Transtic Nerve

How about study and do your work.... maybe good grades will come to you if you try.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by OlgaTheDwarf [/i] [B]Well, I don't follow everybody to the polling booths (neither do you, hopefully) but I didn't just say it was STRAIGHT people definition, I said it was the majority of people in the state of California. You assumed that it's just straight people. If my memory serves me correctly Proposition 22 passed with flying colors (something like, 68% to 32%). Which means that if it was straight or not, it's still a crap-load of people (who you still cannot force your beliefs on) who believe marriage is a "union between a man and a woman" not a "union between to lovers". My point is whether you like it or not, you cannot become a dictator, and force things on people who don't want it, at least not if you are trying to do things the right way. Like I said before, if the majority of people said "yay" to marriage being a deffinition of "union between two lovers", then, even if I don't agree with it, I really can't stop it. I would just expect that the "gay community" would have as much common sense as to respect that majority of peoples decisions, whether they like it or not. TN and Sadclown, you guy's can sit here and bring to the table your deffinitions of what marriage is, all you want. But, the most you can do is let your oppinions be heard. So until the day the majority of people vote to ban state bans on gay marriage, I will defend their bans on it. [/B][/QUOTE] Bush was elected president by the so called majority of people, yet still people protest over him?.... Do you expect me to just sit back and let some injustice like banning MYSELF from ever marrying someone to go unheard, I don't think so. You must be absolutely out of your god damned mind to think we are just going to sit back and let that go. Gay people have had the lesser freedoms than almost any other minority in this country. Only recently have laws started to be passed including gay people under civil rights. The last civil rights act was passed in 1964, did that include anything about gay people? Not specifically... Look you can say you're backing the state banning of it all you want, but I know you don't support it. You obviously have something against gay people, whether it be religious or personal, whatever it is, you're just hiding behind the states law to protect your views. If you don't want to let us get married, fine.... give us civil unions with the same things, except it's not religious and it's not "married"... I'm sure you'd have nothing against that would you? Who am I kidding... It's people like you that don't make this country very free at all. You can support the states decission to ban gay marriage, but that only means it's what you think as well, therefor you have a prejudice, and it's that prejudice that makes ths country so bad sometimes. I just want my right to share a life with someone I love, why do you think that's so wrong? If you can have it, why can't I?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Crimson Spider [/i] [B]....Then the house of represenatives and Senate and Supreme court have to revise it... [/B][/QUOTE] Since when does the Supreme Court have anything to do with laws being passed? The Supreme Court interprets the constitution and reviews cases.... it's a court, not a law making body. The Supreme Court is part of the Judicial branch, not the Legislative branch of the government. The Supreme Court only has the power to overturn a law or bill if a case is brought into it. hence why they can deem something as "Unconstitutional"... they have no say in the process of the law being made. And the Supreme Court answers to nobody. What they say is what shall be, not even the president can veto any ruling of the Supreme Court. The only way a decission by the Supreme Court can change is by another Supreme Court ruling. I heart Chibi Horsewoman.

Naked oil and glitter covered Ewan McGreggor.... how much better can you get?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by rttocs77 [/i] [B]TN I think there is a big difference between getting AIDs and being a teenage girl and getting pregnant. At least you can get rid of the baby, you can't get rid of AIDs. I still detest Jesse Jackson, in case anyone wanted to keep up with that. [/B][/QUOTE] Yes, I know, but I was more focusing on the fact they are both problems for their respective communities. And I don't particularly like Jesse Jackson either lol. I honestly just find him annoying.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]Don't you mean "legal" phone taps? :P [/B][/QUOTE] Technically they are still illegal, cause I cannot tap anyone's phone... only the oh-so-powerful government can. But you were just making a joke :p

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by rttocs77 [/i] [B]It's true more straight people have AIDS now, but it started as a 'gay' thing. [/B][/QUOTE] AIDS beginning is unknown.... believed to have started in Africa, where most of the cases are today, and not as a gay thing... gay people are simple more likely to get it because of the fact alot of gay people don't wear condoms. It' sbecome more associated with gay peopel because it's something we struggle with... much like how straight people struggle with teen pregnancy... and since gay people can't get pregnant with the same sex, it's basically the equivalent. [quote]Originally posted by OlgaTheDwarf [b]Why the heck is the "gay community" so bent over telling people how they should define "marriage". [/b][/quote] Where do STRAIGHT people get off telling people how to define marriage. Your own argument can be just as easily used against you. Its worthless. If you don't want gay people to be married, then give us civil unions... you're not even allowing that. We don't want to get married for religious reasons, we want it because marriage is a way to show how much two people love each other and we want the things that come with marriage. Tax exemptions, the ability to leave property and money to loved ones, etc etc etc. Did you know that if I was with another man and he died, that anything heleft to me in his will could be taken away by his family if they chose to do so? If I co-owned a house with him, they could take that away, they could take the car away.... I could be left with absolutely nothing... it's happened, look it up. By denying the right for two men or two women to marry or have the rights of marriage through civil union, you are denying that love between two people of the same sex exists, which is simply not true. I wouldn't expect you to know, you're straight. Whats the harm in letting two gay people get married? I still cannot find any logical reason that should disallow two gay people from marrying.... beside religious reasons, but thats out of the question, cause as I stated, gay people don't want to be married for religious purposes. Put yourself in our shoes for once.... how would you feel? That last comment was rather immature... wasn't really funny at all. Maybe you should work on your humour, cause you're not very funny.

So far, my freedoms haven't been violated... but... illegal phone taps, targeting protestors that was stated before, and pretty much everything else the Patriot Act allows I would NOT want to happen to me or anyone else who is a citizen of this country. The Patriot act and its components gives the government the ability to essentially take the rights of any person they feel a threat to the US away without large amounts of evidence against them and without representation, a freedom supposedly given to all Americans. They simply just take them all away cause they feel you may be a potential threat to the safety of the US.... when in fact, you may not be. But they don't care about that. They could ruin someone's life because of a simple "hunch" and I wouldn't want that happening to me, and I don't want that happening to other people.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Crimson Spider [/i] [B]::insert insanely long post that no one will read::[/B][/QUOTE] I guess you don't know how to read James post, or mine. I asked you to stop talking to me, this doesn't mean to continue responding... I'm done with you. James even asked us to stop argueing, yet you continue.... And no, to resond to one legitimate thing you said, I haven't changed my thinking about anything here. You don't know what I think and just because I don't say it, doesn't mean I'm not thinking it.

I'd rather have all my liberties... cause this is what my country was founded on. Freedom.... I am not the one who has the problem with radical Muslim terror groups. I didn't make them mad. They have no reason to hate me.... so why should I pay MY freedom because someone else screwed something up? If you wanna be safe, go ahead and give up your freedoms that everyone fought for, but I won't.... I plan to keep every freedom I have. It's not like the CIA didn't know these attacks were going to happen. It's been well documented that they had several pieces of information about it, yet did nothing. Now they want me to give away my freedom so they can "help" stop terrorism.... when they could have in the first place, yet decided not to?.... I don't think so. James, I can see your point... as many people think that way, but others don't, and I don't think they should have to give up their freedoms for something they don't believe in.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by rttocs77 [/i] [B] TN, you can dish it out but you can't take it back. I don't think you are arrogant in the least bit, if anyone is arrogant it is TN. He closed the last political thread because people disagreed with him. He is just being a whiny *****. [/B][/QUOTE] LOL.... I can take it.... i've taken more than you'll ever take. I am just smart enough to know when it's not worth my time to try an argue with someone as close minded as you two. I'm not changing what you think... you're not changing what I think... and i'm not closing this thread.... I think the only thing you teo have prooven is how ignorant and immature you are. If you want me to dish it back out, you're gonna have to do something more than talk BS to me. Quite frankly, everything you've said is BS.... and CS and you are the only people that don't see it, cause i'm not the only one who's posted that think your ideals are ridiculously insane. It's not worth my time to stop going to work, to stop doing school work to attempt to deal with both of your crap. It' s just annoying. Think what you think, you're both just little kids.... you don't know anything about life... and you never will with that attitude.... people will look at you and laugh like I do and keep walkin because you're a complete waste of their time, just like you are to me... so please just don't talk to me.... cause I'm just ignoring both of you from now on unless you can come up with somethinga little better than the absolute crap you've placed in this thread.... I also have several complaints against you CS from other members.... so it can't just be me... you must be doing something, which if you weren't selfishly in tune with your complete arrogance, you'd see that.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SadClown [/i] [B]He made it as a pop artist, not a rock artist. Thats what I mean. Don't get me wrong, I like Gackt, but he's turned into too much of a playboy for me. [/B][/QUOTE] I dunno how youc an consider any of his albums, maybe with the slight exception of Rebirth, as a "pop" album....they are all, esspecially MOON, rock influenced and related.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by rttocs77 [/i] [B]First, you are being very rude. I think you symbolize how hypocritical the majority of the Democratic party is. You expect everyone to act civil and polite, but the second someone says something you disagree with (and you are usually wrong about) you jump down their throat.[/quote][/b] I'm not rude, I'm simply blunt and straight forward (go figure), if you can't handle that, maybe you should go. You should also read what he says... and then read what you say. Judge not less ye be judged.... if you had any smarts, you'd know you're doing the exact same thing CS did, and the exact same thing I did. But ofcourse not, because you are judging their life before your own. I know what I say, and I'm not afriad to say it. And you shouldn't generalize myself and the democratic party... cause we're not all alike. But you wouldn't know that because you're just a kid. You only know what your republican parents anfd FOX news force feed you. [quote][b]The economy was going down before Bush came into office. Maybe if you were involved in economics or knew anything about the history of the economy, you would know that.[/b][/quote] The economy was in a regular depression. Because our economy is a capitalistic economy, on regular basis it has depressions. The economy was having a depression, after having the highest boom in years under Clinton. It was therefor due for a depression, which usuaully doesn't last long.... however, when Bush came into office, he came in during the regular depression, with his economic policies and the 9/11 attacks, well that certainly didn't help, and now it hasn't even got to where the depression was when he first came into office. Maybe when you pull your head out of your ***, you'd know that too. [quote][b]Also, let it be known that I whole-heartedly agree with everything Crimson Spider said. [/B][/QUOTE] Well then you're just as ignorant and insecure as he is. You know, I try to look at two sides of an argument (in this case Republican and Democrat), but when your head is so far up your *** where you can't see or hear anything elese but yourself, it's not worth wasting my time. When you two can pull that head out of your *** maybe you both won't look like complete idiots to everyone else on the board, cause if you don't think you do, which I'm sure you don't, you're both very wrong. I don't hate Republicans.... in fact I like alot of them (had McCain won the Primary I would have voted for him, and not Gore or any Democrat for one example), but you two certainly give horrid names to your party. I wouldn't certainly never want to be part of whatever you two are. I just honestly don't think Bush, or his brother, is doing a good job. I don't expect anyone to know about his brother so I won't go into that, but I have nothing personal against them, I just think they COULD do a hell of alot better if they'd think a hell of alot more. Every poltician lies... every politician doesn't stupid things.... however, with the predicament Bush has been in, I think he could have done alot better than he has or will do. I suppose thats why his approval rating is under 50% last I checked, correct me if I'm wrong. Republicans have their problems, Democrats have their problems.... and they both exploit the hell out of each and every one of them... As far as I see it, one is no better than the other. If you want to argue with me, then argue with me. But it'll do you no good. I'm listening to you as much as your listening to me, which is pretty much nothing at all. Your words are falling on deaf ears. So why continue to argue about something as useless as this. If Bush wins the election, so be it, but you're not gonna convince me he's a good president, and you're certainly not going to convince me to vote for him....

Economy going up is one thing..... the economy going up to where it was BEFORE.... thats totally different, and thats what is happening.... The economy was in much better shape BEFORE Bush came into office, it slumped down, and now on the rise back to where it was.... not to above where it previously was...

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Crimson Spider [/i] [B]It's almost funny how people go on talking about stuff that they have very little to no knoweldge about. [/B][/QUOTE] Yeah, you tend to do that alot. I'm not even going to try to respond to your post cause it's not worth my time to convince you how stupid you really are.

You're 12... what does it even matter?.... shouldn't you be out playing video games with your friends or 2-hand touch football down the street?

lol... he made it out of anger, stupidity, and frustration.... Everyone does something they regret out of anger... why is this any different?... Whether or not is what racist, well that pretty obvious, but whether or not it should matter... well it was a very long time ago...

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Raiha [/i] [B][color=royalblue]Why are we talking about Hitler? He WAS German. We're talking about Saddam Hussein. He's Iraqui. Hitler's dead. Saddam is more than likely alive. Therefore, he still has the, pardon the cliche, potential to kill people. We're not worried about dead German dictators, we're worried about living terrorists with extreme hatred against the U.S. And it is on that claim and a few others that we base this war. So deal.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] I was comparing the two and what they've done, which has been similar, and asking why they are considered two different things... I've quite aware Hitler is dead.... but what he's done still remains in our minds.... Saddam is still alive, but what he's done still remains as well, therefor I am comparing the two.... and why does it matter they are from two different countries?.... Hitler was Austrian too, not German.

It's a glitch in the Matrix, no need to worry.

Who said the AIDS thing?.... anyway, it's been prooven that more straight people have AIDS than gay people... so it's not gay people just spreading AIDS lol... just thought I'd clear that up.

Hitler did far worse things... and even some of what you mentioned as far as killing and gassing people, yet I've never once seen Hitler called a terrorist.... I've heard Hitler called a murderer, a dictator, and pretty much everything BUT a terrorist. I think anyone considers Saddam as a terroriist is because it seems only Muslims get that title. In fact the only time I've ever heard the word terrorist apply to anyone but Muslim people was in North Korea and the Die Hard movies. So why don't we call Hitler a terrorist when it's pretty obvious he's been related to Saddam Hussein, done similar things, yet you refer to Saddam as a terrorist and not Hitler. Why not refer to Saddam as you did Hitler... a murderer and a dictator.... I'm very confused on this matter, would someone please tell me? Anyway, I have no personal vandetta with Bush, just with his crappy brother.... but he's still a bad president... He's no where near Clinton... he's no where near his fathe ror half the other preisdents we've had.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Heaven's Cloud [/i] [B][color=indigo]Personally, I don?t give a damn what the Muslim community thinks of the US, as long as they are able to make up their own minds about America and aren?t being force fed anti-US opinions by terrorists. That is what Saddam was, that is what Bin Laden was, terrorists.[/color][/quote][/b] Saddam is far from any type of terrorist. Murderer, yes, terrorist no. He hasn't planted any bombs to blow up people. He hasn't flown planes into the world trade centers... he had nothing to do with any of that.... the only thing Saddam has done was kill Kurds.... and that was something that has been going on for many many years, not something since Saddam came in. Now about what you said about the Muslim community... Would you give a damn if your mother was one of the people killed in the trade centers because of what the Muslim community thinks of the US? How about later on if you are face to face with a Muslim with a gun and your american and he doesn't like Americans.... and therefor he shoots you... because of what he thinks of American.... you'd care then wouldn't you? The Muslims were such peaceful people once... and then "we" just had to go and start crusades with them... and take their land away.... I couldn't imagine why they are so god damn upset. Oh yeah I forgot to also mention the Patriot Act.... NO one should serve under a president who even remotely came close to oking this bill.... how can anyone support a man who takes your freedoms away.... shame....

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Heaven's Cloud [/i] [B][color=indigo]It seems like the two biggest complaints against Bush are the war and the economy. I have yet to read a logical, slightly convincing post on why the war on Iraq is a bad thing[/quote][/b] Having American soldiers die for 2 men we can't even find.... Thats a bad thing. The administration lied to us about weapons of mass destruction.... none have yet to be found, yet on average, 2 soldiers die every day..... and for what cause? Hussein was also found to have no links to Osama Bin Laden or the 9/11 attacks, or any recent terrorism we've encountered. In fact the only logical thing to go into this war was for a humanitary cause to stop Hussien from killing Kurds... but they never mentioned that when we went into this war..... that and the whole oil thing. Which has obviously been a big part in the reasoning for the war... I purely think this war is based on revenge and the fact that Bush needed "something to do" because he doesn't want to deal with our slumpy economy or the fact he can't seem to find Osama Bin Laden. The economy is bad because of a few things. The 9/11 attacks, and Bush's economic policy. We WERE coming out of a depression, but that all changed after everyone got "affraid" and Bush gave all that money back to everyone, no to mention tax cuts for the rich, and so on. Put it this way, the economy might be in a slump because of some cycle, but Bush has only made it worse with his economic policies. WHich has made the economy worse and not helping it recover.... All he's said about the economy is "spend your money"... lol How pathetic. And then he goes off and ignores the problem hoping it to get better and it hasn't. He said we couldn't just ignore Saddam hussien or he'll get worse... well instead he ignored out economy, and looks where his advice got us. His job as president is to deal with his country first and foremost, and an overseas war about seemingly nothing and ignoring our economy is not doing that job at all. He's lied several times to the American people, he took it in his own hands after the world disagreed to go ahead with the use of force on Iraq, gaining us potential enemies in powerful countries, not to mention having the rest of the Muslim world hate us even more. I see nothing good coming from this presidency...

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wrist cutter [/i] [B]THANKS FOR ALL THE MANY COMMENTS ALL OF YOU. [/B][/QUOTE] But only 1 guy.... ohhhhh..... I see.....

Wiccan seems ot be the more popular of the two... you don't hear much of pagaenism anymore (except from like lesbians or something lol... this is from personal experience) But it seems the wiccan beliefs have been on a rise lately, esspecially with the young people. I have actually been surprised how much people have endowed in the wiccan belief...