Support NeoGAF

[Diablos]

This is unfair. But it's way too late in the game to influence anyone's vote. All it will do is get Bush suppoters fired up and piss off Kerry fans like me.

 

[boredJonathan]

We have all heard of the gay penguins right? It heavily implies, (if not outright proves), that homosexuality occurs in the animal world. It also heavily implies, logically then that there is no choice involved. It simply happens. Hell if you are a religious fellow think of it as God's own personal population control.

Beyond this... I have to agree with Stooge said about murder canceling out someone elses rights. A man and a man getting together, or a woman and a woman coming together in mariage does nothing to anyone outside of that mariage. A horrible analogy. If you'd like to try it again please have at it, because that was not something that I think the majority of Americans would equate gay mariage to.

Again beyond even this, Kerry/Edwards are against gay mariage. Someone else has already stated this, but hell why not give into your prediction that people will post long thoughts restating everything. I hope that maybe some of it will make sense to you in the way that you can see what I am saying. Or perhaps see how I could think you wrong.

I would love for you to make me see how you could think I was wrong. Seriously. It doesn't mean you have to agree with me... but we can agree to dissagree. And not just in that superficial way that is just to end the debate... but in a way that I can see your point, and you can see mine, but that honestly it comes down to a matter of what you believe. Of course, backed up by facts.

Is this long enough yet?

 

[maharg]

The clear, easy to define, difference between someone killing someone else, or even maiming them, and two men or two women loving each other is that in the former, someone has died or been injured in an objective manner. They can be said to have lost something, and no one could ever disagree with you.

All the latter has objectively lost is the opportunity to fondle the opposite gender's genetalia. Certain other things they lose can be easily traced to legal issues, and using them to support a continued legal ban on them is purely circular.

The law does not exist to support what is 'right.' It exists to protect people from each other. The issue of choice is absolutely irrelevant. Many choices are not 'right,' but insofar as they do not harm others, they are not illegal.

 

[Drinky Crow]

Catalyst, do you even HAVE a family -- are you married, and have a kid?

 

[shoplifter]

A little new info from the blogosphere:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

(October 11, 2004 -- 05:19 PM EDT // link // print)
Too generous ...

I had been thinking about a post that would put in stark terms what is going on with this Sinclair Broadcasting stunt, noting how it amounts to a massive in-kind contribution from Sinclair to the Bush-Cheney campaign to pay for the broadcast of an hourlong Swift Boat ad ("Stolen Honor") smack down in the middle of primetime broadcasting on local network television channels across the country. After all, it's the same basic material and it even includes several of the same aggrieved veterans.

But like I said, too generous. It isn't like a Swift Boat ad. It actually is a Swift Boat ad.

A perspicacious TPM reader (JJG) notes that a September 29th press release on the 'Stolen Honor' website announced that 'POWs for Truth', the sponsor of the 'documentary', was merging with 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' to form the new consolidated group 'Swift Vets and POWs For Truth.'

If it weren't so disgusting, it would almost be funny.

So the Swift Boat folks are hawking a 'documentary' put together by a guy who has specialized for the last fifteen years or so in made-to-order investigations for various right-wing outfits like Rev. Moon. And Sinclair orders their 62 network affiliates to run the thing in prime time days before the election. And they give the Swift Boat folks the ad time for free on the premise that they're running it as news programming.

Unlike cable programming, local broadcast licenses aren't 'owned' -- courts have always been clear on this. The right to broadcast over a given slice of spectrum is public property on loan to the broadcaster in exchange for providing programming in the public interest. This is but a paler version of the de-democratization we're now seeing in Russia as the standing government asserts increasing control over a nominally independent media.

It's not a 'fairness' or a free speech issue. It's a massive and quite public case of election and campaign finance fraud.

It's the sort of thing that, if it happens, will put the legitimacy of the entire election into doubt.

Welcome to the world of Rove.

 

[Hitokage]

Hmm...typical republican, or someone who doesn't want to warrant himself a ban if he knew what was good for him?

Two things that I know surely won't get me banned: shoplifter's hilarious, making great sarcastic points, and two, xsarien, I'm not getting into it because no one really ever listens. If you want to talk about republican ignorance, look at how you're going about it for a change, being so defensive. I'm a confessed republican/conservative, however, I know when to draw the line, and I'm not going to let my fuse become ignited over a few petty differences. These conversations and discussions become uncivil.

So it ends there with me. Finish the story.

One thing that WILL get you banned: not knowing when to stop. Seriously, I'm banning you now because it seems to you want to just post in the gaming forum but cannot compell yourself to stop posing in OT. Come back in a day or two... or three.

Incidentally, I find it completely hypocritical that all you supposedly "tolerant" liberals are so intolerant of intolerance. Just because an opinion is formed from ignorance and logical fallacies doesn't mean it shouldn't carry just as much weight as one supported by history and science.

...

 

[demon]

Incidentally, I find it completely hypocritical that all you supposedly "tolerant" liberals are so intolerant of intolerance. Just because an opinion is formed from ignorance and logical fallacies doesn't mean it shouldn't carry just as much weight as one supported by history and science.

I didn't even bother reading this part first time around......is this guy a joke character?

 

[Banjo Tango]

Sorry, should have made the sarcasm more evident. I thought the part in bold...

Incidentally, I find it completely hypocritical that all you supposedly "tolerant" liberals are so intolerant of intolerance. Just because an opinion is formed from ignorance and logical fallacies doesn't mean it shouldn't carry just as much weight as one supported by history and science.

...would be a dead giveaway.

 

[Hitokage]

As somebody else said today, the existence of people who really do believe that shit make it very hard to stretch a statement so much that people won't take it seriously.