. What he does shouldn't have anything to do with them, but it does. And this is all a big political game. The rules of logic have less to do with it than we'd like. Money and politics baby. That's all this is. Reps don't really care about homosexual discrimination or any other number of things, they get paid by special interest groups to do their thing. Or they think that doing this whole Congress thing for a career is a good gig. Sad but true. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] Is Bush enacted ENDA, Giuliani wouldn't give a **** about Bush's personal feelings or whatever; he'd use it reinforce his stances on gay rights. What Bush does effects Republican candidates in that it gives them a chance to renounce or support, which still doesn't fit with your argument that "Bush is considering the future" of Republican officials. "Money and politics"? Just because the media hypes up PACs means all Congress members are corrupt and evil? :rolleyes: People think all Congress members are in it for money and power, and that's a bunch of BS. A lot are, a lot aren't. PACs support [b]campaigns[/b], not personal wealth. There are actually federal laws on PACs that ban the personal wealth growth of a Congress member by PACs, and while PACs can find loopholes, it's not like no one cares and accepts it as the norm. Jack Abramoff isn't representative of everyone in Washington. Campaigns need money because now people are too lazy to actually learn about politics and rely on TV ads and the media. If you want to say "congress is corrupt and follows money" and not do anything about it, don't complain about it either. Tell "Reps don't really care about homosexual discrimination" to Tammy Baldwin or Barney Frank, who are gay members who, clearly, don't "really care about homosexual discrimination". [/font]

[quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="times new roman"] It is also intellectually dishonest to equate black Americans with gay Americans. You're talking about race and trying to equate it with sexual orientation. This law was written for the 3% of the population that wants to be a protected class. When there's a law passed that defends the 65% of Christians from being discriminated against by homosexuals in the workplace, then I'll stand up and cheer.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] No, it's not. I'm talking about upholding anti-discrimination in the US. Because gays only make 3% of the population, it doesn't matter if they're discriminated against in the work place? That makes no sense. Majority doesn't count for everything, that's why minority right exist. It's intellectually dishonest to think my argument is invalid only because 3% of the population is gay.[/font] [quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="times new roman"] But as far as Bush making a dick move? He's considering the future of any Republican ever elected to office again. Throwing in bogus statistics about statistics and the 'illegal war' has no bearing on your argument and instead makes it look like you're grasping at straws. If Bush signs this bill into law, it is only a matter of time before other pieces of legislation are passed to make discrimination a crime where pedophiles are concerned. It's a slippery slope, and don't forget that this bill was originally not a big deal because it was being quietly slipped through the various venues of the government for a vote. This is a representative republic, and the people of America have a voice of their own. It's premature to say that Bush will automatically veto the bill when it hasn't even passed the Senate where it will in fact, most likely, assuredly go down to defeat.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] How is vetoing the bill considering the future of any Republican ever elected to office again? Do you realize that all of the Republican candidates right now are trying to distance themselves from Bush? Do you think the Iraq war, our tremendous deficit, and the recession and possible stagflation our economy will undergo is not going to make Bush one of the most controversial and possibly one of the most disliked presidents in history? I NEVER said the war was 'illegal'. I said half of American didn't support it, which is pretty much true. How is this grasping at straws? It's was quietly being slipped because people were afraid it would be denied out right, not because it wasn't 'important'. ENDA has been fought for for about thirty years; it's not just something people decided to slap together and slip though because they didn't really care about it. No, you obviously didn't read my first post. Bush has ALREADY stated he will veto the bill, even if it passes the Senate, which is already highly unlikely, I'm not just 'guessing' that Bush will veto it, he [i]will[/i]. [/font] [quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="times new roman"]Now that people know that this bill is about to be voted on, they will call their representatives and Bush will never find this bill on his desk. If he does? He'll do right by his base, and by the majority of Americans that do not find this bill Constitutional.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"]I already said that the bill was very unlikely to pass the Senate. Please try and read my posts. [/font] [quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="times new roman"]One of the major arguments I hear against this bill is the issue of gays and lesbians finding their way into showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms of those of the opposite gender. If you were a parent, would you want ANY male in the same bathroom as your daughter? This opens a path for potential pedophiles to share the same bathroom as your 10 year old. Say I'm a hater, but this is potentially possible. This isn't crazy theory, this could very well happen if this bill becomes the law of the land.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] What Representative or Senator of the US Congress has ever said that? I'm really just curious. I never never heard of this, ever, and I would just really like to get links or sources on this. [/font]

[quote name='Aceburner']The most influential homophobe I know of right now is Fred Phelps. And that's because of his message of hate, not position of leadership. From my understanding, homosexual employment is pretty easy to come by, but maybe that's coming from a liberal state. I can't really speak for the rest of the country. All I know is that I myself have heard of no such problem. Besides, I could swear the Constitution already covered this. Something about "all men are created equal." [/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] Like James already said, I think this just shows that some people are just unaware of the fact that gays face in the US. I do think because you live in a liberal state (where exactly?), you don't realize the importance of having a federal law that would ban employee discrimination against gays throughout the country. Questioning ENDA's viability is like questioning why we even had to make a law banning employee discrimination against blacks, or women, or whatever. It was just needed. Also, "all men are created equal" is in the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution. [/font] [quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"] ...but since anti-discrimination laws are already in effect on a national level, ENDA is completely and utterly pointless.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] Actually, there isn't any against gay people. That's why ENDA isn't pointless. [/font] [quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]It is ILLEGAL to ask a potential employee their sexual orientation, and those that make it obvious, or even answer questions that could inform the employer of their orientation are just unaware of this fact. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] No, it's not illegal in many states. It's perfectly fine in many states to ask a potential employee if he's gay or not.[/font] [quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]In the same vein, it's illegal to discriminate against hiring females, people of a certain religion, or those in a certain age group. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] Yeah, but none of those federal anti-discrimination laws include gays. [/font] [quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Oh yes. Legislate away, but employers are still going to find some excuse to not hire people they don't want to hire. And as far as gay president? ......No. And why would Bush veto such a bill? Aside from the fact that it would destroy any standing he'd have with his political base, there would be more than just a few Americans that would loathe this move.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] Legislation isn't a bunch of useless words; do you think major changes would've occurred if civil rights legislation wasn't introduced? What were we going to do, sit around and wait for society to all agree black people were the same as white people? Duh, a lot of employers will still go against the law, but it still brings about gradual, even if slow, change. Should this impede the front to make anti-discrimination against gays laws? (If anyone thinks 'yes', the biggest problem with US politics isn't its bipartisan nature, or PACs, or interest groups, or whatever, it's politically apathetic people who stubbornly say "I don't care" and then ***** about things later. And no, this isn't directed at you, Neuvoxraiha.) And seriously, I don't care if Bush is a politician, it's still a dick move. I knew he would veto it, but I personally think it's stupid. It's like saying a president who vetoes civil rights legislation is just 'doing his job' because his supporters don't want it. That's BS to me. It's not like he's can run again for office, either. He's already created the biggest deficit in US history because of a war half of America didn't agree with, and now we're possible going to stagflation, and definitely a recession. He's not going to be remembered well. [/font]

[quote name='Aceburner'] Really the only problem I see with this legislation is that I don't really see what is keeping homosexuals from unhindered employment in the first place.[/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] Possibly people who hate gay people. Just a thought.[/font]

[font="trebuchet ms"] For those of you who don't know, ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) is an act making a federal law that prohibits discrimination against employees based on sexual orientation. Gay rights advocates have been trying to pass this legislation for years, but finally this year it was given serious consideration. The main problem that people had with it was when 'transgender' people were added to the list; it sparked a debate between realists who knew the bill would only pass if that part were omitted and idealists who wanted ENDA to represent all people. The transgender part was eventually omitted after lengthier-than-usual debate over the bill, and it actually passed. While there's not chance the bill was become an actual law (very slim chances that it will pass in the Senate and Bush has already announced that he will veto ENDA no matter what), it's a small victory for now. I'm glad the House was able to pass this, just as show that they support this kind of legislation. Although right now I've found another reason to dislike Bush and some Republicans, who claim the bill will violate the 1st Amendment because religious people shouldn't have to hire gay people when it goes against their religion. Hilariously bad defense, but that's what they do I guess.[/font]

[font="trebuchet ms"] Some girls need to be slapped in the face; that's why we have other bitchy girls to do it. It all works out in the end. [/font]