Can we vote on how he should die?

"Gangbanged by homosexual military service-people discharged for no other reason than whom they fall in love with."

Careful, Rick. Some looney toon off their meds may grant that wish.

/Congresswoman Giffords ring a bell?

Hehehehe. I just can't stop laughing. What a bozo.

FTFA: "Sex is supposed to be within marriage" and "special," Santorum said.

So, Mr. Santorum, are you going to be that passionate about taking legal action against those who have premarital sex? How about adulterers like, say, Newt Gingrich (among others)? Or are you just going to focus on homosexuals, like you always do?

I believe here, as is so many other things, we may turn to the wisdom of George Carlin:

"You know, moraly committed religious people in South Vietnam knew how to stage a goddamn demonstration, didn't they?! They knew how to put on a farking protest. Light yourself on FIRE!! C'mon, you moral crusaders, let's see a little smoke. To match that fire in your belly."

Rick, if you need to borrow my lighter, you just ask me, buddy!

If for no other reason, we've got to pass a marriage equality law ASAP.

Well? We're waiting here.

gameshowhost: If for no other reason, we've got to pass a marriage equality law ASAP.

Why should the people need to petition the government for liberty?

We are all free by default -- it's the government which takes freedom away, not grants it.

Remove the limitations imposed by government from marriage, not add to the list of regulation expanding it.

lohphat: gameshowhost: If for no other reason, we've got to pass a marriage equality law ASAP.

Why should the people need to petition the government for liberty?

We are all free by default -- it's the government which takes freedom away, not grants it.

Remove the limitations imposed by government from marriage, not add to the list of regulation expanding it.

Yeah! What freedoms did the Civil Rights Act ever grant to people!

cameroncrazy1984: What freedoms did the Civil Rights Act ever grant to people!

I still hold the same concept to be true. The CRA should not be about itemizing new "rights" in the first place by should have been about the removal of voting restrictions.

e.g. By default, all adults 18 and over can vote. Except convicted felons.

That by itself should allow anyone of any color over 18 to vote. If that right is abridged, there's legal standing to fight it.

Law would be much simpler enumerating what wasn't allowed instead of enumerating what is.

lohphat: cameroncrazy1984: What freedoms did the Civil Rights Act ever grant to people!

I still hold the same concept to be true. The CRA should not be about itemizing new "rights" in the first place by should have been about the removal of voting restrictions.

e.g. By default, all adults 18 and over can vote. Except convicted felons.

That by itself should allow anyone of any color over 18 to vote. If that right is abridged, there's legal standing to fight it.

Law would be much simpler enumerating what wasn't allowed instead of enumerating what is.

...what do you think the Civil Rights Act is about? It's about NOT allowing businesses to discriminate. Are you sure you understand what rights and laws are?

This is one statement that everyone should agree upon, regardless of what bullshiat side the political fence they are on....WHAT THE fark! We have serious shiat to deal with that is more farking serious than the farking gays. But your histrionics aside for Chrissakes.

GOOD.

Now, hurry up with it and pop off, already!

Put that is

I can't wait until he's caught sucking cock in a public restroom.

Which he will be. It's inevitable.

Mugato: This is one statement that everyone should agree upon, regardless of what bullshiat side the political fence they are on....WHAT THE fark! We have serious shiat to deal with that is more farking serious than the farking gays. But your histrionics aside for Chrissakes.

Yeah! We have more serious sh*t to deal with than granting basic human rights to people!

cameroncrazy1984: ...what do you think the Civil Rights Act is about? It's about NOT allowing businesses to discriminate. Are you sure you understand what rights and laws are?

Yes I do. Thank you for supporting my premise.

The CRA enumerates what you can't "not do" -- it's a double negative. Discriminating == not allowing some subset group x of the population y to participate in z. So not allowing discrimination is the same as reinforcing the fundamental: We are all free and equal in the first place. State it that way, reinforce it, and develop that system based upon enumeration of those things excepted from free and open and equal access. Our law books would be much smaller. If you open a business you must serve each person equally, the people that you legally can't or should not serve are enumerated instead: e.g. Not serve alcohol to those under 18.

Another analogy is network firewall policy: You either start with a default-deny policy and then enumerate what you can do (akin to a dictatorship), or start with a default-permit policy and then enumerate what you then restrict (akin to a free society). If you try to mix default-deny with default-permit, all you end up with is a mess.

jake_lex: I can't wait until he's caught sucking cock in a public restroom.

Which he will be. It's inevitable.

I'm waiting for evidence on him and Lindsaaaaay Graham having a torrid, santorum drenched affair.

cameroncrazy1984: Mugato: This is one statement that everyone should agree upon, regardless of what bullshiat side the political fence they are on....WHAT THE fark! We have serious shiat to deal with that is more farking serious than the farking gays. But your histrionics aside for Chrissakes.

Yeah! We have more serious sh*t to deal with than granting basic human rights to people!

You may have missed my point.

Mugato: cameroncrazy1984: Mugato: This is one statement that everyone should agree upon, regardless of what bullshiat side the political fence they are on....WHAT THE fark! We have serious shiat to deal with that is more farking serious than the farking gays. But your histrionics aside for Chrissakes.

Yeah! We have more serious sh*t to deal with than granting basic human rights to people!

You may have missed my point.

I think that part was unclear. Makes it sound like both sides should just say "let's stop talking about gays and fix the important stuff."

I assumed that's not what you meant, but I can see why he didn't.

lohphat: So not allowing discrimination is the same as reinforcing the fundamental: We are all free and equal in the first place

Correct, by adding to rights that were not then granted to minorities. Therefore, the Civil Rights act granted freedoms.

jake_lex: I can't wait until he's caught sucking cock in a public restroom.

Which he will be. It's inevitable.

it does seem that a lot of the more rabid GOP anti-sex brigade do seem to end up having a lot of random sex in public restrooms.

Get busy livin dyin', or get busy dyin'.

And hurry the fark up, you closeted assface.

fusillade762: Santorum is also lashing out against frontrunner Herman Cain for not opposing gay equality forcefully enough.

You're not opposing equal rights HARD ENOUGH!!!

Well, bigotry is the tie that binds for the GOP and it's base.

Don't Troll Me Bro!: fusillade762: Santorum is also lashing out against frontrunner Herman Cain for not opposing gay equality forcefully enough.

You're not opposing equal rights HARD ENOUGH!!!

Well, bigotry is the tie that binds for the GOP and it's base.


Bigotry is all the republican party has to get the non-ultra wealthy to vote with them.

Sorry Frothy, that's not extreme enough.

lohphat: cameroncrazy1984: ...what do you think the Civil Rights Act is about? It's about NOT allowing businesses to discriminate. Are you sure you understand what rights and laws are?

Yes I do. Thank you for supporting my premise.

The CRA enumerates what you can't "not do" -- it's a double negative. Discriminating == not allowing some subset group x of the population y to participate in z. So not allowing discrimination is the same as reinforcing the fundamental: We are all free and equal in the first place. State it that way, reinforce it, and develop that system based upon enumeration of those things excepted from free and open and equal access. Our law books would be much smaller. If you open a business you must serve each person equally, the people that you legally can't or should not serve are enumerated instead: e.g. Not serve alcohol to those under 18.

Another analogy is network firewall policy: You either start with a default-deny policy and then enumerate what you can do (akin to a dictatorship), or start with a default-permit policy and then enumerate what you then restrict (akin to a free society). If you try to mix default-deny with default-permit, all you end up with is a mess.

No, it doesn't. Have you ever even READ the Civil Rights Act? Nowhere does it say "You cannot not do" something. And it very CLEARLY says We are all free and equal, to wit:

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

You don't get anymore affirmatively phrased than that, I don't think.