Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 49101112131415 LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 299
  1. #261  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    .

    Originally Posted by bheuss
    It is very saddening and disturbing when people try to equate (or cannot see beyond) people whom they apparently don't know or understand with behavior they personally find disturbing. Especially when you attribute that offensive behavior to all members of that group. That is simply prejudice.

    I don't know if you were intending to imply this, but I don't believe I have done such a thing.
    I apologize, hoovs. I did not mean this as a personal comment. The "you" was meant to apply in a general way. I was thinking at the time, more specifically, of the member of the Canadian Senate who used the quote to support her position.
    Brent
    T650 on Sprint's Wireless Wonder
  2. #262  
    Quote Originally Posted by bheuss
    I apologize, hoovs. I did not mean this as a personal comment. The "you" was meant to apply in a general way. I was thinking at the time, more specifically, of the member of the Canadian Senate who used the quote to support her position.
    None necessary. I'm just glad we cleared it up.
  3. #263  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    If one is to patronize me, one should really do it before the champagne and preferably before the martini.
    Quote Originally Posted by septimus
    This post, and the conversation surrounding it:

    =10http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...&postcount=254

    ...seems to get getting a little too heated, eh?

    Does it, indeed?

    Quote Originally Posted by septimus
    Please try and be a little more charitable in your interpretations and not so personal in your criticisms.
    Sorry to offend. The original offense was not mine. My response was not heated, personal, nor disproportionate.

    Quote Originally Posted by septimus
    We'll not call this an official warning.
    Please do what you must do. Please do not ask me to cooperate in it.
  4. #264  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Sorry to offend. The original offense was not mine. My response was not heated, personal, nor disproportionate.
    whmurray,

    If it makes a difference, I got a similar message. Please accept my apology and consider re-engaging in the thread.
  5. #265  
    To make an off-topic observation - the mods don't seem to take tempo into account. A huge deluge of confrontational posts in a few hours may very well be a flame war, but its a bit pointless to intervene 10 hours after everyone has apologized.

    I've seem a few threads closed days after everyone else has stopped posting, which seems unnecessary to me, and interfered with self-policing. Arnt we all adults who know when things have gone too far?

    Surur
  6. #266  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Please do what you must do. Please do not ask me to cooperate in it.
    Generally speaking, it's not especially appropriate to publicly post a private message publicly. But I'm actually pretty happy with what I wrote in that particular PM, so that's up to you.
  7. #267  
    "Tuesday, July 18, 2006, 11:00 AM PDT
    WASHINGTON (AP) Proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is defeated in the House."
  8. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #268  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    "Tuesday, July 18, 2006, 11:00 AM PDT
    WASHINGTON (AP) Proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is defeated in the House."
    Yay.... any recourse, or is that silly bill killed?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  9. #269  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    "Tuesday, July 18, 2006, 11:00 AM PDT
    WASHINGTON (AP) Proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is defeated in the House."
    I thought this was the expected outcome. What I want to know is what percentage supported it. Would it be fair to call them the Bigot Wing?

    Surur
  10. #270  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Yay.... any recourse, or is that silly bill killed?
    Dead for this year. The Republicans will use the defeat as "red meat" to get out the base in November.
  11. #271  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    I thought this was the expected outcome. What I want to know is what percentage supported it. Would it be fair to call them the Bigot Wing?

    Surur
    236-187.
  12. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #272  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    I thought this was the expected outcome. What I want to know is what percentage supported it. Would it be fair to call them the Bigot Wing?

    Surur
    You can call them what ever name makes you feel good about yourself. The vote was 236 for and 187 opposed. While the majority supported the proposal, it takes a 2/3 majority to send a proposed constitutional amendment forward.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  13. #273  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    236-187.
    Wow! I thought it may be 10-15% 55%!! That explains a lot about America. When are they crowing the pope there?

    Surur
  14. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #274  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Wow! I thought it may be 10-15% 55%!! That explains a lot about America. When are they crowing the pope there?

    Surur
    What does that explain? What is crowing the pope? That is an expression I am not familiar with.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  15. #275  
    Sorry. That was meant to be crowning. America is obviously heavily conservative (or was this vote mainly along party lines).

    Surur
  16. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #276  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Sorry. That was meant to be crowning. America is obviously heavily conservative (or was this vote mainly along party lines).

    Surur
    I have not heard of crowning the pope either, but makes more sense. The vote probably was along party lines to some degree, and then others will vote one way or another to please certain lobbyist/activist groups because they knew the outcome would be defeat, but they can go back and say "see I supported your cause" both sides do this both ways. That is how they get people to vote for them on single hot-button issues, most are too lazy or not willing to become educated on the track record of the person they vote for. But yes, you are correct in your assumption that as a whole the nation is more conservative than liberal, I think you will find that the liberal voice is louder and more boisterous but smaller in number.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  17. #277  
    On views of homosexuality, U.S. differs from Canada, Britain
    May 27, 2005
    By Michael Foust
    Baptist Press
    NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--The United States is partners in many ways with Canada and Great Britain, but on the issue of homosexuality, America could not be more different, new data from Gallup shows.

    According to Gallup, both Canadian and British citizens tend to be more liberal than their counterparts in the United States when it comes to homosexuality acceptance. A slight majority in both Canada and Britain favor "gay marriage," while Americans oppose it by a margin of 2-to-1. Similarly, a majority of Americans believe homosexuality is "morally wrong," while most in Canada and Great Britain say it is "morally acceptable."

    "Public sentiment appears more accepting of homosexuality in Canada and Great Britain, and gay rights advocates seem to be making headway in both countries," Gallup's Heather Mason Kiefer wrote in an online analysis May 24. "... Developments in gay rights, particularly rights relating to marriage, have been making news across the Western world for more than a decade."

    The European countries of Belgium and the Netherlands are the only nations worldwide that have legalized "gay marriage," although Canada may soon follow. Seven of Canada's 10 provinces have "marriage" for homosexuals, and the governing Liberal Party is pushing a bill that would legalize it nationwide. It is expected to pass. In addition, Great Britain has passed a law legalizing same-sex civil unions, which grant homosexual couples all the benefits of marriage. It is scheduled to go into effect later this year.

    By contrast, the U.S. has a law (the Defense of Marriage Act) explicitly prohibiting the federal government from recognizing "same-sex marriage." Also, 18 states have passed amendments to their respective constitutions aimed at banning "marriage" between homosexuals. At least 10 other states are considering them. Massachusetts is the only state to recognize "gay marriage." It came via court order.

    Among Gallup's findings:

    -- 60 percent of Canadians and 61 percent of British citizens believe homosexuality is "morally acceptable." But by a margin of 54-42 percent, Americans say it is "morally wrong."

    -- 51 percent of Canadian citizens and 52 percent of those in Britain favor legalized "gay marriage." Americans, though, oppose it by wide margins. A July 2004 Gallup poll last year had Americans opposing "same-sex marriage" by a margin of 62-32 percent. In the nine polls Gallup has conducted on the question since 2003, the average margin of opposition has been 61 percent.

    -- 38 percent of adults in both Canada and Great Britain favor seeing homosexuality "more widely accepted." In the U.S., only 29 percent feel that way. By contrast, 36 percent of Americans want to see homosexuality "less widely accepted." That number is 24 percent in Great Britain and 15 percent in Canada.

    The poll numbers are based on a series of polls in each country both this year and last year. In each case, approximately 1,000 adults were surveyed. Gallup regularly conducts polls in all three countries.
    --30--
    For information about the national debate over "gay marriage," visit www.bpnews.net/samesexmarriage.

    http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=20871
  18. #278  
    As reported by Fox News, a North Carolina judge has struck down that state's 201-year-old ban on unmarried couples living together.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,204647,00.html

    It's only a matter of time . . . .
    Brent
    T650 on Sprint's Wireless Wonder
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #279  
    Quote Originally Posted by bheuss
    As reported by Fox News, a North Carolina judge has struck down that state's 201-year-old ban on unmarried couples living together.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,204647,00.html

    It's only a matter of time . . . .
    Next they'll lift the ban on dogs and cats living together?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  20. #280  
    Quote Originally Posted by bheuss
    As reported by Fox News, a North Carolina judge has struck down that state's 201-year-old ban on unmarried couples living together.
    I don't know. That law hasn't been enforced in probably over a century so its no big surprise that it was struck down. I don't know what bearing it has on the sam sex couples issue.

Posting Permissions